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
Making a Splash in Trumpland

Making a Splash in Trumpland

Brief #34—Environment

Summary
In 2010, after the deadliest and most expensive offshore oil spill in U.S. history, the “Deepwater Horizon” spill, former U.S. president, Barack Obama, implemented a policy to ensure that a conservation council would advocate conservation and sustainable use of US waters. The Bureau of Ocean management called Obama’s policy, “the most aggressive and comprehensive reforms to offshore oil and gas regulation and oversight in U.S. history,” as the policy sought to effectively protect large bodies of water from environmental hazard such as oil spills. President Trump is now rolling back that plan with an executive order in order to “[roll] back excessive bureaucracy created by the previous administration.” In the new policy, states will be given much more authority on how to manage offshore oil and gas drilling, while also being able to prioritize regional business interests first and foremost. This comes as a massive rollback to the Obama-era plan, which had sought to limit where and how energy companies could drill for offshore energy.

Analysis
The impact of the Trump administration’s decision to rollback Obama-era ocean protections are as significant as they are dangerous. The policy allows states to prioritize business interests in natural resource extraction over conservation, which makes it likely for states to engage in this practice in order to bolster their individual economies, which too will widen pathways to further destruction. As climate scientists have proven, damage to the ocean—otherwise known as the world’s largest ecosystem—only reduces its possibility to remove carbon from the atmosphere and generate oxygen for living organisms, the supply of which is vital to human survival. The rollback, too, comes on the heels of FEMA ending funding for more than 1,700 Puerto Ricans and Americans displaced by Hurricane Maria, a disaster which occurred as a consequence of climate change, and made catastrophic by insufficient policy provisions. More still, a recent book put forward by climate reporter, Elizabeth Rush, suggests that as sea levels rise, Florida is at risk being flooded, a scenario which would wipe out and/or force its population to migrate outside of the state. The potential scenario in Southern California’s coastal communities does not fare much better, as scientists anticipate losing 130 feet of sea-cliffs as water levels rise. Despite this, it does not appear that the Trump administration intends to prioritize the environment in future policy-making decisions, already proposing to rollback another Obama-era policy protecting smaller enclaves of water from pollution. Let’s hope that Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Resort club in Florida won’t have to flood in order for his administration to review its environmental priorities.

Engagement Resources:

  • Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) – a charity collective of lawyers and scientists who defend and protect the environment from pollution and corporate greed.
  • Marine Megafauna Foundation – a marine research group that brings scientific discovery to the government and the public in order to create effective environmental protections.

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

President Trump Suggests Depriving Immigrants of Constitutional Due Process Protections

President Trump Suggests Depriving Immigrants of Constitutional Due Process Protections

Brief #47—Civil Rights

Policy Summary
On June 24, 2018, President Donald Trump tweeted remarks that suggested that immigrants who cross the border into the United States be denied certain legal protections. In his tweet, the President said, “We cannot allow all of these people to invade our country. When somebody comes in, we must immediately, with no judges or court cases, bring them back from where they came.” Section One of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution says “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Analysis
The current heated debate regarding immigration in the United States today has ignited interest in the framework of laws that apply to immigrants who are physically inside or trying to enter the United States. The June 24 tweet by President Trump appears to have been a trial balloon to gauge whether there would be any interest in implementing a policy along the lines of what the President suggested. Even if President Trump floated the idea, the fact of the matter is that the suggestion of depriving illegal aliens of legal rights is contrary to American Supreme Court case law that goes back nearly one hundred and thirty years. The key term in the 14th Amendment (and in the Fifth Amendment, the companion due process clause applicable to the Federal Government) is the word “person.” The term clearly applies to each and every person. It does not distinguish persons based on their citizenship, their race or any other differing factor. The only criterion to be eligible for protection under the Amendments, such as due process of law, is to be a human being.

The Supreme Court reiterated this long accepted principle in the 2001 case Zadvydas v. Davis. It stated that illegal aliens are entitled to “due process” even when their presence may be “unlawful, involuntary or transitory.” Due process does not mean that the United States must give the immigrants what they wish for which in these cases means permanent entry into the United States. But since the U.S. is looking to deprive immigrants of this liberty interest, due process means that the government must follow established legal procedures before they are denied entry into the U.S. Due process thus ensures that every person’s situation must be given a fair chance to be heard, competent legal counsel to advocate on their behalf and a neutral decision maker (usually a judge) that will rule on their petition to enter. President Trump’s suggestion appears to be nothing more than an appeal to his voting base and does not seem likely to have any effect on this well – established and universally accepted legal principle as applied to immigrants seeking to enter the U.S. 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 Cole Patrick

The United States Leaves the UN Human Rights Council

The United States Leaves the UN Human Rights Council

Brief #44—Foreign Policy

Policy Summary
On June 19th, Mike Pompeo announced that the United States was finally following through on threats to depart from the United Nations Human Rights Council, calling it “an exercise in shameless hypocrisy – with many of the world’s worst human rights abuses going ignored and most serious offenders sit on the council sitting on the council itself”. While one concern of US Ambassador Nikki Haley and the White House included the closed election system which allowed candidates to join the council without an open vote, the primary contention was what Haley called “unending hostility towards Israel”. While Haley previously insisted the agenda of the US was to reform the council rather than leave it, she refused to cooperate with an effort led by the Netherlands to reduce the number of resolutions passed against Israel. One of the more controversial examples included a 2016 resolution which condemned a number of mostly US and Israeli businesses which had invested in illegal Israeli settlements in the West bank. Since the council’s inception in 2006, it has passed 310 country specific resolutions, with 76 targeting Israel. The final straw came earlier in June when the council voted 120 to 8 condemning Israel’s massacre of Palestinians peacefully protesting the occupation of their land.

Analysis
Leaving the Human Rights Council is par for the course for this administration. Trump has pursued an agenda of complete seclusion from the world, interacting only through threats and ultimatums rather than treaties and cooperative diplomacy. Since the last election we have most notably withdrawn from the Paris Climate Change Acord, the Iran Nuclear Deal, UNESCO, and all global health programs which support abortion rights. This isn’t to say there aren’t issues within the council which warrant attention. The membership of human rights abusers such as Saudi Arabia and China in an anti-human rights abuse organization is hypocritical. Of course this isn’t Trump or Haley’s true concern. Their issue is with the council working as it should: allowing a certain amount of international democracy in the condemnation of human rights abuses rather than filtering such moral conversation solely through the channels of those in power.

The United States has never been the champion of human rights that Nikki Haley would like us to believe. We have supported Israel and Saudi Arabia both economically and militarily in what borders on ethnic cleansing in Palestine and Yemen. US ships enforce the embargoes which have created a critical lack of clean water in the Gaza Strip and the worst cholera outbreak in history in Yemen. Trump has complimented and allied himself with authoritarian human rights abusers such as The Philippines’ Rodrigo Duterte, Turkey’s Recep Erdogan, and of course Russia’s Vladimir Putin. The US has used their position in the council to vote against a resolution decrying the use of the death penalty against LBGTQ citizens. A recent UN report highlighted the humanitarian concerns of economic conditions within the United States, citing our position as the country with the highest income inequality and lowest intergenerational social mobility among Western countries. With our historical willingness to overlook glaring human rights abuses within our borders and commit them overseas, any moral condemnation of corruption within the Human Rights Council rings hollow. This is only another tactical move from a government wholly uninterested in the ideals America prides itself upon.

Engagement Resources

  • Donate to the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights: The USCPR is an organization founded in 2001 with the mission of shifting US policy towards recognizing the human rights of Palestinians.
  • Learn More About Domestic Human Rights Issues Caused by the Trump Administration: Philip Alston is the UN official which published the recent report examining how the economic policy of our political establishment has led to inhumane living conditions for low income Americans. You can listen to his interview on Democracy Now here.


This Brief was prepared by U.S. RESIST NEWS Foreign Policy Analyst Colin Shanley. For further information contact Colin@usresistnews.org

Photo by Rob Bye

Trump’s Zero Tolerance Policy Impacts Mental Health of Migrant Children

Trump’s Zero Tolerance Policy Impacts Mental Health of Migrant Children

Brief #37—Health

Policy Summary
Due to the recent Trump policies enforcing a “Zero Tolerance” immigration stance, children have been separated and detained against their will from their parents at the border and around the country. This policy is troubling not only for its civil and human rights violation, but also the horrendous and long-term effects on the mental health of the children. One magazine suggests such traumatic experiences will create angrier and more aggressive children, and can even lower the IQs of these children.  Children have additionally been reported to have been drugged in these facilities, which can be deeply harmful to  long term mental health.  These behaviors are classified under an “adverse childhood experience” (ACE).

Analysis
These zero tolerance policies are deeply disturbing and anti-American. Even more appalling are the long term effects of these traumatic experiences on children. Children will suffer incredibly difficult lives because the psychological effects of these detention centers, and the stress of possible deportation.  Research psychologists consider ACE to seriously affect children in their future lives as well, making it harder for them to obtain and keep jobs, stay in school, and ultimately keep people living below the poverty line and more reliant on government assistance. At a certain point some country will have to carry the social burden for the children affected by the “Zero Tolerance” Policy. If the US decides to keep these children the moral burden will be upon us. If these children are deported, their home countries, although ill equipped to do so, will have the responsibility handed to them.LEARN MORE

Resistance Resources

Photo By Eric Gay/Associated Press

When the Second Amendment Threatens the First

When the Second Amendment Threatens the First

Policy Summary
Thursday marked yet another tragedy attributed to premeditated gun violence. This time, it occurred in the offices of the Capital Gazette in Annapolis, Maryland. Jarrod Ramos, the suspect, entered the news room with a legally purchased shotgun. He fatally wounded five and injured others. He had previously been charged with stalking and harassing a woman which included sending death threats. Ramos had a muddled and long history with the newspaper – sending angry messages and threats over social media as well as filing a defamation case against the paper in 2012 after an article was written about him for harassing a woman. He has been charged with five counts of first-degree murder, according to CNN.

Analysis
In yet another act of senseless violence, innocent lives were taken at the hands of an individual who should not have been given access to a firearm. The suspect had a criminal record of stalking and harassing as well as sending threats to the newspaper via social media for years.

Republican lawmakers often push blame to mental health issues after tragedies such as these occur. Why then, in an event like this with clear indications of mental instability, are Republican lawmakers only sending ‘thoughts and prayers’? Why is there inaction on providing improved mental health resources, or upgrading systems that prevent dangerous individuals from having access to guns?

While hypocrisy and inaction on the behalf of lawmakers can cause frustration, this isn’t a helpless moment. It is important instead to use this as an opportunity to coalesce into affecting change. Midterms are four months away. Don’t get mad, vote.

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.
  • GoFundMe – A GoFundMe campaign has been started to help the journalists of the Capital Gazette
  • 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: Rux Centea

Supreme Court Protects Cell Phone Privacy Rights

Supreme Court Protects Cell Phone Privacy Rights

Brief #46—Civil Rights

Policy Summary
On June 22, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in the Carpenter v. U.S. case. The question before the Court was whether the warrantless search and seizure of cell phone records, including location and movements of the cell phone user, violates the Fourth Amendment. In order to physically place Timothy Carpenter and his accomplices near the location of a number of robberies in the Michigan and Ohio area, law enforcement personnel acquired his cell phone records from his cell phone provider company. His cell phone helped to determine his location and proximity to the robberies because his phone sent digital data to cell phone towers that were in the vicinity of the robberies. Law enforcement did not request or execute a search warrant but simply asked the cell phone provider company to hand over the info of Mr. Carpenter’s cell phone records. This information was critical in helping to convict him. The U.S. Court of Appeal for the Sixth Circuit ruled in favor of the government in Mr. Carpenter’s appeal of his conviction. He appealed to the Supreme Court and the Court, in a 5 – 4 decision, reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Analysis
The decision in the Carpenter case is a landmark decision for the future of digital and privacy rights in the United States. Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion examined two distinct legal concepts and was able to resolve the potential conflict that did not automatically favor law enforcement interests over individual interests. Chief Justice Roberts went on to explain that traditionally a person moving about in public does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in those movements and can be tracked and monitored by law enforcement without a warrant. But technology and cell phones has now enabled law enforcement to not merely monitor a person’s movements but to go back in time and collect a complete history of a person’s movements going back months and even years. If no warrant was required to acquire this digital information, then it seemed that law enforcement would rarely, if ever, ask for a search warrant because they could claim they are merely monitoring a person’s movements in public.

Chief Justice Roberts then analyzed the “third – party doctrine” a legal concept that states “a person has no expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily hands over to third parties.” A literal reading of this legal rule would appear to side with the government, as they would then be permitted to acquire a person’s cell phone records without the requirement of a warrant. Chief Justice Roberts reasoned that these two lines of legal jurisprudence did not apply to the cell phone records of this case because of the “unique nature” of cell phone records and the massive amounts of personal information people carry on their cell phones, which has become “indispensable to participation in modern society.” He reasoned that people would not expect law enforcement to have the ability to track their public movements over an extended period of time as the technology of cell phones permit. And, he reasoned that a person who carries a cell phone does not voluntarily hand over his cell phone data but shares the info “abstractly” and without an “affirmative act on his part.” This means that if law enforcement wants to acquire cell phone records in a criminal investigation it must comply with the probable cause and warrant requirements of searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment. Chief Justice Roberts summed it perfectly when he said the state does not have “unrestricted access to a wireless carrier’s database of physical location information.” 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: Anthony Garand

The Parkland Students’ Road to Change

The Parkland Students’ Road to Change

Brief #7 — Gun Control

Policy Summary
Four months after the Parkland shooting and three after the March For Our Lives, the students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School are continuing their advocacy efforts by launching a summer-long nationwide tour aimed at mobilizing and registering young voters while simultaneously generating and sustaining awareness around gun violence. The tour, known as Road to Change, will include 75 stops, according to CNN, in areas that have been affected by gun violence as well as in culturally pro-gun areas to ‘call out’ candidates who accept donations from the NRA. The tour also stops in every one of Florida’s 27 Congressional districts. The tour endorses no candidates, but instead is meant as a way to excite and involve young voters as the midterm elections approach.

Analysis
As primaries approach and midterms ensue, mobilization and registration of young voters is the pinnacle of importance for candidates looking for support of the younger generation – particularly as it relates to gun control. Historically, midterm election turnout is low, and even lower for young voters, typically disadvantageous to Democratic candidates (many of whom are pro-gun control). The Road to Change tour will continue the conversation of supporting sensible gun legislation while also encouraging young voters to politically engage in upcoming elections.

This tour gives the Parkland students a chance to extend the gun violence conversation through the summer. Although frequently in the past gun control discussions fade quickly after mass shootings, the students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas have been able to continue to breathe life into the conversation long after tragedy. First with March For Our Lives, and now with the national tour, the students are continuing to mobilize and energize the next generation in a way that has previously failed.

By simultaneously calling out pro-gun candidates and touring districts with strong ties to the Second Amendment, the Road to Change tour will aim to keep their electrifying momentum and encourage young voters to show up to the polls in November.

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.

 This Brief was prepared by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst Sarah Barton

Photo by Heather Mount

Gerrymandering and the Supreme Court: A Review of Recent Rulings

Gerrymandering and the Supreme Court: A Review of Recent Rulings

Brief #44—Civil Rights

Policy Summary
On September 12, 2017, the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling that temporarily prevented implementation of a federal district court ruling that found state electoral districts in Texas were illegally drawn to suppress minority voters. This ruling comes on the heels of the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2017 decision to agree to hear a case from Wisconsin, Whitford v. Gill. That case is similar to the case from Texas in that voters are challenging the way a state draws it’s electoral districts because of the way certain groups of voters are favored over other groups of voters in order to give one party (in both states, the Republican Party) an unfair and even unconstitutional advantage over the other political party. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Analysis: Gerrymandering is an American political tactic that dates back nearly 200 years. The premise is simple – to draw state electoral districts and congressional districts in such as a way as to ensure that a candidate of a particular political party will have a very good chance of winning. Districts are constitutionally required to be roughly equal in terms of population, and they usually are, but the unusual shapes of certain districts – with elongated arms and hooks that curve around illogically  – are often intentionally drawn that way so as to favor Republican or Democratic candidates.

The current problem is that the drawing of electoral districts are being manipulated and not representative of how the electorate is voting in the state. For example, in Wisconsin Republican legislators re-drew the electoral map after they came to power in 2010. When the 2012 election came around Republicans in Wisconsin won 49 percent of all votes cast statewide in congressional elections but ended up winning 63 percent of the congressional seats. In this map of recent trends, the states of Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin show more Democratic votes than Republican overall but less Democratic congressional seats. Why are states that have more Democratic voters sending less Democrats and more Republicans to Congress? The answer lies in which political party is currently in power and how they choose to draw the electoral maps of their state. The hope is that the Supreme Court will take the Whitford v. Gill case and articulate a framework to determine when “gerrymandering” crosses the line and becomes unconstitutional. Each and every vote should count and should be reflective of what the electorate wants instead of allowing the process to be manipulated by legislative leaders in order to suppress votes from minority communities and keep their party in power. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Update
On January 9, 2017 a federal three – judge panel in North Carolina blocked the implementation of North Carolina’s proposed congressional district map because it was deemed unconstitutional. The court found that the drawing of congressional districts by the North Carolina Legislature were motivated by “invidious partisan intent” and were intended to give the Republicans an advantage in sending congressional candidates to Washington over Democratic candidates. This decision is key because it is the first time a federal court has ruled against partisan gerrymandering. Also, it signals that gerrymandering based on party politics and efforts to suppress votes in order to give Republican candidates an edge will likely no longer be tolerated. With this decision and the Whitford v. Gill case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court, voters may now see the court articulate rules that will prevent states from forcing candidates from a preferred political party on constituents. The hope is that the selection of congressional representatives will be more reflective of the voting trends in the state rather than a product of political party manipulation by state legislatures.  LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Update #2
On June 18, 2018, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion in the highly anticipated gerrymandering case Gill v. Whitford. In an unexpected 9 – 0 decision, the high court avoided issuing an opinion on the merits of the case and instead rendered a decision that focused on the plaintiff’s “standing” to bring the case. The legal doctrine of standing requires that a plaintiff’s case not be hypothetical and that he/she demonstrate that they “prove concrete and particularized injuries” and that they have “a personal stake in the outcome.” This opinion is disappointing because the court seemed to imply that the trial evidence showing harm to voters in Wisconsin was not sufficient to show that the district maps drawn by the Republicans in power harmed individual voters. The reasoning of the court is suspect considering that this case began when Republicans manipulated the drawing of state district maps to win 60 of 99 Wisconsin State Assembly seats (more than half) despite only winning 46% of the total votes cast statewide.

Fortunately, Justice Elena Kagan wrote a concurring opinion that agreed with the majority opinion’s decision to vacate and remand the case but provided a roadmap to succeed on cases of this kind in the future. Her opinion provided information on how a future plaintiff could satisfy “standing” and proceed with a case on either a vote dilution or a First Amendment Right of Association theory. Throughout the text of the opinions in the case, it is clear that the court recognizes “gerrymandering” as a problem that needs to be reined in despite disagreements on how to do that. Once the issue of “standing” and “sufficient proof of harm” are resolved on remand at trial, with Justice Kagan’s informative concurring opinion on the best legal theory to proceed with, a future Court should finally be able to address and articulate a legal standard that prevents future re-districting abuses, hopefully sooner rather than later. 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 Claire Anderson

Trump Forced to End Family Separation at United States/Mexico Border

Trump Forced to End Family Separation at United States/Mexico Border

Brief #45—Immigration

Policy Summary
On June 20, 2018, the people were heard (haza!) and President Trump signed an executive order (“EO”) temporarily ending the immigration procedure of separating children from their parents. Section 1 of the EO states that the Trump Administration’s policy is “to maintain family unity, including by detaining alien families together where appropriate and consistent with law and available resources.” Section 3, titled Temporary Detention Policy for Families Entering this Country Illegally, states that during the pendency of status determinations, “The Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary), shall, to the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, maintain custody of alien families . . . .” Wonderful, children will not be separated from their parents upon apprehension. Not wonderful, they are just moving from cages to criminal custody.

Since 1997, a bedrock legal limit set by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in Flores v. Session, is that children (those under 18 years of age) are not permitted to be criminally detained for more than twenty (20) days. Hence the EO section’s title of “Temporary Detention Policy . . .” According to Flores, children must be separated from their parents on the 21st day and sent back in DHHS custody – which is the root of our current need for change. But, President Trump anticipated this criticism, and included subsection (e) to the Temporary Detention Policy.

In this section 3(e), Trump orders Attorney General Jeff Sessions to “promptly file a request with the [Flores court] in a manner that would permit the Secretary, under present resource constraints, to detain alien families together throughout the pendency of criminal proceedings for improper entry or any removal or other immigration proceedings.” Children will thus follow their parents in the detention process. If granted, does this mean that the sponsorship system will no longer apply because the children are no longer in DHHS custody? Are children being sent to jail with their parents? Are children being criminally prosecuted as adults? How are we supposed to analyze quickly enough to produce solutions protecting their human rights?

Analysis
A wise scholar (and doctor) once said that when dealing with the federal government, “strive to give six and take four.” Adopting her wisdom, we can consider Trump’s June 20th executive order in the “four” column. Positive light must shine on the recent humanitarian success before diving into the darkness. The voice of Americans around the country effectively ended the procedure of separating children from their parents! We are Trump’s kryptonite; democracy at its finest.

Now, the policy ended because President Trump issued an executive order. An EO is essentially an order from a boss to its employees. It provides direction to civil servants under the Executive Branch. Senate Democrat Leader Chuck Schumer of New York preferred an executive order over legislation due to its efficiency and quick implementation measures.

In line with Schumer, President Trump expressly refused to sign any Senate or House bill considering a termination of the separation policy. For weeks Trump stated that he was forced to separate families due to laws enacted by Democrats. If that was so, how are the people supposed to rationalize the fact that today Trump signed an executive order ending the policy he previously said he was forced to enforce? Again, it is crucial to identify intent to prepare for what follows – and we know it is generally not pleasant.

Enacting legislation is an act of Congress, the Legislative Branch. Brilliantly, our Legislative Branch’s power is separate from the Executive Branch, which is where Trump and immigration policy call home.  (Immigrant courts are part of the Justice Department and also considered part of the Executive branch.)However, the power of media informed the world of the vile inhumanity implemented on families and children due to the Trump Administration.

Trump knew something needed to happen, and to Trump, an executive order is superior to legislation because it is within his executive power. Although he may not have known that “Nambia” is not a country, we can strongly assume Trump is aware of where and how he can use his executive authority. Now, the current immigration policy via the EO was created by the President, which can thus be changed by the President, or terminated by the President. Allowing Congress to enact immigration legislation takes power away from the Executive. Trump wants to consolidate power, not separate it.

Remember what the President said about murderous dictator Kim Jung Un: “He Speaks and his people sit up in attention. I want my people to do the same.” Trump is greatly mistaken. We are not “his people,” he is “our president.” He works for us. And the people will rise, but they will be ordering Trump’s attention.

Resistance Resources

This Brief was developed by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst J.R. Phillip: Contact Justin@usresistnews.org

Photo By: Daniel Apodaca

Trump Backpedals on Coal

Trump Backpedals on Coal

Brief #33—Environment

Summary
On May 29th, the Trump Administration circulated a confidential document, which was then leaked by an outside source, proposing that the American government intervene within American energy markets. As a result, the program has prompted Donald Trump to order Energy Secretary Rick Perry to “prepare immediate steps” to halt the closures of unprofitable coal and nuclear plants throughout the United States. The recent bail out prioritizes the interests of corporate, big coal and nuclear plants, while also temporarily securing the jobs of workers in the industry. Prominent financial analysts have consistently reported  that coal mines are neither economical nor efficient and estimate that the coal bailout will benefit corporations far more than energy consumers, who are likely to see their electric bills surge as a result. Yet, the lobbying by corporations such as FirstEnergy Corp. and Murray Energy Co. have suggested that it is in “the public interest” to keep these plants open.

Analysis:
One of Trump’s major campaign promises was to help the coal industry, and in effect its workers. This pledge, along with Trump’s allegiance to certain corporations, also gives rise to the coal bailout that many environmentalists have been swift to condemn. The decision, which is said to be in the name of those working in the coal industry is at odds with the government’s failure to properly fund health coverage for coal miners afflicted with black lung disease. The Black Lung Disability Trust Fund, which was founded by the government in 1982 and currently helps 15,000 miners with their medical bills and living expenses, is nearly $4 billion dollars in debt and its budget is expected to be cut 55% more by the end of this year. More still, the decision made by the Republican president to aid failing coal plants does contradict the advocacy efforts of several other Republican leaders, who favor solar energy due to cost-efficiency, primarily. Failing coal plants like Xcel Energy in Colorado, recently revealed a plan to replace two retiring coal plans with clean energy, giving rise to the growing national effort to support green energy.

Emissions from greenhouse gases such as coal, are said to be responsible for climate change, and the environmental ramifications of the industry are continuing to spark uproar worldwide. The existence of a Chinese coal plant located on a UNESCO-protected island in Kenya recently incited major protests in the capital and is thought to be the “first anti-coal demonstration in Nairobi”. These sentiments have also reverberated across the world to the United States, where thousands of members of the Poor People’s Campaign have been arrested over the last 40 days for their activism in state capitols, arguing that the effects of climate change disproportionately affect the poor. And while the coal battle appears uphill, many reports suggest that the effort to save coal plants is ultimately futile, due to their untenability in the face of sustainable green energy.

Engagement Resources:

  • Beyond Coal – is a product of the Environmental advocacy group, The Sierra Club, which organizes action events and petitions, while also publicizing information regarding pollution due to coal
  • Poor People’s Campaign – an advocacy group created during the Civil Rights Movement, promoting the fighting of “poverty not the poor”

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.

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