JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
North Carolina Election Highlights Need To Prioritize Election Integrity; State Elections
Brief #71—Civil Rights Policy Summary On November 6, 2018, the United States held its biennial federal elections. As dictated by the U.S. Constitution, every seat in the House of Representatives was up for election as well as the required 1/3 of the total Senate seats...
What is Robert Mueller’s Endgame?
Speaking to CNN a few months back, the legendary journalist Carl Bernstein insisted that Robert Mueller’s team of investigators were building a “vast narrative” of what transpired during the 2016 election between the Trump campaign and a variety of anti-American actors, including Russian intelligence and Wikileaks.
Threats to the Affordable Care Act Amid Midterm Medicaid Success
Throughout the Trump Administration’s tenure, there has been an underlying campaign promise: dismantling and destroying the Affordable Care Act. Translation: cutting off healthcare to millions of families. The key policies in the administration have been to expand access to junk plans offered by insurance companies often out of the ACA marketplace, keep preexisting condition exclusion principles in place, and limit the reach of Medicare and Medicaid.
Immigration Policy Updates
During the past week, when many Americans gave thanks for their blessings, those making their way to the southern US border were faced with continuing hostility and exclusion. President Trump invoked similar rhetoric he used to impose the travel ban on countries with dominantly Muslim populations, in his most recent attempts to ban asylum to all individuals who cross the border illegally. A federal judge from San Francisco temporarily blocked the government from denying asylum to those crossing the southern border between ports of entry, which led to Trump criticizing the Justice Department for appealing his request as being biased and an “Obama judge.”
Noam Chomsky: How the US “Politically Vulgarizes” Genocide and War Crimes
Interview was originally posted on the website Truthout Noam Chomsky has revolutionized multiple fields of study, from psychology to linguistics to political science. With books such as Manufacturing Consent (with Edward S. Herman), The Fateful Triangle, Hegemony or...
Evidence Mounts of Trump Campaign Conspiracy with Russia, Anti-American Actors
By Jonathan Peter Schwartz Policy Summary Several revelatory developments emerged this week in the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. To be sure, they hardly reveal the full scope of what special counsel Robert Mueller and his team may know,...
Major U.S. Government Climate Assessment Ignored by U.S Government
Political controversy erupted this last black Friday, a day normally reserved for nonpolitical pursuits, such as bargain hunting and post-Thanksgiving family therapy.
New Trump Administration Attacks on LGBTQIA+ Community
Last month, Axios published an interview with Trump in which he suggested that there would be steps taken to ensure that gender identification from the federal government would be purely binary.
Betsy DeVos Proposed Title IX Changes
Department of Education Secretary, Betsy DeVos, has released several new policies in regards to how US colleges and universities will treat allegations of sexual harassment and assault. DeVos claims the current system in place has “failed” and is a “shameful” method that has been unfair to the students suspected of alleged crimes.
Reversing Obama-Era Regulation That Combats Housing Segregation
Congressional Bill
January 2018
Summary
The Trump administration is trying to eliminate the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) rule started by President Obama. The AFFH is a legal requirement that federal agencies and federal grantees further the purposes of the Fair Housing Act. Specifically, this means asking communities that receive Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funds meaningful actions that, taken together, address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws. The rule requires jurisdictions that receive federal housing funding to not only document barriers to integration and opportunity, but to detail—and prioritize—policies to eradicate them.
Still, sadly, key components of this bill did not make it through the required Office of Management and Budget review by the time Trump was sworn in. As a result, this means that Trump does not even have to undo the rule as it was never put into effect. “He can just let it languish, unfinished, and direct his HUD secretary to return to business as usual.” LEARN MORE
Analysis
The AFFH regulation passed under the Obama Administration made it so when communities applied for federal HUD money they had to turn in an Analysis of Impediments (AI) form. This form would show how residents of color faced segregation and what actions local officials were using to combat this issue. Sadly, the AIs have been a joke for years for many reasons. First, local leaders don’t take them seriously (they rely on realtors/developers instead of carrying out an actual analysis. Secondly, HUD never checks if the applications are telling the truth. This can be done by either sharing intelligence federal agencies have with state/local officials or simply hiring more personnel to increase accountability. As a result, segregation continues to exist even after multiple decades of the Fair Housing Act. The 2015 AFFH rule would have combatted this by making it easier to prepare accurate AIs by sharing federal data on segregation with local governments. In addition, it would also make it easier for HUD to hold back money from communities that are not actively fighting against segregated housing. LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- Town Hall Project– This project compiles the open-to-the-public events held by state and local representatives. This provides a great opportunity to tell them that this executive order will do more bad than good. You can also dial 1-844-6-RESIST to be redirected to the office of your local member of Congress.
- National Housing Law Project – The National Housing Law Project’s mission is to advance housing justice for poor people and communities. – https://www.nhlp.org/
- The Poverty & Race Research Action Council (PRRAC) – A civil rights policy organization convened by major civil rights, civil liberties, and anti-poverty groups. PRRAC’s primary mission is to help connect advocates with social scientists working on race and poverty issues, and to promote a research-based advocacy strategy on structural inequality issues. – http://prrac.org/about.php
- US Senate – Contact your local representatives to take a stance against this proposed legislation. – https://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/
- US House of Representatives – Contact your local representatives to take a stance against this proposed legislation – http://www.house.gov/representatives/
This brief was compiled by Vaibhav Kumar. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact vaibhav@usresistnews.org.
Department of Defense Issues National Defense Strategy
January 19, 2018
Summary
Last Friday, January 19th, the US Department of Defense published a summary of the 2018 National Defense Strategy (NDS). The full document, which is classified, was written in conjunction with the National Security Strategy Report of last December. This is a result of the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act which required the Secretary of Defense to present a new national defense strategy in the year following a presidential election. The NDS showed a further divergence from the national security rhetoric of the Obama era. While Afghanistan and North Korea were discussed, the document was more focused on the perceived danger of our geopolitical rivals China and Russia. Defense Secretary Mattis introduced the document stating that “Great-power competition — not terrorism — is now the primary focus of U.S. national security”.
The document asserts that “China is a strategic competitor using predatory economics to intimidate its neighbors while militarizing features in the South China Sea… It is increasingly clear that China and Russia want to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model — gaining veto authority over other nations’ economic, diplomatic, and security decisions” and that Russia and China are a “central challenge to US prosperity and security.” China was quick to respond to the provocation, with Ren Guoqiang of the Chinese Ministry of National Defense contending that the NDS was “full of unreal assertions of ‘zero-sum’ games and confrontations”. Ren defended China’s “sovereign rights to carry out peaceful construction activities and deploy necessary defense facilities on islands and reefs of the South China Sea”, further suggesting that it “seems that certain countries do not want to see peace and stability in the South China Sea region and insist on intensifying their own military deployment and presence there…they are the backstage manipulator for militarizing the region.”
Defense Secretary Mattis also stated that the NDS is based on the “fundamental precept” that we need to increase defense spending because our survival is in question. Describing our military as “overstretched and under-resourced”, Mattis asked Congress to ensure a stable flow of funding towards the interest of national defense.
Analysis
With over 500,000 US military personnel in the Asia-Pacific region, it is understandable that China is offended by the Trump administration’s accusations of imperialism. As much as Mattis wants to portray the US as the crumbling guardian of democracy, we already take up 36% of global defense spending, more than three times what China spends. With Mattis’ explanation that “history makes clear that America has no preordained right to victory on the battlefield”, one must question whether the problem with the last 50 years of US foreign policy is really a lack of funding or merely a reckless sense of adventurism among Washington war-hawks.
Engagement Resources
- Read an Analysis of US Presence in the South China Sea: Here is an opinion piece published in Forbes on the subject.
- Read the Full National Security Strategy Summary: Here is the full summary
- Read a Previous USResist brief on the National Security Strategy: Here is our brief from last December.
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.
White House Proposal for Dreamer Path to Citizenship Comes with Some Caveats
January 25, 2018
Summary
On Thursday, January 25, The Washington Post reported that the White House is proposing a path to citizenship for an estimated 1.8 million Dreamers (DACA recipients). In exchange for sparing young undocumented immigrants the hardships of deportation, the proposal calls for a $25 billion trust fund for a border wall and additional security measures to curtail illegal border crossing. The proposal also seeks to crack down on legal immigration systems and processes. While the plan would enable more than twice the number of young people previously enrolled in DACA to become citizens of the United States over a 10-12-year period, it dually seeks to terminate the Diversity Visa Lottery program by replacing it with a merit-based program, and would make it illegal for American citizens of immigrant families to sponsor a parent, adult child, or sibling should they seek citizenship in the US. Under this proposal, only spouses and minor-aged children would be eligible for visa sponsorship. The proposal was created by domestic policy advisor to the President Stephen Miller and White House chief of staff John Kelly.
Analysis
While the White House views this proposal as a compromise, congressional Democrats and Republicans in support of progressive immigration reform see it as a demand to concede, which resulted in great pushback following the legislative announcement on Thursday. Likewise, certain provisions of the plan are likely to upset conservative Republicans on Capitol Hill, specifically the creation of a path to citizenship for Dreamers.
This proposal not only demonstrates the President’s (and his administration’s) unwillingness to compromise with Democrats, but also the disconnect between himself and members of his own party. Furthermore, Trump’s insistence on letting Dreamers stay in the U.S. not only contradicts his administration’s move to end DACA in the first place, but is counterintuitive to his plan of splitting up Dreamers’ families, going against a central tenant of the “American Dream” (providing a better life for one’s family) that he so vigorously champions. This makes the basis of logic for this proposal difficult to follow, coming from a place where motives and reasoning should be transparent and easy to understand.
Engagement Resources
- 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.
- Show Your Solidarity with Here to Stay: Here to Stay is a campaign run by United We Dream aimed at defending DACA. The organization hosts local Defend DACA rallies and other events, holds community calls, and provides resources for understanding DACA, as well as mental health resources for anyone who is affected by the administration’s decision to end DACA.
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.
Budget Process Gets Politicized and Government Shuts Down
January 25, 2018
Summary
A 69-hour US government shutdown ended early this week with passage of a short-term spending bill that funds federal operations through February 8. This is the fourth temporary funding measure Congress has passed since it failed to meet an October 1 deadline last year for the FY2018 budget.
On January 20, the one year anniversary of Donald Trump’s inauguration, the shutdown began when Republicans failed to garner the 60 votes needed to approve a stopgap bill that would have kept the government funded through February 16. With few exceptions, all but essential government service agencies came to a halt at midnight, January 19, putting hundreds of thousands of federal employees on furlough without pay. It’s the first time in modern history that the federal government has shut down with the House of Representatives, Senate, and the White House all controlled by the same party.
Called by many “The Schumer Shutdown” and dubbed “The Trump Shutdown” by others, the Senate’s deadlock resulted over Democrats’ demands to find a permanent fix for the DACA program. A majority of Americans would like to see the DACA program continued, but disapprove of government shutdown as a political tactic.
Trump first introduced his “America First” budget blueprint on March 16 of last year. The proposal covers only discretionary spending, not “entitlements” or mandatory spending. To pay for increased funding for defense and a proposed border wall Trump famously promised to build during his campaign, the document calls for broad cuts in programs related to science and research, climate change, the environment, professional training, community development, international aid and peacekeeping, arts and humanities, and more. It also proposes eliminating 66 federal programs altogether, cutting funding entirely for Public Broadcasting, the Interagency Council on Homelessness, Legal Services, NEA, NEH, US Trade and Development, African Development Foundation, and a dozen other agencies.
By law, Congress has until April 15 each year for final adoption of the full budget resolution — or, it can write itself deadline extensions in the form of short-term spending bills, also called Continuing Resolutions or CRs. The Trump Administration operated on one stopgap measure after another until well into October, when the budget narrowly passed. LEARN MORE.
Since then, more stop-gap bills are keeping the federal government running as Congress battles over appropriations. Republicans pushed a massive spending package through in September, the only legally required budget deadline Congress managed to meet, and then used “reconciliation,” a tactic meant to resolve partisan gridlock but used now to force the party line, to pass sweeping tax reform in December. Republicans also attempted to use reconciliation in repeated attempts to repeal Obamacare, another issue which has bogged down the FY2018 budget process.
Though not common, government shutdowns in the US are nothing new. Since passage of the Congressional Budget Act in 1974, the US federal government has shut down nineteen times over disagreements tying fiscal year budgetary votes to ultimatums on a wide range of issues, from abortion to education to defense spending and more. This time, budget talks for FY2018 have stumbled over immigration and border security issues, forcing the January 20 shutdown. Congress now has until February 8 before the threat of another shutdown looms.
Analysis
If the above summary of the FY2018 budget process sounds too complicated and dysfunctional for words, you’re right. American political ideology has become increasingly divided along party lines over the past two decades, especially during the Obama administration, when Republicans were instructed to work against anything the administration tried to accomplish, explicitly to guarantee the failure of American government.
Under the Trump administration, Democrats and Republicans are even more sharply divided on just about everything, including immigration and racial issues, aid to the poor and human rights, climate change, taxation and the role of government, defense spending, foreign policy, religion, and education. In fact, while the Democratic party attracts more Americans with higher education degrees, Republicans are working to abolish the Department of Education, while during his campaign Trump declared, “I love the poorly educated” because they are “more loyal.”
Now, as Republicans manipulate and bend legislative rules to their own partisan ends, they blame Democrats for failures of the past which were for the most part caused by Republican obstructionism. Although Democrats are not entirely spotless, the GOP has truly become the “party of dirty tricks.” The recent shutdown is a case in point; Republicans managed to make Democrats look bad for disrupting process and taking a strong partisan stand, while Republicans themselves have done nothing but obstruct process and draw partisan lines in the sand for years.
Speaking of doing nothing, even Trump’s “America First” budget plan has been called “a ruse” in Washington. Frustrated with months of haggling, Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) said the budget “has no impact on anything whatsoever affecting the American people,” calling the entire budget process “the biggest hoax passed upon the American people ever.” Trump’s budget manifesto was a required gesture to initiate a strategy using the budget process to fast-track tax reform. The budget process was put in place near the end of Republican president Nixon’s ill-fated term to keep the president from blocking appropriations without any input from Congress. But Republicans like Corker want this to change — not to make the system more fair, but to allow Congress to make sweeping changes to mandatory spending; those entitlements that Democrats tend to hold dear. Mandatory spending, which makes up roughly 70% of government spending, is not addressed in the fiscal year budget but rather, is determined by individual pieces of legislation for each entitlement program.
Dependence on stopgap measures means the threat of government shutdown is conjured again and again, lending a sense of urgency and crisis to issues that Congress should be addressing by judicious, rational, and timely legislative process. While a government shutdown can have short-term effects on the economy, especially inside the beltway, Congressional dysfunction is far more damaging to the US economy and by extension, to the US dollar and its role in the global economy. Economists have long operated on the maxim that “business doesn’t like uncertainty.” But in the face of an increasingly dysfunctional Congress, many are starting to ask, is uncertainty the new normal?
Engagement Resources
- The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is a nonpartisan research and policy institute. We pursue federal and state policies designed both to reduce poverty and inequality and to restore fiscal responsibility in equitable and effective ways.
- Convergence Center for Policy Reform is a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to helping promote dialogue and solve problems across the political divide on issues of national consequence.
This brief was compiled by Jennifer Chesworth. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief please contact jennifer@usresistnews.org.
The Three Approaches To Saving Net Neutrality
Proposed Remedies To Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Agency Regulations
January 17, 2018
Note: This brief updates a prior civil rights brief on the net neutrality issue. For more information please see the original April 26, 2017 brief and November and December 2017 updates here.
Summary
On January 16, 2018, a lawsuit was filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia by attorney generals of twenty-one states and the District of Columbia. The petition will seek to prevent the enforcement of the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) “Restoring Internet Freedom” order that overturned Obama-era regulations. In the Senate, Democratic members announced that they had fifty votes of support and were one vote shy to vote to reject the FCC order. And finally, numerous states in the last two months have introduced bills in their state legislatures that would preserve net neutrality within their states regardless of the fate of the FCC’s “Restoring Internet Freedom” order. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Analysis
After the FCC’s 3 – 2 vote to rollback Obama-era regulations in its “Restoring Internet Freedom” proposal, many were up in arms and sought ways to prevent implementation of the order. As of January 2018, three options had emerged. In December 2017, numerous states began to consider state laws that would preserve net neutrality regulations in their state. The proposal in California, which mirrors net neutrality bills in other states, would require businesses to adopt net neutrality practices if their business is dependent on California funding or infrastructure. However, this does not guarantee that the law would reach every resident of California. The second option comes from the Senate. Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) has proclaimed that he has a majority of votes to disapprove of the order in that chamber. But even if that resolution passes, there would still be opposition in the House of Representatives and would not likely be signed by President Trump. The final option is the petition filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on Tuesday. This option is the most substantial because it shows that there is widespread support (21 states and the District of Columbia) to oppose Chairman Pai’s intent to do away with net neutrality. However, cases are not decided overnight. It may take months for the case to get a full hearing on the merits in addition to a few other legal obstacles that need to be addressed first. None of these options guarantee a total or an immediate success at the moment but it does demonstrate the widespread opposition to Chairman Pai’s efforts to do away with net neutrality. The fight continues. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) – database of state efforts related to Internet service providers.
- Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) – research center dedicated to online privacy and civil liberty issues.
- Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) – local community efforts at digital privacy and net neutrality.
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.
Work Requirements for Medicaid
Letter issued on January 11, 2018
Note: This brief updates previous entitlement programs briefs. For more information, please see the April 12, 2017 brief on work requirements for Medicaid.
Summary
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a letter on January 11th allowing states to impose work requirements for Medicaid eligibility. Eight states, (AR, AZ, IN, KS, ME, NH, UT, and WI) have pending requests for work requirements as a condition for Medicaid eligibility and CMS has already approved Kentucky’s weaver. Previous administrations did not approve work requirements for Medicaid because the guidelines do not align with the program’s purpose of promoting health care coverage. The letter asserts that the new policy assists “states in their efforts to improve Medicaid enrollee health and well-being through incentivizing work and community engagement.” LEARN MORE
Analysis
Six in 10 nonelderly adults that receive Medicaid benefits are already working. Most of the remaining recipients are not working due to illness, disability, school, or caregiving responsibility, leaving only 7% of nonelderly, Medicaid eligible adults subject to work requirements. Even so, all recipients would have to verify that they are working, looking for a job, or training for employment. States would need to pay for the staff and administrative processes to enforce work requirements. Some eligible recipients may lose coverage due to miscommunication or paperwork errors. In many states, working at minimum wage to adhere to Medicaid work requirements would cause recipients to lose Medicaid eligibility because they would earn too much to qualify. LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- Contact Your State Officials – Voice your opinion on the matter to the people who make these important decisions!
- Families USA – Learn more about Medicaid and how it affects families. Families USA supports the expansion of Medicaid to boost state economies and strengthen the health care system.
This brief was compiled by Ann Furbush. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief please contact ann@usresistnews.org.
MoneyGram, AT&T Deals Blocked as US Talks Tough on Chinese Investment
January 19, 2018
Summary
Citing potential “malicious actors” and national security risks, early in the new year the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States (CFIUS) rejected Alibaba Group Holding affiliate Ant Financial’s $1.2b bid to purchase MoneyGram International, a Dallas-based money transfer company. With the deal derailed after a year of negotiations, Ant must now pay a $30m termination fee.
One week later, on January 9, Chinese telecom company Huawei announced that plans to sell its smartphones with AT&T in the United States had also collapsed. After lobbying the CFIUS to scrap the deal, US lawmakers urged AT&T, the second largest wireless carrier, to cut all ties with Huawei, warning that if they or other American firms do business with Huawei, they might find US government contracts awarded elsewhere.
In a signal of cooperation with American regulators, the Chinese Ministry of Industry and Information Technology reprimanded Alibaba and two other top Chinese tech firms for “inadequate” policies relating to personal information protection, calling for an investigation and vowing that any violations would be “severely punished.” Alibaba’s Alipay was singled out by Chinese cyber regulators over user complaints of automatic enrollment in the company’s credit rating program, which gives Alipay access to a wide array of user data.
It remains to be seen how this chilling effect on Chinese investment will impact the long-anticipated sale of Virginia-based insurer Genworth Financial. The $2.7b acquisition deal with privately held conglomerate China Oceanwide Holdings Group — which acquired the American tech publishing pioneer, data analysis and venture capital firm International Data Group last year— has been stalled repeatedly, by lawsuits and by CFIUS concerns over protection of customers’ personal medical and financial data. The sale, now postponed until April 1, would help Genworth cope with $600 million in debt maturing in May of this year.
Analysis
Acquisitions of U.S.companies by Chinese investors face greater suspicion and scrutiny under the Trump administration, in an atmosphere of increased tensions between the two nations, especially over North Korea’s nuclear program.
But concerns over Chinese policy of requiring firms to hand over key technologies in order to gain access to Chinese markets, corporate espionage, and the Chinese government’s failure to crack down on intellectual property theft, are nothing new.
What’s new is an unprecedented global buying spree on the part of Chinese investors. As a condition of acceptance into the World Trade Organizaition (WTO) in 2001, China agreed to a number of economic reforms that would open its markets to outside competition. Its economy progressed at an impressive pace, as American companies bought up cheap wholesale Chinese products and raced for market position in what has become the 2nd largest economy in the world. China invested roughly $64 billion in the US between 1990 and 2015. But with the release of its Made in China 2025 plan in 2015 — a blueprint for upgrading the country’s manufacturing sector which is seen by many as a “return to old-school top-down mercantilist practices and import-substitution policies” — China’s US-investments surged to $45.6 billion in 2016 alone, with California tech, entertainment, real estate and logistics being the largest recipients at a combined total of $16b.
In spite of Washington’s concerns over technology transfer that may have military applications, such as AI and robotics, and dismay over personal data protections, censorship laws, and a burgeoning surveillance state, Silicon Valley has continued to court China for market growth and partnerships. Chinese investors are giving start-ups more favorable terms, while tech firms argue that engagement is better than withdrawal if America is to stay competitive in emerging markets and innovation.
Signaling a new hard-line approach during Trump’s state visit to Beijing last November, Washington lawmakers introduced a bill to revamp the CFIUS to close gaps in its review process against “weaponizing” investment by “potential adversaries, such as China.” Although reform of the committee is long overdue, backlog and delays are in part a result of Trump’s inability to fill mid-level political positions in key agencies comprising the CFIUS.
While national security and the notion of reciprocity deserve our attention, Washington’s bellicose tone, punctuated by Trump’s incendiary rhetoric and erratic tweets about both China and North Korea, sabotage diplomatic efforts in an already complicated and sensitive relationship with China. As Trump blusters to gratify a xenophobic and intolerant segment of his “base” and to push his America First agenda forward, the rest of the world seems poised to look elsewhere for leadership.
Engagement Resources
- US-China Policy Foundation provides opportunities for students, researchers, and practitioners of foreign policy to interact in diverse and substantial ways to promote greater understanding and awareness of issues in US-China relations.
- The Paul Tsai China Center is dedicated to helping advance China’s legal reform, improving US-China relations, and increasing understanding of China in the United States.
This brief was compiled by Jennifer Chesworth. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief please contact jennifer@usresistnews.org.
Trump’s Derogatory Comment Curtails Immigration Efforts
January 12, 2018
Summary
On Thursday, January 11, President Trump reportedly asked during a bipartisan meeting on immigration reform, “Why are we having people from all of these shithole countries here?” in reference to Haiti, El Salvador, and African countries. Trump would later go on to say that Haitians should be left out of any future immigration legislation. Following these remarks, Trump suggested that the United States bring in more people from countries like Norway, or from Asian countries, who he deemed would support and strengthen the country’s economy.
To further complicate the situation, lawmakers who were present at the meeting, like Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen, and the President himself, are denying that he ever used the term “shithole” to describe the aforementioned nations that were brought up specifically in regard to Temporary Protected Status (TPS) removals enacted by the Department of Homeland Security last week and in November.
Analysis
From a lawmaking standpoint, in addition to feeling discouraged about the prospects of reaching a bipartisan deal on immigration, members of Congress are also concerned that the contested debate over immigration policy could result in a government shutdown as deadlines loom with no compromise. More specifically, this means that if lawmakers cannot agree on a budget for this fiscal year, many federal agencies will cease activity after midnight on Friday indefinitely until a spending bill is agreed upon by Democrats and Republicans alike.
From a humanistic standpoint, this rhetoric used by the President demonstrates his normalization of racism and bigotry in public spheres. Trump supporters laud their leader for using language they themselves would use to describe the aforementioned countries from the likes of Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. Should the President continue to use this language, more acts of hate and violence will persist, and the reality of reaching a deal on programs like DACA, TPS, and the Diversity Visa Lottery Program, will cease to exist.
Engagement Resources
- 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.
- Stay Up to Date with the National Immigration Forum: The National Immigration Forum is a DC-based nonprofit that leads the nation in constructive conversation and advocacy for the value of immigrants and immigration. The Forum is currently running a program called Immigration 2020, a multi-constituency effort to ensure that new Americans have the opportunities, skills, and status they need to contribute to the United States and realize their maximum potential. Join the organization’s email list to stay up to date on all things related to immigration policy.
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.
The House of Representatives Vote on Extension of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and Proposed Privacy Protections For Americans
House of Representatives Action
January 11, 2018
Summary
On January 11, 2018, the House of Representatives voted on two bills regarding warrantless surveillance programs in the United States. S.139, popularly known as the FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act of 2017 was approved by the House by a vote of 256 – 164. That bill reauthorizes FISA for an additional six years and does not make any substantive changes to the law. Another bill, known as the USA Rights Act, proposed stricter limits and additional protections and was introduced as an amendment that would have replaced the text of S.139. However, this amendment failed by a vote of 183 – 233. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Analysis
The vote on the two bills taken by the House of Representatives was a double-dose of disappointment. First, the approval of S.139 is an approval and extension of FISA without any substantive changes to the law at all, especially the controversial Section 702. That law was initially designed to collect electronic communications of a foreign target (person) so long as that target was overseas. However, the sweeping up of these electronic communications inadvertently collected the communications of U.S. citizens that were then stored in a database. Even if an American citizen was not targeted for surveillance, the accumulation of their electronic communications was allowed to be retained in this database and made available for search without a warrant by law enforcement and national security agencies. The disappointment of the House vote is that the law was renewed without any changes addressing the concerns of this surveillance program and its effect on American citizens.
What made the day even more frustrating was that the House had an amendment before it that contained proposals to improve Section 702 and other surveillance programs and instead the chamber voted to not approve the amendments. The USA Rights Act offered substantive reforms that would have fixed some of the troubling aspects of Section 702. Specifically, the USA Rights Act would not allow a search into the Section 702 database of American citizens without a warrant. And it would have banned the controversial “about” search clause that allows the government to look at any electronic communication of an American if their name is mentioned in the communication even if the citizen did not send or receive the message. The House of Representatives had a real chance to improve the surveillance program but instead voted down much needed changes and simply rubber stamped the original statute without addressing the known defects. The bill will now be sent to the Senate where it is expected to pass. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – statement on House vote.
- Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) – description of USA Rights Act voted down by the House.
- Brennan Center for Justice – factsheet on government surveillance programs.
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.
Federal Judge Blocks DACA Phaseout
January 10, 2018
Policy Summary
On Tuesday, January 9, US District Judge William Alsup in San Francisco blocked the Trump administration’s attempt to terminate DACA. Alsup quoted the President himself in his 49-page court order. The quote came from Twitter of course, which Trump had composed less than two weeks following the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) decision to rescind the program, questioning why anyone would “throw out good, educated and accomplished young people.” For Judge Alsup, this sentiment summarizes why ending DACA is unconstitutional. Judge Alsup went on to write that it is not up to the current administration to determine if a former administration’s policies were illegally formed, which was DHS’ so-called main motivation for rescinding the program last September.
Analysis
The decision to terminate DACA was previously analyzed in another U.S. RESISTNEWS brief. To reiterate those points, similar to the analyses of administration decisions to end TPS for recipients from Haiti, and El Salvador, there is an obvious economic impact that would result from the deportation of hundreds of thousands of hardworking individuals who have lived, worked, studied, grown up, paid taxes, and started families in America, but there are even more dire moral implications for the reasons driving these decisions, which demonstrate a flagrant disregard for human life that is not White.
Engagement Resources
- Act with Here to Stay: Here to Stay is a campaign run by United We Dream aimed at defending DACA. The organization hosts local Defend DACA rallies and other events, holds community calls, and provides resources for understanding DACA, as well as mental health resources for anyone who is affected by the administration’s decision to end DACA.
- Support the National Immigration Law Center: Since 1979, NILC has been exclusively dedicated to defending low-income immigrants. Through impact litigation, policy analysis and advocacy, and strategic communications, NILC advances the rights of those who came to the US in search of a better life. You can support NILC’s mission by donating or attending one of their training or educational events.
- Show Your Solidarity with the Immigrant Legal Resource Center: ILRC is a national nonprofit resource center that provides immigration legal trainings, technical assistance, and educational materials, as well as engages in advocacy and immigrant civic engagement to advance immigrant rights. You can show your solidarity with ILRC by making a contribution to the center or attending a virtual or in-person ILRC training.
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.