JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Healthcare proposals by the 2020 Democratic CandidatesHealthcare proposals by the 2020 Democratic Candidates
Brief #64—Health
By Taylor J Smith
With US Presidential Race 13 Months Away – Email in the News
Brief #7—Technology
By Charles A Rubin
Hong Kong and U.S. Relations Examined
Brief #72—Foreign Policy
By Erin Mayer
U.S. Attorney General William Barr Proposes “Back – Door” Access To Allow Government To Read Your Digital Messages
Brief #103—Civil Rights
By Rod Maggay
Seniors and the Economy
Brief #55—Economics
By Rosalind Gottfried
Breaking Down The White Houses’ Stated Reason for Refusing to Cooperate with Impeachment Inquiry
Blog Post # 6: The Corruption Blog: A new series by Sean Gray that digs into the details of the all-encompassing corruption of the Trump administration.
Trump to Begin DNA Testing Migrants
Brief #82—Immigration
By Kathryn Baron
The Inequities of our Current Tax System
Brief #52—Economics
By Rosalind Gottfried
Court Upholds Harvard’s Use Of Race As A Factor in Admissions Case
Brief #102—Economics
By Rod Maggay
Trump Wants to Call the Shots on Asylum Seekers
Brief #58—Immigration
Policy Summary
In addition to the Trump Administration’s announcement of rolling back DACA (see Brief #57), they have recently announced new rules that give President Trump vast authority to deny asylum to virtually any migrant who crosses illegally. Trump specifically intends to deny asylum to the 7,000-10,000 migrants from Central America as they begin arriving in clusters from the Migrant Caravan (see Brief #56). If migrants do not enter through a designated port of entry, they will be “apprehended, detained and deported” unless they can prove they will be tortured if they are sent home. To some of the American public who have been following Trump’s far-fetched plans for reform, this might sound like similar rhetoric used to support the travel ban early in Trump’s presidency.
Though Trump wants to firmly establish a norm that individuals who cross the border illegally will be stripped of their eligibility to receive asylum in the US, many oppose and are challenging the Administrations most recent order. The ACLU has sued to block the new restrictions, calling the case “the asylum ban.” Other NGOs have resorted to referring to international law and the early origins of America as a nation that lends a hand to refugees and asylum seekers. Trump’s new order would violate international law, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and a founding principle of federal asylum in which any individual can apply for asylum regardless of where or how they entered the country and that each case is judged individually.
Analysis
The Trump Administration’s new order to revoke the rights of migrants the opportunity to seek asylum is yet another action taken with the goal of eliminating and strengthening the existing ‘weak’ immigration laws, as he has constantly reiterated throughout his campaign and presidency. This new order only further proves his commitment to propelling an anti-immigrant and anti-refugee daily agenda. Throughout the recent midterm elections, Trump has focused on the migrant caravan and posing them as a threat to the American public, continuously calling them an “invasion” and “dangerous.” By focusing on something as trivial as port of entry – in the larger picture of seeking refuge – he poses migrants as the law breakers, and those who do not follow the rules and turn themselves in at the border – a designated point of entry – and that they deserve to be stripped of their right to seek asylum. Referring to Trump’s track record of his treatment of migrants at the border, the point of entry does not seem to be the real issue but rather the concept of migration as a whole.
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.
Photo by rawpixel
Pipelines
Brief #47—Environment
Summary
The oil and gas industry is starting to face some blowback at the legal level. A Federal Circuit Judge in Montana recently rejected the Trump administration’s demand to build a Keystone XL pipeline, marking a new wave of environmentally charged legal decision-making. And in Pennsylvania, locals are resisting the construction of an approved pipeline, believed to cost tax-payers a fortune for virtually no benefit. These actions, however, come amidst other chaos throughout the country. In New Mexico, unaddressed oil and gas violations on public lands have become widespread, as the Bureau of Land Management has been encouraging fossil fuel production at a rapid rate. And fracking on public lands is ramping up under the Trump Administration. More still, unmanaged gas leaks have taken the lives of hundreds in recent years, prompting uproar from people but silence from local governments and industry.
Analysis
Demands for greater opposition to environmental hazard are starting to come on The Hill. New Representative, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a New York Democrat, joined in with 200 youth climate protestors in an effort to encourage a Green New Deal, which would encourage renewable industry. Elsewhere, the EPA has decided to consider new rules that would limit emissions on heavy-duty trucks, a progressive measure out of the Obama era. Meanwhile, renewable energy is making huge leaps globally, but significant policy change is necessary in order for the industry’s potential to materialize, giving rise to the Green New Deal. The fight however, might be just what is needed, as a new field of psychology has emerged to help those dealing with the embittered struggle against climate change—it’s called ecopsychology.
Resistance Resources
- Green New Deal Information: detailed policy-proposal on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s website.
This Brief was developed by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst Zoe Stricker. Contact: zoe@usresistnews.org
THE DEMOCRATIC CIVILITY OFFENSIVE
Ron Wolf:
The victorious Democrats flooded the zone on the Sunday morning political talk shows. Likely Speaker Nancy Pelosi and ranking members of key house committees who are in line to become the chairmen hit the airwaves to explain their priorities. The guests included Rep. Adam Schiff of the Intelligence Committee, Rep. Jerry Nadler of the Judiciary Committee and Elijah Cummings of the Government Oversight Committee.
Apart from any specific actions they said they would pursue, the overall message they presented was a dramatic change in the tone of our politics. Throughout the midterm campaign, Democratic candidates and the party leadership showed great discipline in avoiding name-calling, insults, demonization, accusations and calamitous predictions invoked by their opponents. They generally refused to play the game by Trumpian rules.
The incoming Democratic House leadership displayed that same discipline Sunday morning. They were calm, assured and firm. There was no post-election gloating — no spiking of the ball or dancing in the end zone.
The overall impression is that the strategy for the Democrats now will be a civility and decency offensive. They appear eager to present a sharp contrast to their GOP counterparts by avoiding all the fake macho posturing and bluster and wild accusations we’ve seen from the GOP throughout the campaign.
Ron Wolf is a retired daily newspaper journalist based in California who continues to write about politics and the media. He can be reached at ronwolf@outlook.com
Photo by History in HD
As Gun Violence Peaks, the 116th Congress Must Act Fast
Brief #14—Gun Control
Policy Summary
A Saturday turned from a morning of worship and celebration to one of tragedy and grief as a gunman opened fire with an assault rifle and at least three hand guns in the Pittsburg synagogue Tree of Life. Police say this act of terror is classified as a hate crime that resulted in 11 deaths. Two more tragedies – at a local bar in Thousand Oaks, California and at a yoga studio in Tallahassee, Florida – claimed the lives of innocent victims, one of whom was a survivor of the Las Vegas Shooting. These gun violence incidents are beginning to mount, and may have been avoided if proper, basic gun legislation would have been in place.
Analysis
In the Tree of Life Shooting, the perpetrator, 46 year old Robert Bowers, opened fire at the synagogue on Saturday morning, October 27, fatally shooting 11. When apprehended, he allegedly told police that his intentions were to kill Jews and had been targeting Jews on social media. This is the largest attack on the Jewish community in the United States’ history.
President Trump visited Pittsburg, with his first stop being at the Tree of Life synagogue where he and the families lit candles. In a statement, President Trump blamed the media’s divisiveness and called for armed security at the synagogue in the future rather than calling for tighter gun legislation. As is repeated after every deadly act of gun violence, the continued ability of the government to do nothing is baffling.
Since the synagogue shooting in Pittsburg, a gunman opened fired on a yoga studio in Tallahassee, Florida that resulted in 2 dead and 5 injured before he turned the gun on himself. Aside from this, on Wednesday in Thousand Oaks, California a man killed 12 at the Borderline Bar and Grill. Among those who were killed was Telemachus Orfanos, who had previously survived the Las Vegas shooting in 2017.
Imagine living in a country where you can survive a tragedy caused by gun violence and die in another one year later. Imagine living in a country where you can’t feel relieved by surviving an act of terror, because another may take your life at any moment. Imagine living in a country where the people who have the power to stop these tragedies from happening extend thoughts and prayers, but no action.
Continued inaction by both President Trump and Congress has done nothing to alleviate the devastation from gun violence. The solutions proposed by pro-gun legislators has proven time and time again to have no impact. As one of the only developed countries in the world that has continued gun violence, the answer cannot continue to be inaction. While 27 NRA backed candidates lost their races in the midterm elections, there is still more that needs to be done to ensure safety of the citizens in America. According to Mother Jones, gun control advocates are now the majority in Congress. On Wednesday, a five point plan for the next Congress was unveiled, including universal background checks proposed by Everytown. The aforementioned tragedies and newfound hope in Congress will hopefully be enough to reverse the devastatingly rapid growth in gun violence.
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.
- Everytown – A movement of Americans working to end gun violence and build safer communities.
Contact
This Brief was written by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst Sarah Barton: Sarah@usresistnews.org
Photo by: Heather Mount
Midterm Takeaways
By Julian Mitchell-Israel
- In seizing the House, we took a step out of the mire of hateful politics that has been steadily consuming our country. This was a hard-fought victory, and anyone who voted, who worked on a campaign, who believed in the great people of our country, should be proud. Patriotism is not only for the right, and this is one of those moments when I am struck with a total reverence for the notions our nation is built on.
- We did not win. Do not fool yourself into thinking that last night was a great, or perhaps even good, night because we took back the House. We failed to live up to our civic promise in many races, including in the two Senate seats we lost. Don’t believe me? Look at the down-ballot races in many states: Ohio, for instance, got absolutely demolished. All but three Democratic candidates that were on my ballot lost.
- We, once again, overestimated the blue wave and overestimated ourselves. Our candidates were not as strong as we thought they were, we did not fight as hard or as smart as we thought we thought we fought, and we did not reach the American people. This is sorely disappointing. It means we have a long way to go before the left reaches the point we so desperately thought we had reached.
- It may seem as though these losses are a reproach of the liberal American spirit, and are a message that America isn’t a place ready for progressivism. It may seem that, with all our ducks lined up in a row, it was still impossible to surmount the will of hate. We did not get the rebuke of Trump’s cowardice that a sweeping victory would have been. Despite this, we must remember: “When we have faced down impossible odds, when we’ve been told we’re not ready or that we shouldn’t try or that we can’t, generations of Americans have responded with a simple creed that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes, we can.” If we let ourselves be sated by this small victory, if we let ourselves feel run down by these defeats, we leave behind this creed. There is still much to do, perhaps even more than before, so we MUST stand back up and keep moving. We have a direction, we have a clear fight to fight, and there is more potential than ever for improvement. We can make a change, we can make the right choices, and we can once again find those hopeful pillars of America.
Julian Mitchell-Israel is a leftist activist, community organizer, and second year student at Oberlin College. He has organized for campaigns in Brooklyn, Ohio, and Missouri, and serves as the chair of the Oberlin Student Progressive Front.
Photo by roya ann miller
Zinke Questioned…Again
Brief #46—Environment
Policy Summary
Scandals are swirling again for DOI Secretary Ryan Zinke, who just days ago compared Civil Rights Leader, Martin Luther King Jr. to Confederate General Robert E. Lee. Now, however, the Department of Justice is considering the potential prosecution of Ryan Zinke over his questionable behavior in his Department of the Interior role. The Agency currently has three open investigations into the secretary including questionable business deals with the chairman of oil firm, Halliburton and another regarding a mixture of lobbying and casino construction. The number of ethics violations Zinke is facing, is bearing a closer resemblance to those which former-EPA head, Scott Pruitt, was subjected to, as well. Though the probe is still in its beginning stage. Zinke, however is not giving much rise to the probe, and is calling it, “politically motivated.”
Analysis
The Zinke probe comes amidst a flurry of other political moments for the environment. In a televised interview, President Trump disavowed both the science and the government that has legitimized information about climate change, but said that he believed climate change existed, though it fluctuated. And the EPA has planned to “accelerate” ozone pollution limits. But with elections coming up, many American environmental activists are trying to encourage some states to swing green. More still, in a surprising move, The Supreme Court has decided to hear the case brought before them by 21 youth, who are suing the government about climate change.
Engagement Resources
- National Resource Defense Council (NRDC): Fight against any assault made on the environment through a network of activists, scientists, lawyers and policy advocates.
This Brief was developed by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst Zoe Stricker. Contact: zoe@usresistnews.org
Photo by Cole Keister
Recent Stock Market Declines Likely Spurred by Trump’s Economic Policies
Brief #28—Economic Policy
Policy Summary
The patterns of the stock market since President Trump took office can only be described as turbulent. As his election shocked the nation, investors prepared for the unpredictable, only to have the market surge.
Throughout 2017, while the market consistently rose, Trump was quick to tout it as evidence of the effectiveness of his economic policies. The first trading day after his inauguration saw the market surge and the trend of growth continued throughout the year. While the Dow Jones Industrial average rose by 25 percent, the S&P 500 climbed 18 percent and the Nasdaq Composite 24. 2018, on the other hand, hasn’t produced the same consistent gains for the U.S. market. We’ve seen the Dow fall by 0.1 percent and the S&P by 0.6 with the Nasdaq rising, though only by 3.8 percent. October was been a particularly turbulent month for the market. As the closing bell sounded on Wall Street at the close of last week, all three indexes had dropped, the Dow by 6.7 percent, the the S&P by 8.8, and the Nasdaq by 10.9 for the month.
Trump has neglected to comment on the recent market declines. While discussing markets under Trump, we should not forget that he took office in the midst of a thriving economy. When Barack Obama took office, the Dow Jones enjoyed steady growth, climbing by 41 percent between his inauguration and the final weeks before his first midterm election. We have reached that exact point in Trump’s presidency and the same index has only risen by 25 percent.
Analysis
The stock market bumps that helped shine a positive light on Trump’s proposed economic policies early in his presidency indicate a common market trend-anticipation of legislative changes that favor investors can easily spur quick market growth. Unfortunately for him, though, we are now seeing the other side of a trend. Quick market growth is often short lived and ultimately unsustainable.
While a market may bounce back, as we’ve seen during Trump’s presidency, such a trend can easily lead to significant drops, as we have also seen. This type of trend can easily raise concerns among economists and investors as to weather the market is headed for a significant correction. Many economists see a poorly performing market as an indication of financial troubles down the road that will affect more than just investors.
The third-quarter of this year has brought some GDP growth, but it is clear that it was spurred by considerable consumer spending. Any economic growth we have seen in 2018 has been overshadowed by recent declines both in capital expansion on the part of corporations and general business investment. Long-term economic growth could be powered by business investment in areas such as job training and company expansions but there are few signs that point to such trends taking place, despite Trump’s claims that the tax cuts would lead to exactly that.
Declines in investor confidence could also likely be linked to the continuing developments in the trade war caused by Trump’s tariffs. Talks to resolve trade difficulties between the U.S. and China have been halted for the time being, likely not a comforting phenomenon for the companies who have affected by the tariffs or their shareholders. Barron’s has reported that stocks of companies with direct ties to the trade war have been hit harder those of companies that are not. This month has seen declines in sectors such as industrial manufacturing, information technology and retail, all of which have manufacturing costs that are linked to Chinese imports. It is hard to see such a trend as a coincidence, especially given the uncertainty surrounding trade relations between the two countries.
These concerning economic elements are coming at what could be a costly time for the Republican party. Midterm elections are quickly approaching and many conservative candidates are faced with the reality that it will likely be difficult for voters to equate their party with economic prosperity. Republicans have longed clinged to the argument that their policies can undo the damage done to the economy by Democrats. While they touted the stock market gains as proof that Trump’s policies worked in the early stages of the election, any credibility that such an argument had is quickly disappearing. Despite the claim on Trump’s part that his tax cuts would benefit both workers and executives, that argument has been proven false. It is also likely that any points that the tax cuts may have earned the Republican party among voters have been canceled by the higher interest rates implemented by the Federal Reserve.
These recent trends regarding the stock market continue the trend of a lack of sustainability that has plagued almost all of Trump’s policies that have spurred any economic growth. Talk and anticipation do not create the kind of sustainability that power an economy to prosperity. What goes up must come down and Donald Trump has proven that.
Resistance Resources
- The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development is an intergovernmental organization dedicated to promoting economic
policies that benefit people across the globe. - The Levy Economics Institute of Bard College is a nonprofit nonpartisan think tank that provides research and analysis of economic policies.
- The Roosevelt Institute is a nonprofit think tank dedicated to helping create a new economic and political system that benefits works for everyone.
This Brief was submitted by U.S. RESIST NEWS Economic Policy Analyst Samuel O’Brient: Contact Sam@usresistnews.org.
Photo by rawpixel
Two Important Georgia Voting Cases Issue Rulings Days Before 2018 Election
Brief #69—Civil Rights
Policy Summary: On October 30, 2018, Judge Leigh Martin May of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ruled against Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp’s request to stay an injunction that the judge issued the week prior. Judge May’s injunction prevented Georgia election officials from throwing out absentee ballots. Georgia election officials had been tossing out absentee ballots if the voter’s signature on the ballot did not match exactly the signature of the voter on their initial voter registration document kept by the state. Judge Martin’s ruling will allow the absentee ballots to be counted for this current 2018 election cycle.
On November 2, 2018, in a separate case, Judge Eleanor L. Ross issued a much broader ruling on Georgia’s “exact match” voting policy by ruling that 3,141 voter registrations that had been marked “pending” by the state be allowed to vote in the upcoming elections on November 6, 2018. Some voters, including a high proportion of minority voters, who registered to vote in Georgia had their registrations listed as “pending” if personal information in their registration did not match exactly personal information found in Georgia Department of Driver Services or Social Security databases. Judge Ross’ ruling permits those “pending” voters to vote in the 2018 election cycle. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Analysis: These two court rulings are important rulings that highlight the danger of voter suppression tactics. In the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial race, Democrat Stacey Abrams and Republican Brian Kemp are in a very tight race with the projected winner still too close to call. Election officials have called their exact match policy an effort to clean up the voter rolls and bring integrity to the process of registering voters. But with as many as 53,000 registrations marked pending and nearly 70% of those from minority voters it was possible that preventing those votes from being counted could easily have had an effect on the 2018 gubernatorial race. The exact match policy currently in force in Georgia also gives those voters who have had their voter registrations marked pending 26 months to correct inconsistencies in their registrations. But that option still did not allow those voters to cast their ballot this Tuesday. Georgia’s preferred course in not counting the ballots and then telling the voter to fix the problem after Election Day has passed would have had the same effect – that eligible voters would not have had their ballot counted in this election cycle. In her ruling Judge Ross stated that voters with pending voter registration applications would suffer “irreparable harm if they lose the right to vote.” And Judge May wrote in her ruling that “the public interest is best served by allowing qualified absentee voters to vote and have their votes counted.” With less than a week to Election Day in 2018, these two rulings will help to ensure in Georgia that all eligible voters who cast a ballot will have it counted and not have it thrown out for minor clerical or political partisan reasons. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – non – profit group blogpost on dangers of voter signature match requirements.
- Voter Participation Center (VPC) – non – profit group seeking to increase civic engagement among unmarried women, people of color and millenials.
- VoteRiders – non – profit group that seeks to inform voters on acceptable ID requirements in their state.
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 Parker Johnson
California and U.S. Department of Justice Reach Tentative Agreement in Ongoing Net Neutrality Fight
Policy Summary
In 2018, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) promulgated the “Restoring Internet Freedom Order.” That order rolled back regulations from 2015 that were originally intended to bar Internet service providers from blocking or slowing down access to content or charging users more for selected content. The order curtailing the 2015 regulations went into effect on June 11, 2018. In addition, the FCC also passed regulations that banned individual states from passing their own net neutrality regulations.
On September 30, 2018, California Governor Edmund “Jerry” Brown, Jr. signed Senate Bill (SB) 822 which would put back into place the 2015 FCC regulations that were curtailed by the Restoring Internet Freedom Order. The California bill would apply to internet service providers located in California and is scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 2019. On the very same day that Governor Brown signed the bill into law, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed suit against California to block the law from ever going into effect. On October 26, 2018, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra announced that an agreement had been reached with DOJ. The Department of Justice agreed to temporarily suspend their lawsuit against the state while California agreed to delay enforcement of the law after January 1st, 2019 until a separate net neutrality lawsuit being heard in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is resolved which could take years. LEARN MORE
Analysis
The ongoing battle over the future of net neutrality regulations, which have always been contentious, made further headlines with the speed with which the battle is being fought. After the Restoring Internet Freedom Order took effect in June thirty states introduced bills to try and preserve net neutrality in their states while six state governors signed executive orders declaring that their individual state will not do business with internet service providers that violate net neutrality. And, DOJ did not even wait a day to oppose California’s SB 822 as they filed suit opposing the bill the very same day Governor Brown signed the bill into law which clearly shows DOJ knew what was coming and was prepared to fight it out.
What the FCC and the Federal Government have failed to recognize is that they are engaging in a fight for a policy that does not have wide support. The mis-named Restoring Internet Freedom Order does nothing of the sort. What the order does is it will give internet service providers such as AT&T, Verizon and Comcast the ability to determine which content they want to prioritize and provide to consumers. Lawful content not to their liking can be blocked or slowed down or even subject to an additional fee. The 2015 regulations sought to provide an even playing field by forcing companies to provide all lawful content at the same technical speed and by preventing companies from charging an additional fee for other content that was not their own. The fact that more than half of the states in the U.S. introduced bills preserving the 2015 net neutrality regulations should have alerted these companies that there was not wide support for the Restoring Internet Freedom Order that changed those 2015 regulations.
The FCC also made a tactical mistake by stating in the order that individual states could not pass their own net neutrality regulations. That section of the order was seen as a way for the FCC to thumb their noses at the rest of the country and say that the states could have no say in the future of net neutrality. That only seemed to fire up the net neutrality opponents even more. Had the FCC been more attuned to the pulse of ordinary citizens instead of beholden to the monetary donations of internet service provider companies and not been so arrogant in trying to silence individual states from having a say on the issue, then they would have seen that the new regulations is not something that the American public wants. The FCC would do better to reach out and objectively determine what most ordinary Americans want with their Internet instead of trying to force a policy that only the large telecommunications companies wanted. Instead, the FCC will get bogged down in a long litigation case and become potentially a loser in a fight that they did not have to fight in the first place. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
- Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) – non – profit group’s infopage on net neutrality issues.
- Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) – non – profit group’s infopage on privacy and net neutrality issues.
This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org
Photo by rawpixel
Migrant Caravan: the Newest Attempt to Achieve the American Dream
Policy Summary
Migrants from Central America have banded together on their quest for a better life through what has become known as the “migrant caravan,” that began in Honduras on October 12. The numbers of migrants have fluctuated, but it has been consistently in the thousands. Some have had to veer off as nervousness and exhaustion contribute to anxiety and paranoia, as well as physical ailments: sickness, dehydration, sore throats, respiratory infections, blistered feet, pink eye, etc. News of the caravan spread throughout Central America through Facebook and local tv stations, appealing to men, women, families and the elderly. Most are from Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and now also Mexico. People joined the caravan to flee poverty, drug and domestic violence, and political unrest. Travelling as such a big group offers a form of protection against bandits who target migrants for kidnap, extortion and/or rape, while also saving many migrants from having to pay people smugglers to get through borders.
Upon reaching Mexico, some people have provided water, food, clothes and even ice cream to passing migrants. In the town of Huixtla, a restaurant owner served 200 plates of beans, rice and tortillas to the group. The journey is through essentially 90 degree weather and occasional heavy rains – so access to food and water are of the essence. One woman from Honduras felt that crossing the border into the US (legally or illegally) even if it resulted in long detention would be better than the Honduran misery she left behind, and expressed that “we prefer to die on the American border than die in Honduras from hunger.” Though, for others the journey has been very taxing. Of the ever-growing group, 1,699 people (Hondurans, Guatemalans, Nicaraguans, Salvadorians) have applied for asylum in Mexico and 495 Hondurans have asked to be repatriated thus far, as the journey is very taxing.
Mexico has now put in place checkpoints throughout the country because of the caravan, which forces them to take longer and more dangerous routes. Some have considered going towards California rather than Texas in hopes they will be more receiving. Mexican president, Enrique Pena Nieto launched a program called “You Are Home” that promises shelter, medical attention, schooling and jobs to Central Americans who agree to stay instead of trekking on to the US. Most migrants rejected the plan, but would re-evaluate once they got to Mexico City as many of the members of the group have said once they make it to the border they are likely to turn themselves to the authorities and claim asylum (though, a few young men have said they will cross illegally if needed). But some (pregnant women, children and the elderly) did agree and were issued ID’s that allow them to stay and work in Mexico.
President Trump has said he will not let caravan members in, but the US is legally obligated to consider asylum seekers. If they pass the first step of asylum process, called the “credible fear interview” they will be held in detention or released in the US and face immigration court in months or years – or else they will be deported. He has also stated that as of now, foreign aid to Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador will be severely reduced or stopped altogether. Earlier this year, Trump had spread out 2,100 National Guard Soldiers along the US Southern border, and plans to send 800 troops to the US-Mexico border to confront the caravan.
Analysis
To further invoke xenophobia to the Republican voting base, Trump has insinuated that the caravan members were a part of gangs and that “middle easterners” were included in the mix. Not only is this false, but it appeals to the American voters who have channeled a deep hatred for Muslims and the Middle East as a reason to condemn immigration to the United States, just before the Midterm Elections. In addition, the Honduran president, Juan Orlando Hernandez told Mike Pence that the Venezuelan government was financing the journey, but no proof or indications have been made on that claim. In continuing to provide false allegations and rumors surrounding the caravan, the American public receive a very filtered view of the group and in turn respond with fear, rejection and ultimately hostility. The American public has been trained to view “outsiders” as intrusive, exploitative, and malicious over the course of 2018 through Trump’s aggressive and ruthless immigration crackdowns and policies. Decades of gang violence, corruption, destitution and lack of basic civil freedoms are most prominent in parts of the world that suffer from post-colonialism and/or outside governance, even if minutely. Due to corruption, inefficient distribution of foreign aid (or lack of appropriate foreign aid) and wealth and improper use of resources, Central America’s poorest citizens are forced to leave their homeland to seek economic stability and escape oppression.
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 Drew Farwell