JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
A Peek into Trump Golf Resorts
Brief #63—Immigration Policy Trump Golf has employed a steady stream of illegal immigrants for years, but explained it away as the Trump Organization being a separate entity run by Trump’s eldest sons and having nothing to do with the President. However there is no...
The Supreme Court Stands Tall for Reproductive Rights
Brief #50—Health Policy Last week, the Supreme Court took a stand against limiting reproductive rights in a recent ruling. The Court blocked a Louisiana law, in a 5-4 vote, that would have limited access to abortions in the state by only allowing one doctor in one...
The Pros and Cons of Withdrawal in Syria and Afghanistan Brief
Brief #57—Foreign Policy Summary Over the past three months the United States has begun the process of ending its military involvement in both Afghanistan and Syria. In December, Trump announced that Isis had been defeated in Syria and the United States would begin...
Amid Record CO2 Emissions, Majority of Americans Demand Climate Legislation
Brief #55—Environment Policy Summary Research carried out by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication found that by the end of 2018 approximately 85% of Americans believed more funding should be allocated to research renewable energy sources and that 77% of...
Democrats Introduce Massive Election Reform Bill Aimed At Countering GOP Voter Suppression Tactics
Brief #76—Civil Rights Policy Summary On January 3, 2019, Representative John P. Sarbanes (D-MD) introduced in the House of Representatives bill H.R.1 known as the For The People Act of 2019. It was the first bill introduced by the new Democratic controlled House...
U.S. RESIST NEWS POLICY PROPOSALS FOR THE NEW CONGRESS
Our U.S. RESIST NEWS outstanding team of reporters and analysts have recently put forward a series of Policy Proposals for the New Congress. These are proposals, based on our work and experience, that we believe are important for the new Congress to enact to help...
The Venezuela Crisis Explained
Brief #56—Foreign Policy Policy Summary On January 23rd, Venezuelan lawmaker Juan Guaido surged from relative obscurity to the focus of international attention when he declared himself the interim President of the crisis ridden nation. Just weeks before, Guaido was...
The Teacher’s Protests of 2019 Continued
Brief #32—Education Policy Summary The nationwide teacher-led demonstrations continue to materialize with greater tenacity and vigor. Day after day this week, the streets of major cities across the country drew a similar portrait of streets lined of protesting...
Say Goodbye to Surprise Medical Bills! Well, Not Entirely
Brief #48—Health Policy Summary Donald Trump and his administration have taken proactive steps to solve the nationwide issue of surprise hospital fees. Starting this month, Trump has mandated that hospitals publicly reveal prices for their services. These online...
Texas Laws Against Sanctuary Cities Upheld in Federal Court
Policy Summary
On Tuesday, March 13, The Hill reported that a “federal appeals court ruled that most of Texas’ laws targeting so-called sanctuary cities can remain in effect.” The ruling specifically upholds Senate Bill 4, enabling law enforcement to inquire about individuals’ immigration status upon detainment. The bill goes further against sanctuary city policies by punishing local government officials who refuse to turn over immigrants in custody to federal immigration enforcement agents. This decision comes to just one week after Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the Department of Justice would be suing the State of California over a number of bills preserving sanctuary cities.
Analysis
While this ruling affects state-level policy in Texas, it also signifies a win for Trump and other immigration hardliners. The intolerance for immigration stoked by rulings like this and rhetoric by the administration is harmful to the whole country—not just immigrant communities. From breaking up families to breaking down local economies, policies opposing sanctuary cities are unfounded and inherently against public interest. In weeks that follow, immigration activists will be watching closely to see how this ruling is implemented, and will not stand idly by if the implementation results in the unjust removal of immigrants.
Engagement Resources
Show Your Solidarity with the Immigrant Legal Resource Center: The Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC) is a national nonprofit resource center that provides immigration legal trainings, technical assistance, and educational materials, and engages in advocacy and immigrant civic engagement to advance immigrant rights. You can support the center by donating or attending one of their virtual or in-person trainings.
Act with America’s Voice: America’s Voice is a progressive immigration reform nonprofit that advocates for full and equal rights of all immigrants. The organization runs numerous campaigns, maps incidents of hate against people of color, and assists with voter registration, amongst other activities essential to promoting equity for immigrant lives in the United States. You can make a contribution to America’s Voice here.
Support the New Americans Campaign: The New Americans Campaign is a national, nonpartisan network of immigrant organizations, legal service providers, faith-based organizations, faith-based organizations, immigrant rights groups, foundations, and community leaders. A project by the Immigration Legal Resource Center, the campaign is committed to connecting lawful permanent residents to trusted legal assistance. Click here to support the campaign.
***
This brief was compiled by Principal Immigration News Analyst Allie Blum. For questions or comments, you can reach her at allie@usresistnews.org.
Florida Passes Gun Control Bill Following Stoneman Douglas Shooting, Opposing NRA
Summary
On Wednesday, March 7, Florida Governor Rick Scott (R) signed a new bill into law tightening gun restrictions and increasing school safety measures in the state of Florida following the Parkland school shooting on February 14 that left 14 students and 3 faculty members of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School dead. While these restrictions have received criticism from the likes of the National Rifle Association (NRA) and conservative lawmakers, Governor Scott, who himself was previously graded an A+ legislator by the NRA, signed this bi-partisan bill into law so that students will feel safe at school, and so that parents do not have to worry about the safety of their children at school.
Provisions in the legislation that NRA and gun enthusiasts most strongly oppose include raising the minimum age for legal purchase of a firearm to 21, implementing a three-day waiting period for firearm purchases (most, but not all), and completely making illegal the purchase of bump stocks, an assault weapon accessory that rose to national consciousness following the October 2017 Las Vegas shooting.
Amongst the more controversial of provisions (viewed more favorably by the right) of the bill allows for the arming of certain school employees, namely librarians, guidance counselors, and athletic coaches, according to the New York Times. This provision of the bill in particular was a bi-partisan effort, as many Republican legislators in Florida felt that all school employees, teachers included, should be armed with the notion that this would increase school safety. Governor Scott opposes the idea that teachers should be armed, but was willing to allow for the arming of the aforementioned personnel.
Analysis
On one hand, the signing of this bill is a major victory for gun control advocates. Shooting after shooting, actions like the ones taken in the new Florida bill are called for by victims, community members, and advocates, However such pleas often fall upon deaf ears because many lawmakers at all levels of government are puppets of the NRA. Because of the response led by students at Stoneman Douglas, however, this shooting feels different, and the results thus far are certainly different. Governor Scott’s endorsement and signature on the bill demonstrates that even lawmakers most lauded by the NRA are willing to change course when the interest of constituents and public safety is finally deemed more valuable than the NRA’s dollars. This gives hope to gun safety advocates that demands will actually be met, and that victims won’t become another statistic in the unfathomable number schema that represents gun violence in the United States.
On the other hand, there are certain measures that were not taken up by the new Florida bill that signify the long road ahead for gun safety advocates. First, AR-15s can still be legally purchased in the state. This is the weapon that shooter Nicholas Cruz used to massacre 17 and injure dozens more at Stoneman Douglas; it is a military-grade weapon that simply does not belong in the hands of civilians, let alone on school grounds. There is seemingly no reason as to why this kind of weapon is legal for purchase following the Stoneman Douglas shooting. Furthermore, the bill does nothing by way of strengthening background checks in the state, a major flaw in the sale of guns in this country that continues to put lethal weapons in the hands of mentally unstable individuals, like Cruz. While the passage of the bill calls for celebration, it is just one incremental step in the fight for common sense gun legislation, and the fight cannot stop here.
Engagement Resources
Take a Stand With March For Our Lives: March For Our Lives is a grassroots organization mobilized by the students, victims, and community members directly impacted by the Parkland shooting. On March 24, cities across the country will walk in support of gun control and in solidarity with the victims of Parkland to make sure that another incident like the one in Parkland never happens again. To learn more about a march near you or to donate to the organization, click on the link above.
Stay in the Know With EFSGV: The Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence (EFSGV) is a D.C.-based 501(c)(3) nonprofit that makes communities safer by translating research into policy. EFSGV does this through policy development, advocacy, community stakeholder engagement, and technical assistance. The organization is affiliated with the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV), a 501(c)(4) nonprofit that serves as the advocating arm of EFSGV, working directly with members of Congress to pass common sense gun laws at the federal level. Stay up to date with the latest news on gun reform and research with EFSGV and CSGV by signing up for email alerts through clicking the first link above.
Support Everytown For Gun Safety: Everytown For Gun Safety is at the forefront of ending gun violence in all of its forms across the United States. As the largest gun violence prevention organization in the United States, Everytown consists of 4.5 million supporters working to change laws and lives by advocating for common sense gun legislation. You can support Everytown here, and learn more about its initiatives here.
Civil Rights; Congressional Bill Supporting Israel A Direct Attack On The First Amendment and Free Speech; Proposed Federal Legislation; March 3, 2018
Policy Summary
On March 23, 2017, Senator Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD) introduced Senate Bill 720, which was intended to amend the Export Administration Act of 1979. The bill is popularly known as the “Israel Anti – Boycott Act” and was passed in order to “oppose restrictive trade practices or boycotts fostered or imposed by any international organization against Israel or requests to impose restrictive trade practices or boycotts by any international trade organization against Israel.” Additionally, in conjunction with Section 206 of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the bill provides that anyone who “knowingly violates…or attempts to violate any provision” of this bill by engaging in restrictive trade practices or boycotts against Israel would be subject to financial criminal penalties and may be “imprisoned for not more than twenty years.” Due to the controversial nature of the bill an amended version was introduced on March 3, 2018 by Senator Cardin and Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) distinguishing the bill’s effects on First Amendment rights and freedoms. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Analysis
This bill has been troubled from the start and should not become United States law for a variety of reasons. First, the bill directly takes a side on a contentious foreign policy issue. It criminalizes viewpoints that are not in agreement with the Federal Government’s decision to side with the State of Israel in the Middle East conflict. An American citizen who decides to participate in a political boycott is protected for exercising their rights because of the Supreme Court case of NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware. In that case, the Supreme Court held that “boycotts and related activities to bring about political, social and economic change are political speech” and are fully protected by the First Amendment of the United States. American citizens who wish to participate in protest movements that are critical of Israeli settlement activities and companies that do business in those regions should not be dictated by the government as to which side they should support. Nor should the government criminalize their behavior for simply deciding on which side of the Middle East issue they stand. A law on the books threatening financial penalties and time in prison for participating in boycotts does not encourage the concept of free speech. What this law does is intimidate people into not taking a particular side of an issue which is no different than suppressing a person’s speech.
Finally, in a famous Supreme Court dissent, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes declared, “the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas.” The ability to speak out and take an unpopular stance without fear of repercussion is a bedrock principle of free speech in the United States and this bill is a direct affront to that idea. The bill is a clear attempt to suppress a citizen’s right to boycott because of their viewpoint. An American citizen who sympathizes with the plight of the Palestinian people and abhors actions taken by the Israeli government should not face jail time or significant financial penalties for giving voice to those concerns. A better course of action, as best illustrated by Justice Holmes’ “marketplace of ideas” concept, is to permit the idea to be expressed, debated alongside other viewpoints and then allow the idea (for or against the State of Israel) to stand or fall based on its merits. However, the Israel Anti – Boycott Act does nothing more than try to suppress a person’s political speech because that speech is critical of Israel. The message this bill is sending is that American citizens do not have free speech, political speech and boycott rights when it comes to Israel, unless you support them. This bill is not consistent with prior American case law and should be voted down before it diminishes the values of free speech as enshrined in the First Amendment. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – webpage with info on unconstitutionality of Israel Anti – Boycott Bill.
Defending Rights and Dissent – non – profit group protecting right to political expression.
Defending Dissent Foundation – non – profit group promoting understanding of and value of dissent in a democracy.
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.
Judge Rules That Environmental Studies Are Not Required for Border Wall Construction Order in re: Border Infrastructure Environmental Legislation; Case 3:17-cv-01215-GPC-WVG
Summary
Earlier this month, U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel ruled that the Trump Administration and the Department of Homeland Security have not exceeded their legal limits in waiving environmental reviews based on the REAL ID law of 2005. This Bush era law allows Federal agencies to waive previously required environmental reviews. Since August 2017, the Trump administration has filed three of the seven waivers filed in the law’s history. Three lawsuits were filed against the Trump Administration and the Department of Homeland Security based on federal overreach through the misuse of the REAL ID law and voided environmental standards outlined in the California Environmental Quality Act. The lawsuits were filed by Arizona’s Center for Biological Diversity, three California based advocacy groups (The Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife and Animal Legal Defense fund) and California Attorney General Xavier Becerra. They were consolidated by Judge Curiel into one case. These groups cited at least twelve endangered species and the possible effects of separating ecosystems, traffic, construction and lights as potentially damaging factors that warranted study. After hours of arguments and requests for more information from both sides, Judge Curiel sided with the Trump Administration saying that it has not exceeded the authority outlined in the REAL ID law. Judge Curiel also noted that his decision did not address whether the underlying projects and plans “are politically wise or prudent.” Attorney General Becerra says the state will examine other options for moving forward.
Analysis
When Judge Curiel’s decision was released, Trump tweeted, “Big legal win today. U.S. judge sided with Trump Administration…” However, this is not the first time Trump has tweeted about Judge Curiel. In May 2016, Judge Curiel was presiding over the lawsuit against Trump University. In this case Trump called Curiel a “very bad judge,” “very hostile” and “happens to be, we believe, Mexican.” (Curiel was born and raised in Indiana.) Curiel has been a judge in a variety of high stakes drug cases, and his colleagues said he was unphased by Trump’s name calling. While it is an unfortunate set back for both environmental and pro-immigration groups, Curiel made his decision based on the adherence to the REAL ID law by the Trump Administration Department of Homeland Security. A similar suit was filed in 2008 and the Supreme Court declined to hear the case.
Engagement Resource
● Read Judge Curiel’s full decision
● Learn more about the Sierra Club’s Efforts to block the Border Wall
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.
Trump Issues Global Tariffs on Steel and Aluminum Imports
Summary
“The actions we are taking today are not a matter of choice; they are a matter of necessity for our security” declared President Trump last week, as part of his announcement on a new set of tariffs targeting the import of steel and aluminum. The announcement, coming just hours after a number of countries signed onto the Trans-Pacific Partnership, of which we are no longer a part of, is yet another step towards his campaign promise of a protectionist resurgence of American manufacturing. The tariffs, which would target steel by 25% and aluminum by 10%, are allegedly a response to a Department of Commerce report from last December, calling attention to the national security threat posed by our reliance on foreign steel production. The White House announced that temporary exceptions would be made for our neighbors in Canada and Mexico, pending upcoming discussions on the amendment of the North American Free Trade Act (NAFTA). These two countries provided a quarter of US steel imports and 42% of aluminum imports last year. Despite the small amount of steel we actually receive from China, they have been designated as the primary target behind this global tariff, due to their alleged unfair trading practices, such as overproduction. China currently produces almost as much steel in a month as the US produces in a year. The countries who would be primarily affected by this decision, however, are Brazil, South Korea, and Russia.
This latest tariff has proved extremely controversial, even among those who often support Trump’s policies. 107 Republican lawmakers signed a letter asking for Trump to reconsider his decision, and the President’s chief economic advisor, Gary Cohn, resigned after failing to prevent this move. “There are unquestionably bad trade practices by nations like China, but the better approach is targeted enforcement against those practices”, said Republican Majority Leader Paul Ryan, “Our economy and our national security are strengthened by fostering free trade with our allies and promoting the rule of law”
Analysis
It’s no surprise that the newest tariffs would be unpopular to anyone not directly working in American steel or aluminum production. Trump’s stated reason for the tariff is that of national security, but the Department of Defense issued a statement which, while agreeing that unfair trade practices could pose a risk to our security, declared that there is no danger of any failure to produce sufficient steel domestically to meet national defense requirements, and instead, once again, called for targeted tariffs. If the World Trade Organization agrees with many of the tariffs’ critics- that the purpose of the decision is to support American industry rather than secure our National Security- Trump will be forced to choose between rescinding his decision or causing a worldwide breakdown in global trading rules. The fact that Trump’s stated reason for providing exceptions to Canada and Mexico is due to NAFTA talks weakens any chance of passing this off as a national security measure. The risk of a trade war is high, with the EU releasing a list of American-made goods which would be penalized if the tariff went through.
It’s questionable whether the tariff would even be beneficial for domestic industries. If the US cannot fill the gaps in steel and aluminum production caused by reduced imports, the result will be considerably higher prices for steel and aluminum, which could have waves of impact throughout the economy, with higher costs passed on to American consumers. With so many allies offended, such a small likelihood of boosting our economy, and so many ways this move could go wrong, this is truly right in line with Trump’s economic policy so far.
Engagement Resources
- Read an Assessment of the Potential Impact on American Labor: This piece, published by the Nation, contests the suggestion that this tariff would even be beneficial for American steel workers.
- Read a Summary of Trump’s Use of Tariffs: This summary, published by USResist, indexes Trump’s use of tariffs to exert global influence.
Will Raising Minimum Age To Purchase Guns to Twenty – One Make A Difference?
National Protest Action
February 28, 2018
Summary
On February 14, 2018, a school shooter opened fire at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida and killed seventeen people. The accused gunman, nineteen – year old Nikolas Cruz, was taken into custody and is awaiting trial. After the shooting numerous companies took action to distance themselves from and reduce business ties with the National Rifle Association (NRA), a non – profit group that is seen as an obstacle to enacting gun restriction legislation. While most companies eliminated discounts and benefits available to NRA members, the retail stores Walmart and Dick’s Sporting Goods announced that they were raising the age limit to purchase guns from their stores from eighteen to twenty – one. Dick’s Sporting Goods also announced that they would no longer sell high capacity magazines at all. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Analysis
The actions taken by Walmart and Dick’s Sporting Goods are admirable steps to combat the number of school shootings in America. But raising the age limit to twenty-one to purchase a gun from their stores does not completely address the issue. An editorial in the Richmond Times Dispatch on March 3, 2018 calculated that the average age of a spree killer in America was thirty – five years. In the October 1, 2017 shooting in Las Vegas, Nevada the shooter Stephen Paddock was a sixty-four year old man and reportedly owned more than forty guns. The shooter in the Orlando nightclub shooting was a twenty-nine year old Afghani man. And in the Sandy Hook school shooting, Adam Lanza was a twenty – year old but had easy access to weapons because of his mother who was described as a “gun enthusiast.” Having the minimum age to purchase a gun would not have applied to these shooters except Adam Lanza although he still had easy access to weapons because of his mother.
Would raising the age limit to purchase guns really have an effect on reducing mass shootings? Schools are not the only places that have had to deal with gun violence. There have been incidents at concerts, a movie theater, military bases and even at an outdoor Congresswoman event in Arizona. The ages of these shooters are outside the range of eighteen to twenty-one years old. While the actions of Walmart and Dick’s Sporting Goods is a step in the right direction, what is needed to combat these incidents is to not merely place restrictions within a certain age range but to look at all of these incidents together and look for more common threads than age and location of the shooting. The epidemic of mass shootings in America have not been isolated only to schools and the shooters have not always been under the age of twenty-one. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence – non – profit group advocating an end to gun violence.
- Every Town For Gun Safety – non – profit group looking to end gun violence and build safer communities.
- Coalition To Stop Gun Violence – coalition group on issues of guns in America.
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.
Companies Distance Themselves From National Rifle Association (NRA) In Wake of Shooting at Parkland Florida High School
National Protest Action
February 26, 2018
Summary
On February 14, 2018, seventeen students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida were killed when a shooter opened fire at the school. In the aftermath of the tragedy, a debate on gun control in the United States emerged with arguments for more gun control and restrictions and arguments that opposed many of those proposals. The National Rifle Association (NRA), which bills itself as a civil rights organization that strives to protect the Second Amendment, were accused of trying to undermine legislative proposals that could be implemented to reduce incidents of school and mass shootings in America. In response to a perceived inability to influence state and federal legislators to enact more restrictive gun laws because of the political influence of the NRA, numerous companies decided to distance themselves and reduce their business associations with the NRA. LEARN MORE
Analysis
In recent years, the United States has experienced an increasing number of fatal shootings with numerous fatalities at places of learning and in the workplace. In the aftermath of these tragic shootings, there have been discussions on what can be done to prevent incidents in the future but nothing of substance has been implemented at the federal or state level. The NRA has traditionally been at the forefront of opposing gun restriction legislation and has been very effective at influencing politicians. The tragedy at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School appears to be different because of events that have transpired that did not occur after other shootings in years past. Likely because of a CNN town hall meeting video of Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) meeting with school survivors, most of America saw the anger in the students about why nothing was being done. And in a surprising move, numerous companies decided to cut ties with the NRA because of the perceived influence they have in defeating gun restriction legislation. At last count, twenty-four companies have decided to cut ties or reduce business associations with the NRA after the shooting in Parkland, Florida. There have been four medical services companies that have reduced business ties. Six travel service companies, including two airline carriers and a number of car rental companies, have followed suit. In addition, two banks and four companies in the insurance industry, some of whom provided gun insurance to NRA members, have also announced they will discontinue benefits to NRA members. (See the specific list of companies in Engagement Resources below).
This is remarkable because these types of incidents did not happen after mass shootings in years past. What has been put on display is the anger of high school students and citizens and companies who are simply fed up with the lack of progress at the state and federal level to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals. The hope is that America has now finally turned the corner. It remains to be seen what will happen but with companies now willing to distance themselves from the NRA and an upcoming student protest march planned for later in March that a more open and honest dialogue about gun control can occur without the discussion being twisted and manipulated by the interests of the NRA. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- March For Our Lives – online petition and webpage for info on March 24, 2018 march to end gun violence and school shootings in America today. Started by survivors of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting.
- Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence – non – profit group advocating an end to gun violence.
- Every Town For Gun Safety – non – profit group looking to end gun violence and build safer communities.
- Coalition To Stop Gun Violence – coalition group on issues of guns in America.
- Listing of Companies That Have Reduced Business Ties With the NRA – sorted by category:
- Health Services Companies: MetLife, Teledoc, Starkey Hearing Technologies and Paramount RX
- Insurance Companies: Chubb, Securian Financial Group, MetLife and Lockton
- Banks: First National Bank of Omaha and Republic Bank
- Travel Services: Enterprise, Hertz, Allied Van Lines, North American Van Lines, Avis, Budget, TrueCar, Delta Airlines and United Airlines
- Software: Symantec and Lifelock
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.
Trump Administration Sues California Over Sanctuary Policies
March 6, 2018
Summary
On Tuesday, March 6, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the Trump administration is suing the State of California, its Governor Jerry Brown (D), and its Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D), over three recently passed pieces of legislation, referred to as “sanctuary laws,” that have “made it impossible for federal immigration officials to do their jobs and deport criminals who were born outside of the United States” (New York Times). Specifically, the lawsuit seeks to render the Immigration Worker Protection Act (AB 450), Assembly Bill 103, and the California Values Act (SB 54) unconstitutional. The lawsuit was filed in Federal District Court in Sacramento.
Analysis
California has the largest immigrant population in the United States as of 2012, according to the Pew Research Center, so it is no wonder that the state has gone to greater lengths than others to protect the rights and interests of its immigrant residents through the passage of sanctuary laws. These laws, however, contradict and threaten the populist, nationalist, hateful rhetoric and political action spearheaded by Trump and Sessions. By putting the federal government at odds with the State of California, the Trump administration continues to polarize government at all levels, fostering an increasingly toxic and dangerous political climate.
In this particular instance, the California Values Act, which was signed into law by Governor Brown in October of 2017, seems to have been the straw that broke Trump’s back, for he threatened to pull Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE) officials from the state following the bill’s passage. This lawsuit could be an indication of precedent: when Trump doesn’t get his way, he sues.
For the most part, federal judges have been crucial in blocking some of Trump’s most outlandish immigration policy, particularly as it pertains to the phase-out of DACA. As the litigation unfolds, Californians and non-Californians alike in favor of progressive (and quite frankly—fair) immigration policies will vigorously advocate for these policies to remain in place. In the event that the ruling is in favor of the plaintiff (Trump), the results could be devastating, leading to the deportation of thousands of people across California. Should the ruling be in favor of the defendants, however, it will signify to the President and his administration that the country is losing tolerance for unfounded hate.
Engagement Resources
- Show Your Solidarity with the Immigrant Legal Resource Center: The Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC) is a national nonprofit resource center that provides immigration legal trainings, technical assistance, and educational materials, and engages in advocacy and immigrant civic engagement to advance immigrant rights. You can support the center by donating or attending one of their virtual or in-person trainings.
- Act with America’s Voice: America’s Voice is a progressive immigration reform nonprofit that advocates for full and equal rights of all immigrants. The organization runs numerous campaigns, maps incidents of hate against people of color, and assists with voter registration, amongst other activities essential to promoting equity for immigrant lives in the United States. You can make a contribution to America’s Voice here.
- Support the New Americans Campaign: The New Americans Campaign is a national, nonpartisan network of immigrant organizations, legal service providers, faith-based organizations, faith-based organizations, immigrant rights groups, foundations, and community leaders. A project by the Immigration Legal Resource Center, the campaign is committed to connecting lawful permanent residents to trusted legal assistance. Click here to support the campaign.
This brief was compiled by Allie Blum. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief please contact allie@usresistnews.org.
Trump’s White House Opioid Summit: Indication of Continued Inaction
March 6, 2018
Summary
On Thursday, March 1, 2018, the White House held an Opioid Epidemic Summit to discuss possible solutions for the current public health emergency. In true Trump fashion, there was much discussion of possible policy implementations, but little action. Trump notably suggested that a capital charge should be set up for fentanyl traffickers and heroin drug dealers, similar to the death penalty set up in Singapore. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Alex Alzar, encouraged states to use medication assistance programs or “wavers” provided through federal programs like Medicaid. In addition, Housing and Urban Development Secretary, Ben Carson, made efforts to continue to discuss how communities could provide more housing and resources for those suffering from addiction. The strongest action came from Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who filed a statement of interest in suing opioid manufacturers and distributors. To do this, he set up a Prescription Interdiction and Litigation Task Force. Other cabinet secretaries discussed strategies to close the supply chain of fentanyl from China and Mexico. This would mostly encourage China and Mexico to make fentanyl illegal in their countries as well. Ultimately, the summit reviewed multiple policy options, but there is still little action from the administration on the crisis.
Analysis
Since Trump declared the opioid crisis a public health emergency in October of 2017, there has been very little successful action on preventative measures and combatting the effects of the crisis. The medication assistance “waiver” program suggested by HHS Secretary Alzar has only been filed by five different governors. This is due to Trump’s suggestions to cut Medicaid programs which have greatly decreased states’ interest in forming a reliance on the medication assistance programs. Closing off the supply chain from Mexico and China could help with decreasing the amount of fentanyl trafficked, but only 1,485 pounds of fentanyl were seized by Customs and Border Protection officials from border and postal service intersection, compared to individual US distributors where as much as 141 pounds were seized from two traffickers. As for AG Sessions’ Task Force on Litigation, that appears to have been the most effective means of eradicating online trafficking sites like Alpha Bay and holding manufacturers and distributors accountable. Even so, it’s unclear how effective this policy will be since opioid manufacturers and distributors have provided close to $4 billion dollars in advocacy and lobbying in Congress for pharmaceutical companies profiting off of the current crisis. Litigating these conspirators will not stop them from advocating for the distribution of these drugs in the beginning of the supply chain. Additionally, Sessions has made comments negating the role of Big Pharma in the opioid crisis, and blaming medical marijuana instead for much of the problems.
No new policy has been implemented since 2017 from the White House or the Department of Health and Human Services, and it appears that will remain the status quo.
Engagement Resources
- NLC Opioid Action Report -Learn more about the National League of Counties and Cities report on community engagement and action for leaders on combating the opioid crisis.
- As always, contact your state’s elected officials and voice your concerns.
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.
EPA Announces Remedy for West Lake Landfill Superfund Site
EPA West Lake Landfill Superfund Site Press Release and Corrected Proposal
February 6, 2018
Summary
EPA Secretary Pruitt announced a proposed remedy for the West Lake Landfill in North Saint Louis County calling the site a top priority for the EPA. The project, named “Excavation Plus,” will remove most of the radioactive material that poses a public health threat and place a permanent cap and engineered cover system for long-term health and safety. “Excavation Plus” will take 5 years to complete and includes digging to a depth of 16 feet to remove the waste. This decision came after much public criticism of the EPA and local agencies on their apparent unwillingness to find a solution to a problem that has only become more alarming over time. Westlake was established as a solid waste landfill in the early 1970s before standards or permits were required for such entities. In 1973, Westlake became radiologically contaminated when uranium processing waste was dumped on site, but it was not declared a Superfund site until 1990 when radioactive materials were confirmed on both the surface of the landfill and areas below (7 to 12 feet or deeper). Even then it was deemed as only requiring “further monitoring.” In 2008, the EPA placed a cap on the landfill hoping to stave off the spread of the contamination and prevent fumes in the surrounding area. In December of 2010, officials discovered a smoldering underground fire about 1,000 feet from the nuclear waste site, and emergency plans were created in the event that this fire reached the radioactive waste. Residents were confused and alarmed by this news, as well as the accompanying increase in fumes and odors from the landfill. “Excavation Plus” is a long-awaited excavation to remedy public health threats and prevent further damage.
Analysis
The Westlake Landfill has long been a complicated site, but the introduction of the fire put a timetable on disaster. However, it is not as simple as removing waste or putting out a fire. Removing the waste is a costly and time-consuming process that may release a higher level of toxins into the air and groundwater, posing risks to workers and residents. In March of 2013, over two years after the discovery of the fire, the “area of high subsurface temperatures” was measured at a depth of up to 150 feet and over an area of hundreds of yards, inching closer to the radioactive waste location. This was the tipping point for many locals. Residents of the surrounding areas rallied together to support each other and protest inaction from the government on multiple levels. A fire break was built in response to a lawsuit filed in 2013. There was a push for a more long-term solution. Now 600 feet from the fire, the current plan will remove 70% of the waste at a depth of 16 feet. Residents are concerned that partial removal will not be enough, and the public comment period has been extended to address concerns.
Engagement Resources
- Read more about the History of the Westlake Landfill
- Read the Full Proposal or submit Public Comment through April 23. 2018
- Watch the HBO Documentary about the community response to Westlake in Atomic Homefront
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.
