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
Affirmative Action Challenged in Suit Against Harvard’s Admission Policies

Affirmative Action Challenged in Suit Against Harvard’s Admission Policies

Brief #25—Education

Read Part 1: The Problem of Reverse Discrimination Cases Against Whites and Affirmative Action Cases

Policy Summary

An ongoing lawsuit alleging systematic discrimination against Asian-Americans applicants by Harvard, originally filed by Students For Fair Admissions (SSFA) in November 2014, has a trial date set for October this year. In the original complaint, SSFA claims that Harvard’s race-conscious holistic admissions policy violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. After a failed attempt to dismantle affirmative action in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, SFFA founder Edward Blum is leading the current lawsuit and has actively recruited Asian-American to be plaintiffs. Additionally, many right-wing organizations and political leaders expressed support of the goal to eliminate race-based admission policies.

In an analysis of more than 160,000 records, the plaintiffs contend that Harvard imposes an unlawful quota of “racial balancing” keeping numbers of Asian-American students artificially low while advancing less qualified White, Black, and Hispanic applicants. For instance, Asian-American applicants are rated lower than any other race on subjective traits like “courage, likability and kindness” significantly decreasing applicants’ chances despite the fact that such students scored higher on test scores, grades, and extracurricular activities. In 2013, Harvard’s own researchers found bias against Asian-American applicants in a series of internal reports that were never publicly released. The coalition further noted the failure of affirmative action policies to address the issue of poverty in secondary education, historically benefiting privileged groups of middle-class Black and Hispanic as well as international students over low-income, minority students.  LEARN MORE

John C. Yang, President and Executive Director of Asian Americans Advancing Justice (AAJC), sharply cautioned that the strategy led by Edward Blum would overwhelmingly benefit white applicants above any group and stated that “Asian-Americans are not a wedge in this issue.” The organization recently filed a brief, on behalf of a diverse group of students including Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, in support of race-conscious admissions at Harvard. AAJC has strongly stated that this lawsuit is not about Asian-Americans but about “using Asian-Americans as cover for Edward Blum’s crusade to force every institution of higher education to ignore the reality of systemic racism and segregation that infects every aspect of our lives. Holistic race-conscious admissions is necessary to address that reality and ensure meaningful access and opportunity for all communities.” LEARN MORE

AAJC helped sponsor a 2016 national poll that found 64% of Asian-Americans favored efforts to ensure that people of all races and ethnicities could access higher education. Some students at Harvard have stated that their school has yet to reach the level of diversity necessary to fully realize its benefits and that any supposedly race-neutral alternative decreasing diversity would be devastating to the educational environment and racial climate at Harvard. However, students emphasized that their support of affirmative action does not necessarily mean that they believe Harvard is doing enough to truly increase the diversity of its student body through innovative means. LEARN MORE

Analysis

A study found that “eliminating African American and Latino applicants from the Harvard admissions pool only increases admissions chances of Asian American students by 1%, making it quite unlikely that rejected Asian American applicants would be admitted even under a system that does not consider race.” In fact, discrepancies are largely due to a white advantages – with white women being the greatest benefactors of affirmative action and hidden factors, such as legacies and “Z-list”, conferring advantages to VIP white and wealthy applicants. Affirmative action policies are only one step forward in higher education’s transformative efforts to promote equity and justice. U.S. educational institutions still have a long way to go in improving representation from many unseen and underrepresented groups, such as Southeast Asians, Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders as well as low-income students. Despite numerous university diversity sessions (few which actually present a challenge to normative worldviews), most students graduate with the same assumptions that they entered with: the widespread belief that dominance of certain groups in college, in leadership and among elite ranks is natural. Most students – not just white students – believe that advancement and opportunity is primarily based on merit, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. LEARN MORE

In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), the Supreme Court upheld consideration of race in college admissions but banned racial quotas. In his opinion, Justice Powell Jr. cited Harvard’s program as a model stating that, if Harvard is to continue to offer a first-rate education, minority representation in the student body can no longer be ignored. Furthermore, the Supreme Court unambiguously held that consideration of race can be factored in admissions decisions but it cannot be the only factor. As established in Johnson v. California (2005), facially discriminatory laws based on race or national origin must undergo a “strict scrutiny” test, in which there must be a compelling governmental interest independent of the race classification and the categorization of race must be narrowly tailored to that particular interest. The Court has held that governmental interest is compelling in order to remedy the effects of intentional discrimination and to obtain a diverse student body in higher education.

AAJC President John Yang accurately assessed that an insidious background crusade by SFFA and right-wing organizations to eliminate affirmative action policies by pitting Asian Americans against other racial groups is a “classic divide-and-conquer strategy with echoes of colonial paternalism.” In The New Jim Crow, legal scholar Michelle Alexander describes a deeply embedded racial caste system in our society which has shaped U.S. policies, laws, and statutes. Our racial divide influences where we live, who we interact with, and how we are educated – with our educational institutions often reflecting and maintaining these same racial hierarchies. Yet, democratic education is based on challenging our basic assumptions and fostering critical thinking skills through exposure to novel ideas, perspectives, and life experiences profoundly different from our own. In the 1960-80s, mere rhetoric of diversity was not the goal of student activists who strongly pushed for ethnic studies departments, student centers and increased recruitment and retention efforts focused on racially minoritized students, faculty members and staff members. Prior generations of activists hoped to inspire institutional transformation through the presence of a critical mass of people of color. It seems profoundly necessary and advantageous to put together young individuals who are diverse on many dimensions – including one of the most fundamental aspects of identity – to prepare them for engaged citizenship and leadership roles, to break down harmful stereotypes, and to increase cross-cultural understanding and friendships in an increasingly pluralistic society. LEARN MORE

Engagement Resources

This Brief was developed by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst Tina Lee. Contact: Tina@usresistnews.org

Photo by unsplash-logoNicole Honeywill

Trump Administration Announces Sanctions Targeting Iran and Russia

Trump Administration Announces Sanctions Targeting Iran and Russia

Brief #47—Foreign Policy

Policy Summary
The Trump administration has responded to perceived transgressions by Russia and Iran with two new sets of sanctions this past month. Following through on the cancellation of the Iran deal, Trump has announced that, starting August 7th, restrictions will be placed on the Iranian government’s ability to purchase or acquire US dollar banknotes, trade in gold and precious metals, sell or transfer to or from Iran of graphite and metals – such as aluminum and steel- or conduct unspecified transactions relating to the Iranian currency, the Rial. Tariffs will also be placed on Iran’s automotive sector, Iranians will no longer be able to purchase US passenger aircrafts, and the US will no longer import Iranian carpets or certain foods. This November, additional sanctions will be placed on Iranian oil/energy imports, as well as financial institutions.

The stated goal is to cripple the Iranian economy to the point that the regime must end what the Trump administration calls its support for terrorism, and negotiate an end to its nuclear energy program. Trump said that the Iranian government “faces a choice: Either change its threatening, destabilizing behavior and reintegrate with the global economy, or continue down a path of economic isolation”. Mike Pompeo outlined American expectations for negotiations, demanding that “Iran end all nuclear enrichment and development of nuclear-capable missiles; release all American citizens end its support for Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Houthi militias; and withdraw its forces from Syria”. Woody Johnson, the American Ambassador to the UK, threatened “serious consequences” for businesses that continue to deal with Iran.

The Trump administration also announced sanctions on Russian exports in response to accusations that Moscow was behind the chemical attack in Britain last March, which targeted a former Russian spy. Immediately following the incident, the UK, US, and several other countries expelled over 100 Russian diplomats. These sanctions are legally justified under the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991, which requires the US to impose sanctions on any foreign power determined to have used chemical or biological weapons in violation of international law within 60 days of assigning blame, a deadline now missed by over a month.

The first set of sanctions, due to take effect on August 22nd, will restrict exports to Russia for the purchase of items which could have military uses, such as gas turbine engines and calibration equipment. Russia also now has 90 days to provide assurances that they will allow inspections to placate fears of any future chemical attacks. If Russia does not comply, the Trump administration will impose a second set of sanctions, restricting bank assistance, exports and imports, air carrier landing rights, and US bank loans to Russia, as well as downgrading diplomatic relations. The Defending American Security from Kremlin Aggression Act, supported by a bipartisan group of senators, has the potential to further destabilize the Russian economy. If passed, it would freeze all dollar operations of Russian state banks. In response to this recent set of sanctions, the Ruble fell to its lowest value in two years.

Analysis
The most important thing to keep in mind when discussing the destruction of the Iran deal, one of the most important pieces of Obama’s legacy, is that Iran has not violated the deal in any way. This fact has been confirmed by international inspectors. The European Union, Britain, France, and Germany have issued a statement saying that “The JCPOA [Iran Deal] is working and delivering on its goal, namely to ensure that the Iranian programme remains exclusively peaceful. Iran’s nuclear program has the stated purpose of building a foundation of cheap energy which would allow Iranian oil to be sold overseas. The enactment of the Iran deal in 2015 allowed Iran to recover from a disastrous economic recession. Like the most recent set, Obama’s 2010 sanctions were described as “smart sanctions”, designed to target the elite of the country rather than the innocent greater population. In reality, there was no such precision of consequence, with the percentage of Iranian families living in poverty almost doubling, and millions being left without access to essential medical treatment. Since the announcement of these newest sanctions, the Rial has dropped by 80%, causing protests around the country. These new protests will only further harm the middle and lower classes, creating hunger and unemployment.. Trump is not trying to simply coerce the Iranians into returning to the table to enact a newer, stronger Iran deal. Iran has no reason to expend the time and political capital to restart this arduous process. Iranian voters have less reason to support friendlier relations with America now, and Iran won’t want to make a new deal when the last one was cancelled through no fault of their own. What the Trump administration wants is further unrest, driven by the lower and middle classes, which could create an opening for an American-led regime change.

The Russian sanctions, while more justifiable, will contribute to similarly harmful conditions for many civilians who have had no part in the sinister actions of their oligarchy. The Defending American Security Act, if passed, would force Russia into an ultimatum which may not go the way Trump hopes. Either Russia will back down, or the oligarchy will be given a political mandate to act even more aggressively against the West.

Resistance Resources

  • Human Rights Watch – An organization dedicated to fighting oppression from a global perspective
  • Beyond the Bomb – An activist group looking to reduce the danger of nuclear war around the world.

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

Russian Election Meddling Illustrates Privacy Concerns of Data Collection and Retention; Data Privacy Proposals

Russian Election Meddling Illustrates Privacy Concerns of Data Collection and Retention; Data Privacy Proposals

Brief #53—Civil Rights

Policy Summary: On July 13, 2018, twelve Russian intelligence officers were indicted by a federal grand jury as part of the investigation by the Department of Justice’s Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III. The twelve intelligence officers were charged with conspiring to interfere with the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. Among the range of activities the intelligence officers were engaged in were hacking into and attempting to hack into America’s election infrastructure (including state election boards and state secretary of state offices), providing an American congressional candidate compromising information on his opponent and working with an American journalist to release information on racial groups as a way to inflame racial tensions in the U.S. Not all hacking attempts were successful although in one instance, Russian operatives were successful in penetrating a state election board and where they gained access to the personally identifiable information of 500,000 registered voters. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Analysis: The broad implications of the Russian efforts to meddle in the 2016 United States elections are clear – they were intended to sow distrust of the U.S. government among the U.S. populace and manipulate the electoral process so that a candidate that Russia preferred would be elected over one popularly chosen by American citizens. Those meddling efforts provide enough justification for the U.S. to strengthen its protections of election systems and databases with other personally identifiable information. But the issue needs to be viewed at an individual level and the effects examined on how the ordinary American citizen was harmed.

In the indictment, Russian operators were described as using stolen American identities to open bank and Paypal accounts, create fake driver’s licenses, post messages online and buy political advertisements. All of these efforts helped these foreign operatives target domestic political groups and craft their influence campaign because it allowed American citizens to believe that they were interacting with people who were other American citizens who shared their political beliefs. It gave the Russians a way to mask their activities while leaving unsuspecting American citizens and groups who were targeted based on race or political beliefs in the dark as to the true motives of the Russian operatives.

In its simplest form, the efforts by the Russians was a form of identity theft but their motives went far beyond simple personal profit which is the traditional motive for identity theft. What made their bold efforts possible was the collection of so much personally identifiable information. A person’s personal information has become a commodity to be exchanged, sold and used for purposes beyond an ordinary person’s control. The information a person provides online or to the government no longer stays in that one place but becomes a movable commodity to be sold for commercial purposes, to identify a person’s individual habits and in the most stunning and extreme case to be used fraudulently by a foreign power to dictate to and steer the United States in a direction the country was unwilling to go. Social media platforms and the Internet are here to stay so it is imperative that the United States take this new “twenty – first century human information commodity” and prevent it from being spread, sold and exchanged so easily. There is no clear cut answer or guidelines to follow yet but the information must be given the highest priority for protection lest it gets used in a way that compromises individual people and harms the United States of America as Russia was able to do when it got its hands on it. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Engagement Resources:

  • Privacy Rights Clearinghouse – non – profit group webpage on data breach issues.
  • Privacy International – international non – profit group guidelines on how US companies can comply with the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

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 Mirah Curzer

Federal Budget Deficit Rises Under Trump Administration’s Tax Cuts and Concerns

Federal Budget Deficit Rises Under Trump Administration’s Tax Cuts and Concerns

Brief #20—Economic Policy

Policy Summary
Tax cuts were one of the primary elements that Donald Trump used to garner voter support during his 2016 presidential campaign. He spoke of tax cuts that would improve the lives of citizens nation-wide, never alluding to the potentially negative effects that could also stem from such a maneuver. He pitched these tax cuts as if they were a solution that could easily fix the economic problems the U.S. was facing, particularly for America’s workers

Over a year into Trump’s presidency, the effects of the tax cuts are quickly becoming apparent, particularly their negative aspects that most of the nation is feeling. Already alarmingly high, the federal budget deficit is nearing $1 trillion.

The first six months of 2018 saw corporate taxes gathered by the federal government sink to some of the lowest levels history has seen. This is hardly surprising, as the tax cuts introduced by the Trump administration lowered the standard corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent. This is helped by the further component of the legislation that allows companies to deduct most new investments immediately.

As corporate tax funds have fallen, the federal budget deficit has continued to rise. While U.S. economists knew that the deficit would increase, most did not suspect that it would happen so quickly. At the time of the tax cuts, the Trump administration claimed that an initial decrease in tax revenue would not prove a problem for the deficit, as the increased revenue and spurred economic growth generated by the tax cut would cover any initial losses.  This has clearly proven to be false, but even the White House has noted that they did not expect the deficit to rise as quickly as it has.

The 1940’s saw the United States Department of Commerce begin to compile extensive data on the subject of corporate tax collection and revenue following a significant drop in revenue from corporate taxes. Current data tells us that it did not sink that low until 2009 when the Great Recession was running its turbulent course on the U.S. economy and the revenue generated by corporate tax collections dropped by roughly a third. In the near decade since, they have not fallen so low until this fiscal year when tax payments from corporations again dropped by a third.  Federal data indicates that as a share of the national economy, tax revenue had not fallen so far in 75 years.

It is true that most corporations have benefited from these tax cuts but as a share of the economy, their profits are still below the peak that they reached during President Barack Obama’s time in office.

Analysis

The rate at which the federal budget deficit is approaching $1 trillion is not something that we can afford to ignore. There are multiple reasons that the clear effects of the Trump administration’s tax cuts on the budget deficit are concerning and could easily prove problematic.

The current trade war caused by the administration’s tariffs has created the need for further government spending, at least from the perspective of the Trump administration. The recently proposed $12 billion in aid for America’s farmers will require even more federal aid and farmers are not the only group that has felt the negative effects of the trade war. Fisherman and various types of manufacturers could also require emergency relief aid which would require even more federal funds generated by taxpayer dollars.

As has been the case with the emergency relief aid promised to America’s farmers, this budget deficit increase is a distinct example of a policy change enacted by the Trump administration that many deemed unnecessary. Economists have clearly stated that had the U.S. tax system not been changed by the tax cuts, the country would not be experiencing this budget deficit rise.

Another parallel between the tax cut and the trade tariffs is that both were presented by the Trump administration as policies that would prove beneficial to the American workers. Before the tax bill was passed, the administration argued that it would allow corporations to take the funds they were saving from the tax cuts and reinvest them in expanding production, thereby creating jobs and helping their current workers when increased revenue tricked down into wage increases. It would be beneficial for everyone, they argued, because although the portion of tax revenue collected from each corporation would be smaller, it would ultimately  from a bigger pie.

Nonpartisan Washington D.C think tank the Center for American Progress recently published a report that clearly indicated that real average hourly earnings of the typical American worker have not changed in the past fiscal year. Over the same period, 80% of workers in production areas saw their wages dip by 0.2% while real median weekly earnings have dropped slightly as well. One economist from the institute stated that workers were “Not getting ahead in the Trump economy” and that certainly seems to be true.

This ‘Trump economy’ has fostered some economic growth but policy change results like those that have stemmed from the tax cuts are clear indicators that this growth may not be sustainable.  A rising federal budget deficit does not have the markings of being a harbinger of long-term economic prosperity. The trend of the unnaturally strong economy is often alarming for economists who have seen these superficial booms prove to be dangerous and this time is no exception.

Resistance Resources

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

Photo by Rick Tap

Switching Sides? Trump attacks NATO, Praises Putin.

President Trump’s July 16th meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki quickly became a source of significant controversy both at home and throughout NATO. In a shocking reversal of decades of presidential decorum, President Trump took the opportunity to praise the Russian president while admonishing members of NATO. It would perhaps be more shocking if it weren’t so expected.

In the week leading up to the widely anticipated summit, Trump took the opportunity to criticize NATO members Germany and the United Kingdom. At a bilateral breakfast in Brussel’s, Trump levied a remarkable attack on Germany for, ironically, what he perceives as servility to Russian interests stemming from a $12 billion pipeline proposal between Germany and Russia. In addition, Trump criticized Germany, as well as NATO as a whole, for not spending enough money on defence. The latter of these two criticisms is not entirely surprising in itself. Military spending has long been a point of contention between the United States and other NATO nations, as the US far outspends any other member nations on defence. This inequality has led to the perception among Americans of the US being the guardian of Europe, often to the detriment of the American citizen. It should be noted that even Barack Obama criticized other NATO nations for not spending enough on their militaries, albeit somewhat more gracefully. The former allegation, however, comes as a complete surprise given what the public knew, at this point, of the magnitude of Russian interference in the 2016 election. It is even more baffling considering what happened at the Helsinki summit not even a week later.

It would seem that Trump’s visit abroad left something of a trail of agitated US allies, as he also took the opportunity to blast Prime Minister Theresa May’s Brexit compromise. In an exclusive interview, The Sun reported that Trump warned “any attempts to maintain close ties with the EU would make a lucrative US trade deal very unlikely.” Trump also stated that “If they do a deal like that, we would be dealing with the European Union instead of dealing with the UK, so it will probably kill the deal.” Trump also took the opportunity to blast EU members for allowing in migrants, criticize London Mayor Sadiq Khan for a supposedly weak stance on terrorism, and oddly enough maintain that he would “keep ties with Russian tyrant Vladimir Putin despite the Salisbury Novichok poisonings.” Delivered in typically blunt Trump fashion, the remarks prompted some shock and outrage in the UK. Trump’s visit was met with thousands of protestors, who likely would have shown regardless of his comments, as the president is unsurprisingly unpopular abroad.

These two incidents in particular would suggest that President Trump is, perhaps deliberately, driving a wedge between NATO nations. This of course puts Russia in an advantageous position, but, is this what Trump wants?

President Trump and Russian President Putin met in a two hour, closed door meeting on July 16th. The press conference following the meeting has been commonly referred to in the media as the Helsinki Summit. You can find the official White House transcript of the summit here.  At this summit, Trump took the opportunity to openly rebuke the US intelligence community, declining to endorse the US government’s assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 Election. Trump instead supported Vladimir Putin’s denial of the allegations. Trump stated that “President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today.”

When asked if he wanted Trump to win the 2016 election, President Putin said “Yes I did. Because he talked about bringing the US-Russia relationship back to normal.” Of the allegations that he has collected compromising information on President Trump, Putin stated “I heard these rumors that we allegedly collected compromising material on Mr. Trump when he was visiting Moscow… When President Trump was at Moscow back then, I didn’t even know that he in Moscow. … I treat President Trump with utmost respect. But back then, when he was a private individual – a businessman – nobody informed me that he was in Moscow… It’s difficult to imagine an utter nonsense of a bigger scale than this. Please just disregard these issue and don’t think about this anymore again.” “Russia has never interfered in and is not going to interfere in US internal affairs, including the elections,” Putin stated. “If there are any specific materials, if they are presented, we are ready to review them together.” Trump called the election interference probe “a disaster for our country.” He later backpedalled on his criticisms reading from a prepared script that he has “full faith” in US intelligence communities, claiming that he misspoke in Helsinki.

Putin’s remarks stand in stark contrast to the findings of the US intelligence community, which has concluded that there is a very high likelihood that Russia interfered in the 2016 elections to the benefit of Donald Trump’s campaign. Trump’s own appointee, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, warned that “We have been clear in our assessments of Russian meddling in the 2016 election and their ongoing, pervasive efforts to undermine our democracy, and we will continue to provide unvarnished and objective intelligence in support of our national security.” Even House Speaker Paul Ryan, who generally sides with the President issued a statement saying that “The President must appreciate that Russia is not our ally. There is not moral equivalence between the United States and Russia, which remains hostile to our most basic values and ideals.”

The summit between Trump and Putin has been billed as an historic one, though perhaps not for great reasons. Never before in US history has a president taken this sort of opportunity to diminish the credibility of American intelligence agencies in the face of a long-standing geo-political adversary. Expectedly, the criticism of Trump’s comments in Helsinki has been widespread. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.) said “The comments were so egregious they’ve crossed the tripwire, and you see Republicans speaking out in a way you really haven’t before. This was about the country. It cuts to a nerve in the American psyche and the psyche of the Republican party.” Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) went on to state that “There’s a possibility that we may well take up legislation related to this.” And, according to Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) a bill has been introduced that would potentially label Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism.

The backlash from Trump’s performance in Helsinki, combined with the now mounting Manafort investigation, will only fan the already growing flames of this investigation. In our next entry, we will cover the most significant developments in the trial of Paul Manafort, which is now underway and already producing interesting results.

This Russia Blog Post was submitted by USRESIT NEWS Analyst Thomas Wesley: Contact Tom@usresistnews.org

Update: Trump Administration Reunification of Families Proves Chaotic

Update: Trump Administration Reunification of Families Proves Chaotic

Brief #48—Immigration

Policy
President Trump was court ordered to reunify families by July 26, 2018 (see Brief #47,) While the government claims the deadline was met, more than 700 children (yes, every 1 in 3 children)  still held in government custody were not reunited by 6 pm on the day of the deadline. The government has not offered a timeline for tracking down the hundreds of parents who still remain unaccounted for.

Parents of about 430 children were deported – despite the court ruling against deportation of separated families, in June 2018 – and thus those children were deemed ineligible for reunification. The remaining children of the 700 were also deemed ineligible due to red flags for a wide array of reasons that prevented reunification. In some cases parents were labelled “released” even though they were still in custody which made for an even more chaotic affair.

For those 1,820 children 5 and over that were reunited with their families, some parents waited up to a week for their children and were not allowed access to showers, phones or religious services during that time. One young migrant mother was greeted by her son who had a cough and a black eye; and some children were sent to the wrong facilities. What should have been a systematic and clear-cut system was in practice chaos.

Amateur fund-raisers have played a large role in helping to reunite families, providing food and travel essentials; as have larger groups, such as Fwd.us backed by Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg that raised millions of dollars for immigration court bonds and plane tickets. The ACLU filed a motion July 25 to protect the parents whom the government has claimed waived their rights to immediately recover their children. Many signed things they did not understand because they were not translated and  signed documents under duress. Additionally, faith based organizations and other groups  provided meals, clothing, legal advice, plane and bus tickets to families at ICE locations (even new shoe laces because those were taken away – like prisoners).

Analysis
This approach to reuniting families based on who is eligible and who is ineligible seems to be a form of organized disarray. The emphasis appears to be on counting children rather than parents, even though 1 parent can have more than 1 child. This seems like  a backwards way to approach the issue and come to a mutually beneficial solution. There are a number of various steps that could have been taken – perhaps more accurately keeping written record of parents and their child/children.

Additionally,  the Trump administration did in fact deport some parents without their children (reference above), which went against the court ruling that families who were separated could not be deported and could not be deported immediaitly upon reunification. This may seem trivial in the grand scheme of things due to statistics and the general public’s focus on making sure every child has a parent, but it is a  bold move on the Trump administration’s part that defied court orders

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.
  • 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.
  • 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 submitted by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst Kathryn Baron: Contact Kathryn@usresistnews.org

Photo by Matheus Ferrero

Trump Rolls Back Endangered Species Act

Trump Rolls Back Endangered Species Act

Brief #38—Environment

Policy Summary
The Trump administration has rolled back the Endangered Species Act, a policy that has been in place for the last 45 years having been put in place by Richard Nixon. In the past, the Act has protected a laundry list of endangered species, such as the Pacific walrus, Mexican gray wolf, finback whale, and many others from ranching, oil drilling and logging in their natural habitats so that any at-risk species would not be further threatened. Now, the White House has put forward over a dozen petitions, some of which that have been voted on in congress, which would, in essence, undermine or delegitimize pre-existing threats to threatened species. The policy decision come as a great attack on both environmental conservation efforts and animals.

Analysis
This policy decision only further re-affirms the current Administration’s commitment to deregulation in the name of fossil fuels. Department of the Interior Chief of Staff, David Bernhardt, announced to the public that he expects both, “crazy” and grateful responses for the newest changes. The thanks he anticipates is undoubtedly from the oil and gas lobby, for whom he previously worked. And already the decisions are causing calamity, as the Department of the Interior has already requested an expedited review to renew their lease of part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The reason? Oil and gas drilling, of course, as the government hopes to acquire the land for lease now that the regulations are being scaled back without intervention.

Engagement Resources:

  • World Wildlife Fund — a conservation organization that protects endangered species all over the world.
  • Defenders of Wildlife – Another organization that works to preserve and protect endangered species worldwide.

This brief was compiled by Zoe Stricker. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact zoe@USResistnews.org.

Photo by Marek Szturc

3D Printed Guns Face New Legal Challenges

3D Printed Guns Face New Legal Challenges

Brief #11—Gun Control

Policy Summary
After Cody Wilson settled a lawsuit with the government which allowed him to post blueprints online of how to print 3D guns, other states have retaliated in response. A plethora of states have begun attempting to make these blueprints illegal to post, and one judge from Seattle delayed the posting of the plans until the end of August. With the overwhelming flow of information and accessibility on the internet, however, it will be difficult to monitor these blueprints from appearing online.

Analysis
In the ongoing debate and legal battle between free speech and gun safety, a US District Judge in Seattle, Robert Lasnik, has halted the plans for 3D printed guns to be posted until August 28th. This ensued after 8 states and the District of Columbia filed to block the settlement with Cody Wilson who had received $40,000 and free disbursement of the 3D printed gun blueprints.

Now, 19 states and the District of Columbia are pushing to make the sharing of these blueprints illegal altogether. On August 21st Judge Lasnik scheduled a hearing for the states who are looking to reverse the U.S. State Department’s ruling.

President Trump weighed in on Twitter on Tuesday saying, “I am looking into 3-D Plastic Guns being sold to the public. Already spoke to NRA, doesn’t seem to make much sense!”. These comments come as no surprise given the current administration’s stance on guns – Wilson was initially sued by the State Department in 2013 under the Obama administration and only after Trump’s pro-gun administration took office did the Justice Department decide to settle with Wilson.

Even if the temporary court order becomes permanent, ensuring the blueprints are not posted or distributed on the internet will be extremely difficult to monitor. Before Wilson’s blueprints were asked to be removed, they were downloaded countless times and will be easy to disburse once more.

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.

This Brief was written by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst Sarah Barton: Sarah@usresistnews.org

Photo by rawpixel

TSA Monitoring and Documenting Innocent Behavior With Quiet Skies Program

TSA Monitoring and Documenting Innocent Behavior With Quiet Skies Program

Brief #51—Gun Policy

Policy Summary
At the end of July 2018, the Boston Globe reported that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) had been conducting a surveillance program known as “Quiet Skies.” Federal Air Marshals were deployed to track American citizens even though they were not suspected of committing a crime, were not under any active and separate law enforcement investigation and were not on any terrorist watch list. The air marshals were directed to observe passengers on flights based on behaviors the TSA classified as suspicious – extreme perspiration, cold penetrating stares, extreme fidgeting and a number of other behaviors. During the flight, the marshals documented the behaviors and even included how many times a passenger used the bathroom and whether or not the person slept on the flight. In some cases the air marshals also followed the targeted passenger on subsequent flights. Passengers were never notified they were followed by air marshals. The program was put in place in 2010 and TSA estimated they followed approximately thirty – five passengers daily since the program has been in existence. LEARN MORE

Analysis: The report by the Boston Globe was a shocking report and showed that the government was clearly invading the privacy of ordinary Americans when they traveled by plane. TSA issued a statement to CBS stating that the program’s primary purpose is to “ensure passengers and flight crews are protected during air travel” but this rings hollow. This program does nothing more than invade the privacy of ordinary Americans by fabricating a suspicion based on innocent and commonplace behaviors. A passenger nervous about flying could display “extreme perspiration” and “nervous fidgeting.” Another passenger exhibiting penetrating stares could simply have had too many alcoholic drinks or be under the influence of legally prescribed medication. These physical states are the results of innocent and legitimate behavior and are not accurate predictors of an intent to harm.

Additionally, in February 2017, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) issued a report calling TSA’s behavior detection methods “wholly ineffective” and that there is “no scientific basis…to support the detection or inference of future behavior, including intent.” Yet TSA still employed these behavior detection methods in the Quiet Skies program. And, in the most telling rebuke of the program, a number of federal air marshals have publicly criticized Quiet Skies as a waste of time and resources. John Casaretti, president of the Air Marshals Association, said it best when he said that the Quiet Skies program does not meet the criteria that the group finds acceptable. With so many groups critical of the program and the way it is being conducted against ordinary Americans, it would be best to scrap the program and develop another that is respectful of commonplace human behaviors and protective of the civil liberties that Americans expect and deserve. 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 Ross Parmly

Senator’s Warner’s Effort to Have a National Discussion on Internet Policy

Senator’s Warner’s Effort to Have a National Discussion on Internet Policy

Brief #50—Civil Rights

Policy Summary:
On August 1, 2018, Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) wrote an opinion piece in USA Today that called on the United States to have a national discussion about Internet privacy, data and social media. The Senator also urged the government to pass new laws and regulations that allows those technological tools to have a positive place in society today. The Senator wrote his opinion article the same week that he released a white paper that contained twenty potential policy proposals for the regulation of social media and technology firms.

This proposal has not been introduced as a bill in Congress yet but comes on the heels of bad news for tech companies like Facebook and Twitter. In March 2018, Facebook became embroiled in the Cambridge Analytica scandal. There, a researcher at Cambridge University enticed users to install an app and partake in a survey. The personal information of those users was collected from that survey along with millions more even though no consent was given to mine the personal info of Facebook friends and connections or share it with outside third parties. All of this data was later acquired by Cambridge Analytica and then shared with various third parties, including President Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

Facebook admitted that as many as eighty – seven million users may have had their personal information compromised due to the data breach. Due to the suspicion that this info may have been used to affect and meddle in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election, Mark Zuckerberg was called to Congress in April 2018 to testify as to how to prevent future abuses of users personal information. Additionally, Twitter has come under fire for its inability to control “Twitter bots” which are anonymous accounts used to try and influence and sway political elections and politicians themselves on behalf of foreign governments (namely, Russia). Many Twitter accounts are suspected of being part of a Russian campaign to spread disinformation and meddle in American politics. The events have persuaded Senator Warner to take the lead in pushing for new social media and data regulations. LEARN MORE

Analysis
Senator Warner’s list of twenty potential policy proposals is an ambitious set of suggestions but for the moment the proposals can be broken down into three main categories – [1] Exploitation/Disinformation/Misinformation, [2] Privacy and Data Protection and [3] Data Ownership.

The Exploitation/Disinformation/Misinformation prong are those policy proposals that seek to require tech companies to be able to determine the origin of posts and accounts, to prevent anonymous accounts, clearly label political advertisement messages and to clearly and conspiculously label “bots.” Bots are anonymous automated accounts that are prodded to send certain types of messages based on certain keywords or other actions. They were believed to have been used extensively by the Russians in the 2016 election to defeat Hillary Clinton.

Privacy and Data Protection proposals are those proposals that are aimed at enacting proposals to actively protect users’ data. This includes making platforms liable under state level actions (defamation and others), civil actions (as “information fiduciaries”) and giving the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) the power and resources to enact rules to regulate tech companies (the FTC has not had rule – making authority since 1980).

Finally, the Data Ownership proposals are those aimed at giving people more control over their own personal information. This would include 1st Party consent for data collection and more proposals similar to those available in Europe, known as the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR). Under the GDPR, companies doing business in Europe have a seventy – two hour window to notify users of a data breach. The GDPR also gives users a “right to be forgotten.” This means users have a right to request companies that their data be erased. There are more proposals with more technical details to sort through but these are the three main areas that Senator Warner’s proposals aim to touch on. The proposals are a good first step to hold the tech companies accountable and giving more control back to the users and should be taken up by Congress as soon as possible. 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

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