JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Independent Redistricting Commissions Is Becoming The New Big Trend To Fight Abuses In Gerrymandering
On November 6, 2018, Proposition 4 in Utah and Amendments Y and Z in Colorado will be on the ballot to vote on for residents of each state. Proposition 4 in Utah is known as the Independent Redistricting Commission Initiative and if approved by voters will establish an independent redistricting commission that will be in charge of drawing the state map for congressional districts and state legislative districts.
Time Out: Let’s Talk Health Care Rhetoric
We interrupt a regularly scheduled brief to bring you a dissection of healthcare rhetoric. If you’ve been paying any attention to the midterm elections, or just watching/reading/absorbing by osmosis the news in the last few months, you know that healthcare reform is a...
An Unconventional Approach to Gun Control
Brief #13---Gun Control Policy Summary While virtually all focus in the gun control debate revolves around the use, distribution, and availability of guns, California is now taking an unconventional approach to reduce gun violence. Instead of focusing on guns and...
Can’t Take the Heat?
Summer in the northern hemisphere was brutal this year, and the indian summer continues to be so. Deadly heat waves struck Quebec, Sacramento and Tokyo between June to August of this year, all of which combined killed nearly 80 people and hospitalized thousands.
Trump Administration Cuts Aid to Palestinian Refugees
On August 24th, the Trump administration announced that over $200 million in aid intended for Palestinian refugees would be cut from the U.N. Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA). Rather than directing funds through the Palestinian Authority, the UNRWA provides food subsidies, medical services, and youth programs directly to poor Palestinians.
Child Prisoners: An Update
After a chaotic year of many heartbreaking migration stories and tragedies, the Trump Administration seeks to continue such practices that have disturbed much of the general American public. The Administration is proposing to lift the court-imposed limit on how long it can hold children in immigration detention from 20 days to the duration of their immigration case.
As Chinese Import Tariffs Threaten Technology Sector, Trump Offers Manufacturing Proposal
he Trump administration’s tariffs on Chinese imported goods have been problematic for both U.S. manufacturers and consumers. These policies have been numerous, adding up to billions of dollars’ worth of Chinese manufactured goods that U.S. companies depend on being severely affected.
President Trump Puts Hurdles in Place for Legal Immigrants to Gain Citizenship & Work
President Trump has made it increasingly difficult to obtain American citizenship even for individuals who have legally immigrated to the United States. In April 2017, Trump created a Buy American and Hire American Executive Order that was intended to limit the amount of foreign specialists and professionals from taking American’s jobs and opportunities
Will California’s New Data Protection Privacy Law Become A Model For The Rest of the Country?
At the end of June 2018, California passed Assembly Bill (AB) 375, which is known as the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018. In May 2018 California voters filed the California Consumer Personal Information Disclosure and Sale Initiative (the “Initiative”) that sought to prevent businesses that do business in California from selling or disclosing a consumer’s personal info.
Trump Moves Towards Decertifying Iran Deal
Plans for Iran Nuclear Deal
Summary
The Iran Nuclear Deal, which has been repeatedly maligned by President Trump as an “embarrassment” and “the worst deal ever” may be left in an uncertain position this Sunday, as Trump plans to decertify the agreement. The agreement, formed in 2015 with Iran, China, Russia, France, the UK, and Germany, agreed to remove economic sanctions on the Middle Eastern state in return for their cooperation in reducing their nuclear program. Trump already issued waivers of sanctions relief in September, as per the agreement, but the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act requires him to now either certify the agreement every 3 months or pass it on to Congress to review new potential sanctions.
The cause of Trump’s skepticism in regards to the deal is Iran’s continued testing of ballistic missiles, which they argue are purely in the interest of self-defense. While this testing does not expressly violate the 2015 agreement, Iran has assured foreign leaders that they are willing to discuss limits to its military program. In regards to the decertification of the deal, Iranian Foreign Defense Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif asserted that “If Washington decides to pull out of the deal, Iran has the option of withdrawal and other options”.
Analysis
While Republican lawmakers were on board to criticize the Iran deal during its initiation, Barbara Slavin of the Atlantic Council has argued that they are far less critical of the deal now that they don’t have a president in office who will veto any attempt to end it. Republican leaders prominent in American foreign relations such as Bob Corker and Ed Royce are both now condemning Trump’s disdainful treatment of international agreements. This propensity to avoid the responsibility of killing the deal seemingly extends to the White House, considering Trump’s decision to leave the question of sanctions up to Congress after decertifying, rather than simply electing not to issue sanction waivers to Iran in September.
It’s not surprising that finding a Republican willing to follow through on rhetoric and dismantle the Iran deal is such an elusive task; there’s really no upside. Iran is hesitant to trust the U.S. already and making tangible progress on reducing aggression was hard earned. Reneging on our agreements so quickly only serves to strengthen the voices of hardliners in Iran who would rather see the country fully pursue militarism. Also, even just the suggestion of sanctions could create a hesitancy for foreign businesses to re-invest in the Iranian economy, which has been crushed by pre-agreement sanctions.
Engagement Resources
- Support the Center for Human Rights in Iran: The CHRI is an independent, nonprofit organization working to protect human rights in Iran through reporting and media outreach. You can donate on their website.
- Read a longform article by the Atlantic which evaluates the merits of the Iran deal
- Call your representatives and ask that they commit to vote against sanctions if Trump decertifies the deal.
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.
Cuban Diplomats Expelled in Response to Health Incidents
US-Cuba Relations
Summary
The rebuilding of U.S.-Cuban relations experienced a strange hitch on Tuesday, as the Trump administration expelled 15 Cuban diplomats following an alleged attack on the U.S. embassy in Havana. The nature of the attack remains a mystery, as the only evidence is a shared set of inexplicable symptoms experienced by 21 U.S. diplomats and family members, as well as several Canadian diplomats. The symptoms, which began appearing among the victims shortly after the November U.S. election, and lasted until August, included hearing loss, dizziness, headache, fatigue, cognitive issues, and difficulty sleeping, according to a report made by the U.S. embassy. Several diplomats were awakened during the night by strange sounds which seemed to disappear when they left the room or moved into a different area.
While the State Department is yet to officially declare any cause for these symptoms, the theory popularly ascribed to by the media and their government contacts is that of a sonic attack.
Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla announced to the U.N. general assembly that the Cuban government was not involved, but an investigation has thus far been inconclusive. Raul Castro has also authorized FBI agents to take part in the investigation, in the interest of full transparency.
Analysis
The question of who is behind the attacks still remains a conundrum, even months after the initial reports. Many scientists deny or at least question the plausibility that the symptoms could have been created by a sonic attack. Other explanations such as an electromagnetic device or biological attack are similarly incapable of confidently explaining how the diplomats could be attacked so inconspicuously. A U.S. official told CNN that Castro would not have been as personally assuring if the Cuban government was responsible. The most likely interpretation is that the guilty party is someone with a vested interest in the destruction of U.S.-Cuban relations. This is a dangerous time for any kind of diplomatic interference, as President Castro is stepping down next year, marking the first time since the 1959 revolution that the Cuban presidency will not be in the hands of a member of the Castro family.
Over the past several years, relations between the U.S. and its Communist-led, island neighbor have been slowly improving after decades of tension. In December of 2014, President Obama and President Castro announced the beginning of a thawing process of hostility between the two nations, following talks between the leaders facilitated by Pope Francis and hosted mostly in Canada. The agreement included the lifting of travel and trade restrictions, as well as the reopening of both embassies. American tourists flocked to Cuba, and a closer partnership between the countries seemed forthcoming, until the 2016 election. Trump announced in June that he was “canceling the last administration’s completely one-sided deal with Cuba” in order to “expose the crimes of the Castro regime”. An overreaction by Trump to the still dubious claims that the Cuban government was behind the attack could deteriorate the delicate diplomatic relationship his predecessor fought to leave as part of his legacy in the latter half of his final term.
Engagement Resources
- Donate to the Center for Democracy in the Americas: The CDA is an independent, non-profit organization pushing for more friendly U.S. policy towards Cuban sovereignty. They were a key player in convincing the Obama administration to change diplomatic relations with Cuba in 2014. You can donate on their website.
- Support Engage Cuba: Engage Cuba is the leading coalition of private companies and organizations working to end the travel and trade embargo on Cuba. They focus specifically policy in the interest of strengthening ties between Cuban and U.S. businesses. You can donate or learn about ways to encourage your representative to support pro-Cuban policy on their website.
This brief was compiled by Colin Shanley. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief please contact colin@usresistnews.org.
The United States Flag and Free Speech Under the First Amendment
Presidential Statement
Given on September 22, 2017
Summary
In a speech given in Alabama on September 22, 2017, President Donald J. Trump made derogatory remarks towards African-American National Football League (NFL) players who had been engaging in a silent symbolic protest prior to the start of NFL games. During the playing of the national anthem, several players either chose to remain seated or took a knee until the end of the anthem. President Trump chastised the players in a Twitter post on September 24, 2017, saying that the players kneeling were “disrespecting our Flag & Country.” In subsequent NFL games, players continued their silent protest prior to the playing of the anthem. LEARN MORE
Analysis
President Trump’s Twitter post that said NFL players who were kneeling were “disrespecting our Flag & Country” is ignorant of the message of the players’ silent protest and unaware of the case law regarding the use of the flag to communicate a message. First, it is clear that the issue of kneeling is a divisive issue with arguments of merit on both sides. Colin Kaepernick, the NFL player who first kneeled in protest during the playing of the national anthem in 2016, did so because he did not want to show pride in a flag for a country that “oppresses black people and people of color.” President Trump is trying to distract from that specific message by saying it is disrespecting the country while Vice – President Pence further confused the issue by saying the protests disrespected soldiers. The response and statements by the President and Vice – President make it clear that they are unable to craft a response that directly addresses the message of the protests – racial oppression against blacks and people of color.
In 1989, the U.S. Supreme Court in Texas v. Johnson decided that the burning of the American flag as an act of protest was protected by the First Amendment as a form of symbolic speech. This case is instructive when viewed in the context of NFL players kneeling before the playing of the national anthem at a sporting event. The court declared that the act of burning the American flag was protected speech under the First Amendment because it was conduct that had the intent of conveying a particularized message that would be understood by those who saw the flag being burned. In the NFL protests, the players are not physically desecrating the flag (which the Supreme Court permitted) but are merely refusing to stand at attention in order to express their disappointment at the oppression and killing of minorities in America. If a person can be permitted to pour gasoline on an American flag and light it on fire to protest American policies then surely athletes refusing to stand at attention for a few moments as a form of silent protest is a permitted action under the First Amendment, too. The Supreme Court has justifiably protected non-verbal expression and the non-threatening symbolic gestures undertaken by the players also deserve the full protections of the First Amendment. LEARN MORE.
Engagement Resources
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – article and information on the NFL controversy.
- Non-Profit Anti-Racism Coalition – web page of an alliance of groups and individuals committed to ending institutional racism.
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 Rolls Back Birth Control Mandate
Rollback of Obama-era Mandate
Issued on Friday, October 6, 2017
Summary
On Friday, October 6, the Trump administration expanded the rights of employers with religious or moral convictions to deny contraceptive insurance coverage to their employees. Employers can now opt out of including birth control in their health insurance plans, rolling back Obama-era requirements. While Obama was president, his administration believed birth control is an essential part of women’s health and should not place a financial burden on women. The Trump administration is now saying that contraceptive insurance imposes a “substantial burden” on the freedom of religion and could promote “risky sexual behavior” among adolescents. Some religious groups such as the Little Sisters of the Poor, a group of Roman Catholic nuns, applaud the new rule saying it allows them to practice their religious beliefs. Frustrated activists like the Planned Parenthood spokeswoman, Dana Singiser argue, “if you truly want to reduce the need for abortion, invest in women’s health and preventative care.” LEARN MORE
Analysis
Sixty-two million women gained no-cost contraception coverage under Obama’s mandate and hundreds of thousands of them could lose this benefit under Trump’s rule. Lawyers and activists are already working to block the rule, and a couple of states have filed lawsuits saying the rules violate the First Amendment. The Obama administration’s mandate did not require women to use contraceptive insurance, but ensured that employers provided it. With this structure, women were in control of their own decisions regarding birth control and did not need to worry about the costs associated with it. Many believe that this structure is better because women could still observe their own religion with the option of free birth control if that aligned with their beliefs. LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- Bustle – Learn more and make a stand against Trump’s birth control rule. This site provides great reading material and advocacy ideas.
- Planned Parenthood – Learn about the progress the United States has made to provide contraceptives, why it is so important, and how this new rule threatens it all.
- As always, contact your state’s elected officials and voice your concerns or support.
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.
The Steele Dossier, Social Media Scrutiny, Congressional Document Requests & Testimonies
During the past two weeks, the congressional committees conducting Russia investigations were active in interviewing witnesses and requesting documents and information, most notably from other arms of the government. One of the most intriguing news items about the Russia investigations, however, relates to the controversial dossier written by a former British spy which contains assertions of deep connections between President Trump and the Kremlin, including the latter’s involvement in Trump’s candidacy and the 2016 election. The dossier has been a focus of some Republican committee members for some time, and according to a recent CNN report it has also been of interest to the special counsel: Mueller met with the dossier’s author Christopher Steele over the summer, and earlier in the year the US intelligence community had reportedly corroborated at least some of the dossier’s contents but elected to keep their findings private. More on this below.
DoJ & Special Counsel
The news of special counsel Mueller’s meeting with Christopher Steele was an important development in the publicly available information about the Russia investigations; Steele’s dossier has long been a mysterious piece of the Russian election interference puzzle, given its lack of official corroboration–or invalidation–by the intelligence community, and its variously specific claims, ranging from meetings between certain campaign officials and Russian operatives and what issues were discussed to salacious accounts of Trump’s physical escapades during visits to Moscow. Here is a link to the dossier, which is a collection of memos detailing connections between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. Steele was initially commissioned by the Washington political research firm Fusion GPS to collect opposition research on Trump, and until the Republican nomination the project was funded by Trump’s GOP opponents. According to recent reports, the FBI and US intelligence community originally took the contents of the dossier seriously–as they included criminal activity on behalf of the Trump campaign–and reportedly corroborated at least some of the dossier’s allegations, specifically those regarding meetings and communications between Trump and Kremlin affiliates, as well as Steele’s broader conclusion that the Russian government had run a multifaceted campaign to influence the 2016 US presidential election and the public perception of American politics and democracy. Incidentally, some of the Russian financiers mentioned in the dossier for their involvement with the Trump campaign have sued Fusion GPS and its founder for libel; Trump campaign affiliates that were also implicated by the dossier, including the President’s personal attorney, have also publicly refuted the dossier’s contents. The FBI, CIA, and Director of National Intelligence reportedly debated whether to include parts of the dossier in their January report about Russian election interference, but decided against it because doing so would compel them to disclose to Congress and other more public branches of government the specific parts of the dossier that they had corroborated, which could supposedly threaten the integrity of their sources and methods. It was decided that the FBI–then directed by James Comey–would brief the incoming president on the contents of the dossier and other intelligence gathered on Russian election interference; Comey was reportedly apprehensive about briefing Trump, as he feared the new president would view the dossier as an FBI attempt to hold leverage over him. Reports and the circumstances surrounding Comey’s firing (which have since been revealed) indicate that that is indeed what happened. Steele, whom congressional investigators have been trying to track down for months, reportedly met with Mueller to discuss the dossier sometime in the past few months. The Senate Intelligence Committee and others have also called for interviews with Steele. Since the overall veracity of the dossier is still hotly contended, the ramifications of Mueller’s meeting are unclear, as are the specifics; it is possible that the special counsel’s investigation has either corroborated or discredited parts of the dossier, or that Mueller sought more information or context from the source. What news of the meeting does suggest is that Steele and his dossier will remain a controversial–and for now inscrutable–part of the Russia investigations over the coming months.
In other special counsel news, the IRS is reportedly sharing information and records with Mueller regarding Trump campaign associates, notably Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn, who have both been under investigation for financial crimes. The IRS information reportedly includes tax documents as well as real estate and banking records. The Hill notes that IRS information is heavily restricted and inter-agency sharing usually requires a grand jury subpoena, which Mueller may have obtained in order to access the records.
Senate Intelligence Committee
Last week, Senate Intelligence Committee leaders Richard Burr and Mark Warner gave a highly anticipated press conference on the status of their Russia investigation. They described their conclusion–which echoes the findings of the broader intelligence community–that the Russian government had conducted a broad campaign which included propaganda and cyber attacks in order to influence the 2016 election, and warned future political campaigns and electoral administrators that Russia would continue to interfere with American politics if left unchecked. The senators said their committee is still investigating the issue of collusion between Russian operatives and the Trump campaign, but attempted to distinguish their findings regarding known Russian actions during the election and emphasize the gravity of that interference and the importance of addressing the threat it poses to our political system. Burr and Warner also praised social media companies’ recent cooperation with investigators and stressed the importance of corporate responsibility for uncovering and addressing damaging Russian-backed content on their platforms. The Senate Intelligence Committee will hold an open hearing in November–their House counterpart plans to do the same–to discuss the role of social media in the election, and has invited Facebook, Twitter, and Google representatives to testify.
On the subject of social media’s role in Russian election meddling, there have been some important developments. Recent reports trace the Russian-bought ads and Russian-run pages and groups on Facebook to a Russian propaganda company called the Internet Research Agency. This firm was reportedly linked to 470 Facebook pages and profiles, which in turn had purchased 3000 politically divisive ads prior to and during the election. The pages and profiles themselves covered a diverse range of issues and interests, ostensibly intended to attract the attention of many different types of social media users and to spread disinformation and polarizing content across multiple fronts. Twitter also uncovered evidence suggesting that the Internet Research Agency had been linked to disinformation-spreading activities on its platform as well, and the company has been criticized by committee members for its relative inaction regarding the findings and the broader Russia investigation. Another recent report suggests that as many as 25% of the Facebook ads linked to Russia had been geographically targeting specific states and regions, especially socially and politically contentious areas of the country. Facebook had previously given a large sampling of the Russian-backed content it found to the congressional intelligence committees, both of whom have kept the findings classified but have expressed interest in potentially making a sampling of the content public–with Facebook’s consent–in order to help users identify fake news and prevent future foreign propagandizing. Facebook itself has pledged to continue reinforcing its ad policy and tracking measures to prevent the spread of dangerous false content, and other social media sites have taken similar steps after coming under scrutiny for the discovery of Russian propagandized content on their platforms. The Senate Intelligence Committee has reportedly discussed investigating Reddit as well; research indicates that the social media-sharing company also played a role in spreading fake news around the internet, which potentially came from Russian sources. Google announced last week that it was conducting an internal investigation into whether its ads or services were also used by Russian operatives, and the Washington Post recently reported that Google has indeed found evidence confirming that the company’s products–including YouTube, Gmail, and its extensive search and ad networks–had been used to spread false information linked to Russian agents. Notably, Google’s findings do not trace back to the Internet Research Agency, indicating that Russian cyber-intervention occurred not just on multiple online platforms, but also originated from multiple Russian government-affiliated sources.
House Intelligence Committee
Last week the House Intelligence Committee held an interview for controversial Trump affiliate Roger Stone, a vehement denier of Trump campaign collusion. Stone has an interesting background with Russian interests and was vocal about his connections during the campaign; he revealed his ties to WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange, and has publicly described his communications with WikiLeaks prior to the site’s dump of hacked Clinton campaign emails–he had also previously called on Russia to hack the Clinton campaign. Stone also claimed he had communicated with the suspected Russian hacker of the DNC, Guccifer2.0. Prior to his interview, Stone had tried to publicize his appearance with Congress, repeatedly calling for a public hearing instead of a private interview. After his interview Stone said that the meeting had been civil and productive, although he had refused to answer one line of the committee’s questioning; Committee members wouldn’t comment on the content of their questions, but Stone told reporters that he had remained quiet on the subject of his relationship with WikiLeaks and his means of communication with the site and its founder. Ranking Democrat Adam Schiff said that the Committee will consider a subpoena to compel Stone to return and answer those questions.
The House Intelligence Committee’s investigation has also had a contentious response to the Steele dossier, with Committee Republicans–including recused chairman Devin Nunes–focusing strongly on the dossier and even trying to track down Steele, in what seems like either an attempt to shift focus away from more tangible evidence, or to use the dossier’s more extreme allegations to undermine both the dossier and the Russia investigation itself. Nunes has butted heads with the DoJ after issuing subpoenas for information related to the dossier, to which the department did not respond. Nunes then threatened to subpoena AG Jeff Sessions and FBI director Christopher Wray to testify at a hearing which had been scheduled for last week, seemingly without the initial knowledge or consent of his Committee. The Committee then postponed the hearing, reportedly due to a timely meeting between Nunes and Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein to discuss Nunes’ requests. Nunes’ activity in the House Intelligence Committee’s Russia investigation has been secretive and divisive, and his continued involvement after his recusal is widely seen as an ongoing attempt to undermine the investigation and shift focus from the Trump administration. To his credit, the Committee’s investigation has been at times overtaken by partisanship, deceit, dispute, and scandal, and its work has not been taken as seriously by the government or the public as have the other congressional Russia investigations.
Senate Judiciary Committee
The Senate Judiciary Committee has reached an agreement to subpoena Paul Manafort for both documents and testimony at a public hearing. Chairman Chuck Grassley and ranking Democrat Diane Feinstein told reporters they are still working out details but plan to issue the subpoenas in the near future. Manafort had previously made a deal with the Committee to provide documents and a private interview in exchange for not appearing publicly–Donald Trump Jr made the same deal–but reportedly stopped communicating with the Committee after the special counsel began to aggressively investigate him. Committee members have expressed their frustration at Manafort’s lack of cooperation, and hope the subpoenas will propel their investigation, although it’s not clear whether the special counsel will object to Manafort appearing before Congress. The Senate Judiciary Committee has repeatedly been at odds with Mueller over investigative jurisdiction, information sharing, and rights to overtly pursue leads that the special counsel has been investigating in secrecy.
In addition to the special counsel, the Committee has also clashed with the DoJ on similar terms, making the case that more than any 0ther congressional investigation theirs has jurisdictional oversight over DoJ affairs. Recently, Grassley and Feinstein wrote a letter to CIA director Mike Pompeo, calling for the CIA to give them Russia-related information which had already been given to the Senate Intelligence Committee, and Politico reported last week that the Judiciary Committee’s request had been denied by the CIA, adding to an already tense relationship between the Committee and the rest of the intelligence community.
Finally, Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Grassley has called on the FBI to explain its use and potential verification of the Steele dossier as part of its intelligence-gathering on Russia. Grassley is concerned that the FBI relied too heavily on information which was disseminated within the global intelligence community by Steele’s research and was otherwise unverified. Since the FBI takes strong precautions to not expose the sources and methods of its intelligence-gathering it is unlikely that Grassley’s request will be met, but the US intelligence community’s use of the dossier may pose an interesting quandary in terms of the verification of its contents.
This blog was written by Stella Jordan. If you have comments on this blog, contact stella@usresistnews.org.
Trump Demands Tighter Border Control Before Reaching DACA Deal
List of Demands for Reaching DACA Deal
Revealed October 8, 2017
Summary
On Sunday, October 8, the White House revealed a list of demands that must be met in order for President Trump to strike a deal with Democrats on the future of the 800,000 DACA recipients and their legal statuses in the United States. Amongst these demands include tighter border control, specifically to prevent thousands of children fleeing from violence in Central America from entering the country illegally, as well as the construction of a southern border wall and legislation that would create a new immigration system in which people are admitted into the country based on skill, not family connection. If a deal is not reached by March, then thousands of Dreamers are at risk of being deported back to countries they have never known to be home.
Analysis
First and foremost, this list of demands, should any of them be met, result in a Catch-22 for Dreamers; their legal status would result in stricter immigration laws that could impact their families, friends, even themselves, and thousands of people across the world who come to the United States in search of a better life.
Furthermore, these demands, many of which are cruel and unfairly directed at children, render any chance of legitimate compromise between Democrats and Republicans nearly impossible. The future of Dreamers, and the entire immigrant community, still remains largely unknown.
Engagement Resources
- Get Involved 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 Trump’s decision to end DACA.
- Take Action with the National Immigration Law Center: Since 1979, NILC has been exclusively dedicated to defending immigrants with low income. Through impact litigation, policy analysis and advocacy, and strategic communications, NILC advances the rights of those who came here in search of a better life. You can help NILC advance its mission by donating or attending one of their training or educational events.
- Support Kids In Need of Defense: KIND protects immigrant and refugee children through providing them with pro bono legal services and educating the public on the most pressing issues facing the child immigrant and refugee community. You can support KIND through donating and/or getting involved in the Back to School 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 to Admit No More Than 45,000 Refugees in 2018
2018 Refugee Admittance Plan
Revealed on September 26, 2017
Summary
On Tuesday, September 26, Trump administration officials revealed that the President plans to admit no more than 45,000 refugees into the United States in 2018. This is the lowest number requested by any president since the passage of Refugee Act of 1980, which grants the President the legal authority to determine the number of refugees admitted into the US per year. This decision comes contrary to the recommendation of Defense and State Department officials, who have advised that Trump admit at least 50,000 refugees during the next fiscal year, and significantly lower than the maximum set by President Obama at 110,000.
Analysis
Lowering the cap to 45,000 is not only blight on the moral consciousness of this country, but a major foreign policy fallacy. Additionally, Vice President of US Programs at the International Rescue Committee Hans Van de Weerd warned that this move will demonstrate to enemy countries from which refugees are fleeing that the US is just as unkind and apathetic as they make the country out to be, which ultimately means that this move to reduce refugee admission is a threat to national security.
Engagement Resources
- Take Action with the International Rescue Committee: The IRC responds to the world’s worst humanitarian crises and helps people whose lives and livelihoods are shattered by conflict and disaster to survive, recover, and gain control of their future. There is a plethora of ways in which you can support IRC’s work, including making a donation or planned gift, volunteering, or attending an IRC event.
- Support the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service: Located in Baltimore, Maryland, LIRS advocates for and serves migrants and refugees, transforming communities through ministries of service and justice. You can support LIRS donating to the organization or volunteering as a compassionate visitor at an immigration detention center with LIRS.
- Get Involved with the International Refugee Assistance Project: IRAP, a project sponsored by the Urban Justice Center, mobilizes law students and lawyers to provide direct legal aid and advocate for public policy to protect refugees and immigrants affected by Trump’s travel ban. You can support IRAP and those affected by the travel ban by donating, signing up for action alerts, starting a local chapter, or applying for available volunteer opportunities.
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 and EPA Move to Repeal Clean Power Plan
Draft Proposal of Repeal Plan
Released on October 4, 2017
Summary
Earlier this week, the Trump administration released a draft of the proposal to repeal the Clean Power Plan (CPP). The CPP is an Obama initiative to regulate the power sector and curb the emission of climate-warming gasses, as well as specific carbon-cutting targets for corporations. While this draft represents the first substantial move toward repeal since the Executive Order in March, the draft itself contains little to no details about the process or the plans for the CPP replacement. However, the assumption is that the replacement would contain fewer and weaker regulatory standards. The draft does not contain any legal justification for the repeal, and environmental groups are ready to file suit if weaker regulations are indeed put in place. Secretary Pruitt has said the EPA will accept ideas from the public on how to replace the CPP, although no venue has been created yet for public comment.
Analysis
At this point, a repeal of the CPP with little to no justification would incite a legal battle with environmental groups. In smaller moves to dismantle environmental standards, courts have already answered accordingly. Just this week, a Northern California court judge blocked an attempt by Trump and the Interior Department to delay a rule of methane emission regulations from taking effect. The EPA also came under criticism by environmental agencies for missing the deadline for implementing rules for meeting ozone regulation standards. However, if Pruitt and the Trump administration were able to push a repeal through, they would most likely have to replace the current plan with looser regulations. This poses a problem for Pruitt and his consistent denial of climate change science. This is because the implementation of looser restrictions would require Pruitt to admit that CO2 emissions can damage the environment through atmospheric warming. Many think that Pruitt is unsure of how to proceed in developing a replacement plan, which is why he plans on taking public comments and ideas.
Engagement Resources
- National Resource Defense Council – An organization dedicated to preserving the Earth’s resources has created a simple way to contact your representatives and oppose the repeal of the CPP.
- Environmental Defense Council – An organization dedicated to solving big environmental problems. Their website has a graphic breakdown of the CPP and further details about its impact.
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’s Charlottesville Response and His Statement on National Football League (NFL) Players
Presidential Statement
Issued September 22, 2017
Summary
In a speech given in Alabama on September 22, 2017, President Donald Trump said “Wouldn’t you love to see one of these NFL owners, when someone disrespects our flag, to say ‘Get that son of a bitch off the field right now! He is fired! He’s fired!'”
The statement was in response to a small handful of National Football League (NFL) players refusing to stand during the playing of the national anthem before the start of a game. Colin Kaepernick, an African – American NFL player, started the protest in 2016 because he did not want to “show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color.” A small handful of NFL players also began taking a knee during the playing of the national anthem. On the first NFL Sunday after the President’s remarks, more players took a knee in silent protest while also linking arms with fellow players. Some NFL teams also made a statement against the President’s remarks by intentionally choosing to not be on the field during the playing of the anthem. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Analysis
The racial implications of Donald Trump’s statement cannot be ignored. What is disturbing is how the President responded to two incidents – one a tragedy at a white – supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia and the other an ongoing silent protest by African – American athletes in the NFL. After a young woman was killed protesting against a white – supremacist rally in Charlottesville, President Trump refused to condemn the white supremacist hate group. His response was universally condemned (but applauded by a KKK leader) and seen as giving support to a race-based hate group.
His statement about NFL players silently protesting racial injustice is troubling because it gives rise to the perception that the President is incapable of dealing with the racial divisions in this country. The white – supremacist protesters in Charlottesville engaged in an act of horrifying violence that killed one person yet Mr. Trump was unable to clearly condemn the action. The NFL players, the majority of whom are African – American, are merely performing an act of silent protest before going on to play in a game. Yet Mr. Trump saw to it to call them “sons of bitches.” Surely an act of violence that ended in death in Charlottesville is more of a problem than a simple symbolic gesture done by professional athletes. Mr. Trump’s comforting statements to white supremacist groups and hostile statements to black men protesting racial injustice clearly shows that he lacks the leadership necessary to understand and help heal the racial divisions in this country. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – nonprofit group’s statement on President’s Trump NFL players statement.
- Southern Poverty Law Center – nonprofit group web page dedicated to fighting hate and extremism.
- Stomp Out Bullying – nonprofit group focused on ending bullying and increasing civility, inclusion, and equality.
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.
Response to Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria
Hurricane Responses
August/September 2017
Summary
Over the past month, three devastating hurricanes have hit the United States. Hurricane Harvey has left a lot of Texas in shambles while the effects of Hurricane Irma hit Florida and some parts of Georgia as well. Although these hurricanes were extremely disastrous the United States government responded swiftly. The same cannot be said about their response to Hurricane Marie in Puerto Rico. The entire country has not only lost power but is low on crucial supplies such as oil, food, and water.
Analysis
To begin with, Hurricane Harvey and Irma both had a plethora of assistance from FEMA. For example, within days’ victims of Hurricane Harvey had almost 31,000 FEMA employers there to assist. In addition, they provided nearly 3 million meals and 3 million liters of water. There was even more assistance for victims of Hurricane Irma (they had more than 40,000 federal personnel in addition to 6.6 million meals and 4.7 million liters of water). Sadly, the response has not been the same for Hurricane Maria. FEMA claimed that more than 10,000 federal staff were in Puerto Rico to assist the population. Furthermore, after both Hurricane Harvey and Irma President Trump was there visiting four days after the natural disaster. Trump still has not visited Puerto Rico yet. In addition, there has been a difference in congressional reaction to the natural disasters. For example, after Hurricane Harvey Trump signed a bill that gave FEMA 22 billion dollars to assist them in their aid relief while no bill has been signed as a response to Hurricane Maria. This lack of response has received a plethora of attention. Lin-Manuel Miranda, the Hamilton creator, exclaimed that Trump was “going straight to hell. No long lines for you. Someone will say, ‘Right this way sir.’ They’ll clear a path.” President Trump has not helped his case as he tweeted that Puerto Ricans “want everything to be done for them”.
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.
- 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.
