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
Pruitt Resigns, Becoming Trump’s Fifth Cabinet Member to Call It Quits

Pruitt Resigns, Becoming Trump’s Fifth Cabinet Member to Call It Quits

Brief #34—Environment

Policy Summary
Amid months of investigation for as many as 19 scandals, Scott Pruitt resigned his post as the Secretary of the Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday, July 5th. Many rejoiced that this enabler of deregulation had finally given up his position, but the administration has a very different story. Trump announced Pruitt’s resignation in a tweet where he thanked Pruitt for his service and congratulated him on an “outstanding job.” Trump made no mention of the various scandals, and said that Pruitt himself decided to resign so as not to be a distraction. Pruitt also cited the “unrelenting attacks” that had “taken a toll” on his family in his letter of resignation. Other aides have stepped down in support of Pruitt. However, Pruitt’s resignation comes in the midst of 13 federal inquiries into his spending and management decisions, including security and travel expenses, a $43,000 soundproof phone booth, barring certain scientists from applying for grants, a $50 a night condo deal from a lobbyist, firing of personnel for questioning these practices, and pay raises for those deemed loyal. These investigations will continue despite his resignation.  Andrew Wheeler, the recently Senate confirmed deputy to Scott Pruitt, will take on the role of EPA Secretary.

Analysis
While Pruitt’s exit has been celebrated, he left behind quite a mess and has lost the trust of taxpayers and personnel alike. His exorbitant spending showed a complete disregard for the taxpayer, and this will continue due to all the investigations and court proceedings pending. Perhaps even more troubling, is the lack of support for whistleblowers within the EPA. Watchdog agencies and journalists have worked hard to keep tabs on all of Pruitt’s actions, but received little reaction from the powers that be. In addition, Pruitt has managed to roll back significant amounts of legislation to protect our country and curb the toxins that may be our demise. Pruitt’s acting replacement, Andrew Wheeler, has a history as an energy industry lobbyist with Murray Energy and connections with other coal and energy lobbyists like Xcel Energy and Energy Fuel Resources, Inc. Many fear that his years in the industry will make him a more effective implementer of Trump’s environmental agenda, and that it will occur more quietly than under Pruitt. He will serve as the acting secretary until Trump nominates a new Secretary that must be confirmed by the Senate.

Resistance Resources

    • Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) – a charity collective of lawyers and scientists who defend and protect the environment from pollution and corporate greedContact
      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: Thomas Richter

Supreme Court Upholds Travel Ban: Institutionalized Discrimination

Supreme Court Upholds Travel Ban: Institutionalized Discrimination

Brief #46—Immigration

Policy Summary
On June 26, 2018, the Supreme Court officially voted to uphold Trump’s travel ban that has been on his agenda since the early days of his presidency. Now, there are travel restrictions on individuals coming from Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, North Korea (yes, North Korea, who’s relationship with the United States was currently in-repair), and Venezuela from entering the United States. To Trump, this is an extraordinary victory and will serve as a tool for him to fulfill his promise of defending the country from “terrorism, crime and extremism.” Trump and his advisors have long argued that presidents possess the authority to control and redesign the way the United States controls its borders as deemed fit; and with the 5-4 majority Conservative vote, unfortunately, he has done so. A policy openly introduced as a total and complete ban on Muslims entering the United States has been masked as a national security concern and properly lipsticked enough for 5 out of the 9 judges to admire.

Analysis
Naturally, as a nation built on immigrants, there has been major backlash and a lot of disappointment. Liberals have denounced the decision and many – even politicians and important decision-makers – have equated the ruling with that of the post-World War II decision in 1944 that endorsed the detention of Japanese-Americans. Justice Sotomayor claimed the court “blindly accept[ed] the Government’s misguided invitation to sanction a discriminatory policy,” as she became part of the minority vote. A decision like this puts policymakers and the Supreme Court on the wrong side of history and creates a platform that harbors the institutionalization of racism of Islamophobia and only encourages it to spread. Many have considered this ruling a historic failure in the sense that it has failed to protect its most vulnerable citizens – and people – from those that hold the most power.

In some regards, harboring such a policy that exudes fear, xenophobia and discrimination can potentially have the opposite of its intended effect and actually serve as a recruiting tool for extremist groups and existing terrorist organizations. Othering and grouping innocent individuals due to religion, race, or region can only induce further anger, resentment, and retaliation. If an extremist group held the values that Trump has claimed they do, i.e. exposing a deep hatred for the west and its ideals, a travel ban is only going to fuel their existing efforts and provide solid, tangible reason for them to alter and improve their already destructive tactics.

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.
  • 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 unsplash-logoMitch Lensink

Affirmative Action: Rescinding Obama-Era Policies

Affirmative Action: Rescinding Obama-Era Policies

Brief #22—Education

Policy Summary
Trump administration is rescinding seven Obama-era policies which encouraged schools to look at race as one among many factors in admissions. The seven affirmative action policies are among 24 documents rescinded on the Department of Justice’s website. The DOE/DOJ claim that the documents advocate policy preferences beyond the requirements of the Constitution, and Title IV and VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Trump administration reposted a previously withdrawn George W. Bush administration document, encouraging the use of race-neutral methods for assigning students to elementary and secondary schools. The race-neutral policy is based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1, which held that a race-conscious approach is inconsistent with Title VI which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin by school districts. The Court held that schools must make a good-faith consideration of workable race-neutral alternatives before implementing a race-conscious approach in accordance with the “strict scrutiny” standard. To be constitutional, a program must look at each applicant as an individual, and not simply as a racial group. However, because socioeconomic status is not subject to a “strict scrutiny” standard, under a race-neutral approach, schools may use socioeconomic status to determine admissions.

A senior Justice Department official denied that these decisions were rolling back protections for students of color but rather hewing the department closer to the letter of the law. In Tuesday’s joint letter issued by the Departments of Education and Justice, officials wrote that “protections from discrimination on the basis of race remain in place.” Officials replaced Guidance on the Voluntary Use of Race to Achieve Diversity and Avoid Racial Isolation in Elementary and Secondary Schools. In the document, the Departments recognized the compelling interests that K-12 schools have in obtaining benefits from achieving a diverse student body and avoiding racial isolation in an increasingly multicultural world. Consistent with the principles articulated in Supreme Court opinions, the guidance lays out a strategic plan for schools to meet these compelling interests, and when it is more practical to use a race-conscious approach when a race-neutral approach becomes unworkable in achieving a diversity student body. LEARN MORE

Analysis
Previous cases reveals how a race-neutral/colorblind approach to the letter of the law has systematically denied equal protection for people of color. As established in Johnson v. California (2005), facially discriminatory laws based on race or national origin must pass a “strict scrutiny” standard, in which there must be a compelling governmental interest independent of the racial classification and the use of race must be narrowly tailored to that particular interest. The Supreme Court has held that governmental interest is compelling to remedy the effects of intentional discrimination and to obtain a diverse student body in higher education.

Today, schools like University of Michigan want more freedom to consider race and believe that race should be considered among many factors during admissions. This perspective is aligned with the the Supreme Court’s race-conscious approach in Brown v. Board of Education. In Brown, the Court ruled that there was no constitutional violation from using race and discouraged a colorblind approach. During this period, the Court had trouble guiding states on how to remedy inequalities that were fundamentally ingrained in the public consciousness and culture. Although Brown eliminated separate but equal, states remained resistant to desegregation policies even until the 1990s. For instance, Dowell (1991) held that dissolution of the desegregation decree was permissible because federal supervision was not intended to last forever. Civil Rights cases later established that policies “under color of law” (i.e. state’s unwritten policies or customs) were unconstitutional. In other words, although private discrimination by individuals was not unconstitutional because individuals were not considered state actors, it did not mean that such discrimination was constitutionally protected. Because the states’ role is to ensure the equality of civil rights, states have an affirmative obligation to push back on private discrimination when it does arise.

The ratification of the 14th Amendment during the Reconstruction era was a response to the vestiges of slavery – the denial of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Justice Harlan stated that the purpose of the 13th Amendment was to eviscerate all the vestiges of slavery – to not only make former slaves U.S. citizens in form but also in substance through equal participation in civil society. Last year, the Trump administration’s decision to redirect resources of the Justice Department’s civil rights division towards suing universities over affirmative action admissions policies deemed to discriminate against white applicants not only lacks historical basis but only makes sense if whites were once an enslaved group systematically denied their fundamental rights by the federal government. Furthermore, this perspective ignores the reality that the greatest benefactors of affirmative action have historically been white women.

Louis D. Brandeis Center, a human rights organization that champions Jewish causes, filed an amicus brief in 2012, arguing that “race conscious admission standards are unfair to individuals, and unhealthy for society at large.” On the contrary, using a colorblind approach when we are still struggling today to provide equal participation to all citizens and debating civil rights’ extension over public education will only move us further back to the vestiges of slavery. LEARN MORE

Engagement Resources

  • Chiefs for Change – An education reform nonprofit aimed at facilitating change through policy and advocacy, building a unique community of practice, and cultivating a pipeline of diverse education leaders.
  • Poverty and Race Research Action Council –The Council is a civil rights policy organization aimed at helping to connect advocates with social scientists working on race and poverty issues, and to promote a research-based advocacy strategy on structural inequality issues.
  • The National Coalition on School Diversity – The Coalition is a network of national civil rights organizations, university-based research centers, and state and local coalitions working to increase support for government initiatives that promote diversity in schools.

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

Photo by Joanna Kosinska

China Prepares to Shield Economy from Effects of U.S. Trade War

Brief #17—Economic Policy

Summary
Recent reports indicate that China has temporally ceased its work on the structural reforms on national economic systems and is shifting its focus to policies that are more geared to supporting general economic growth.

The People’s Bank of China is the nation’s central bank. Recently, it has prompted prominent lending institutions to trade over $1 trillion yuan’s worth of corporate debt in return for equity. In U.S. dollars, that amount is equal to roughly $152.9 billion. July 5th marked an important event for the Chinese economy, as the People’s Bank of China slashed the reserve ratio that many banks are required to have on hand by 0.5%, thereby liquidating roughly 700 billion yuan. These newly liquidated funds are available to be lent out or used for further purposes intended to spur growth.

In addition, the central bank is putting pressure on smaller banks, typically those in the  small to midsize range, to increase their loans distributed to small businesses and enterprises. To further encourage this, capital for these banks will be raised by up to 200 billion yuan. At the larger banks, meanwhile, the reserve requirements will decrease to 15.5%. The funds that will be liquidated from his endeavor are intended to be used to finance the debt-for-equity trades mentioned earlier while the bank’s outstanding liabilities are exchanged for stock options.

The original guidance for these debt-equity swaps was originally issued by the State Council of the Chinese Government in 2016. Currently, there is over 1 trillion yuan in anticipated swaps intended for enterprises owned by the state. Many such enterprises are steel and coal manufacturers who have been negatively affected by overcrowding within their industries.

So far, we have seen only roughly a tenth of the proposed swaps carried out. As of now, there seems to be no prospect of the shares of these indebted companies being resold.

Analysis
It is clear that these actions on behalf of the Chinese regulators and central bank are to help shield the nation’s economy from the effects of the trade war with the swiftly approaching trade war with the United States.

The recent actions on behalf of the People’s Bank of China indicated that they may be trying to move away from downsizing state-owned enterprises that have been deemed inefficient.

Banks all across the nation have been asked to do more to help the enterprises that continue to struggle, further indicating the prioritization of quick economic growth and general stability. This is further indicated by the recent policies pushed by the central bank that are intended to free up and stabilize liquidity in order to make such an endeavor more doable.

Historically, the practice of banks being pushed to create loans for those in the lower income brackets has not always worked in nations such as the U.S. but China remains hopeful as it moves forward with the policies centered around this endeavor.

The impending trade war with the U.S. has been marked by the tariffs on imported goods such as steel and aluminum proposed by President Donald Trump in March 2018. The manufacturer of half the world’s steel, China has been responsible for flooding the marketplace and lowering steel’s global prices. As previously mentioned, China has seen a strong overcapacity throughout its primary manufacturing industries. A trade war will affect the entire globe and as the world’s second-largest economy, it would certainly serve China to be ready.

Resistance Resources:

  • National Retail Federation – The world’s largest retail trade association, responsible for organizing a collation of diverse industry groups that are banding together to stand against the Trump administration’s proposed tariffs.
  • Information Technology Industry Council – A Washington D.C. based trade association, credited with helping the NFA compose a letter to the White House Ways and Means Committee warning of the impending negative impacts of the proposed tariffs.
  • United States Chamber of Commerce – An American lobbyist group centered-around business that recently launched a campaign against the Trump administration’s trade tariff policies.

This Brief was prepared by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst S O’ Brient, sam@usresistnews.org

Did the Supreme Court Decide a Free Speech or “Pro – Life” Case?

Did the Supreme Court Decide a Free Speech or “Pro – Life” Case?

Brief #48—Civil Rights

Policy Summary
In October 2015, the California State Legislature passed the Reproductive FACT (Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care and Transparency) Act. The law was aimed at crisis pregnancy centers (CPC’s), which are typically Christian non-profit groups designed to counsel pregnant women against having an abortion. If the place is a licensed healthcare facility then the California law required the following statement to be posted in the facility: “California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services (including all FDA-approved methods of contraception), prenatal care, and abortion for eligible women.” If the place is an unlicensed facility offering pregnancy related services, then the law required the following separate statement to be posted in the facility: “This facility is not licensed as a medical facility by the State of California and has no licensed medical provider who provides or directly supervises the provision of all of the services, whose primary purpose is providing pregnancy-related services.” The National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) on behalf of 100+ CPC’s brought a lawsuit to challenge the law on the grounds that it violated their First Amendment Free Speech and Free Exercise of Religion rights. The case was decided against NILFA on technical grounds at both the federal district court and circuit court of appeals levels. NILFA then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and there requested whether California was violating the First Amendment by compelling them to post messages contrary to their religious beliefs. The Supreme Court, in a 5 – 4 decision, decided in favor of NILFA and held that the Reproductive FACT Act violated the First Amendment. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Analysis
The National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra case was a unique case because of how people tried to classify the case. On the one hand, it was a free speech case that illustrated the dangers of having the government dictate to organizations as to what they should say. And on the other hand, it was seen as an abortion case and the possibility that the government would try to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion in the United States. The case was eventually decided on free speech grounds. In the majority opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas, he relied on traditional free speech legal analysis by distinguishing whether the law regulating the speech was content-neutral or content-specific. Content-neutral regulations do not regulate the content or message of a speech but only the time, manner or place of the speech. Content-specific regulations are laws that are aimed to regulate speech based on the message contained in the speech. Justice Thomas called the notices of the California FACT Act a content-specific regulation because the required statements were a government-scripted message that compelled a group to speak a particular message even if they did not want to say it. Based on Justice Thomas’ analysis, the case can be seen as a win for free speech advocates.

However, Justice Breyer’s dissent made an interesting and potentially significant point. Justice Breyer examined a prior 1992 Supreme Court case, Planned Parenthood of Southeast Pennsylvania v. Casey, and pointed out that the Court there did not find a First Amendment Free Speech violation when Pennsylvania required a doctor to tell a patient information about adoption as an option. The facts in Casey and from this case both required doctors to say something they may not have agreed with before performing an abortion. Yet, the required speech about adoption as an option from Pennsylvania was upheld while the required notices about abortion as an option from California were struck down.

While the result in the current California case is likely correct in its free speech analysis, it is the effect on abortion rights that is alarming. Hostility towards abortion rights may be coming front and center in the very near future and may be susceptible to differing treatment as Justice Breyer’s dissent brilliantly illustrates. 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 Brendan Church

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

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