JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Indefinite Detention of Migrants: Trump’s Latest Crackdown
Brief #78—Immigration
By Kathryn Baron
Struggle to Pass Gun Control Policies Even in the Wake of New Mass Shootings
Brief #20—Gun Control
By Amanda Richardson
Trump Administration to Limit Green Cards: an Update
Brief #77—Immigration
By Kathryn Baron
Trump Administration Threatens to Make Big Changes to SNAP Benefits
Brief #60—Healthcare
By Taylor J Smith
Did FBI Director Wray Mislead Congress During Senate Committee Testimony About Domestic Terror Groups
Brief #96—Civil Rights
By Rod Maggay
Democrats Divided on the Best Political Strategy for 2020.
Brief #2—Presidential Campaign News
By Erin Mayer
Democrats are divided over which political strategy to pursue to defeat President Trump in the 2020 Presidential election. Candidates such as Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and others argue that the “system is rigged” and in need of radical reform.
ICE Crackdown in Mississippi
Brief #76—Immigration
By Kathryn Baron
House Democrats Ride the $15/hr Wave into 2020
Brief #49—Economics
By Leo Elliot
With a Wink, Trump Guarantees Foreign Interference in 2020 US Elections
Brief #4—Technologys
By Charles A. Rubin
Nationwide Prison Strike Highlights Deplorable Conditions in US Prisons
Brief #58—Civil Rights
Policy Summary
In 11 states, prisoners and prison organizers have organized hunger strikes, work stoppages, and commissary boycotts to protest deplorable prison conditions and to demand the end of what they call “prison slavery” for 19 days of peaceful protest. The strike is being spearheaded by incarcerated members and organizers of Jailhouse Lawyers Speak (JLS). The last nationwide prison strike took place on September 2016 when more than 20,000 inmates refused to show up for work across 12 states.
On August 12th, JLS organizers released a statement calling for fellow prisoners to stop their senseless violence and to collectively organize around issues focused on their basic human and political rights. In April of this year, Lee County correctional facility in South Carolina experienced the deadliest prison riot in a quarter-century that went on for over seven hours without any staff intervention and resulted in several inmates’ deaths.
JLS listed 10 demands to improve prison conditions, including an end to life without parole sentences, increased funding for rehabilitation services, and the end to disenfranchisement. The statement explained how prison conditions are a human rights violation due to their inherent violence and further incitement of prison violence because of understaffing, exploitation of labor, and lack of comprehensive rehabilitative programs. For instance, most U.S. prisons lack basic mental health services and resources, like libraries and workshops, to help occupy prisoners’ times and improve their emotional, social and career development while in prison. Incarcerated workers are also some of the most exploited in the world because there is no minimum wage for their labor. The average wage is 20 cents/hour, with some states not paying anything. 80% of wages can still be withheld by prison officials. States such as Louisiana pay a horrific wage of 4 cents/hour. LEARN MORE
Analysis
The 13th amendment abolished “slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime.” In the documentary Thirteenth, director Ava DuVernay explores the historical context of this one exception, which has allowed the exploitation of prisoners who have no constitutional rights as a result of the amendment. According to the ACLU, 1 out of 3 black men can now expect to be incarcerated in their lifetimes; that’s compared to 1 in 17 white men. Furthermore, according to 2017 Prison Policy Initiative report, women – especially young black women – are the fastest growing incarcerated population, and 60% of women in jail have not even been convicted of a crime and are merely awaiting trial. Despite being only 5% of the world’s population, the U.S. has 25% of the world’s prison population. Since 1970, this statistic has increased by 700% with 2.3 million people in jail and prison today.
Unsurprisingly, the national strike has been blacked out by the mainstream, corporate media. According to Integrated Workers Organizing Committee ( IWOC), “ The government spends as much as an elite college tuition per person to keep each of us incarcerated, but this money does not develop us as human beings, reduce crime or make our communities safer.”
Resources
- Jailhouse Lawyers Speak – Organization where prisoners providing mutual help and legal training to other inmates.
- Incarcerated Workers Organizing Committee (IWOC) – IWOC led the first prison strike in U.S. history on September 9, 2016. The committee is a prisoner-led section of the Industrial Workers of the World working to abolish prison slavery with external allies and organizers.
- Prison Legal News (PLN) – Monthly magazine since 1990 covering prison labor, sexual abuse, misconduct by jail staff, prisoners’ constitutional rights, racial and socioeconomic disparities in the justice system, medical and mental health care for prisoners, disenfranchisement, rehabilitation and recidivism, prison privatization, and much more.
- ACLU’s Campaign for Smart Justice – Multiyear campaign to reduce U.S. jail and prison population by 50% and to combat racial disparities in the criminal justice system.
- National Lawyers Guild (NLG) – The oldest and largest progressive bar association and the first to be racially integrated. NLG unites lawyers, law students, legal workers, and jailhouse lawyers to function as an effective force in the service of the people by valuing human rights over property interests.
Further Education
- Thirteenth by Ava DuVernay is a thought-provoking film about the history of mass incarceration, race, and the 13th amendment.
- We Need to Talk About An Injustice (TED Talk) by Bryan Stevenson.
- Arrested Justice: Black Women, Violence, and America’s Prison Nation by Beth Richie
- Towards the Horizon of Abolition: Conversation with Mariame Kaba (2017)
Submitted by U.S. RESISTNEWS Analyst Tina Lee; ContactTina@usresistnews.org
Photo by Hédi Benyounes
North Korea Peace Process Stalls
Brief #46—Foreign Policy
Policy Summary
The International Atomic Energy Agency, an intergovernmental forum which reports to the UN, has reported a lack of progress in the denuclearization of North Korea. The “continuation and further development” of nuclear facilities are “cause for grave concern”, assessed the organization. This contradicts the statement made by the President following his June summit with Kim Jong-un, declaring that “There is no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea”. On August 24th, Pompeo announced plans to visit North Korea, only for Trump to nix the plans the next day. “Secretary Pompeo looks forward to going to North Korea in the near future, most likely after our trading relationship with China is resolved”, the President tweeted. The Korea Times, a South Korean newspaper, reported that sources had informed them that North Korea planned to hand over a list of secret nuclear test sites as well as information about its nuclear warheads, information long sought by the US State Department.
While the relationship between the US and North Korea has stalled, South Korea has forged ahead. President Moon and Chairman Kim’s April meeting has resulted in a series of family reunification meetings, allowing 174 North and South Koreans, chosen by lottery, to meet with relatives they have not seen since the Korean War of the early 1950’s. An inter-Korean liaison office is set to open this week, and South Korea is reportedly considering removing North Korea from their official list of enemies. This Wednesday, President Moon will be sending envoys to Pyongyang to discuss plans for a future summit between the two leaders. South Korea’s continued pursuance of peace despite lack of concrete denuclearization milestones has led to tension with the US, further indicated by the US led United Nations Command vetoing required inspections of a prospective inter-Korean railway.
Analysis
North Korea’s lack of current commitment to denuclearization is not an indication of a lack of desire for peace. A formal end to the Korean War has been a top priority goal for Kim for a while. Meanwhile the US continues to beat the war drums. Last week, Secretary of Defense Mattis threatened military drills on the Korean border, a hot point of contention for decades, stating “We took the step to suspend several of the largest exercises as a good-faith measure coming out of the Singapore summit. We have no plans at this time to suspend any more exercises”. Besides the constant mixed messages from US leadership, Trump’s cancellation of the Iran deal proves that US led peace deals are little more than fragile, temporary assurances. Until the Trump administration and US military and diplomatic leadership embrace an authentic strategy of pursuing peace, we will be caught in this this tense game until war is unavoidable.
Resistance Resources
- Women Cross DMZ: Women Cross DMZ is a coalition of activists from around the world, including both North and South Korea, who are calling for a peaceful solution to the Korean conflict.
- 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 Foreign Policy Analyst Colin Shanley; Contact Colin@usresustnews.org
The Case of Paul Manafort—Part 1
The first trial of President Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort has now concluded with his conviction on 8 of 18 counts. A verdict could not be reached on the remaining 10. Manafort has long been a person of interest in the Russian Collusion investigation, stemming from his close ties to Moscow and the work he and Roger Stone did for Trump in the 1980’s as a lobbyist. Black, Manafort, Stone & Kelly, the firm Manafort helped start, lobbied on gambling and real estate issues on behalf of Trump in the 1980’s. The firm also worked on behalf of the Nigerian and Kenyan governments in 1991, who at that point where well known for human rights abuses, as well as Angolan rebels and associates of Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos. It should come as no surprise then Manafort went on much later to work for pro-Russian Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych, helping him win the election in 2010. Yanukovych was ousted from power in 2014. Manafort’s Moscow ties go deeper than his connections to Viktor Yanukovych. Manafort’s tax records from Cyprus, a known tax haven, show that prior to joining the Trump campaign, he was in debt to pro-Russian interests as deeply as $17 million.
Manafort was indicted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller in October of 2017 for 12 counts related to money laundering, tax fraud, and making false statements. In February of this year, a grand jury added additional charges against Manafort and his associate Rick Gates stemming from income tax and bank fraud related to their work for Viktor Yanukovych. This past June, Mueller brought further charges against Manafort, this time for obstruction of justice for trying to influence potential witnesses while out on bail. Subsequently, Judge Amy Berman Jackson revoked Manafort’s bail and ordered he remain in jail pending trial.
After delays and a denied request to change the trial’s location, the first trial began on July 31st (Manafort’s second trial, for money laundering and failing to register as a foreign agent, begins September 17th). On day one, Prosecutors allege that Manafort “believed the law did not apply to him.” Assistant U.S. Attorney Uzo Asonye stated that “A man in the courtroom believed the law did not apply to him, not the tax laws, not the banking laws. That man is the defendant, Paul Manafort.” Asonye further argued that “Paul Manafort placed himself and his money over the law.” Judge Ellis warned Asonye to stick strictly to the evidence, interrupting his description of Manafort’s lavish spending habits. Asonye maintained that Manafort “regularly lied about his business and income, and… directed staffers to file falso tax returns to deceive the U.S. government.” He also argued that Manafort was “Paid handsomely” by oligarchs who funded the campaign.
The prosecution rested its case after 10 days of testimony. The prosecution’s final witness was a Treasury Department agent who testified that “Manafort’s consulting companies did not disclose their foreign bank accounts.” Over two dozen witnesses testified that Manafort earned in the neighbourhood of $60 million as a political consultant for pro-Russian elements in Ukraine, and that the money was stashed in as many as 31 offshore bank accounts. There were also depictions of Manafort’s lavish lifestyle, “half a million dollars [sic] worth of antique rugs, $750,000 spent on landscaping for his $13 million Bridgehampton mansion, and more than $1 million for clothing, including a $15,000 jacket made of ostrich skin.”
Perhaps the most damning testimony came from Rick Gates, who “testified at length about the criminal activity he said he was involved with and at the behest of Manafort, his former business partner.” Government witnesses stated that Manafort hid more than $16 million from the IRS. The defense attempted to portray Rick Gates as the real criminal, and Manafort as merely a patsy. The defense rested without calling any witnesses, claiming that the government “failed to meet its burden of proof.” The defense rested without calling any witnesses.
In closing arguments, defense attorney Richard Westling said that “Manafort became the special counsel’s victim in a ‘selective process of pulling’ his financial records to concoct a narrative of an ‘elaborate fraud scheme.’” The defense’s key strategy seemed to be the discrediting of key witnesses, and the portrayal of Manafort’s’ trial as a targeted attack by special counsel Mueller. Westling urged the jury to “hold the government to its burden,” meaning the burden of proof.
As the date of Manafort’s second trial nears, the stakes are certainly looking even higher for Manafort. When all is said and done, if he is convicted of more of charges brought against him, Manafort is looking at life in prison. Mark Corallo, from Trump’s legal team put it aptly, “the din of the verdict will be deafening.” This has indeed been the case, as Manafort’s conviction seems to have added even more intensity to talks of impeachment, and it would seem that Trump will not be able to passively deny his involvement for much longer.
Whether or not Manafort’s conviction is the first domino remains to be seen, but it does certainly seem to vindicate Mueller. All the while, Trump continues to refrain his now iconic line “rigged witch hunt” all across twitter. Meanwhile, rumors of a presidential pardon continue to swirl. Rudy Giuliani has stated in the past that a pardon is possible, and that the president is fully within his rights to do so. Trump stated publicly that he has considered a Manafort pardon. However, Sarah Sanders later stated in a press brief that Trump is not considering a pardon for Manafort, adding yet another conflicting statement to the ever growing rift between the president’s statements and those of his press secretary.
Manafort’s second trial date is set for September 12th in Washington, D.C. A federal judge refused Manafort’s request to move the trial to Roanoke, and has stated that 12 jurors were found who could judge the case without bias.
This Entry into our Russia Blog post was submitted by Thomas Wesley: Contact: Tom@usreaistnews.org
Trump’s Medicaid Requirements Could Push Thousands Off Healthcare
Brief #42—Health Policy
Policy Summary
This week, the Trump Administration enacted more regulations on Medicaid that would allow smaller states to tighten their eligibility requirements. This could push more people off of the Medicaid plans. The primary issue is the work requirement, which means people currently on Medicaid have to be seeking a job or currently in employment within six months of signing on to the plan. The other requirement is that beneficiaries cannot be participating in illegal drug use and they would be tested before they receive benefits from Medicaid. Since states set the requirements for Medicaid, the compromises and implementation of these requirements will be on a state by state basis. LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis
Most of the states that are planning to change Medicaid requirements are traditionally conservative, so this change wouldn’t be as hard hitting and broad as some other changes Trump has tried to make, especially around the repeal of the Affordable Care Act. However, in states like Kentucky, estimates have said that this could kick off as many as 95,000 people from coverage. This could have disastrous effects, not only to those being direct beneficiaries, but on children and other dependents, who rely on Medicaid for healthcare coverage. Not only that, but it could ultimately cost the healthcare industry and public taxpayers much more if people go without insurance and end up needing healthcare. LEARN MORE
Resistance Resources
- American Physicians Association (APHA)– Donate to this national physicians group dedicated to protecting and advocating for the ACA, read their materials on why the ACA is important.
- As always, contact your state’s elected officials and voice your concerns or support. Regularly check social media to see how you can get involved in local protests and rallies.
Contact
This brief was compiled by Sophia Adams. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact sophia@USResistnews.org
Photo by Marcelo Leal
Executive Order Issued by President Trump Indicates His Stance on Federal Unions
Brief #22—Economic Policy
Policy Summary
Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign was filled with promises that involved helping restore union-dense industries such as coal and manufacturing. With these in mind, as well as his promises regarding infrastructure, it is hardly surprising that his support among union members was quite high. According to the Democracy Journal, the number of union members that voted for Trump was higher than it had been for a Republican presidential nominee since 1984 when Ronald Regan was running.
As has been the case for many of Trump’s campaign promises, though, his alleged commitment to helping unions has proven to be false. His administration has clearly demonstrated its stance on unions through their budget, specifically in its commitment to the two government agencies whose primary purpose is to regulate labor movements. The Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS), a division of the Department of Labor that exists to hold unions accountable for their actions saw their budget increased by $8 million. The National Labor Regulations Board, an agency concerned with accountability on the part of worker employers, on the other hand, saw theirs slashed by $16 million.
May 2018 saw President Trump take a direct aim at federal labor unions when he issued multiple executive orders to strip away the protections issued to federal workers when the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act was passed. The benefits for federal union workers provided by this piece of this legislature included support for union representatives whose jobs involved helping union members file concerns, gain protection when necessary and address problems within the workplace. It was intended to help federal union members organize and bargain as well as have their say in matters involving labor that concerned them.
Prior to President Trump issuing this order, U.S. Office of Personnel Management Director Jeff Pon announced a plan on behalf of the agency’s administration that was intended to slash federal employee compensation by as much as $143 billion. This reduction would be made through considerable changes to the current retirement system. It would mean the elimination of all supplements issued to Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS) members receiving any sort of annuity who retired before becoming eligible for social security. The average number of years on which federal pension plans are based would also be altered and switched from three years to five.
These instances, though, are not the only examples of the Trump administration taking aim at federal employees. This past year also saw the U.S. Department of Education issue a new labor contract that included the elimination of paid time off or union ‘official time.’
Federal unions, though, enjoyed a victory this past Friday when U.S District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson ruled that President Trump’s executive orders exceeded his authority.
Analysis
President Trump’s attempts at curtailing the power of federal unions can likely be traced back to a statement he made during his 2018 State of the Union address. While discussing the importance of accountability, he stated “I call on Congress to empower every Cabinet Secretary with the authority to reward good workers and to remove federal employees who undermine the public trust or fail the American people.”
Given Trump’s blatant attack on federal unions, we are forced to wonder what workers were being rewarded in that case. If his executive is passed, workers would see their already diminished power further stripped away while the corporations that employ them benefit further. These orders would will also make it easier for corporations to exploit the people that work for them and ignore their concerns and complaints, even with their union status. There can be no doubt that such an order would only hurt federal unions and ultimately, the national economy in general. Strong unions have proven a vital component of any healthy economic system but as President Trump has demonstrated multiple times, his commitment is to corporations, not workers.
Trump’s stance on unions could not be clearer. Everything, from the priorities indicated in his administration’s budget to his attempts to reduce union power continuously prove that he will not prioritize anything that helps give power back to America’s workers, despite his many early promises.
Resistance Resources
- The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) is a voluntary federation of 55 national and international labor unions, representing over 12.5 million working men and women.
- Jobs With Justice is a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting worker’s rights and fighting for an economy that benefits everyone.
- The Lawyer Coordinating Committee is an organization that works to connect lawyers with union legal representatives in an attempt to help create and support pro worker laws.
This Brief was submitted by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst Samuel O’Brient. Contact Sam@usresistnews.org
Photo by Anthony Ginsbrook
A Surprising Endorsement in New Jersey’s 7th Congressional District
Brief #12—Gun Control
Policy Summary
As endorsements begin to roll out for candidates in the 2018 midterms, the gun advocacy PAC, Giffords: Courage to Fight Gun Violence, raised eyebrows for two of their endorsements. Specifically, their endorsements of Republican Representatives Leonard Lance and Chris Smith in New Jersey came as a surprise to many as Lance’s reelection is now being contended by Democrats, who haven’t held the seat since 1978. The endorsement highlights Lance’s ideological shift and willingness to work across the aisle.
Analysis
The PAC was founded by Gabby Giffords after she was left wounded by gun violence in 2011 meeting with her constituents. Since 2013, Giffords has been able to enact more than 200 new pieces of gun legislation in 45 states and Washington, D.C. Their main mission is to promote bipartisan solutions to the gun epidemic in America. Here you can find the full list of candidates Giffords endorses.
Their political goal to work towards a bipartisan solution has caused some surprise in New Jersey as Republican incumbent Rep. Lance has been endorsed by Giffords in a race that many are calling a tossup. This endorsement may be enough to give Lance a slight edge over the democratic candidate, Tom Malinowski come November.
Looking at Lance’s record, he has deviated from his party by working on 6 different bills for the advancement of gun control, including banning bump stocks and voting ‘no’ on the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act which would allow concealed carry in any state. In 2012 Rep. Lance campaigned on his high approval rating by the NRA, showing his evolution on common sense gun control in just six years.
Although there is still work to be done to reach bipartisan solutions to America’s ever-growing gun violence epidemic, Giffords works to endorse candidates on both sides of the aisle which in turn can encourage more efficient gun legislation and less inaction by Congress.
Engagement Resources
- March For Our Lives – an organization started after the Parkland school shooting which aims to unify advocates for gun control around relevant issues. You can also find more information about the Road to Change tour on their website. Consider donating or canvassing during the midterm elections on these issues with this organization.
- Everytown – A movement of Americans working to end gun violence and build safer communities.
- Vote.gov – A resource to utilize if you need to register, are unfamiliar with voter ID requirements, or election processes so you can be ready by November.
Contact
This Brief was written by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst Sarah Barton: Sarah@usresistnews.org
Photo by annie bolin
A Broken Student Loan System: Betrayal of the American Dream
Brief #26—Education
Policy Summary
Seth Frotman, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)’s Assistant Director and Student Loan Ombudsman, has resigned after sweeping changes were made in recent months by the Bureau’s new leadership headed by CFPB Director, Mick Mulvaney. Frotman addressed his resignation letter to Mulvaney, who was appointed by President Trump over deputy director Leandra English, stating that the Bureau abandoned the very consumers it was responsible for protecting by: (1) Undercutting enforcement of the law, (2) Undermining the Bureau’s independence, and (3) Shielding bad actors from scrutiny. He accused the Bureau of failing to enforce laws that protect borrowers and suppressing reports illustrating that the largest banks were ripping off students and saddling them with legally dubious account fees. Frotman further stated that the Bureau repeatedly undermined and censored career staff members who were taking action to secure relief for consumers, undercutting the organization’s own independent authority to oversee the market and bending to political pressure instead. According to Frotman, it was clear that the new political appointees had the primary goal of protecting the Trump administration’s investment in special interests and serving “the wishes of the most powerful financial companies in America” at the expense of student borrowers. Frotman’s deputy, Michael Pierce, also resigned on Monday. LEARN MORE
Last year, Navient (the nation’s largest student loan servicer) was involved in lawsuits filed by a federal regulator and two state attorneys general. According to the complaint, Navient has misled and misinformed its 12 million borrowers for years, charging students dubious fees and illegally cheating borrowers out of their rights to lower payments in order to drive up debt. There were routine oversight lapses adding up to systematic failures, similar to the mortgage servicing industry’s bungling of borrower accounts and property foreclosures during the 2008 recession. LEARN MORE
Mulvaney’s personal relationship with Navient remains dubious at best. Earlier this year, Mulvaney announced that Frotman’s office would be dismantled and folded into the financial education unit. The student loan office was created after the 2008 financial crisis and has reimbursed borrowers who suffered from illegal lending practices and servicing failures with $750 million. CFPB was also ending an effort to consider new rules for companies that collect student loan payments. Additionally, the Education Department further cut off information-sharing agreements with CFPB, accusing it of overstepping its authority of overseeing student loans.
Analysis
Today, 42 million student borrowers collectively owe $1.5 trillion dollars. Frotman’s resignation draws enormous attention to the sweeping changes in the Department of Education under the Trump administration. In Paying the Price, education scholar and professor Sara Goldrick-Rab describes the crisis facing millions of students as the “new economics of college.” Although a college degree has now become mandatory in order to access the middle class and to rise out of poverty, Goldrick-Rab points out how the U.S. has repeatedly failed to create a realistic financing system for students to obtain their degrees. In many cases, students straddle the medium where their family income is too high to qualify for federal student loans but too low to pay for the full costs of college tuition, forcing these students to take out private loans with high interest rates from banks instead. Just as the nation values a high school education for everyone, college education should be thought of as a collective responsibility in an increasingly educated workforce.
For-profit industries operate as voucher-driven models, allowing private providers to exploit students with less scrutiny and no public governance. Such providers often recruit students through mass marketing and the media; yet, rarely provide a quality education for students, most of whom lack equitable access to forms of payment other than loans and who are often low-income and/or students of color. Repaying loans is challenging enough without powerful financial servicers adding to the burden with their own incompetence and knowingly insidious practices. Furthermore, unlike other products, student loans are not typically underwritten based on the borrower’s ability to repay at loan origination. Because repayment is based on a quality education which leads to employment, there should be a process to ensure that for-profit programs are of sufficient quality that they do not burden students with enormous debt that cannot be repaid.
In a thorough 2018 study by Goldrick-Rab titled Still Hungry and Homeless in College, data revealed that 1 in 3 students at four year colleges and 40-50% of students at community colleges have gone hungry while enrolled at college. In the wealthiest country in the world, it is outrageous and nonsensical that our students are being forced to choose between receiving an education and their basic sustenance.
Resources
- Center for Responsible Lending – A nonprofit, non-partisan organization that works to protect homeownership and family wealth by fighting predatory lending practices.
- Young Invincibles – Research and advocacy organization focused on advancing economic opportunity for young adults
- Chronicle of Higher Education – Leading source of news, information, and jobs for college and university faculty members and administrators.
- Inside Higher Ed – Leading digital media company serving the higher education space.
This Brief was developed by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst Tina Lee. Contact: Tina@usresistnews.org
Photo by Andre Hunter
President Disregards America’s Tradition of Offering Asylum
Brief #50—Immigration
Policy Summary
In accordance with the travel ban covered in Brief 46, Trump claims he wants to “ensure that we are not admitting into our country the very threats our soldiers are fighting overseas.” Trump finds it absurd that the US offers refuge and asylum when “no other country” does it. In June 2018, Trump announced that it would order the US Immigration Courts to stop granting asylum to victims of domestic abuse and gang violence who come to the US seeking safety. Attorney General, Jeff Sessions backed this by saying survivors of “private crimes” were not eligible for asylum in the US.
There are over 100,000 people in line to be processed for resettlement in the US during this fiscal year. Many of them have already made it through the intense vetting process and have waited years only to be told they must endure another waiting period. Now, they must wait again. Upon leaving their home because of discrimination, a woman and her husband and 6 kids had fled Sudan to Jordan only to be rejected by the US. She went on to tell reporters, “to be discriminated by a nation we see our future in, is so disheartening.”
Analysis
The US has been a symbol of hope, equality and a light at the end of a tunnel since its founding; a nation built on immigrants through and through. The American Dream is well-known around the world for individuals who want to start a new life, grow their business, give their children a better life, and especially those in danger or escaping their homeland in search of refuge. Individuals such as the woman from Sudan who fled her homeland due to violent prejudices only to face more discrimination from the one nation she had laid all her hope in prove how strong the notion of the American Dream is. She endured so much in the hopes that an end to her struggles would be found in the sanctuary that is the US and to turn away individuals like her would be to bury the American Dream as it has become known to the world and discount how far our immigrant ancestors have come.
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 Jose Fontano
Judge Demands Stalled Deportations and a Plan Amidst Chaotic Reunification Process
Brief #49—Immigration
Policy Summary
On August 16, Federal Judge Sabraw of San Diego extended a freeze on deportations of recently reunited families. Prior to the court ordered reunification of families who were separated at the US-Mexico Border in accordance with Trump’s Zero Tolerance Policy, Judge Sabraw banned the deportation of parents who had children taken from them at the border and were being held in US Custody. Referring to Brief #47, the US Government still deported a sizable amount of parents without their children upon varying grounds. Sabraw and the ACLU – an organization that has remained a prevalent advocate for individuals seeking asylum and unaccompanied minors at the border – discussed the potential of bringing back deported parents who were forced to leave without their children to pursue asylum with them. ACLU representative, Lee Gelernt was a strong advocate for this and voiced that those who were deported should be allowed to return to accompany their children through the asylum process, especially those who were misled to believe that if they agreed to deportation they would be reunited with their children. In the week of frozen deportations, lawyers can make the trying decision of whether an adult should be deported with their child(s) or to allow a minor to remain in the US to pursue the possible right to stay.
Thus, the next day, on August 17, Judge Sabraw ordered that the government alongside the ACLU shall devise a structured plan to address the rights of parents and children who were separated at the southern US border. Claiming that delaying deportations does not “unfairly or unduly tax available government resources,” Sabraw believes it is the morally correct and just thing to do throughout this process as there are numerous families fleeing their homeland violence and thus should have their stories heard while they seek asylum. The government is opposed to delaying deportation because parents ‘waived’ the rights of their children to pursue asylum after the adults signed – many unknowingly and under duress – deportation forms.
Separating families in the first place violated their rights as a family, so Sabraw felt the need to reiterate his points, as he had already ordered a delay in deportations that was taken lightly. There are still around 70 children who were separated at the border that have not yet been reunited with their parents because they cannot be identified and/or located; 3 weeks after the court first ordered the US Government to reunite families.
Analysis
In many regards, the need for a structured plan to address the rights of parents and children is a necessary step regardless of any prior events. As the Trump Administration had already proven challenged in reuniting families for a multitude of reasons, as they struggled to meet their deadline(s). What is more disheartening is that Judge Sabraw, had to firmly reiterate his call for an extension of deportations as it was essentially ignored in his last Executive Order (a week before deportations and dates for reunification). In a nation that is built upon immigrants and stands for liberty and justice, Sabraw should not have had to explain the rationale for stalling deportations of parents with children who were still in Federal Custody, let alone, repeat himself. Separating families should not have been a matter of parties or a difference in withstanding political views, but that of a moral dilemma. As Sabraw said, “no matter how nice the environment is, it’s the act of separation from a parent, particularly with young children, that matters, and it’s time that is the issue.”
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.
- 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.
- 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.
Photo by tom coe
Who Should Decide Industry Standards For Privacy Recognition Software To Prevent Misuse and Abuse?
Brief #56—Civil Rights
Policy Summary: In July 2018, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) published a blog post about the results of an experiment they conducted using Amazon.com’s facial recognition software known as “Rekognition.” The ACLU purchased the software directly from Amazon.com just as an ordinary purchaser would and then used Amazon’s recommended default settings to build a face database and search tool. The ACLU used a publicly available database of 25,000 arrest mugshots for its face database. The ACLU then scanned photos of every current Member of Congress. 28 Members of Congress were falsely identified as having previously committed a crime. LEARN MORE
Analysis: The results of the ACLU’s bold experiment appear to have set the stage for a battle on the future of facial recognition software. Amazon.com has been engaged in the testing, marketing and sale of its facial recognition software since late 2016 and since that time Congress had been reluctant to get involved in the policy discussion regarding the use of the technology tool. In response to the test conducted by the ACLU, Amazon.com released a statement that said, “The ACLU continues to distort the facts to suit [its] purposes.” The statement went on to list the successes the tool has had in helping to find missing children, fight human trafficking, fight financial fraud as well as a number of other incidents that contributed to public safety. On July 27, 2018, twenty – five Members of Congress co – signed a letter to Amazon.com CEO Jeff Bezos asking him to address the concerns of the software’s impact on communities of color. While Congress finally waded into the issue of facial recognition technology, although belatedly and only after being prodded by the ACLU’s test, it was Amazon.com’s response that caught everyone’s attention.
In a blog post, Amazon.com stated, “It is a very reasonable idea, however, for the government to weigh in and specify what temperature (or confidence levels) it wants law enforcement agencies to meet to assist in their public safety work.” This statement referred to the recommended confidence level setting that users of the software should use because the confidence level setting determines the rate of error. A higher setting should logically have a lower error rate while a lower setting increases the chances of false positive matches, as when the ACLU’s test (conducted at a lower setting) falsely identified members of Congress of having committed a crime. This is significant because Amazon.com was now stating that the government and law enforcement agencies alone should determine any standards for the proper use of the software. However, this is contrary to what Amazon had been doing when they had been marketing the software to law enforcement agencies. They had been recommending to the government the proper setting to use to prevent inaccurate face matches but now it was being forced to backtrack when Members of Congress were falsely identified. The contrary actions and statement by Amazon illustrate that the next stage in the future of facial recognition technology is going to be what standards will be implemented to prevent abuse and who will ultimately decide on those standards – the government or the tech companies themselves. The decision is far from settled and could have far reaching consequences. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – petition to try and persuade Amazon from selling the software.
- Electronic Frontier Foundation – non – profit group webpage on mass surveillance technology issues.
- Electronic Privacy Information Center – non – profit group webpage on domestic surveillance issues.
This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org
Photo by Illia Cherednychenko
