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

 

Democracy at risk

By Joseph E. Stiglitz, Originally published in the Boston Globe For those of my generation — born before or during the World War against fascism and who’ve seen the victory of the West over Soviet totalitarianism — the idea that democracy would once again be at risk...

read more
Jobs01 e1489352304814
Domestic Abuse and Gang Violence No Longer Grounds For Asylum

Domestic Abuse and Gang Violence No Longer Grounds For Asylum

Brief #44—Immigration

Policy Summary
On June 11, 2018, the Trump administration flexed its executive muscles adding another brick to its wall of immigration policy. Attorney General Jeff Sessions stated that individuals escaping domestic abuse and/or gang violence alone will no longer qualify for asylum in the United States. That includes individuals seeking United States protection from systemic murder, rape, slavery, and human rights violations. According to Sessions, the home country’s government must, in addition to being unable or unwilling to help, have condoned the private actions or demonstrated an inability to protect the claimant. As discussed later, these are murky waters perfect for manipulation by bottom feeders like the Trump Administration.

Analysis:
Under U.S. immigration law, asylum is granted to someone at the U.S. border or within the U.S. who meets the definition of a refugee. “Refugee” is defined by the Refugee Act of 1980 and the U.N. 1967 Protocol. Like many important laws, it is vague; and, in the U.S. it is at the interpretation of the Executive Branch. Immigration courts are under the control of the Justice Department. The Justice Department is under the control of the Executive Branch, which is under the control of the President . . . and that is President Trump. So it goes.

Absent the moral dilemmas at play, there are two matters that draw particular attention: action and theory. First, Sessions took action by overruling a 2014 Board of Immigration Appeals decision, threatening the same for future rulings, that provided refugee status to Central American women whom, with caveats, were unable to escape their abusive partners. Considering the epidemic of domestic violence in Central America (evidently acknowledged by previous immigration judges), it does not make sense how the United States is playing its humanitarian, global role in providing sufficient care to those in need. The United Nations has openly shared that many Trump immigration policies are in clear violation of international law.

Secondly, can you imagine a circumstance where the Trump administration would conclude that a country demonstrated an inability to protect a claimant from domestic abuse or gang violence? If a country has a law that states, “domestic violence is prohibited” would that be sufficient? It’s legal protection, right? The line can be drawn at the whim of Attorney General Sessions, as seen by his overruling of the 2014 decision. The intent here seems to completely lack any consideration (and obviously compassion) for the human rights of those sharing our international society. Inhumane purity creates pure inhumanity.

Trump was right. Yet, like everything nowadays, we can diagnose it as vague correctness. President Trump campaigned that he would build a wall and those south of the border would pay. He is building a wall, albeit through immigration policy. And, the Latin Americans are in fact paying, but with basic human rights instead of currency – what else can “animals”[1] exchange?

Resistance Resources

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

[1] Quoting President Trump’s reference to some illegal immigrants at May 16, 2018 roundtable discussion in California.

Photo by: Nitish Meena

Renewed Republican Effort to Crush Obamacare

Renewed Republican Effort to Crush Obamacare

Policy Summary
In the last month, the Trump administration has introduced new attacks on  the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA/ Obamacare) most popular provisions. Last year, the inability of Republicans to repeal or replace or even amend part of the ACA compromised a majority of their failures as a party. However, 2018 has proven to show their willingness to destroy healthcare survives like a cockroach that just can’t be stamped out. The administration is seeking to dismantle both the Supreme Court case that upheld individual mandates and is challenging providers granting health insurance for people without regard to preexisting conditions. In order to do this, the administration and the Justice Department  is encouraging a federal court in Texas to look at the legality of principles in the individual mandate to buy health insurance. Additionally, congressional republicans have effectively given up on the promised overhaul of medicare, which puts the party in a difficult spot before the November midterms. LEARN MORE

Analysis:
As healthcare becomes a primary topic for discussion in the 2018 midterm elections, the latest administration attack on the ACA and continued inaction on medicare reform threatens the improvement of the healthcare system.  A major part of the Republican legislative action has been to dismantle the current U.S. healthcare system. This further action against the ACA takes the fight a step further and would threaten several other states’ current systems relying on the individual mandate. One estimate is that it would cost other states half of a trillion dollars in healthcare costs to absorb the impact of losing the funds from the individual mandates. Even more terrifying, this could mean that sick people could be denied healthcare, which would exclude a key demographic of the healthcare market. The partisanship shown from the Justice Department additionally threatens the integrity of the department’s investigations on important issues. Additionally, Trump has encouraged none of this action take place before the November midterms, so there will need to be more harsh scrutiny over the continued attacks on the ACA policy. Ideally, people will still have access to affordable care act until November, but come 2019, who knows what will be dismantled? Will a single payer system still exist for those most needing it? Will medicare be sorely underfunded for a second year in a row? The Trump administration should answer these questions before the November midterms, but they likely will not discuss such a tenuous topic in order to try to maintain control of the bicameral legislature. LEARN MORE

Resistance Resources:

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 rawpixel

Keeping Families Apart: The Green Carnation of Trump’s Immigration Policies

Keeping Families Apart: The Green Carnation of Trump’s Immigration Policies

Brief #43—Immigration

Summary
On May 8, 2018, in accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published their notice of Modified System of Records. The System, currently titled “Department of Homeland Security/U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement—007 Alien Criminal Response Information Management (ACRIMe),” permits the DHS to receive and respond to immigration status inquiries made by federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. If implemented, ACRIMe will change to “Criminal History and Immigration Verification (CHIVe).” A difference in acronym is not all the DHS’S notice proposes to modify. Of prominence is that CHIVe will now add as a category of individuals covered by the System of Records, individuals seeking approval from the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to sponsor unaccompanied minors awaiting status determinations. Public comments were due to DHS on June 7, 2018.

Policy Analysis
CHIVe stinks of a Trump administration attempt to form and control the narrative. In light of the criticized, extremely aggressive, and inhumane Zero Tolerance Policy (see USN Immigration Brief # 42 dated June 9, 2018), the administration is strongly guided to put forth some policy—any policy—to belt and suspenders the position that the United States is actively protecting the human rights of unaccompanied minors whom are forcibly ripped away from their parents and placed into the custody of DHHS. With roughly 1,500 unaccompanied minors lost in the DHHS sponsorship system in 2017, and a dramatic increase due to enforcement of the Zero Tolerance Policy, the administration is between a rock and hard place under the eyes of human rights watchdogs and the United Nations.

Why is this bad? Considering the (i) exorbitant amount of unaccompanied minors whom will now enter the sponsorship system, and (ii) thousands of unaccompanied minors whom are already unaccounted for, it seems reasonable and pro-social to enhance the System of Records on potential sponsors. The new policy is framed as a counterforce to any negative externalities caused to children by the Zero Tolerance Policy.

The Trump administration claims that with CHIVe, the government can take better care to protect unaccompanied minors from trafficking and smuggling. CHIVe is not bad in theory. But, theory and reality do not always purely align. In our non-xenophobic reality, CHIVe is catastrophic—the result counteracts protection of the rights and well-being of unaccompanied minors.

In fact, CHIVe dwindles the opportunity for sponsorship with parents/relatives as the data shows that many are undocumented, illegal aliens as well. When unaccompanied minors are apprehended by the federal government for illegally entering the United States, they cannot be criminally detained and are thus sent to the custody of the DHHS Office of Refugee Resettlement to be placed in sponsorship program. The hierarchy of sponsorship placement is parents, relatives, juvenile detention centers, and then foster care. With CHIVe, family members may no longer come forward to apply for sponsorship in fear of deportation or federal attention/abuse. Instead of being in the care of family, unaccompanied minors now face greater risk of placement into a defunct foster care system.

The Zero Tolerance Policy’s original intent was to threaten separation of families to deter people from crossing the border between port entries. Trump, claiming to be acting in the best interest of children through his, in reality, deplorable use of executive power, has implemented policies that when practiced cause and enhance long-term psychological trauma suffered by the children.

When analyzing public policies, identifying the underlying intent assists in the rationalization process. So, is it not irrational to entertain the possibility that DHS is baiting illegal immigrants with unaccompanied minors? One stroke of the executive pen determines the future for thousands of children. This is not a meaningless pledge to quiet the media or save face — THIS IS REAL. And, the world has witnessed that premature and arguably inhumane immigration procedures are worn by the Trump administration with as much pride as a green carnation on Oscar Wilde’s left lapel.

Resistance Resources:

  • American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – Non-profit with a mission to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person.
  • Federal Register: The Daily Journal of the U.S. Government – Online medium where DHS published notice and accepts public comments on CHIVe.
  • FamiliesBelongTogether – A Grassroots organization demanding an end to the harmful family separation policies.

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

Photo by Andrew Schultz

What Happened at the US North Korea Summit

What Happened at the US North Korea Summit
Brief #43—Foreign Policy

Summary
On Tuesday June 15, President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un broke a history of isolation by being the first leaders of their respective countries to ever meet in person. A longtime goal of Kim’s predecessors, few imagined this event taking place, especially considering Trump’s frequent use of his Twitter account to call for the destruction of North Korea throughout his presidency. Nevertheless, Trump actually managed to surprise some allies with the concessions he provided to the North Korean dictator.

The Summit, held in Singapore, consisted of a one-on-one meeting with interpreters, followed by a larger meeting and working lunch with aides, and produced a signed joint statement declaring a set of vague goals for the two sides. North Korea would advance towards denuclearization of the Korean peninsula in return for assurances of security from the United States. Trump, without the apparent knowledge of US military officials or the South Korean government, announced the halting of “very provocative” war games, which are held annually on the Korean border in cooperation with South Korean troops.

North Korea, had announced the suspension of Nuclear testing and destroyed a testing site in Punggye-ri in the lead up to the summit. Trump has said that sanctions would remain in place, but that he expected Kim to move “very quickly” on the dismantling of his nuclear arsenal. He also claimed that after the statement was signed, he managed to convince Kim Jong Un to destroy an additional missile-engine testing site. “Follow-on negotiations” between Pompeo and a North Korean official have been announced for the earliest possible date, in the interest of implementing the outcomes of the joint statement. While South Korean military officials expressed confusion at the sudden cancellation of military exercises, President Moon Jae-in called the Summit “a historic event that has helped break down the last remaining Cold War legacy on earth”. Chairman Kim announced that “We’ve decided to leave the past behind… The world will see major changes”. Trump has stated that he is “absolutely” willing to invite Kim to the White House.

Of course, even in the face of a historic diplomatic event, Trump couldn’t contain who he really is: an elderly man solely experienced in pageantry.  “I said, ‘Boy, look at that view”, Trump told reporters referring to a photo of the North Korean capital of Pyongyang , “Wouldn’t that make a great condo?”. He also presented Kim with a strange video, falsely attributed to “Destiny Pictures”, consisting of shots of Sylvester Stallone, bumper cars, and nuclear warfare.

Policy Analysis

Much of the controversy surrounding the Summit had been due to the vagueness of the assurances provided by North Korea. Denuclearization has been a stated goal of the North Korean government before, with little to show for it. Trump didn’t offer any evidence of concrete guidelines for how denuclearization will be monitored. International inspectors will have a hard time finding evidence of rule-breaking activity when any North Korean who speaks with them can be whisked off to prison. Trump also did not ask for the advancement of human rights within the country as a precondition for the lifting of sanctions.

However, much of the reaction to the Summit has bypassed this critical assessment of the progress made, and wandered into pro-war hysterics. Pundits on traditionally liberal outlets have expressed disgust at minor ornamental insults, such as the American flag being held beside the North Korean flag, or even Trump simply meeting Kim Jong-un as an equal. Some also suggested that the entire concept of demilitarization in the region is simply a handout to Russia. This response recalls Fox news’ reaction to Obama’s diplomatic behavior during his administration, and appears in bad faith when similar abusers of human rights such as Mohammad bin Salman Saudi Arabia are fawned over without critique by the American media and government.

These pundits, along with the American government, have relied on force alone to deal with the issue of North Korea since its inception, and have failed miserably thus far. 81% of South Koreans, the most ignored demographic in these discussions, supported the Summit beforehand. That’s because the people of Korea, on both sides of the border, are tired of this tension. There is no desire by the North Korean government to wage a war of conquest across Asia, or somehow extend themselves into a war with the largest military in the world. What they want is security, to hold onto power for as long as possible. For now it is acceptable that the assurances we have gained from them are vague, because the ball is in our court. Since the Korean War, during which we destroyed essentially every town in the country, the people of North Korea have known nothing but brutality from the United States. It is no wonder the people are afraid to revolt against what they believe is the only bulwark against an empire of terror. It shouldn’t be any more surprising that the North Korean government sees its only salvation to be the development of the one weapon we cannot ignore. If we provide a sense of safety for the North Korean regime, they will have no need for their expensive defenses. If we return to aggression, as the unholy alliance of John Bolton and MSNBC seem to want, we will only be ignoring the people of Korea in return for a proven strategy of failure.

Engagement Resources

  • Read the Joint Statement: Here is the joint statement produced by the summit, which outlines the goals of each side.
  • Learn More About the Korean Peace Movement Through 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. They are organizing a protest on the DMZ later this month in partnership with the Nobel Women’s Initiative. You can learn more on their website.

This Brief was compiled by Colin Shanley. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this Brief please contact Colin@usresistnews.org.

EPA Set to Rollback Automotive Standards

EPA Set to Rollback Automotive Standards

Brief #32—Environmental Policy

Update June 5, 2018
On Thursday, May 31, the EPA formally submitted its proposal to repeal the climate change rules that would require auto makers to double fuel efficiency to an average of 50 miles per gallon by model year 2025. Co-authored by the EPA and the Department of Transportation (DoT), the proposal contains eight options for the revision, with the preferred option being a freeze of fuel economy standards at the 2020 level for cars, S.U.V.s and lighter trucks. Once the proposed rule is published in the Federal Registrar, it will be open for public comment before coming into effect.  The DoT also reversed a requirement for states to track the amount of Carbon Emissions, effective at the end of June. This has set up a legal battle between the EPA and thirteen states, with a lawsuit filed by California and twelve others. These thirteen states have sued saying that are allowed to enforce the stricter Obama era rules, despite Federal changes. With 30-40% of the market, this could result in two separate auto markets, and the dual guidelines would create an even larger regulatory burden for automakers than the Obama-era standards. Some EPA officials say that the revision will not allow states to require stricter fuel standards than the Federal mandate, but that it does not intend to completely reject the states’ rights to enforce different standards via waivers. However, the Trump Administration has vocally supported undoing state standards and vowed to “take California out of the driver’s seat.”

Policy Summary
Earlier this month Pruitt announced another step in Trump’s “regulatory agenda” with the plan to lessen automotive regulations on emissions and fuel economy. The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards were revised in 2010 to require a minimum fuel efficiency of 54.5 miles to the gallon (double the current typical average)  by model year 2025.  Pruitt has promised these regulations will be replaced by a new set developed in conjunction with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. These new regulations have not yet been developed. Pruitt has also noted that California specifically has unreasonable standards. Various CA politicians immediately responded that they would hold their state to higher standards and have recently taken legal action along with 17 other states. [Correction 6/5/2018: While 18 states urged Trump to rethink his position on fuel standards, only 13 states are officially a part of the lawsuit.]

Analysis
While the Obama Era regulations have not yet been replaced, there is the expectation that the new set of rules will drastically decrease the existing requirements. The EPA has made it clear that it views the Obama Era rules as a regulatory burden and that dispensing with the rules will allow automotive companies to produce more affordable vehicles. Before this announcement was made on April 2, 2018, the Department of Transportation announced that it would not enforce the associate fines for failing to meet the CAFE standards, unofficially nullifying the regulations. Many environmental agencies are concerned about the implications of the rollback as it pertains to global warming. In the opinion of many scientists, fuel efficiency and emissions requirements are the best way to tackle climate change. Decreased pollution and decreased oil usage on a national scale would be significant. However, Pruitt has made his loyalties very clear with his rollback announcement location: A car dealership in Northern Virginia. Meetings were held in the Oval Office with major automakers within weeks of Trump’s Inauguration about these impending rules, and the Auto Alliance stated in a regulatory filing in February that climate science cannot be fully trusted.

Engagement Resources


This brief was compiled by Megan Toney. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact megan@usresistnews.org.

Photo by Jesse Collins

Ohio To Purge Eligible Voters From Voting Rolls

Ohio To Purge Eligible Voters From Voting Rolls

Brief #43—Civil Rights

Policy Summary
On June 11, 2018, the United States Supreme Court rendered a decision in the case Husted v. A. Phillip Randolph Institute. The case began in 2015 when U.S. Navy veteran Larry Harmon tried to vote in his home state of Ohio but was turned away. Harmon learned that even though he had resided in the same place for the last sixteen years his name had been removed from the voter rolls. The reason given was because he did not vote in 2009 and 2010. In Ohio, the state employs a program called the “Supplemental Process” which authorizes the procedures used to remove eligible voters (because of death or moving to another jurisdiction) from the state’s voter rolls. A voter in Ohio who does not vote in two consecutive federal elections is then sent a notice to his address where he is asked to return a self – addressed and pre – addressed card confirming that he/she has not moved and still resides at that address. If the card is not returned, the voter can only be removed after four years have elapsed provided that they do not engage in any voting activity in that district during those subsequent four years. Ohio resident Larry Harmon claims he did not receive any sort of notice after he did not vote in 2009 and 2010. He then found himself ineligible to vote when he tried to vote in 2015 because Ohio had removed him from the voting rolls. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) brought a case to stop Ohio’s voter purge process but lost at the federal district court level but then won on appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court who then decided in a 5 – 4 vote that Ohio’s Supplemental Process procedures were permissible and did not violate the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) of 1993. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Analysis
The opinion of the court is misguided on a technical and public policy level. The National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) of 1993 in Section 20507(b)(2) specifically prohibits the removal of the name of a person eligible to vote because of a person’s failure to vote, except in limited circumstances. But here, the Supplemental Process employed by Ohio does exactly what the NVRA was enacted to prevent – it removes voters for simply not voting. Justice Alito, who authored the majority opinion, is not convincing in supporting Ohio’s voter purge program because his analysis merely examines if the Ohio Supplemental Process followed the procedures in the NVRA to set up a state program to purge voters. While it does follow the procedures, he misses the point that Justice Breyer makes in the dissenting opinion, which is that the procedures are flawed and do not represent a “reasonable effort” by Ohio to examine other options as to whether a voter has moved or has died. In his own words, Justice Alito said that his analysis is to only examine if Ohio’s law “violates federal law” (the NVRA) and nothing more. Had Justice Alito taken the time to look closer he should have seen that voters are being removed from Ohio’s voter rolls for not voting, something that has been prohibited since 1993 with the NVRA.

And on a public policy level, the decision is a step back in the efforts to include all eligible voters from voting if they choose to do so. Justice Sotomayor made two interesting points in her dissent. She noted that in African American neighborhoods in Cincinnati, Ohio 10% of eligible voters were purged while only 4% of eligible voters in white suburban neighborhoods were purged. And she also pointed out that numerous other states have been able to keep their voter rolls updated without resorting to a scheme that identifies eligible voters by their failure to vote in consecutive elections. Her argument that low – income and minority voters may be targeted for removal from voting lists certainly has merit. Her argument recognizing the effect of Ohio’s law on minority communities on a human level is deserving of further examination instead of relying solely on Justice Alito’s approach as to whether flawed procedures were followed or not. 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 Elliott Stallion

Trump Administration Flip Flops on Tariffs’ Imposition

Trump Administration Flip Flops on Tariffs’ Imposition

Brief #16—Civil Rights

Policy Summary
In a stunning, but not surprising reversal of policy, the Trump administration last week decided to impose proposed tariffs it had previously put on hold on China, the EU, Canada, and Mexico.

The administration decided to implement 25% tariffs on 50 billion USD of Chinese goods, despite Treasury Secretary Mnuchin indicating last week that the “trade war” would be put on hold. The tariffs are meant to address “China’s discriminatory and burdensome trade practices.“  The targeted goods contain “industry significant technology” and are related to the “Made in China 2025 program” – a strategy approved by the Chinese State Council designed to transform China into a “high tech powerhouse” in industries like robotics, Artificial Intelligence, information technology, sensors and energy.

The US government maintains this program is designed not to help China join the ranks of many advanced economies but rather to outright dominate them. Allegations against “Made in China 2025” claim Beijing is seeking to replace foreign technology, gain self sufficiency, and become a manufacturing powerhouse that dominates global high-tech industries. Foreign companies that do business in China chains could be affected. For example, foreign high tech companies are at risk of getting pushed of mainland China’s markets as the Chinese government will provide preferential consideration to its own companies. The US also maintains such policies violate WTO anti-technology substitution rules  and gives Chinese companies an unfair advantage as they are subsidized by the the Chinese government. By June 15, the US is stated to list goods targeted by the tariffs and by June 30, the US will announce investment restrictions and capital controls so China can’t buy up technology significant industries. China, on the other hand, has announced retaliatory trade measures, ultimately bringing both countries to an impasse in the midst of ongoing negotiations. Chinese response to the sanctions have been mixed. Initially, China threatened to retaliate by tariffs on 50 billion USD of imports on soybeans, small aircraft, electric vehicles and orange juice. Soon after, in an effort to curb potential government, China offered to purchased 70 billion USD of US products. The Trump administration still remains steadfast on tariffs.

In a slightly more puzzling announcement, the Trump administration said that the US will also follow through on proposed tariffs on the EU, Canada and Mexico – 25% tariff on steel and the 10% on aluminum. The US cited “national security concerns” as the impetuous for implementation. The announcement was met with harsh criticisms from G7 countries saying that the tariffs “undermine open trade and confidence in the global economy.” Prime minister Justin Trudeau of Canada strongly rebuked the announcement  describing tariffs as “totally unacceptable” and as an “affront to the long standing security partnership and to the Canadians who have fought alongside with their American brother in arms.” Naturally, the EU, Canada and Mexico announced retaliatory measures including: “dollar for dollar” tariffs on US goods and a joint complaint to the WTO. The EU Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker described the unilateral tariffs as “unacceptable” and the that “whatever the US does the EU could do the same.”

Analysis
Although the Trump administration has a confusing, possibly incoherent policy when it comes to trade, many experts would agree that Trump has correctly identified unfair trade policies of the Chinese. China has violated many rules and regulations of the WTO, artificially devalued the Renminbi to make their exports cheaper in the past, has little respect for intellectual property rights (consider the numerous Chinese knockoffs), care even less of labor laws and conditions, conducts robust business-related cyber espionage activities, and finally it is very concerning to many countries that the communist party has actively encouraged Chinese companies with strong ties to the government to buy foreign companies in sensitive industries. It’s only natural other countries would worry about “Made in China 2025” due to China’s poor track record of engagement.

However, starting an uninhibited trade war is not the answer. Trade wars would most likely hurt millions of Americans (many of whom voted for Donald Trump) just as much as it would hurt the Chinese, if not more so. Trade wars have an inflationary reaction and increase prices across many different industries. Historically, every time the US has engaged in a trade war, it has hurt job growth rather than help it. In 2002 President George Bush imposed steel tariffs which he immediately  reversed after the WTO declared the tariffs in violation of its rules and in  1980s President Ronald Regan imposed tariffs on Japanese products which initially hurt American consumers. However, perhaps the most notable example occurred during the Great Depression in the 1930s. Shortly after the depression began, Congress bowed to the nationalist rhetoric and passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act which placed a tax on American imports in hopes of saving American factories. The logical response by European countries was to place counter tariffs, quid pro quo, on American products. Global trade decreased by over 25% due to the tariffs. Ultimately, this only further exacerbated the Great Depression.

After World War II, the WTO was created to ensure the 1930s protectionist era, tit-for-tat tariffs would not occur again. Unfortunately, just as President Herbert Hoover’s administration ignored the advice of economists about the harmful effects of tariffs in the 1930s, the Trump administration appears to be following a similar path. The very people Trump is seeking to protect are the very people who will be hurt the most by a trade war.

The Trump administration’s logic as it pertains to China is at least somewhat understandable. However, their logic pertaining to Mexico, EU and Canada is completely illogical. Mexico, EU and Canada are America’s allies. These countries do not commit the trade abuses China does. It makes little sense to punish your friends who play by the rules. The trade deficit between the EU, Canada, and Mexico with the US is largely a product of market forces and America’s propensity for consumerism rather than unfair trade policies as it is more so in regards to China.

Instead of building walls, the US should be building bridges. It would be better policy if the Trump administration strengthens ties with allies like EU, Canada and Mexico and build trading coalitions with these and other countries. Instead of starting a trade war with China, the US should build coalitions with the international community (especially the EU, Canada and Mexico) to put maximum pressure on China to follow WTO rules, respect intellectual property laws and to force China to reign in its economic-cyber espionage and predatory trade activities. There is power in numbers. If the Trump administration consulted on trade policy with allies, it would go a lot further than just indiscriminately evoking tariffs on rivals and allies alike. This may leave China with an opportunity to drive a wedge between US and its allies against Trump’s tariffs. The Trump administration also should be focusing on supporting the development of new industries and infrastructure investment legislation to provide new job opportunities for economic disenfranchised citizens in economically depressed states.

Resistance Resources

Photo by rawpixel

The Justice Department’s New Abhorrent “Zero Tolerance” Immigration Policy

The Justice Department’s New Abhorrent “Zero Tolerance” Immigration Policy

Brief # 42—Civil Rights

Policy Summary
On April 6, 2018, Attorney General Jeff Sessions informed the world, on behalf of the Trump administration, that the government will be adhering to a “Zero Tolerance Policy” with respect to illegal border entry. The policy requires criminal prosecution for every person caught entering the United States without proper inspection. It is a federal misdemeanor to illegally enter the United States; which, evidently, the Trump administration has “zero tolerance” for. The most relevant externality is that minors are being separated from their parents whom are undergoing federal prosecution, and placed into the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). As the parents remain in custody awaiting an immigration hearing, the children are placed in the sponsorship of relatives, juvenile detention centers, or foster care awaiting an Immigration Court to determine their status. After much criticism and anticipation, on June 5, 2018, the Office of the U.N. High Commission for Human Rights informed the Administration that such policy “is an unlawful interference in family life, and a serious violation of the rights of the child.”

Analysis
The Zero Tolerance Policy is very simple, and very “effective.” If you enter the United States’ border illegally between port entries you will be federally prosecuted. Adults are sent to the custody of the U.S. Marshals Service awaiting an immigration court judge to arbitrarily determine their privilege to remain in the country. With an infamously backlogged immigration processing system, such determinations can take months to years. Now, what happens when parents are apprehended with their child(ren)? Attorney General Sessions provided a simple answer: “If you’re smuggling a child, then we’re going to prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you, probably, as required by law. If you don’t want your child separated, then don’t bring them across the border illegally.”

If you ask President Trump, his self-proclaimed power and influence has been arm-barred, naturally, by the Democrats. “We have to break up families” claimed President Trump, “[t]he Democrats gave us that law. It’s a horrible thing, we have to break up families. That Democrats gave us that law and they don’t want to do anything about it.” However, this is fake news; no federal legislation or court ruling requires families to be separated.

Since commencement, an estimated 700 children have been taken from their parents, deemed unaccompanied minors, and thus placed in the custody of the ORR awaiting sponsorship. In 2017, roughly 1,500 unaccompanied minors placed into sponsorship through the ORR have remained completely unaccounted for. Their parents wouldn’t be able to find them; the court could not find them; the system could not save them. This is not fake news. But, according to Chief of Staff John Kelly, there is no need to worry because “[t]he children will be taken care of – put into foster care or whatever.” Oh, nothing eases the life-long psychological trauma to infants like the comfort of a “whatever.”

A core pillar of American jurisprudence with respect to minors is that rulings shall be in the best interest of the child. It is extremely difficult to comprehend – especially with an absence of justification from the government and the Trump administration – how inflicting such unnecessary psychological trauma on children is in their best interest.

The narrative would be different if unaccompanied minors were placed into the custody of an agency not violating their most basic human rights. Unfortunately, that is just not the case. After the U.N. requested the Trump administration to immediately stop the policy of separating families, Ravina Shamdasani, spokeswoman for the U.N. Human Rights Office, commented that: “The use of immigration detention and family separation as a deterrent runs counter to human rights standards and principles.”

Our current situation provokes the ever so common response: So, what now? To begin, we can find comfort in knowing that the outer boundaries of executive power are being identified and regulated due to the hubris of the Trump administration. Then follows social action. It is indisputable that enforcement of sound immigration policy is important and necessary. But, there is a vast different between individuals illegally crossing the border alone, and those seeking refuge or asylum for themselves and their minor children.

Should there be a contextual balance, where parents apprehended with their minor children are held together in administrative custody whereas adults without children are placed in criminal custody and federally prosecuted? Another option, although riddled with routes for legal challenge, would be lawsuits arguing that the policy of separating families is a constitutional violation which would hopefully result in a court-ordered injunction.

If all else fails, we can fall back on the system and continue voting! If we cannot welcome those in need via our current laws, we can change them. Persistence is key; let’s make it common practice to utilize the opportunities of our brilliant governmental structure.

Resistance Resources:

  • American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – Non-profit with a mission to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person.
  • UnitedWeDream  The Largest immigrant youth-led network in the United States.
  • FamiliesBelongTogether A Grassroots organization demanding an end to the harmful family separation policy.


This Brief was submitted by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst J.R. Phillip: justin@usresistnews.org

Image by Elias Castillo

Supreme Court Sidesteps Around Gay Wedding Cake in Ruling

Supreme Court Sidesteps Around Gay Wedding Cake in Ruling

Brief # 42—Civil Rights

Policy Summary
In 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins asked Masterpiece Cakeshop, a bakery in Colorado, to create a wedding cake to celebrate their wedding. The baker, Jack Phillips, refused citing his religious beliefs, which include opposition to same – sex marriages. Mr. Craig and Mr. Mullins then filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission claiming they were discriminated against because of their sexual orientation under the Colorado Anti – Discrimination Act. A lawsuit ensued and the case was found in favor of Mr. Craig and Mr. Mullins. The case was appealed to the Court of Appeals which upheld the verdict in favor of the plaintiffs. Masterpiece Cakeshop and baker Jack Phillips appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that Mr. Phillips was being compelled to create expression that was in violation of his Free Speech and Free Exercise of religion rights under the First Amendment.

On June 4, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a 7 – 2 opinion in favor of Masterpiece Cakeshop and Jack Phillips. The Court ruled that the Commission’s hostility toward baker Jack Phillips “was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion” and therefore reversed the order of the Colorado Court of Appeals based on his religious rights under the Free Exercise clause. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Analysis
In one of the most highly anticipated cases during this Supreme Court term, the Court issued an opinion that was neither the immediate landmark nor earth shattering opinion that each side had wanted. The case was unique because it pitted the First Amendment’s rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion on one side against the freedom from discrimination on the other. Both rights and protections are cherished rights in the United States and should not be limited as much as possible.

The one grave concern that many had about the case was that if the baker could use his religion to serve only people who were not offensive to his faith then it would open the door for other people to do the same thing. Would a Christian or Jewish businessman be permitted to refuse service to a Muslim person because of religious beliefs? Or could religion be used to deny service to persons based on their race or nationality? Would people who are not normally religious or devout in their ordinary lives use religion to discriminate whenever it was convenient for them at the moment?

Justice Kennedy, who authored the majority opinion, went to great lengths to show that religious activities will not always permit discriminatory behavior. He stated that in a different scenario and under Court precedents “[T]he baker…might have his right to the free exercise of religion limited by generally applicable laws.” This is key because it shows that in a different situation, such as those mentioned above, the Court will likely not allow religion to be used to freely discriminate against others.

With this opinion, Justice Kennedy has been able to find that balance that upholds First Amendment freedom of religion rights (the opinion criticizes the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for hostile language towards the baker in their investigation of him and his religious beliefs) while also stating in the text that religion cannot be used to harm others. He states that gay persons and couples cannot be treated as “social outcasts and/or inferior in dignity and worth” and that the law “will protect them in the exercise of their civil rights.” This case may not have been the win that the LGBQT was looking for but Justice Kennedy’s opinion puts in place the rationale and arguments that can protect their community going forward and prevent future incidents of this kind. 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.

Image by: April Pethybridge

President Trump Angers Federal Workforce With Three Newly Issued Executive Orders

President Trump Angers Federal Workforce With Three Newly Issued Executive Orders

Brief # 41—Civil Rights

Summary

On May 25, 2018, President Donald J. Trump issued three executive orders concerning employees in the federal sector. Executive Order (EO) 13836 deals with new and efficient procedures for collective bargaining between federal sector employees and their respective executive departments and agencies. Executive Order 13837 seeks to make more efficient use of a federal employees’ taxpayer funded time spent on federal sector union activities during business hours. And, Executive Order 13839 seeks to reduce the time required to terminate a federal employee from his or her position. On May 30, 2018, the American Federation of Government Employees, a national labor organization, sued President Trump to prevent EO 13837 from going into effect. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Analysis

Simply put, the President’s three executive orders are hostile to the rights of federal employees. Even with the words “efficient” and “accountability” used in the titles of the executive orders, a closer analysis reveals that each order weakens long standing rights and protections that the federal workforce have enjoyed for decades.

EO 13836 contains a loophole that would permit agencies to unilaterally implement a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) if the federal sector union is deemed to be negotiating in bad faith. The worst-case scenario here is that agencies will simply accuse the union of bad faith negotiations when it is not true “and implement the agency’s version of the CBA without giving the union a say on what they like and what they don’t like in the agreement.”

EO 13837 is also troubling because it seeks to place a time limit on how long a federal employee can help fellow co – workers resolve workplace disputes such as harassment. The original statute granting federal employees official time to resolve workplace grievances initially stated that the time allotted be “reasonable.” Yet President Trump’s order reduces that time to no more than 25% of official work time to these activities. This time limit does not take into concern more complex issues that need more time to be dealt with and does not address what will happen if a problem is not resolved within that limited time frame.

Finally, EO 13839 reduces the time to terminate a federal worker, in some cases down from 120 days to 30 days, and seeks to encourage firings instead of suspensions for “poor” performing workers. In his State of the Union Speech, President Trump stated, “Cabinet secretaries should have the ability to reward good workers.” J. David Cox of the American Federation of Government Employees called the order a “direct assault on the legal rights and protections” afforded to all government employees. He also warned that eliminating the protections in order to quickly terminate federal workers could easily result in removing federal workers because of their contrary political viewpoint. Hopefully, the American Federation of Government Employees lawsuit and the public uproar will help to reverse the steps President Trump has taken with these executive orders. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Engagement Resources:

American Federation of Government Employees – labor union representing federal government employees.
National Treasury Employees Union – the nation’s largest independent union of federal employees fighting for issues that affect the working lives of federal employees.

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

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