JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Did the Supreme Court Decide a Free Speech or “Pro – Life” Case?
Brief #48---Civil Rights Policy Summary In October 2015, the California State Legislature passed the Reproductive FACT (Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care and Transparency) Act. The law was aimed at crisis pregnancy centers (CPC's), which are typically...
Making a Splash in Trumpland
In 2010, after the deadliest and most expensive offshore oil spill in U.S. history, the “Deepwater Horizon” spill, former U.S. president, Barack Obama, implemented a policy to ensure that a conservation council would advocate conservation and sustainable use of US waters. The Bureau of Ocean management called Obama’s policy,
President Trump Suggests Depriving Immigrants of Constitutional Due Process Protections
Brief #47---Civil Rights Policy Summary On June 24, 2018, President Donald Trump tweeted remarks that suggested that immigrants who cross the border into the United States be denied certain legal protections. In his tweet, the President said, "We cannot allow all of...
The United States Leaves the UN Human Rights Council
Brief #44---Foreign Policy Policy Summary On June 19th, Mike Pompeo announced that the United States was finally following through on threats to depart from the United Nations Human Rights Council, calling it “an exercise in shameless hypocrisy - with many of the...
Trump’s Zero Tolerance Policy Impacts Mental Health of Migrant Children
This policy is troubling not only for its civil and human rights violation, but also the horrendous and long-term effects on the mental health of the children. One magazine suggests such traumatic experiences will create angrier and more aggressive children, and can even lower the IQs of these children.
When the Second Amendment Threatens the First
Policy Summary Thursday marked yet another tragedy attributed to premeditated gun violence. This time, it occurred in the offices of the Capital Gazette in Annapolis, Maryland. Jarrod Ramos, the suspect, entered the news room with a legally purchased shotgun. He...
Supreme Court Protects Cell Phone Privacy Rights
Brief #46---Civil Rights Policy Summary On June 22, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in the Carpenter v. U.S. case. The question before the Court was whether the warrantless search and seizure of cell phone records, including location and...
The Parkland Students’ Road to Change
Four months after the Parkland shooting and three after the March For Our Lives, the students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School are continuing their advocacy efforts by launching a summer-long nationwide tour aimed at mobilizing and registering young voters while simultaneously generating and sustaining awareness around gun violence.
Gerrymandering and the Supreme Court: A Review of Recent Rulings
On September 12, 2017, the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling that temporarily prevented implementation of a federal district court ruling that found state electoral districts in Texas were illegally drawn to suppress minority voters.
DoJ Information Sharing, Past and Upcoming Congressional Interviews, Key Witnesses
This past week, news of the Russia investigations was relatively quiet; the biggest stories were about witnesses who are expected to testify in upcoming congressional hearings, and information gathered, expected, or wanted by the congressional committees.
DoJ and Special Counsel
In special counsel Mueller’s DoJ probe, the week has mainly brought musings of incoming and outgoing associates. A new prosecutor, Andrew Goldstein, joined the team after leading the renowned anti-corruption unit of the Manhattan US attorney’s office. Goldstein worked under Preet Bharara, the former US attorney who was abruptly fired by President Trump in March. Goldstein’s corruption unit is known for prosecuting public corruption, financial fraud, and white collar crime.
Another revelation in the DoJ’s Russia world is a recent Washington Post story which details the extensive questioning of former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser Cater Page by the FBI in March. These interviews, which took place prior to the appointment of a special counsel to the FBI’s investigation, were reportedly confirmed by Page, who continues to deny any wrongdoing or collusion while associated with the Trump campaign. The FBI’s evidence against Page allegedly came from a dossier compiled by a former British spy; the dossier allegedly indicates extensive cooperation and communication between the Trump campaign and the Russian government leading up to the 2016 election, and is the basis of much speculation about campaign associates and their foreign connections. Page maintains that the allegations that he met and communicated with Russian officials during the campaign–and that the campaign colluded with Russia to influence the election–is a politically motivated ‘witch hunt.’
Senate Intelligence Committee
The Senate Intelligence Committee’s investigation had a significant informational accomplishment this week: committee leaders told the press that they had come to an agreement with DoJ officials which allows them to see former FBI Director James Comey’s infamous memos detailing his interactions with the president prior to his dismissal. The Senate Intelligence Committee, along with other congressional committees conducting Russia investigations, has been eager to get ahold of Comey’s memos after his testimony last month. Ranking member Mark Warner also mentioned that the committee expected upcoming testimony from Trump’s son-in-law/adviser Jared Kushner. In other news, Warner also revealed that former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who is a central figure in many of the federal and congressional Russia investigations, had said he would speak with the Senate Intelligence Committee if he was granted immunity. Flynn is reportedly seeking immunity and may already be cooperating with the FBI and DoJ, according to some Democratic lawmakers.
House Intelligence Committee
The House Intelligence Committee’s investigation is also picking up speed, and members expect a handful of upcoming interviews and hearings. Although many of the House and Senate Intelligence Committee Russia hearings have been public so far, the House committee seems to be shifting more towards gathering classified information and conducting closed sessions. Next month, the committee will interview Michael Caputo, a former Trump campaign communications adviser, who voluntarily agreed to testify in a closed session. Caputo, who used to work in Moscow and has substantial connections to Russia, denies any collusion on the part of the Trump campaign but does acknowledge that Russia clearly interfered in the electoral process. Caputo also has close connections to Trump adviser Roger Stone; Stone has also agreed to testify before the House Intelligence Committee about the specifics of the Russian cyber attacks (under the name Guccifer2.0) and the release of classified information to Wikileaks and other sites. Stone, who has talked about his early communications with the hacking sites and the perpetrators, has denied any wrongdoing and offered to testify publicly, but committee leaders say they will conduct their interviews in a closed setting. In other closed interviews this past week, the House Intelligence Committee spoke with former Pentagon official Evelyn Farkas and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, whose email was one of the early hacks during the campaign. The committee also expects to interview former Trump campaign national security adviser JD Gordon sometime in the next few weeks. Although the House Intelligence Committee’s Russia investigation appears to be gaining ground with its long list of interviews, its members are still somewhat split along partisan lines, evidenced by the various lines of inquiry the committee is pursuing. In another closed interview expected next month, the committee will hear from Susan Rice, former national security adviser to Obama, about allegations that she leaked or mismanaged classified intelligence documents concerning the names of Trump campaign and transition associates.
Senate Judiciary Committee & Subcommittee
This week leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee requested FBI surveillance documents related to Russia’s election interference. Chairman Chuck Grassley and chairman of the committee’s Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism, Lindsey Graham, sent their written request to Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein and acting FBI director Andrew McCabe. Their letter specifically asked for FBI and DoJ warrant applications for Russia and election-related surveillance; all such warrant applications go through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
This blog was written by Stella Jordan. If you have comments on this blog, contact stella@usresistnews.org.
Mueller in the Spotlight, Congressional Intelligence Hearings, Cybersecurity Concerns
This week, news of the Russia investigations centered largely on special counsel Robert Mueller, on whom the White House and some Republican lawmakers have been attempting to cast doubt. Mueller met last week with the Senate Intelligence Committee and followed up this week with the Senate Judiciary and House Intelligence Committees. The purpose of these meetings was to establish boundaries and informational jurisdiction between the concurrent Russia investigations. In Congress, the most noteworthy Russia investigation hearing this week was from Jeh Johnson, former Department of Homeland Security Secretary, who testified to the House Intelligence Committee about the DHS’s knowledge of and reaction to Russian interference in the 2016 election. The Senate Intelligence Committee also heard testimony from state election officials, federal intelligence officials, and cybersecurity experts. Finally, President Trump revealed via Twitter that he had not recorded any conversations with James Comey, despite his earlier insinuations to the contrary.
DoJ and Special Counsel
Special counsel Mueller was the target of commentary from both the White House and Congress this week, following last week’s revelations that President Trump had considered dismissing him. Trump condemned Mueller’s relationship with James Comey in a Fox interview on Friday, seeming to call into question Mueller’s objectivity as well as that of his investigation’s legal team. The same day Republican Rep. Andy Biggs also criticized Mueller’s integrity, highlighting both his relationship with Comey and his “highly partisan” investigative team. Despite the ongoing tension surrounding Mueller and his probe, the White House has reaffirmed Trump’s commitment not to fire Mueller, and also reiterated its perennial assertion that there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government during the election, and therefore no reason for the administration to impede the DoJ’s investigation. However, if President Trump does continue to discredit Mueller on the basis of a conflict of interest–his relationship with Comey–this could provide more ostensibly legitimate grounds for the administration to attempt to shut down or divert Mueller’s investigation.
During the past week, Mueller has met with leaders of the House Intelligence Committee and Senate Judiciary Committee about their contemporaneous Russia investigations. Both committees appeared positive about the ongoing independence and progression of their respective investigations, but no details were given.
Senate Judiciary Committee
A reminder for the sake of clarification: both the Senate Judiciary Committee (Chairman: Chuck Grassley) and the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism (Chairman: Lindsey Graham) are investigating Russian intervention in the 2016 election–the Subcommittee’s investigation began in earnest prior to the full committee’s involvement and was narrowly focused, but the latter is now taking more matters into consideration. The full Judiciary Committee is also probing the Comey firing, the possibility of collusion by the Trump campaign, and obstruction of justice, including DoJ interference in FBI investigations during the current and former presidential administrations; ranking member Dianne Feinstein had been urging Grassley to expand the scope of their investigation into Comey for some time, although the two committee leaders have disagreed on many parts of their probe. Feinstein and other Democratic committee members are set on hearing more testimony from intelligence community officials involved in or knowledgeable about the election and Russia’s interference, but it remains to be seen whether their Republican colleagues will be as willing to press forward with these lines of questioning.
House Intelligence Committee
This week the House Intelligence Committee heard anticipated testimony from former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson. Johnson testified about when the DHS and other arms of the intelligence community first became aware of Russian hacking and cyber manipulation during the 2016 election, and what efforts were made during that time to ensure and enhance electoral cybersecurity. Johnson told the committee that he had become increasingly concerned about the possibility of cyber attacks in the wake of the DNC hacks; he said the DNC had declined DHS support following the initial attacks. Johnson had wanted to strengthen electoral security by designating electoral infrastructure as ‘critical infrastructure’–a federal designation which would offer additional legal and intelligence protections and safeguards–but when he spoke with state officials he felt that many had wrongly interpreted his proposal as federal overreach, so he continued to probe other electoral cybersecurity measures. Johnson testified that as he was reaching out to state election officials, the DHS became aware of cyber “scanning and probing activities” in some states’ voter registration data. Throughout the election, the DHS and intelligence community at large, along with lawmakers and the White House, made bipartisan appeals to states to strengthen and monitor their electoral infrastructure with DHS aid. Johnson and other members of the intelligence community also released reports and warnings, both classified and unclassified, about the Russian government’s role in perpetrating the electoral cyberattacks. However, a key point that Johnson’s testimony highlighted was that despite the clear Russian interference and ongoing threat, the 2016 election was so charged with allegations of ‘hacking’, ‘rigging’, and deception on both sides that it became difficult for federal bodies–in particular, the outgoing administration–to make any claims or allegations, even if backed by strong evidence, without seeming partisan in some way.
Following Johnson’s testimony, ranking member Rep. Adam Schiff gave an interview on NPR in which he underscored the necessity for nonpartisan rejection of foreign electoral interference in the future; if nothing else, Johnson’s hearing made it clear that notwithstanding abundant evidence and a very real threat, the intelligence community at large had felt as if their hands were tied to some degree during such a tumultuous and antagonistic election. Schiff also indicated that the House Intelligence Committee will seek testimony from DNC officials regarding the initial DNC hacks. CNN reported that the committee will hear from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta next week about the hacking of his email account during the election, and TIME announced that the committee will also hear soon from the Trump campaign’s digital director, Brad Parscale.
Senate Intelligence Committee
While the House Intelligence Committee heard from Johnson, the Senate Intelligence Committee held a hearing for multiple cybersecurity, intelligence, and election officials, who testified about Russian hacking and cyber attacks during the election. Many of the officials’ testimonies reaffirmed the notion that the 2016 election was not the last we will see of foreign/Russian intervention in American democratic processes. Testimony from the hearing confirmed that 21 states’ electoral systems were hacked or probed by Russian intelligence, although it is difficult to verify specific cyber intrusions; current DHS Secretary John Kelly did not reveal which states were affected, although reports indicate that two states, Illinois and Arizona, are confirmed subjects of the incursion. Reports also indicate that potentially thousands of voter records containing personal data were infiltrated and stolen, and in at least one case altered–unsuccessfully. Like Johnson, other DHS officials testifying to the Senate called for increased communication and cooperation between federal and state governments to prevent future attacks and secure electoral infrastructure. Additional testimony from cybersecurity and computer science experts highlighted the technological vulnerability of the U.S.’s electoral infrastructure, including voting machines which could potentially be susceptible to hacking and manipulation. All of the committee’s interviews, however, affirmed that in the 2016 election no votes had been manipulated by the Russian cyber attacks. It is not clear whether voters [votes] were influenced by Russian efforts to sway media and public opinion during the election.
House Oversight Committee
The new chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Rep. Trey Gowdy, told reporters this week that under his leadership the committee will not continue their investigation into Russian electoral interference, nor will they probe any questions of obstruction of justice in relation to Trump and Comey. Gowdy said that other House committees, namely Intelligence and Judiciary, should maintain jurisdiction in House Russia investigations.
House Judiciary Committee
A new player may enter the congressional Russia investigations game: the House Judiciary Committee. This week Democrats on the committee urged its chairman, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), to reconsider launching their own investigation into Russian intervention in the election and other related questions, citing a ‘responsibility’ as well as a jurisdictional mandate to probe these issues. House Judiciary Democrats had previously pushed for investigations into the election, but Goodlatte and other Republicans on the committee are wary of launching yet another congressional probe into a sitting president of their own party. However, given ongoing pressure from Democrats and increasingly compelling and intriguing investigative leads, the House Judiciary Committee may take more concrete steps in the coming months.
This blog was written by Stella Jordan. If you have comments on this blog, contact stella@usresistnews.org.
Foreign Policy Flip-Flop: Syrian Intervention
This is the first in a series of U.S. RESIST NEWS Briefs that chronicle the flip-flop nature of many of the Trump administration’s foreign policies.
Syrian Intervention
President Trump does not have a consistent policy on Syria nor Bashar al-Assad, and this confusing stance damages American interests in the region. The Assad regime uses chemicals weapons on its own people, colludes with Russia to maintain an authoritarian state, and fails to uphold even the most basic democratic principles. So how does Trump view this issue? We don’t really know.
FLIP
Back in 2013, President Trump seemed to agree with the Obama Administration’s position to renege on its “red line” on Syria. He talked about coalition-building with the Russians, and his America First policy (which is mostly an amalgamation of rhetoric and lofty ideals) led many to believe that Syrian intervention was out of the question. Only days before his missile strike, many White House staffers informed the press that regime change was no longer on the agenda of the United States.
FLOP
Yet in early April 2017, after another chemical weapons strike by the Assad regime, President Trump launched 59 Tomahawk missiles at a military facility outside of Homs, Syria. Trump was reportedly very disturbed by the pictures of children affected by chemical weapons, yet this decision disappointed many of his supporters on the alt-right. While his administration still flounders on developing a coherent policy in regards to Syria, Trump appears to have no problem engaging in the Middle East.
Having a confusing policy regarding the most dangerous state in the Middle East will only open up the United States to more criticisms and failures. Meanwhile, Secretary of State Tillerson continues to speak of peace and accountability with the Assad regime, and US ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley has repeatedly suggested that America is interested in forced regime change. Not only does President Trump change his mind without justification, but his international delegation fails to send a single message regarding our policy towards Syria and Assad.
Healthcare Vote Delayed due to Lack of Support
Proposed Legislation
Senate Vote Delayed until after July 4th Recess
Policy Summary
On Tuesday, Republican strategist and Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell was forced to delay the vote on the repeal and replace of the Affordable Care Act. He had ambitiously planned to push the bill that he wrote behind closed doors through the Senate before the July 4th recess, but could not unite the Republican party to ensure the 50 votes he needs. With 52 Republicans in the Senate, the bill can afford to lose only two Republican votes. However, four conservative Republican senators have voiced their opposition to the bill saying it does not go far enough to repeal Obamacare and lower premiums. On the other hand, more moderate Republicans that benefitted from expanding Medicaid in their states oppose the bill because their constituents would be disproportionately hurt by the bill’s massive cuts to Medicaid. All in all, Democrats are united in their opposition and at least 8 or 9 Republicans do not support the current bill. LEARN MORE
Analysis
With only 17% of Americans supporting the Republican health care bill, it is not surprising that Senators are hesitant to pass it. The CBO report explains that while the bill would reduce the federal deficit, it would increase the number of uninsured Americans by 22 million over the next decade. The majority of the bill’s savings would come from Medicaid cuts, leaving that states that expanded Medicaid under Obamacare disproportionately hurt by the new legislation. McConnell is determined to edit the bill and rally the necessary support and schedule a vote later this month. LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- Moveon.org – This site provides opportunities to resist Trump and Trumpcare in a variety of different ways. Sign petitions, call senators, learn more, donate to the cause, etc.
- Swing Left – This site tracks districts where House winners won by thin margins and encourages voters to vote Democrat in the 2018 election to restore a progressive House majority. This is crucial for every aspect of politics, including health care because the House has a huge impact on what bills become laws.
- As always, contact your state’s elected officials and voice your concerns.
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.
Tax Implications of Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer
U.S. Supreme Court Decision
Issued on June 26, 2017
Policy Summary
On June 26, 2017, in a separation of church and state case, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer. In a 7 – 2 decision, the court ruled that the “express policy of denying grants to any applicant owned or controlled by a church, sect or other religious entity violated the rights of Trinity Lutheran Church…under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment by denying the church an available public benefit on account of its religious status.” With this decision, it should also be noted that under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) 501(c)(3), churches qualify for exemption from federal income tax. And under Section 137.100.5 of the Missouri Revised Statutes, real property used for charitable purposes are exempt from taxation for state, county or local purposes. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Analysis
The stance taken by the church that they were discriminated against for a public benefit exposes a glaring hypocrisy – how a church desperately wanted a seat at the table for a discretionary public benefit while taking advantage of a tax law that permits it to not contribute funds for the same public benefit. What is even more shocking is that David Cortman of Alliance Defending, an organization supporting Trinity Lutheran Church in the case, stated that Missouri’s denial of funding “imposes special burdens on nonprofit organizations with a religious identity.” What burden is Trinity Lutheran Church suffering in this case? The church, unlike other groups, already has the privilege of not paying state and local property taxes. Yet they’ve come forward and demanded to be reimbursed for improvements made to their property. This case illustrates how the discrimination issue is being distorted. Discrimination cases often employ the term ‘similarly situated’ which, when used in this case, highlights the unequal position that churches have in the U.S. that others do not have and why the case was likely decided in favor of Trinity Lutheran Church incorrectly. LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- Freedom From Religion Foundation – nonprofit group protecting the principle of separation of state and church.
- Americans United – nonpartisan organization dedicated to the principle of church-state separation.
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.
Veteran Affairs Bill
Approved Legislation
Passed June 23, 2017
Policy Summary
President Trump signed a bill into law that would directly affect the Department of Veteran Affairs. As a result of this passage, it will be easier to fire “bad” employees within the department while also ensuring more protection for workers when they bring misbehavior to attention. For example, if a worker notices any type of malpractice in the office he/she can bring that into the light while knowing that their job is completely protected because of this law. In addition, this bill will grant more authority to Veteran Affairs Secretary David Shulkin to fire employees, shorten the appeals process for firing, and ensure employees are not paid while they going through the appeal process. This bill will also include new protections to stop any form of retaliation for workers who have complaints against the Veteran Affairs Office and decreases the time spent to hire new employees to fill any worker shortage in the department.
Analysis
This bill passed by a vote of 368 – 55, showing its true bipartisan nature. This measure will fundamentally change the way the Department of Veteran Affairs will function in many methods. Phil Roe (R – Tenn.//bill’s author) claimed “To bring real reform, we need to provide Secretary [David] Shulkin with the tools he needs to swiftly discipline employees who don’t meet standards our veterans deserve or who fail in their sacred mission to provide world-class health care and benefits to the men and women who have served,” Many politicians that were not on board with this bill claimed that this would lead to a slippery slope slowly dismantling protections for federal employees. In response, Shulkin has promised that this will not be used as a “tool for mass firings” but to increase morale and attract new employees to the department.
Engagement Resources
- Federation of Government Employees – The largest federal employee union that offers legal representation, legislative advocacy, and other services.
- National Treasury Employees Union – The nation’s largest independent union of federal employees, representing 150000 workers in 31 departments and agencies.
- National Federation of Federal Employees – It represents Federal employees across the nation, District of Columbia and overseas.
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.
Supreme Court to Rule on Travel Ban, and Reinstates Part of the Ban
Supreme Court Announcement
Issued on June 26th
Policy Summary
On Monday, June 26th the Supreme Court indicated that they will grant the Justice Department’s appeal of Trump’s travel ban and hear arguments on the case. In the ruling, the Supreme Court stated that the ban “may be enforced against foreign nationals who do not have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.” The court voted 6 to 3 in favor of this decision. Voting in the majority was the court’s four-member liberal bloc — Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan along with the more right-leaning Justices Roberts and Kennedy.Forming the opposition was — Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsich. The dissenting justices wanted the full ban to stay in place while the court deliberated.
Analysis
Given that it is unlikely that members of either the liberal or conservative block of the Court will change their opinion, the fate of the travel ban now rests on Justices Roberts and Kennedy. If both of them vote in favor of the ban then there would be a majority to keep the ban in place. However if only one of them switches over to the conservative bloc, the ban would be struck down. The fact that even three Justices voted to keep the entire ban in place while the court deliberates is shocking given the string of unanimous decisions against the ban in the lower courts. The Supreme Court’s decision will have far-reaching implications, as it pits the president’s power to set immigration and national security policy, against the Constitutional protection of individuals from discrimination based on their religion or national origin.
Engagement Resources
- Local Options for Protecting Immigrants – This document hosted by the National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights notes what steps local governments can take to protect immigrants against federal government actions.
- Resistance Manual – Crisis Resources – If you know someone who is facing immigration troubles, please share this compendium of legal resources and relevant nonprofit organizations with them.
- Immigration Volunteer Search – Search for immigration volunteer opportunities near you, and do your part to help those under siege from Trump’s policies.
This brief was compiled by William Lucier. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief please contact william@usresistnews.org.
‘Dreamers’ to Stay in U.S. for Now, but Parents now Face Deportation
Statement from Homeland Security
Issued on June 15, 2017
Policy Summary
On June 15th the Department of Homeland Security signaled that the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals or Dream Act would remain in effect. In the same press release, it stated that the proposed program Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents would be canceled This means that while the 800,000 Dreamers now living in the US will be safe from deportation, their parents will not be. Even though the law will remain in place, Dreamers have already been facing increased deportation under the Trump administration. During just the first two weeks of Trump’s presidency, 43 Dreamers were deported due to criminal behavior, while under the Obama Administration deportations of Dreamers average just 7 a month.
Analysis
Trump’s decision to uphold the DACA came after an intense lobbying effort from immigration groups which highlighted the political risk of rescinding the law. Nevertheless, this is no time to become complacent as many members of the Trump Administration are still pushing for the rescindment of the DACA. For instance: Attorney General Jeff Sessions said he “can’t promise dreamers won’t be deported”.The Trump administration decision to back down from its long-stated intention of repealing the DACA gives hope, as it shows how an organized Grassroots lobbying effort happening on the local level, can significantly influence policy on the national level.
Engagement Resources
- Take Action with United We Dream – United We Dream is the largest immigrant youth-led organization in the nation. They organize and advocate for the dignity and fair treatment of immigrant youth and families, regardless of immigration status.
- Get involved with the American Civil Liberties Union – The ACLU is a nonpartisan, non-profit organization whose stated mission is “to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.”They have been actively involved in court cases challenging the Trump Administration on Immigration.
- Resistance Manual – Crisis Resources – If you know someone who is facing immigration troubles, please share this compendium of legal resources and relevant nonprofit organizations with them.
This brief was compiled by William Lucier. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief please contact william@usresistnews.org.
Supreme Court Makes it Harder to Revoke Citizenship
Supreme Court Ruling
Issued on June 22, 2017
Policy Summary
On June 22nd the Supreme Court unanimously ruled 9-0 that one’s citizenship can be stripped, only if the false statements made on the citizenship application were relevant to the granting of the citizenship. This ruling served as a rebuke to the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals which ruled that false statements did not need to be material to the granting of the citizenship, in order for one’s citizenship to be revoked. Writing for the majority Justice Elena Kagan stated: “We hold that the government must establish that an illegal act by the defendant played some role in her acquisition of citizenship”.
Policy Analysis
This ruling strengthens the value of American citizenship making it harder for that citizenship to be revoked. The unanimous ruling comes on the heels of yet another unanimous ruling by the Supreme Court in a case regarding whether offensive names are covered under free speech. This pattern points to the fact that while the country remains divided on a wide range of issues, on other issues such as citizenship and free speech there is rare bipartisan agreement.
Engagement Resources
- US Citizenship and Immigration Resources: This site contains resources such as ESL and citizenship prep classes for those seeking a US citizenship
- Get involved with The New Americans Campaign – The New Americans Campaign is a non-profit organization that helps legal immigrants obtain citizenship. To date, they have helped 250,000 immigrants obtain citizenship.
- Donate to the NALEO – the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) Educational Fund is dedicated to increasing Latino involvement in electoral politics. You can donate to them through their website
This brief was compiled by William Lucier. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief please contact william@usresistnews.org.
Trouble with Diplomatic Relations with Qatar
Diplomatic Relations
Crisis on June 6, 2017
Policy Summary
Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Bahrain all cut diplomatic ties and travel to Qatar on June 5th, and were quickly joined by Libya, Yemen, and the Maldives on June 6th. This move will lead to the removal of diplomats and embassies, and the travel restrictions prohibit air, water, or land travel between any of the nations and Qatar. This decision came after the claim that Qatar has been funding terrorists in both Iran and Israel. President Trump supported Saudi Arabia’s decision via Twitter. LEARN MORE
Analysis
Saudi Arabia, while similar to Qatar in many ways, frequently suffers from criticisms from Qatar-funded news outlet Al Jazeera. This sort of press freedom could hinder the power of many regimes in the region. Furthermore, there are many baseless claims against Qatar and its alleged funding of terrorists in the Middle East. These allegations were only further perpetuated by President Trump, and this quasi-endorsement of Saudi Arabia empowered the nation to make much riskier and decisive moves. This sort of crisis is dangerous to stability and American credibility, and may continue to endanger interests in the region. LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- Alliance for Middle East Peace— A coalition of organizations working to create a long-lasting peace in the Middle East
- Qatar Charity — Qatar’s largest NGO which extends to many sectors, from education to health care to disaster relief
- Qatar Foundation — A foundation dedicated to development in Qatar for its citizens and as a model for the entire region
This brief was compiled by Jacob Malinowski. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief please contact jacob@usresistnews.org.