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
Transactional Migration: a Transition in American Values

Transactional Migration: a Transition in American Values

Brief #53—Immigration

Policy Summary
Following up on an Executive Order he made in September 2017, President Trump has signed a new order placing an even lower cap on immigration to the United States than ever before. Last fall, Trump signed an order lowering the number of refugees allowed into the United States to 45,000 – the lowest cap since 1980 under the Refugee Act. This was a 59% reduction from what Obama had set previously and completely blurs the line between refugees and migrants as the guidelines became a transactional ordeal. International relief groups consider the current refugee crisis to be the worst since World War I, yet the Trump Administration seeks to determine what migrants can contribute to the US rather than how the US can help. He claimed the goal should be to host refugees in nations as close to their homes as possible to eventually return them there – which is extremely problematic. However, even under this order the US still accepts more refugees than other countries.

Fast forward a year, and this September Trump seeks to lower the refugee cap to 30,000; an absolute record low. This has been slowly building up through various crackdowns on immigration to the US (both legal and illegal) if you recount the previous travel bans, events at the US Southern border and disregard for America’s history of providing asylum. Mike Pompeo, US Secretary of State claimed that the US “must continue to responsibly vet applicants to prevent entry of those who might do harm to our country.”

Analysis
It is becoming increasingly clear that the true goal of the Trump Administration is to essentially deconstruct the United States refugee program and limit immigration on all fronts; regardless of national security demands. A cap is just a cap, the Administration could accept far less than 30,000 – it is a ceiling not a floor. This drastically limits US diplomacy and lowers its image and morality on a global stage.

The Justice Department and White House ignored a report from intelligence agencies proving refugees do not pose a major threat to national security and continued to emphasize the need for extraordinary vetting measures.

Cutting the number of refugees and asylum seekers allowed into the US to what could be nothing, puts the Trump Administration on the path of regimes that America has historically tried to defeat.  Those who support the Trump administration policy are either xenophobic nationalists, or are fearful of opposing an authoritarian leader.

Additionally, the Trump Administration has increasingly blurred the lines between refugee/asylum seeker and migrant in the quest to eliminate total immigration to the United States. An asylum seeker is an individual who has crossed an international border into a country in which they hope to receive refugee status due to fear of persecution for political, social, religious, or race reasons. Whereas a migrant is someone who attempts to permanently relocate to a new country or place for various reasons including personal gain, upward economic mobility, etc. Through Trump’s attempts to lower the refugee cap he has sent a clear message to the vast number of asylum seekers displaced in the world that the US can no longer be considered a place of refuge.

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 Martino Pietropoli

Does the Administration’s Tax Cuts and Job Act Mean Trouble for GOP in Upcoming Election?

Does the Administration’s Tax Cuts and Job Act Mean Trouble for GOP in Upcoming Election?

Brief #24—Economics

Policy Summary
With the midterm elections quickly approaching, speculation continues to mount as to how much of an impact the Trump administration’s policy will have on the impending elections. Of these policies, few have raised more eyebrows that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), signed by President Trump on December 22nd, 2017. Many people on both sides of the aisle considered the piece of legislature to have been passed prematurely, as it was pushed through Congress in the span of less than two months.  Prior to being signed into law, it received the support of only 32% of American voters.

The presidential administration was not without their reasons for wanting to push the legislature through Congress so quickly. Facing criticism from the right for failing to make good on the promise to “repeal and replace” the Affordable Care Act, they found themselves in need of a quick legislative change that could potentially shift national focus onto their successes rather than their failures. It is also worth noting that the quicker the bill was passed, the less time its critics would have to build arguments against it. Were the bill signed into law in time for the 2018 tax year, there was the possibility that voters would respond positively when they saw an increase in their take-home pay as well as further economic growth stemming from the tax cuts extended to corporations.  In the months since, though, this prediction has not come to pass. Rather, the opposite has taken shape.

Analysis
Does the bill’s reception serve to indicate that conservative candidates may have cause for concern in impending election? Many people seem to think so. Washington D.C. think tank Brookings Institute recently published a study discussing exactly that topic. In the study, Governance Fellow Vanessa Williamson argues that the implementation of the TCJA less than a year before a congressional election could be considered contradictory to the GOP principles —tax cuts are often an area that Republican candidates lean on in times when voter turnout is low.

The decision to implement these tax cuts, however, is misguided for several reasons. It is a policy changed fueled by poorly calculated political and economic assumptions. For many voters, the difference in take-home pay was likely difficult to notice, as the tax cuts that affected them were small. According to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of Brookings Institute and fellow think tank The Urban Institute, voters in the middle-income bracket will be seeing tax savings that total less than $20 per week.

It also seems apparent that the Trump administration has failed to take recent history into account. The tax cuts implemented by President George W. Bush benefited roughly three-quarters of American voters but in the year that followed, only one in every five Americans remembered it.  A few years later, the 2008-2009 tax cuts implemented by President Barack Obama caused taxes to decrease for eight out of every ten voters though it was reported that only 10% were able to take note. Despite the constant controversy over tax cuts, American voters have displayed significantly short memories when the actual policies are implemented.

Recent history has also proven that enthusiastic voters tend to look to their own party leaders for political cues, particularly in our current state that Forbes’ Howard Gleckman calls a “hyper-partisan atmosphere.’ While it is certainly possible that the GOP could have taken time to build up support for the legislation among their grassroots supporters, rushing it through Congress cost them exactly that opportunity.

We should also not forget the other element of the bill that contradicts a core belief among conservative voters. According to the study, many conservatives stand by the principle that tax cuts should not favor corporations and high-income households. The TCJA, though, did exactly that. By that logic, it does not seem like a policy change that middle and working-class conservatives should be in favor of.

The implementation of this controversial piece of legislature could serve as a valuable tool for campaigning Democrats to use to their advantage as election day draws near. As of now, it does not seem as though they are making an aggressive effort to do this–were they to treat it the way conservatives treated the ACA, the results could swing significantly in their favor.

The TCJA was a misguided policy from the start and it is not likely to prove a boon to the Republican Party in November, as voters will probably either have forgotten about the meager benefits extended to them or still be standing against the policy.

Resistance Resources:

  • The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center is a nonpartisan think tank that provides independent analysis on current and long-term tax-related matters.
  • The Urban Institute is a think tank dedicated to social and economic research, dedicated to improving the “well-being of people and places.”
  • FairVote is a non-partisan organization that works to give voters a stronger and help shape a representative democracy that benefits all Americans.

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

Photo by rawpixel

Is “Anti – BDS” Legislation Compatible With Free Speech and the First Amendment?

Is “Anti – BDS” Legislation Compatible With Free Speech and the First Amendment?

Brief #61—Civil Rights

Policy Summary
In June 2005 one hundred seventy (170) Palestinian civil society organizations called for boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) as a form of non – violent protest against illegal activities of the State of Israel against the Palestinian people. This movement became known as the BDS Movement. In subsequent years, numerous state governments and the federal government of the United States enacted legislation to try and oppose this movement. Twenty – five states have enacted legislation that oppose the BDS movement with a federal bill pending in the U.S. Congress.

In Texas, Obi Dennar, a student at the University of Texas at Austin, worked a two – day debate tournament to make some extra money. After the tournament was over, Mr. Dennar was getting ready to sign papers certifying his work for the tournament so that he would get paid. In his contract was a clause that “stated and verified” that he would not boycott Israel. Mr. Dennar refused to sign the certification and instead forfeited $150 for his time spent working at the debate tournament. LEARN MORE

Analysis
In 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware, Co. In that case, white store owners sued the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) for damages they suffered from the loss of business because of boycotts against their stores. The store owners initially won damages but when the case went to the U.S. Supreme Court the court overrruled the lower court decision and held that boycotts were protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and that “boycotts and related activities to bring about political, social and economic change are political speech” and one of the highest and protected values of the First Amendment.

Despite this clear ruling from the highest court in the United States, it appears that the federal government and numerous state governments are simply ignoring the case. The twenty – five states that have enacted anti – BDS legislation are engaging in viewpoint discrimination and are putting up barriers to a healthy and free discussion of an important issue in order to force citizens to adopt a point of view they do not agree with. In the case of Mr. Obi Dennar, the point was illustrated most forcefully by having Mr. Dennar choose to receive payment for work he had already done or stick to his heartfelt beliefs. In another incident, an NYU professor had been invited to the University of Houston to share her research but had her talk cancelled when she refused to sign a certification that she would not boycott Israel. And at the federal level, the assistant secretary of education for civil rights, Mr. Kenneth Marcus, has re-opened an investigation into a complaint from Rutgers University that looks to controversially expand a definition of “anti – Semitism” in order to suppress criticism and protests of the State of Israel on college campuses.

It is becoming painfully clear that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has become a new battleground in the war for the values of the First Amendment, Free Speech and honest and open discussion. It would seem that politicians at both the state and federal level would look to uphold and champion free speech but even they are becoming conflicted on the issue. Many politicians publicly campaign on the right to free speech and protest but then turn around and vote for bills that seek to stifle the protests and boycotts of the BDS Movement. Instead of ignoring the Claiborne Hardware case, politicians should permit all the protests and boycotts instead of trying to impose a particular viewpoint. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said it best when he said, “[T]he ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas” and “The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.” The solution is never to silence or punish anyone simply because they have a difference of opinion that the government does not agree with yet it seems that the United States is tilting in this dangerous direction with these anti-BDS bills. 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 Melany Rochester

Independent Redistricting Commissions Is Becoming The New Big Trend To Fight Abuses In Gerrymandering

Independent Redistricting Commissions Is Becoming The New Big Trend To Fight Abuses In Gerrymandering

Brief #62—Civil Rights

Policy Summary
On November 6, 2018, Proposition 4 in Utah and Amendments Y and Z in Colorado will be on the ballot to vote on for residents of each state. Proposition 4 in Utah is known as the Independent Redistricting Commission Initiative and if approved by voters will establish an independent redistricting commission that will be in charge of drawing the state map for congressional districts and state legislative districts. In Colorado, Amendment Y is the Independent Commission for Congressional Redistricting Amendment. Amendment Z is the Independent Commission for State Legislative Redistricting Amendment. Both are proposed amendments to the Colorado State Constitution and are proposals to change the method for drawing the congressional map and state district map for Colorado. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Analysis: These proposals on the ballots in Colorado and Utah are part of a growing national trend to counter the effects of abusive gerrymandering in the United States. State legislatures have the power to draw the congressional district and state legislative districts of their state but the maps lately have been drawn with the intent to keep a political party in power and dilute the voting power of the electorate in the state. Instead of a true expression of an electorate’s preferred candidate the state map is drawn and designed in a way that manipulates the maps to ensure that a certain candidate will win by shifting voting blocs to other districts where their votes will not have an impact on an election.

Instead of allowing the state legislatures to continue to be in charge of drawing the maps, these initiatives will instead take this power away from them. In Colorado, the initiatives would place the power of drawing these maps in the hands of a twelve (12) member independent commission and there must be a reasonable chance for members to change hands every few years. The goal would be to try and eliminate entrenched candidates and make candidates more responsive to the concerns of their districts. In Utah, Proposition 4 would appoint a seven (7) member independent commission to draw the state legislative maps. It would also bar prior state government officeholders from serving on the commission.

These initiatives are potential game – changers and are currently gaining steam in various states around the country. Citizens have become fed up with being unable to vote out state representatives that seemingly stay in office for long periods of time and who have become unresponsive to their concerns. The Brennan Center of Justice has a list of non – partisan groups that have sprouted up in various states to combat gerrymandering. The goal of these groups is to reform the redistricting process in their respective states. Letting the representatives of the state legislature decide the maps to use for future elections is clearly a personal and professional conflict of interest and creates the perception that American elections are not as independent and transparent as we think they are. With this growing trend of independent redistricting commissions, Utah, Colorado and other states can come one step closer to having elections and chosen representatives that are more reflective of how their states vote overall. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Engagement Resources:

  • Terminate Gerrymandering – Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Crowdpac page to raise money and fight abusive gerrymandering in the U.S.
  • Common Cause – non – profit group’s webpage on their efforts to combat gerrymandering.
  • Reclaim The American Dream – non – profit group’s webpage listing groups engaged in the fight against gerrymandering.
  • Represent OK – state non – partisan group that is trying to combat gerrymandering in Oklahoma.

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

Time Out: Let’s Talk Health Care Rhetoric

Time Out: Let’s Talk Health Care Rhetoric

We interrupt a regularly scheduled brief to bring you a dissection of healthcare rhetoric. If you’ve been paying any attention to the midterm elections, or just watching/reading/absorbing by osmosis the news in the last few months, you know that healthcare reform is a hot button issue. Pretty much every candidate in the game is talking about it, be it Beto O’Rourke in Texas promising universal healthcare or Bernie Sanders promising medicare for all. Healthcare in general is quite confusing, but I find the terminology around it to be quite muddled. So, I’ve attempted to research and create a cheat sheet of definitions and diagrams to help our readers understand the discussion around healthcare reform in the US.

Healthcare: In general, this is the system that provides mental and physical health services. The United States does not have any universal healthcare system, rather it is called a “hybrid” system which is both public (owned and operated by the government) and private (typically for-profit companies owned and operated by a board of directors). These medical care companies (like hospitals or private practices owned by physicians) vary immensely, but most work with insurance companies to assist with medical billing and offsetting the upfront cost of care and government programs to help with financially offsetting the cost of those services to people that cannot afford them. There’s also two federal government programs that currently provide healthcare for older and poor people, which are known as medicare and medicaid.

 

Okay, so know that we have somewhat simplified the phrase healthcare, let’s talk about the problems.

The biggest issues in the United States with the current healthcare system boil down to the exorbitant cost.

The cost is so prohibitive in fact, that a lot of people are not getting any healthcare and so more people are dying of totally preventable illnesses and are just generally more uncomfortable because they do not have access to affordable, reliable medical care. Democrats have proposed changing the hybrid system to a completely public system that is funded through tax dollars. However, not all democrats are created equally and disagree about how public to make the system. This is how we arrived at where we are now, throwing a bunch of different terms around to talk about different degrees of the same type of healthcare reform.

Universal Healthcare

 

 a health care system that ensures basic medical coverage for every citizen of the country

 
Medicare for All

 

 This system was actually a bill proposed by Sen. Bernie Sanders, and has become known as the main Democrat stump speech phrase (which only deepens the ambiguity). It is a national system (federal level) ensures total physical and mental medical coverage for every single person regardless of employment status, class, pre existing conditions, or geography. It would ensure that patients would pay into the system directly, not through an alternative private insurance company. The funding from this would come from various tax increases on upper classes.
National Health Plan

 

 This is technically a hybrid healthcare system (orginally based on an insurance system) organized by the government that uses public agencies, private companies, or a combination of both that would provide healthcare to all citizens regardless of class, geography, employment status, preexisting conditions, etc. The term is also used to refer to a single payer, universal system, so it’s important to understand the context of this phrase.
Single Payer This is probably the most technically accurate and specific term, but is used interchangeably with “medicare for all.” It is a federal system that will cover any citizen that pays into the program. There are no premiums, co-pays, or deductibles. However, the government does not own the healthcare facilities or directly employ workers. It merely pays the bills and sets the price for consumers.

 

“Under a single-payer system, all residents of the U.S. would be covered for all medically necessary services, including doctor, hospital, preventive, long-term care, mental health, reproductive health care, dental, vision, prescription drug and medical supply costs.”
Socialized Medicine A healthcare system that provides physical and mental health services to citizens. All services are completely owned and operated by the government.

 

 

 

You may be wondering how the Obama Administration’s Affordable Care Act (ACA or “Obamacare”) fits into this. Well, the ACA was a stepping stone to get to the Democratic Party’s (or at least the more progressive democrats) goal of universal healthcare. It established a system so that everyone had to prove access to affordable care in a government regulated marketplace, known as the individual mandate. Additionally, there were many tax changes and benefit subsidies that alleviated the cost of this new burden, and expansions to Medicaid and Medicare. The ACA also prohibited the use of pre-existing conditions as a reason to deny people health insurance. But, it was not completely public, the healthcare system set up by the ACA just ensured that the premiums (payment for health insurance) would be kept minimal for people that had trouble affording healthcare, but it did not legislate very substantial insurance industry reform or much of the private healthcare industry (especially large pharmaceutical companies). Ultimately, it is still very much reliant on a hybrid system of healthcare.

Hopefully this clarifies what candidates, news outlets, and elected officials mean when they use a variety of buzzwords to discuss healthcare. Please keep your eyes and ears open to these terms and how they are used to indicate certain healthcare reform, and learn more accurate definitions as these terms change and include or exclude certain key features.

This Brief was posted by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyat Sophia Adams;  Contact Sophie@usresistnews.org

Photo by unsplash-logorawpixel

An Unconventional Approach to Gun Control

An Unconventional Approach to Gun Control

Brief #13—Gun Control

Policy Summary
While virtually all focus in the gun control debate revolves around the use, distribution, and availability of guns, California is now taking an unconventional approach to reduce gun violence. Instead of focusing on guns and their accessories, gun control advocates are looking to more closely regulate ammunition in hopes of chipping away at the growing gun epidemic in the United States.

Analysis
Although guns are the central narrative in the conversation to control gun violence, ammunition is widely available and faces virtually no regulation. Gun control advocates argue that without ammunition, guns are harmless.  In some states, they can even be sold in vending machines, at pharmacies, and in jewelry stores, according to The New York Times.

This lack of regulation is part of the problem and gives gun owners free range once a gun is obtained. Technically, federal law prohibits individuals who are banned from buying guns also from buying ammunition, but there are no efficient systems in place to uphold the regulations. Controlling access to ammunition is not a new idea, but one that has not been heavily enforced, giving lawmakers a chance to tighten regulation in hopes of reducing gun violence.

California is trying to change these lax practices by exploring the prohibition of online sales that allow unlicensed dealers to  ship bullets directly to the buyer and instead requiring that all ammunition  be shipped by licensed gun dealers. In addition, starting next July, California will require all ammunition sales to include purchaser point-of-purchase background checks.

Politicians in California hope that the tightened regulations on obtaining bullets will make guns less harmful and keep ammunition out of the hands of those who shouldn’t have access to a firearm. Critics of the policies say that these new regulations will make it more difficult and expensive for hunters, shooters, and lawful gun owners to obtain bullets. However, no set penalty  laws have been put in place, so burdens on these individuals are still hypothetical.

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 DxL

Can’t Take the Heat?

Can’t Take the Heat?

Brief #40—Environment


Policy Summary
Summer in the northern hemisphere was brutal this year, and the indian summer continues to be so. Deadly heat waves struck Quebec, Sacramento and Tokyo between June to August of this year, all of which combined killed nearly 80 people and hospitalized thousands. More still, heat waves of unprecedented proportion were seen nearly globally. Climate experts say it is indisputable that the uptick in summer temperatures correlate with climate change, as temperatures this high haven’t been seen globally since the early 20th century, and before that the early 18th. And the fires that raged in Northern California this summer, which destroyed over half a million acres of land, is just another consequence of amped-up heat, too. The effects also devastate many disenfranchised communities in the United States, specifically, as elderly people–homeless and housed–struggle to combat elevated temperatures. Yet, the heat increase is just beginning, research suggests. A study released in Nature Communications anticipates that the planet will be at its “peak warm” over the next four years (at least), based on new evidence collected.

Analysis
It seems that stopping the escalating rise in heat is a nearly impossible task at this point, so the real analysis can be found in how societies will mitigate the change. Already, the effects are wide-sweeping. Schools in the Northeastern United States have started having “heat days,” an alternative to “snow days” in a climate-changed world. Many school districts throughout the Northeast are sad to have “inadequate cooling” or no air conditioning whatsoever, prompting classroom temperatures to be as high as 100 degrees. The unmanageable heat has made for impossible working conditions for both teachers and students, which has led to school closures. This, too, gives rise to the greater issue that millions of people worldwide still need air conditioning, and other cooling products, but that the use of these very tools can (and probably will) create huge problems for the planet. Because these products rely on electricity to be generated, and that energy often comes from fossil fuel, there is significant concern that the short term use of commodities like, air conditioning, will only perpetuate climate-addled issues further.

Still, civilians are imagining, and working hard to envision a less burdened future. Some are envisioning a “heat-proof city” which would be filled with vertical gardens, reflective roofs, water (misters) and architecture that utilizes dynamic shades. This sort of visionary thinking is also what has generated so much social justice activism. Last week, San Francisco hosted a Global Climate Action Summit, to raise awareness and generate change with regard to how climate change is affecting communities worldwide. And within that same week, tens of thousands of people in over 90 countries protested over the weekend, demanding an equitable transition to 100% clean energy. All movements were heavily focused in advocating for racial and economic justice. Nonetheless, Maeve Boeman of 350.org elucidated that, “We are up against huge obstacles and Donald Trump is a massive one. This is about being clear what we are asking for when the opportunity presents itself.”

Engagement Resources

  • Sustainable Energy for All: A nonprofit launched by a former United Nations secretary general in 2011, which aims to provide information about global access to energy.
  • 350.org: A global grassroots organization that is trying to hold government leaders accountable for climate change.

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

Photo by Andrew Stutesman

Trump Administration Cuts Aid to Palestinian Refugees

Trump Administration Cuts Aid to Palestinian Refugees

Brief #49—Foreign Policy

Policy Summary
On August 24th, the Trump administration announced that over $200 million in aid intended for Palestinian refugees would be cut from the U.N. Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA). Rather than directing funds through the Palestinian Authority, the UNRWA provides food subsidies, medical services, and youth programs directly to poor Palestinians. While Secretary of State Mike Pompeo reportedly opposed the cuts, Jared Kushner pushed for them as a way of “strengthening his negotiating hand when he introduces his long-awaited Middle East peace plan”. Trump agreed that the cuts were a way of forcing Palestinian leadership to come to the table and tweeted that Palestinians show “no appreciation or respect”. A State Department Spokesperson explained that while the US is “the most generous country in the world”, this aid spending “does not benefit the taxpayer”.

Analysis
The US is not the most generous country in the world. The majority of our taxpayer funded foreign aid goes towards controlling the destruction caused by our imperialistic foreign policy, and even then it is often, as in this scenario, then used as a leveraging tool for controlling opposition to US hegemony. Palestinians are crowded into a steadily vanishing territory within West Bank and the small open air prison that is the Gaza Strip. Surrounded by a US supported embargo, where even fishing too far off the coast triggers a military response, Palestinians have been forced to depend on the aid such as that previously provided by UNRWA. Starving them even thinner, as Trump and Kushner hope to do, will not lead to an amicable conclusion to the Israel-Palestinian crisis. It leaves Palestinians with few good options.  They can sell what little rights they still hold for a secure if impoverished future – one where the dream of self determination and sovereignty is compromised for an end to Israeli bombings, a lightening of the embargo, and a weakened position at a negotiation table dominated by Trump and the Israelies. Or they will be further driven to the conclusion that violent revolution is the only escape from a permanent apartheid state – possible ending any possibility of peace and justice in the region.

Resistant Resources

  • UN Relief and Works Agency – The UNRWA was founded in 1949 to support those Palestinians displaced by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
  • 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. You can donate on their website.

This Brief was submitted by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst Col,in Shanley: Contact Colin@usresistnews.org

Child Prisoners: An Update

Child Prisoners: An Update

Brief #52—Immigration

Policy Summary
After a chaotic year of many heartbreaking migration stories and tragedies, the Trump Administration seeks to continue such practices that have disturbed much of the general American public. The Administration is proposing to lift the court-imposed limit on how long it can hold children in immigration detention from 20 days to the duration of their immigration case. Federal Judge Gee who oversees the Flores Settlement had to recently reject a similar attempt by the administration to detain children in jail-like settings for more than 20 days.

The Flores Settlement is an agreement from 1997 that limits the length of time and conditions under which any US officials can detain immigrant children. Under the agreement, US officials are required to give children food, water, medical assistance in emergencies, toilets, sinks, temperature control, supervision and separation from unrelated adults (as much as possible). The decree was meant to be temporary until it could be codified into law, but has remained until present day. The Administration has argued that this settlement encouraged northern migration and for immigrants to bring children along in order to shield themselves from the threat of lengthy detention. Thus, Trump and officials have asked to pull out from the Flores Settlement entirely and replace it with regulations that would ‘honor’ its spirit and treat children with “dignity, respect, and special concern for their particular vulnerability as minors.”

If the government is successful US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) can run more family detention centers without the need for state licenses and more children will be kept in prison-like facilities while their immigration proceedings go on (can last up to a year). They also have plans to oversee new detention centers that could hold more than 12,000 immigrants and to hold children with their parents in ICE residential facilities rather than state licensed facilities.

Analysis
In regards to the Administration’s claims of the Flores Settlement encouraging northern migration with children as a buffer, there have actually been no records of this being an upward trend. Unauthorized crossings along the border with Mexico have actually sharply declined in the past 20 years. Many immigrant advocates are preaching that most migrants bring their children with them to escape poverty and/or violence, not as “bargaining chips to avoid detention.” Any logical member of civil society would assume parents would bring their children along wherever they are going, especially young children.

Another point of concern is the quality of these family detention centers even before the idea of extended stays were on the table. A toddler recently died of a respiratory infection after being released from a family center in Texas. Thus the mother filed a claim alleging negligent medical care within the facility. She is not a solo case, there have been many claims of children being returned to their parents in sub-par conditions, which makes one question the legitimacy and validity of Trump’s proposal that will further punish children and make prisoners out of toddlers.

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 Matteo Paganelli

As Chinese Import Tariffs Threaten Technology Sector, Trump Offers Manufacturing Proposal

As Chinese Import Tariffs Threaten Technology Sector, Trump Offers Manufacturing Proposal

Brief #24—Economics

Policy Summary
The Trump administration’s tariffs on Chinese imported goods have been problematic for both U.S. manufacturers and consumers. These policies have been numerous, adding up to billions of dollars’ worth of Chinese manufactured goods that U.S. companies depend on being severely affected. They’ve also prompted China to implement retaliatory tariffs of their own. When President Trump threatened to add an additional $200 billion in tariffs on other Chinese imports, one of the U. S’s largest companies panicked.

On September 5th, Apple penned a letter to United States Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer voicing its concerns regarding the proposed tariffs. According to them, these further tariffs on imported Chinese goods will cause a significant increase in prices of products such as the Apple Watch, the Apple Pencil, and the Airpod headphones. Computing devices would also be affected, as would various chargers, cables, and adapters. Apple provided a detailed list of the goods and company operations that would be affected by these tariffs, going so far as to provide the exact tariff codes that accompany each category.

“Our concern with these tariffs is that the U.S. will be hardest hit, and that will result in lower U.S. growth and competitiveness and higher prices for U.S. consumers” the letter stated.

President Trump was quick to respond to Apple’s concerns with a proposed solution. He tweeted “Apple prices may increase because of the massive tariffs we may be imposing on China – but there is an easy solution where there would be ZERO tax, and indeed a tax incentive. Make your products in the United States instead of China. Start building new plants now. Exciting!”

As of now, Apple has issued no direct response to Trump’s statements.

It should also be noted Apple is not the only American company to express their discomfort with the Trump administration’s tariffs on goods imported from China. Automobile manufacturing giant Ford recently announced that it would be abandoning previous plans to ship their Focus Active, a hatchback-style vehicle, to the U.S. from China. The reason for this change in operation was attributed to the Trump administration’s tariffs.

Trump tweeted a response to Ford’s announcement that echoed the same sentiment he had expressed to Apple –” Ford has abruptly killed a plan to sell a Chinese-made small vehicle in the U.S. because of the prospect of higher U.S. Tariffs. CNBC.  This is just the beginning. This car can now be BUILT IN THE U.S.A. and Ford will pay no tariffs!”

Ford did not agree with this, though. They responded that manufacturing the Focus Active in the U.S. would not make economic sense, as it would not be profitable.

Analysis
In their letter, Apple also brought up the subject of economic benefit, arguing that these impending tariffs could “ultimately reduce the economic benefit” that they generate for the U.S.

Their concern is certainly valid, and applies to other companies as well. Apple is not the only technology company that would feel the effects of such policy shifts. The hearings conducted on the subject this past August on Capitol Hill saw over 300 companies testify that these tariffs would likely be dangerous not just for them, but for their entire industry. Were they to be implemented, many prominent companies within the technology sector would be forced to raise the costs of their products when the parts that they imported from China became more expensive.

When the tariffs on aluminum and steel that sparked the trade war were first implemented, Trump made the claim that they would generate further manufacturing jobs. The opposite quickly proved to be true, however, as many American companies either shifted their operations overseas, such as Harley Davidson, or were forced to lay off numerous workers, such as the Mid Continent Nail Corporation. If we have learned anything from the early stages of the trade war, it is that tariffs do not create American jobs.

As the trade war has progressed, it has become increasingly clear that Donald Trump either does not understand the continuously negative effects his tariff policies have had on his country’s jobs or simply does not care. They have also crushed innovation which stands to happen again if these further tariffs on Chinese imports are implemented.  The early tariff policies that wreaked havoc on the solar panel industry spelled the end of many startups that could no longer afford to import parts that they depended on. The looming further tariffs on Chinese imported goods is poised to produce the same effect on the many startups in the technology sector, one of the fastest growing and most innovative industries in the U.S.

While switching manufacturing operations to the U.S. would also mean a significant increase in labor costs, companies seem considerably more concerned about the prospect of rising production costs. Analysts have indicated that were all iPhones to be built in the U.S, each individual phone could cost as much as $1,000. While it may be the best-selling consumer device in the country, it seems a safe assumption that significantly fewer Americans would be able to spend that much money on a mobile phone alone, ultimately leading to declines in profit, which as we have seen throughout the trade war, often ends in workers being laid off.

While the prospect of more manufacturing jobs in the U.S is certainly appealing and a prospect our government should focus on, attempting to strong arm companies into moving entire operations to American soil out of fear does not seem to be the way of bringing back the jobs that Donald Trump has boasted about since before taking office. If he wants to bring jobs back to the U.S., he should start by lifting the tariffs implemented by his administration and letting American corporations expand their operations through increased production, research and development. When industry experts speak out on such an important subject, he should listen.

Resistance Resources:

This brief was written by U.S. RESIST NEWS Economic Policy Analyst Samuel O’Brient: Contact  sam@usresistnews.org

Photo By chuttersnap

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