JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Navigating Digital Ethics: Autonomy, Consent, and Algorithmic Justice in the Modern Age
Brief #96 – Technology Policy Brief
by Inijah Quadri
The emergent capabilities of AI systems have blurred the boundaries between machine autonomy and human control…
The Week That Was: Global News In Review
Brief #89 – Foreign Policy Brief
by Ibrahim Castro
Japan has started releasing treated radioactive water from the Fukushima nuclear power plant into the Pacific Ocean…
Extreme Heat Ravages Arizona
Brief #158 – Environmental Policy Brief
by Carlos Avalos
NASA reported July 2023 as Hottest Month on Record Ever Since 1880…
Higher Education Doesn’t Have to Mean Higher Costs
Brief #85 – Education Policy Brief
by Steve Piazza
34% of adults 18-24 say they are not attending college because of the costs…
The Battle Over Autonomous Vehicles in San Francisco
Brief #95 – Technology Policy Brief
by Mindy Spatt
A further irony to the debate is that the rideshare companies have made no secret of their own goal of eventually getting rid of drivers and moving to AVs themselves…
An Early Look at the 2023 Louisiana Governor’s Race
Brief #90 – Elections & Politics Policy Brief
by Ian Milden
Louisiana will hold what is called a “jungle primary”, where all candidates, regardless of their party affiliation, compete in the same primary.
The Week That Was: Global News in Review
Brief #88 – Foreign Policy Brief
by Ibrahim Castro
According to French maritime officials, last week six people died after a boat carrying migrants headed to Britain sank…
Do Trump’s Indictment Defenses Stand a Chance?
Brief #89 – Elections & Politics Policy Brief
by Arvind Salem
Off the heels of a superseding indictment adding more charges to his classified documents case, President Donald Trump faces…
The Impact of Culture Wars on Florida Universities
Brief #84 – Education Policy Brief
by Rudolph Lurz
Many elite students from both inside and outside the Sunshine State, who would otherwise have attended schools like the University of Florida, are being scared away.
Law Prohibiting Chinese Nationals From Buying Real Property Being Challenged In Florida
Law Prohibiting Chinese Nationals From Buying Real Property Being Challenged In Florida
Civil Rights Policy Brief #205 | By: Rodney A. Maggay | June 6, 2023
Photo taken from: therealdeal.com
__________________________________
Policy Summary
On May 22, 2023 the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Foundation, the ACLU of Florida and the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF) along with a number of other entities filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Northern District of Florida. The lawsuit alleges that the recent bill signed by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, SB 264, “imposes discriminatory prohibitions on the ownership and purchase of real property based on race, ethnicity, alienage and national origin – and imposes especially draconian restrictions on people from China.” The lawsuit seeks an order barring enforcement of the new law and a declaratory judgment that the law is unconstitutional.
SB 264 bars most Chinese nationals and nationals of a number of other countries – Cuba, Venezuela, Syria, Russia and North Korea – from purchasing homes in the state. A minor narrow exception would permit a foreign national of these countries who has a non – tourist visa or has been granted asylum to purchase no more than two acres as long as the residential lot is not within five miles of a military installation. Governor DeSantis signed the bill into law on May 8 and the law is scheduled to go into effect on July 1, 2023.
An “alien land law” is a law that is designed to exclude a class of people from owning or purchasing real property based on their ethnicity, race or country of origin. Some laws were enshrined in state constitutions or codified by the state’s legislature but most, not all, have been rendered unconstitutional or repealed from the state codes. LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis
Florida’s passage of SB 264 is clearly against the historical and legal treatment of alien land laws and a ploy to merely appeal to right wing voters as Governor DeSantis begins his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination in 2024.
There is no doubt that on the surface SB 264 is aimed at foreign nationals in this country with a specific emphasis on Chinese persons. But at one time in this country alien land laws were once commonplace, if not the norm. As many as sixteen states in the early twentieth century had laws on the books that prohibited Asians from owning property. And it wasn’t just state law as Oregon and California had provisions in their state constitutions that prohibited Asians from purchasing property – Oregon’s clause stated no “Chinaman” could purchase real property while California’s constitution only allowed aliens of the white race or African descent to buy real property. What these laws contributed to was an environment of hostility, increasing violence towards Asian communities and an inability to secure financial and economic stability for many families of Asian descent. Governor DeSantis’ new bill excluding Chinese and other foreign nationals would lead to a repeat of this sordid chapter of American history and lead to an increase in hostilities against these communities again and, in effect, sanction discrimination against Asians and other foreign nationals in the Florida real property market.
While those reasons are more than enough to label SB 264 improper, the legal history of alien land laws likely points to the conclusion that the law is unconstitutional and raises the question as to why legislators in Florida or anyone in Governor DeSantis’ office did not know that. Alien land laws may have been commonplace in the first half of the twentieth century but courts and subsequent legislators soon began the work of making the laws unenforceable. In 1948, the United States Supreme Court decided Oyama v. California, which held that California’s bar on aliens owning property was a violation of the “rights and privileges” guarantee of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. In 1952, the California Supreme Court decided in Sei Fuji v. California that the prohibition on aliens owning land was in violation of the equal protection guarantee of the 14th Amendment. Soon, other states followed suit and began repealing their alien land laws in the 1950’s and in subsequent decades. It took much longer for some other states as Kansas and New Mexico repealed their laws in the early 2000’s. Voters finally voted out the alien land law in Florida in 2018. The fact that Florida finally repealed their state’s land law in 2018 is disconcerting because it took a long time but also because the repeal of their law should have informed the Governor and his allies that writing a new law targeting Chinese foreign nationals to exclude them from property ownership would be against the law. Not only against Florida state law but also against the trend of alien land laws around the country being disfavored and in some cases being declared in violation of the U.S. Constitution. This law targeting Chinese persons is an abomination and should be declared unconstitutional because of what the law might unleash in terms of violence and hostility against Asian – American communities in Florida and because of its blatant discriminatory basis and unconstitutionality.
SB 264 has now been signed and is official state law so the future of the bill is now in the hands of the courts. It remains to be seen if the courts will heed history’s rejection of alien land laws or find the law another sad chapter in the Governor’s right wing culture war as he seeks the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- Governing – website’s infopage on how alien land laws were use to exclude Asians.
- Seattle Civil Rights & Labor History Project – excellent historical background of alien land laws and the groups who fought for their repeal.
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 rodwood@email.com.
What Makes Good Immigration Policy and Why Does it Matter?
What Makes Good Immigration Policy and Why Does it Matter?
Immigration Policy Brief #134 | By: Arvind Salem | June 6, 2023
Photo taken from: psu.edu
__________________________________
Policy Summary:
With the expiration of Title 42, a pandemic era immigration policy that allowed the United States to turn away immigrants seeking asylum due to public health concerns, the United States looks to start a new chapter of immigration policy, as with the end of the COVID-19 emergency, public health concerns can give way to economic, social, and foreign factors, necessitating a new chapter of immigration policy. As the country starts this new chapter, it’s worth it to look back at modern immigration policy, especially after World War II, to determine the components of a successful immigration policy and how such policy can positively contribute to the United States.
At the beginning of the 20th century, the United States implemented extremely restrictive immigration policies, the most famous of which were the various national origins quotas: restrictions on the number of immigrants that could come in from certain countries. These quotas were designed to essentially ensure that the US continued to have the same racial dynamics, by allowing the United States to grant visas to 2 percent of the population of each nationality in the United States as calculated based on the 1890 census, and completely barring immigration from Asia.
The next major era in U.S. immigration policy was in the midst of the Cold War, when the United States consolidated all of its immigration and naturalization policies into a single federal policy, known as the McCarran-Walter Act. McCarran-Walter continued the national origins quota system favoring white Europeans, however it ended the ban on Asian immigration. It also established a worldwide immigration limit of 2,000 immigrants, which has been adjusted over time but is still in place today. Currently, the limit is 675,000, not including U.S. citizens’ spouses, parents, and children under the age of 21 and refugees. Ideological tests for loyalty were also common and refugees were evaluated based on foreign policy priorities, such as whether they were fleeing from a communist country.
In the midst of the Civil Rights movement, there were calls for more equitable immigration policies, including the elimination of the national origins quota, leading to the passage of the 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act (also known as the Hart-Cellar Act). Instead of national origin, the new law prioritized family reunification with a seven-category preference system and increased the limit on immigration, leading to more Latin American, especially Mexican, and Asian immigration. The Hart-Cellar Act also created a permanent admissions class for refugees, who had previously been admitted under the attorney general’s parole power ( the attorney general still continued to use this power to admit refugees beyond the limit). The Refugee System would be further developed by the Refugee Act of 1980, which established the modern U.S. refugee system, which allows the President to set admissions targets, created the asylum system, and outlined a path to citizenship for both refugees and asylees.
Near the end of the Cold War, and in line with its hardline “tough on crime” and “war on drugs” policies, the United States enacted the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 to end illegal immigration through three ways: penalizing employers that hired illegal immigrants, increasing border security, and offering certain illegal immigrants legal status if they satisfied certain conditions. The emphasis on security from this era continued and was heightened after 9/11, especially after the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, which was charged with protecting the border supported by an increase in funding towards border security efforts. The exceptions to these trends are the Immigration Act of 1990, which attempted to make entry easier for high-skill workers, and most notably executive actions taken by President Obama such as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), allowing certain people who came to the United States as children to request deferred action, an instance of prosecutorial discretion to defer removal action for a certain period of time but does not confer legal status, and requests work authorization.
Policy Analysis:
It is clear that immigration policy generally mirrors the general sentiments of the country at any given time. In the beginning of the 20th century, the desire to maintain American homogeneity manifested in the 1924 Immigration Act’s provisions of quotas and Asian exclusion. The pressing national security concerns generated by the Cold War prompted many immigration decisions based on how it would impact the War and to ensure that the American ideals were not weakened during this critical period. Immigrants were judged based on their ideological conformity to America and evaluated primarily based on their impact on national security. Moreover, it is clear today that the practice of discrimination based on national origin for the purposes of maintaining a perceived ideal of American society is extremely flawed, as American society has always been composed of immigrants and limiting immigration severely hinders the cultural and economic development of the United States.
With the advent of the Civil Rights movement, attitudes towards immigration clearly began to change as a focus on ensuring an equal opportunity to all was brought to the forefront of American life. This period saw the end of quotas and began the proliferation of Asian and Mexican immigrants that are still continuing today. This development has had heavy ramifications for U.S. culture, especially the increased presence of Mexican immigrants. However, the increase in immigration spurred fears of crime, which combined with the general hardline policies at the time such as the “War on Crime” and the grim predictions of a crime wave, swung public sentiment towards more restrictive immigration: a feeling only heightened by the terrorist attacks on 9/11.
Immigration has shown a tremendous ability to enrich the cultural and economic state of the United States. As the United States currently battles inflation and supply chain disruptions immigrant workers are an essential component of the labor force and essential to the overall productivity of the United States, as well as driving innovation. Immigrants are also more likely to work than their native peers and are crucial to important sectors of the economy such as Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) and healthcare. Currently, the United States has a shortage of immigrant workers, which has worsened labor and supply shortages, especially in industries such as hospitality. Furthermore, immigrants help stabilize the population as the United States’s population growth is slowing, helping the United States remain economically competitive. Clearly, immigrants have extraordinary potential to enrich the United States, however there are also downsides to immigration: immigrants could bring crime with them, draw from public services and welfare programs without contributing, and lower wages and job opportunities for U.S. citizens.
Due to the many effects of immigration policy, any proposed reform has a myriad of stakeholders, which also means that it is very difficult to pass comprehensive immigration reform, as such reform often requires broad consensus. However, most reform proposals have centered around three key components: legalize illegal immigrants currently living in the United States, increase enforcement of the immigration laws, and allow more legal permanent immigration and temporary migration through more guest worker visas for lower‐skilled workers. Legalized current illegal immigrants would allow them to start their life anew and clear the black market and eliminate any backlogs in the system. Heightened enforcement would reduce illegal immigration and incentivize immigrants to immigrate legally. Expanding visas would allow more would-be illegal immigrants to become legal immigrants and provide more workers for the U.S. economy.
Engagement Resources:
FAIR, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, is a nonpartisan, public-interest organization that seeks to evaluate policies and develop solutions to reduce the impact of excessive immigration on all facets of the nation including security, the economy, and healthcare. Readers who want to help further immigration reforms through a nonpartisan organization may be interested in contributing to this organization.
The American Immigration Council works to ensure due process for all immigrants by increasing access to legal counsel for immigrants and using the legal system to ensure fair treatment for immigrants. The American Immigration Council also aims to educate the public and use communications strategies to spread awareness about the importance of immigrants to the United States. Readers who want to help more immigrants receive access to legal counsel may be interested in contributing to this organization.
The ACLU, the Americans Civil Liberties Union, is an organization that works to protect the freedoms of Americans across a wide range of issues, including voting rights, free speech, and racial justice. One of the issues they address is immigration, helping ensure that immigrants receive the legal protections that they are entitled to. Readers who want to help ensure that immigrants receive fundamental constitutional protections that they are entitled to may be interested in contributing to this organization.
The Ukraine Crisis Situation Update #23
The Ukraine Crisis Situation Update #23
Foreign Policy Brief #79 | By: Ibrahim Sultan | June 6, 2023
Photo taken from: euractiv.com
__________________________________
Drone Strikes by Both Sides
On June 1, 2023, Russia launched a pre-dawn missile attack on Ukraine’s capital Kyiv, killing 3 people including a 9 year old and her mother. The attacks also damaged apartment buildings, schools and a children’s hospital, it was the highest casualty and most destructive attack on Kyiv over the past month. In the last few weeks Russia has unleashed multiple air attacks on Kyiv, intensifying its missile and drone attacks after a lull of nearly two months, targeting infrastructure facilities and supplies. These attacks come likely as a warning against the suspected Ukrainian summer counteroffensive.
Conversely, in recent weeks a number of drone strikes have occurred within Russia’s borders. On Tuesday eight drones were used in attempted strikes in the Russian capital Moscow, five were shot down and three stopped with signal jamming technology causing them to lose control and miss their targets. It was the first time that the city has been so heavily targeted since the beginning of the war. Since the start of 2023, there have been over 60 suspected drone attacks inside Russia and Russian-controlled territory in Ukraine. The Russian foreign ministry blames Ukraine for the attacks and recently made statements that Western support for Kyiv was “pushing the Ukrainian leadership towards ever more reckless criminal deeds including acts of terrorism”. Ukraine meanwhile has denied any connection to the drone attacks inside of Russia.
Attack on Russia’s Belgorod region
Two pro-Ukraine Russian paramilitary groups conducted an incursion Monday into Russia’s Western Belgorod region from Ukraine, in which they overran several small villages. Moscow this week said it had defeated the groups, killing more than 70 people. The paramilitary forces appeared to have used U.S. made equipment, something that the Pentagon has said it would investigate. Pentagon spokesperson Brig. Gen. Patrick Ryder said that the U.S. had not authorized nor received Ukrainian requests for transferring equipment to paramilitary groups. He also expressed doubts about the Russian reports and images appearing to show U.S. made vehicles. Ukraine has denied involvement in the attack, saying the two groups which are suspected neo-Nazi organizations, Legion of Free Russia and Russian Volunteer Corps, consist only of Russian citizens aiming to create a demilitarized zone on the border with Ukraine.
The recent attacks within Russia’s territory show that the war is now making its way back into its own borders. While Russia sought a quick and decisive victory and has downplayed the war as only a “special operation” it has been anything but and now its own capital and citizens have suffered from the violence of war. Additionally the paramilitary groups targeting Russia’s Western region adds a dangerous complexity to an already devolving situation for the Kremlin, where different groups can cause chaos on different fronts requiring even more resources and manpower that Russia is severely lacking.
Fintech Loans: Breakthrough in Payday Lending or Just Another Way to Bilk Consumers?
Fintech Loans: Breakthrough in Payday Lending or Just Another Way to Bilk Consumers?
Technology Policy Brief #91 | By: Mindy Spatt | June 2, 2023
Photo taken from: money.com
__________________________________
Summary
The dramatic growth of Earned Wage Access apps is sending off alarm bells among consumer advocates. Just a handful of employer-sponsored programs facilitated more than $9.5 billion in loans in 2020, about a 200% increase from 2018, with consumers borrowing before payday and agreeing to automatic repayment through their paycheck or bank account.
The majority of consumers using Earned Wage Access apps are college educated and middle class. The majority are also women, who are targeted in deceptive ads offering fast cash for free that don’t disclose all the fees the user will have to pay.
Analysis
‘Fintech” payday loans are the Internet’s answer to traditional payday loans and, consumer advocates claim, can be just as nefarious. According to one provider, Earnin.com, Earned Wage Advances work two ways.
In employer-based models, the employer partners with a “provider” and the advance is repaid by taking the money directly out of the employees’ paycheck, with fees paid by either the employer or employee or both.
A direct-to-consumer model is available to people with regular direct deposit income, including gig workers. According to Earin, “Consumers can pay for this product through a subscription fee, a per-transaction fee, or a voluntary tip amount. However, most EWA providers offer customers a no-fee version of their service.”
A no fee version sounds great, especially considering the high interest rates traditional payday loans are notorious for. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau warns that “A typical two-week payday loan with a $15 per $100 fee equates to an annual percentage rate (APR) of almost 400 percent,” compared to credit card APRs that are usually from 12 to 30 percent.
But the loans or “advances” offered by Earned Wage Access companies, even when advertised as free, mostly aren’t. Advocates including the National Center for Consumer Law claim users are pressured to pay voluntary tips and are penalized if they fail to pony up, in contravention of truth in lending laws.
In fact, some state regulators have demanded a stop to the deceptive advertising, including the Connecticut Department of Banking, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) and the Office of the Attorney General of the District of Columbia, where Fintech company SoLo Funds were ordered to stop offering loans with a concealed APR of over 500%. The Connecticut Banking Commissioner found that although SoLo claimed tips were optional, every single customer in Connecticut had paid one. That’s similar to the results of California’s investigation, which found that the majority of consumers paid tips, with companies that requested them getting paid 73% of the time.
The glaring problems with this approach are not only that it bypasses truth in lending requirements, but also that it prevents comparison shopping and subjects consumers to a great deal of pressure. Creditkarma.com lauds the website Dave as being ‘the best for low fees”, because “The Dave app doesn’t charge interest. Instead, it has a $1 membership fee.” However, the tip request, which is repeated numerous times, can be as high as 15%, with the default for a $100 loan set at $6.00.
In a paper urging closer scrutiny and regulation of the industry, Georgetown Law Professor Nakita Q. Cuttino points out that loan markets with ineffective price disclosures are associated with an increase in loan costs as compared to markets with clear price disclosures, and that the earned wage market is “riddled with a variety of pricing models.”
She proposes a federal-regulatory framework that would incorporate some of the consumer protections available for other types of loans such as uniform price disclosures, ability-to-repay rules and a right-to-rescind assignment.
Some of those concerns are addressed by rules proposed in California, which would regulate app-based advances as loans and cap the interest rates and fees they could charge at the same levels as other financial products. In a recent report on the rules in the Los Angeles Times by Aaron Glantz and Monica Campbell for the Fuller Project, the reporters found numerous examples of advertising by Fintech companies claiming funds are available with no fees or interest, in minutes, most of them featuring women of color expressing great relief at being able to rely on the app for fast cash.
California’s DFPI found that half of EWA users are non-white and predominantly (63 percent) women. A majority are employed full-time at companies with more than 250 employees and are between 25-40 years old. Yet they are living paycheck to paycheck, and being sucked into loans that hide their full costs, which can add up to the same 400 percent APR payday lenders charge.
Engagement Resources:
- Earned Wage Advances and Other Fintech Payday Loans: Consumers Shouldn’t Pay to Be Paid, National Consumer Law Center, April 2023.
- The Rise of “Fringetech”: Regulatory Risks in Earned-Wage Access Nakita Q. Cuttino, 2021.
- California DFPI Should Prevent Fintech Predatory Lending, Expand Protections in Earned Wage Advance Proposal
Expanded Border Technology Raises Human Rights Concerns
Expanded Border Technology Raises Human Rights Concerns
Technology Policy Brief #90 | By:Steve Piazza | May 31, 2023
Photo taken from: immigrationimpact.com
__________________________________
Summary
The 4th Amendment, amongst other things, protects civilians against warrantless actions by the government. This means that authorities are not allowed to perform searches of private property nor seize belongings without probable cause and appropriate documentation.
However, the “border exception” provides federal personnel with the power to disregard the protections as long the search and seizure action is within a reasonable distance from all U.S. borders. Probable cause doesn’t even need to be factored in.
The size of the unprotected area is up for some debate, though the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that 20 miles is considered “reasonable.” U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) officers have long interpreted this distance to be approximate, meaning they believe they’re authorized to enter and search vehicles in an even wider area up to 100 miles away from any port of entry, land or sea.
Regardless where the line is legally drawn, CBP claims of severe understaffing, recently substantiated by a Memorandum from U.S. Inspector General, Joseph V. Cuffari, means the agency is forced to cover more ground with limited personnel. To help in their attempt to secure the borders, the CBP has turned to new and improved technologies, many of which are now under scrutiny because of privacy and security concerns.
Analysis
As Title 42, the strict border policy enacted by the Trump Administration during the pandemic, was nearing its end on May 11 of this year, CBP Acting Commissioner Troy A. Miller assured the nation the illegal immigration situation at hand was under control. Miller stated that the agency has “surged resources, technology, and personnel to safely and orderly manage challenges along the southern border.”
However the “surge of technology” was accelerated by the passage of The Homeland Security Act of 2002, which calls for, in part, developing and implementing the use of technology systems and resources, including, “the physical and technological assets that support such systems.”
From communications devices between government agents to the development of digital tracking platforms, the amount of intelligence being collected using the latest technology continues to grow considerably. In fact, the CBP is even actively soliciting new partnerships with technology firms, according to its own CBP Business Connections page.
Since the 2002 law’s enactment, technology used in this effort seems to have grown from merely entering personal information by hand into databases to include biometric screening, such as the use of electronic finger identification and facial recognition. These are used not only at all borders, according to CBP claims, but at all airports, and 36 seaports as well.
A chief concern of privacy advocates is new technology that is being used to access people’s phones, laptops, and even car systems. The government has been using technology from companies like Israel-based Cellebrite to break into handheld devices. This has been happening even before 2021, when an appellate court in Boston ruled that officers can search laptops and smartphones at airports and at the borders.
But because of the expansive monitoring territory, the technology has moved on from face-to-face contact upon entry. Technology advancements have allowed the CBP to integrate a number of new innovations that include distance monitoring devices, license plate detectors, and drones.
Virtual Assistant Devices devices, like those developed by Amazon and Apple, have long been accused of listening in on homes. But within these expanded border zones, many are concerned that there will be nothing to stop the government from doing the same thing if they had “reasonable suspicion.”
Something even more concerning to many comes in the form of video surveillance. One example is the movable surveillance towers manufactured by General Dynamics. The company secured a $177 million contract in 2013 for the construction of mobile platforms that can use video equipment capable of surveying up to 7 miles.
Concerns are growing for the rights of people living within the hundred-mile zone. Recent Supreme Court decisions to reinforce “border exclusion” policy enables the use of technology to continue the practice of racial profiling and questioning people with only a reasonable suspicion anywhere in the 100-mile zone.
It’s important to continue to evaluate the implications of devices being used at border stations, not to mention the technology pointed in the opposite direction for 100 miles.
Engagement Resources:
- Groups like the ACLU are working hard to protect the privacy and security of Americans within the 100-mile zone. View a list of technologies used for border management currently in use.
- View another list of technology being used at the borders.
- The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a non-profit civil liberties organization, posted a map of Border Surveillance Towers.
Balancing Power: The Anti-Trust Dilemma in the Tech Era
Balancing Power: The Anti-Trust Dilemma in the Tech Era
Economic Policy Brief #53 | By: Inijah Quadri | May 31, 2023
Photo taken from: marketwatch.com
__________________________________
This is the 3rd in a U.S. RESIST NEWS 3-part series that examines the complex socio-economiuc issues related to the increased use of technology in our daily lives.
Summary
Anti-trust laws, also known as competition laws, are designed to protect consumers and ensure a competitive market landscape. They do so by preventing abusive business practices, restricting the formation of cartels or monopolies, and overseeing mergers and acquisitions that could reduce competition. However, the rise of tech giants such as Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple has presented new challenges for anti-trust regulation, with these companies holding an enormous share of the market in their respective sectors.
The concern here is not merely about dominance, but also about how these companies use their dominance. Anti-competitive practices, such as preferential treatment of their own services, predatory pricing, or exclusionary contracts with suppliers, can inhibit competition and stifle innovation. According to a 2022 report by the US House Judiciary Committee, all four of the tech giants mentioned earlier have engaged in practices that either exploit or shut out competitors, confirming the fears of anti-trust advocates.
Analysis
Anti-trust regulation requires a nuanced understanding of the tech industry’s complexities and the ways in which tech giants can exploit their dominant position. Governments and regulatory bodies worldwide have started to take notice. For instance, the European Union has been a trailblazer in this regard, imposing hefty fines on Google for anti-competitive practices. They have also opened a Statement of Objections case against Apple. In the US, both the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) have launched investigations into Big Tech’s anti-competitive practices.
Two key anti-trust cases are currently shaping the discourse:
a. Facebook (Meta) and Instagram/WhatsApp: Facebook’s acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp have been a focus of anti-trust scrutiny. Critics argue that these acquisitions have allowed Facebook to monopolize the social networking space, reducing competition and limiting consumer choice.
b. Amazon and Third-Party Sellers: Amazon has faced scrutiny over its dual role as both a marketplace for third-party sellers and a retailer of its own products. The company has been accused of using data from third-party sellers to develop its own competing products, which is seen as an unfair advantage.
Solving the anti-trust dilemma in the tech sector will require a multifaceted approach. This may include strengthening existing laws, creating new regulations tailored to the digital age, and improving the enforcement capabilities of regulatory bodies. Furthermore, fostering competition and innovation should be at the heart of these efforts.
Engagement Resources:
- Open Markets Institute (https://openmarketsinstitute.org/): Open Markets Institute is a think tank that advocates for stronger anti-trust enforcement and market competition.
- American Antitrust Institute (https://www.antitrustinstitute.org/): The American Antitrust Institute is an independent nonprofit organization that promotes competition that protects consumers, businesses, and society.
- Electronic Privacy Information Center (https://epic.org/): EPIC is a public interest research center that focuses on privacy and civil liberties issues, including anti-competitive practices in the tech sector.
- International Competition Network (https://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/): The International Competition Network is a virtual network that provides competition authorities worldwide with a specialized yet informal platform for addressing practical competition concerns.
Safeguarding Personal Data: Navigating Technology and Our Human Rights to Privacy in the Age of Information
Safeguarding Personal Data: Navigating Technology and Our Human Rights to Privacy in the Age of Information
Technology Policy Brief #89 | By: Inijah Quadri | May 31, 2023
Photo taken from: thedataprivacygroup.com
__________________________________
This is the 2nd in a U.S. RESIST NEWS 3-part series that examines the complex socio-economiuc issues related to the increased use of technology in our daily lives.
Summary
Privacy, while a fundamental human right recognized in various international and regional treaties, is increasingly under threat in today’s digital age. As personal data, preferences, and activities are routinely collected, stored, and analyzed by various entities, significant privacy concerns arise. From the right to be left alone to the right to control information about oneself, privacy has many interpretations, each with its own complexities and challenges. The misuse of personal data can lead to privacy invasion, identity theft, and other forms of cybercrime. As digital technology evolves, so do privacy issues.
According to a recent report from the Pew Research Center, 81% of Americans feel they have little or no control over the data collected about them by companies. Similarly, 66% believe they have little or no control over government data collection. Another discussion highlighted that the top privacy concerns in 2023 are data sharing by companies, location tracking, and targeted advertising. These made up the largest part of the total privacy issues.
Analysis
Approaches to regulating privacy comprise a combination of legislation, self-regulation, and technology. Governments have enacted laws such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in Europe, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) here in the United States, and the Personal Data Protection Bill in India. These laws provide rights to individuals regarding their personal data and impose obligations on businesses that process such data.
Major platforms like Facebook (now Meta) and Twitter have implemented updated privacy policies. While Facebook’s approach has faced controversies with numerous instances of data leaks and misuse of user data, Twitter has taken steps to give users more control over their data, allowing them to choose whether their data can be used for targeted advertising.
Technologies like encryption and anonymization also play a critical role in protecting privacy. These technologies can secure data and protect it from unauthorized access, thus upholding user privacy.
Notable case studies highlighting different approaches to privacy include:
a. Facebook-Cambridge Analytica scandal: In 2018, reports were released that Cambridge Analytica harvested the personal data of millions of Facebook users without their consent for advertising. This led to a massive outcry and legal actions against Facebook, resulting in a $725 million fine by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and significant changes to Facebook’s privacy policies and practices.
b. Apple-FBI standoff: In 2016, the FBI asked Apple to unlock an iPhone belonging to one of the shooters in the San Bernardino attack. Apple refused, arguing that creating a backdoor would compromise the privacy and security of all iPhone users. The case sparked a global debate about encryption, privacy, and law enforcement.
Addressing privacy concerns requires continuous assessment and improvement. Governments, tech giants, and stakeholders must collaborate to develop transparent, fair, and adaptable privacy policies that evolve with the changing digital landscape. By fostering a culture of accountability and promoting data literacy, we can empower individuals to control their personal information and contribute to a safer digital environment for all.
Engagement Resources:
- Electronic Frontier Foundation (https://www.eff.org/): EFF is a leading nonprofit organization defending civil liberties in the digital world, including privacy.
- Center for Democracy & Technology (https://cdt.org/): CDT is a champion of global online civil liberties and human rights, advocating for privacy rights and digital freedom.
- Privacy International (https://privacyinternational.org/): Privacy International is a UK-based charity that defends and promotes the right to privacy around the world.
- Future of Privacy Forum (https://fpf.org/): The Future of Privacy Forum is a US think tank that seeks to advance responsible data practices in support of emerging technologies.
Open Rights Group (https://www.openrightsgroup.org/): The Open Rights Group is a UK-based digital campaigning organization working to protect the rights to privacy and free speech online.
The Increasing Use of Drugs to Enhance Performance in International Triathlons
The Increasing Use of Drugs to Enhance Performance in International Triathlons
Foreign Policy Brief #78 | By: Reilly Fitzgerald | May 30, 2023
Photo taken from: education.triathlon.org
__________________________________
Summary
Endurance sports have long been the target of allegations and investigations into doping. No one needs an introduction to the name Lance Armstrong, for example, cycling’s worst offender and villain in terms of doping and ruining the lives of the people that accused him of cheating. Triathlon, an endurance sport that involves swimming, cycling, and running consecutively, is also no stranger to doping and cheating.
Analysis
Triathlon has a fairly short, when compared with the likes of cycling and running, history of doping. The sport really was not founded until late in the 1970s. Triathlete Magazine recently posted online a brief history of doping in the sport which included many elite triathletes. Some of these dopers have had pretty severe repercussions due to their doping, and due to some of these athletes there are more protections in place to attempt to curtail doping in the sport.
A few weeks ago, professional triathlete Collin Chartier’s doping was discovered and he has been handed a 3-year ban from the sport. Chartier is yet another perpetrator of dishonesty, and cheating, in endurance sports.. He is just one triathlete in a much larger group of endurance athletes that have perpetuated a long history of cheating.
Nina Kraft was one of the earliest dopers in triathlon, who tested positive for Erythropoietin (EPO). She was a German triathlete who, prior to the positive test, had won the famed and world-renowned Ironman World Championships in Kona, Hawaii; and, she won Ironman Germany, as well in 2004. She admitted to doping, and was given a one-year ban from the sport. After her ban, she had a successful comeback in both triathlon and running. The largest consequence of the events of her doping was that the German Triathlon Federation created the Elitepass for triathletes, which allowed only athletes with the Elitepass to be eligible for prize money at races with the major condition that they be subjected to unannounced drug testing.
Bridget McMahon, a Swiss triathlete, tested positive for EPO after winning the gold medal in triathlon at the 2000 Sydney Olympics. She admitted to taking “small doses”, otherwise known as microdosing, of EPO. She never gave up the name of her supplier, however; and was given a two-year ban and never raced again as a professional athlete. However, she then entered as an “Age Grouper” (Non-professional triathlete race division) and won every race that she enetered.. It should be noted, however, that Age-Group athletes are not nearly as strenuously tested (if they even get tested) as the professional triathlon field. Another Age-Group athlete that tested positive was Eduardo Solis, a Costa Rican non-professional triathlete; he tested positive for the use of EPO and various steroids.
EPO has long been the drug of choice for endurance athlete dopers. It is the main substance that Lance Armstrong, and many other cyclists, used through the 1990s and into the early 200s. It is a drug that is prescribed for patients, in a medical setting, that need to produce more red blood cells. Athletically speaking, the boost of red blood cells in your body allows your blood to carry more oxygen to your muscles when exercising, which allows your muscles to produce more work. For a triathlete, or other endurance athletes, it means that they are able to go longer in distance, and go faster too. Access to this drug is very easy to gain, Collin Chartier bought it online in November and began using it soon afterward.
It has long been the stance of dopers, especially cyclists, that all of “the top athletes” worldwide are under the microscope in terms of testing. It also has been well documented by athletes in almost every sport that unannounced testing occurs and is an inconvenience to their lives, but, testing has also made it more difficult for athletes to use performance enhancing drugs.
It remains to be seen what more can be done in terms of anti-doping measures globally. We have seen the creation of various agencies, and organizations, that are supposedly testing athletes in and out of competition. We have brand new tests to detect new substances, and can retroactively test blood samples from previous events. We have seen varying lengths of bans given out to athletes, Lance Armstrong was handed a life-long ban from competing in the sport of cycling for example.
Ironman athlete Lionel Sanders, a professional triathlete from Canada and known associate of Collin Chartier’s, has a proposal which may help triathlon recover its image from the dopers. His suggestion was that 20% of all prize purses on the professional circuit (the Professional Triathletes Organization races) go towards drug testing athletes out of the competition. This would roughly equate to $120,000 per race – as each race offers a winner’s purse of $600,000. This is a creative suggestion that puts the athletes at the center of the solution rather than having outside agencies involved, or in the case of Russia at the Olympics – having governments involved.
Engagement Resources:
The Implications of the George Santos’ Indictment
The Implications of the George Santos’ Indictment
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #78 | By: Ian Milden | May 25, 2023
Photo taken from: csmonitor.com
__________________________________
Summary
On May 10th, Congressman George Santos (R-NY) was indicted by federal prosecutors on charges of money laundering, wire fraud, theft of public funds, and making false statements to the government. Santos has pleaded not guilty. This Brief will discuss the charges against him and examine the political implications of his indictment.
Analysis
Congressman George Santos had gained a reputation for admitting that he made false statements about his biography during his campaign for Congress. An investigation from the Department of Justice alleges that his dishonesty went further than his campaign falsehoods.
The indictment against Santos outlines two separate schemes that resulted in thirteen charges against him. The first part of the indictment accuses Santos of taking contributions from his campaign account and using them for his personal benefit. Prosecutors say that he used these funds on personal debts and designer clothes. Prosecutors have Santos’ bank records to support their claims.
Using campaign funds for personal expenses is illegal, and other members of Congress have gotten in trouble for it. A recent example is Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA) who pleaded guilty to federal charges after using campaign funds on things ranging from toys for his children to vacations.
The second part of the indictment against Santos alleges that he applied for unemployment assistance in 2020 when he still had employment. Prosecutors say that Santos gained $24,000 from unemployment assistance that he was not eligible for. Santos was likely aware that fraudulently applying for unemployment benefits was a crime since he co-sponsored a bill to combat unemployment assistance fraud that was due to receive a floor vote the same week he was indicted for it.
The indictment also says that Santos made false statements to the House of Representatives in his required financial disclosure statement. Prosecutors say he falsely stated that he earned a salary from a company he owned as well as the value of his savings and checking accounts.
When a member of Congress is indicted, they are usually required to step back from their committee assignments. This is formally required by the House Republican Conference Rules. Congressman Santos already stepped back from his committee assignments back in January, so the indictment doesn’t change any committee activities.
Santos was already facing calls to resign from disgusted colleagues and those have increased, particularly from the New York delegation. Santos has said that he will not resign. If Santos refuses to resign, Congress would have the ability to expel him. Expulsion requires the support of two-thirds of the members of the House of Representatives. Expulsion is rarely used, and most cases were for treason during the start of the civil war. More recent cases of expulsion from Congress have included members who were convicted of corruption charges and accused of sexual misconduct. House Democrats attempted to force a vote to expel George Santos from the House, but it did not get the support of Republican leadership. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy expressed a desire to refer Santos’ indictment situation to the House Ethics Committee, which usually defers to the Justice Department in cases involving criminal conduct. House Republicans voted to refer Santos to the House Ethics Committee on May 18th.
Given the speed at which the Justice Department investigation has moved and the nature of the charges and evidence against Santos, it seems unlikely that Santos will avoid a conviction and remain in Congress. To be clear, Santos would be eligible to remain in Congress if he is convicted, but House rules would prevent him from voting and his colleagues would likely move to expel him. Santos could also resign as part of a plea agreement. A special election would be called to fill the seat when Santos leaves office.
The Race to ’24: Trump and his detractors, how the Republican field is shaping up
The Race to ’24: Trump and his detractors, how the Republican field is shaping up
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #79 | By: Abigail Hunt | May 26, 2023
Photo taken from: telegraph.co.uk
__________________________________
The 2024 Presidential election is pivotal – will we be able to continue the democratic policies of the past four years? Will a win for the Republicans mean the next administration spends time dismantling the work of the previous officeholder?
The way candidate choices are lining up ahead of the 2024 presidential election could be Deja Vú as President Joe Biden and former President Donald J. Trump, 45th president of the United States plan to duke it out for the Presidency one more time.
Trump is in the running even though he was indicted in spring 2023 in New York on 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree, a class E felony. Per the New York Courts website, a Class E felony is punishable by a possible sentence of less than a year up to four years in prison.
Trump also has recently been convicted of the sexual assault of E. Jean Carroll, and faces possible federal criminal charges for the mishandling of top secret government documents and for leading the January 6th insurrection of the US capitol. At the state level he faces potential criminal charges for attempting to falsify the outcome of the Presidential election in Georgia.
Despite all this, the irascible yet indomitable Trump persists in the political arena. Once again, Biden faces the prospect of a head-to-head with Trump. Trump’s campaign, titled Agenda 47, details how he will wage war on Biden’s policies, claiming he will advocate for veterans, improve the quality of life for all Americans, and protect American workers (though he offers few details on how he will achieve these goals.
In addition to Trump other Republicans are seeking to enter the race and Trump is no longer a shoo-in… In February, Nikki Haley, a Republican and former Governor of South Carolina, and Vivek Ramaswamy, a biotech and health care entrepreneur, announced their candidacies. Asa Hutchinson, former Arkansas governor and congressman, and conservative talk radio host Larry Elder joined the pack in April. The month of May brought South Carolina Governor Tim Scott and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis into the ring.
On May 24, DeSantis announced his 2024 bid in an unconventional way – via a livestream event with Elon Musk, the platform’s owner and a strong DeSantis supporter. In 2022, DeSantis raised more than any other gubernatorial candidate in U.S. history, and most of it was funded through a state-level political action committee (PAC), Friends of Ron DeSantis. DeSantis officially parted ways with the PAC, but now the $173.2 million fund is in the hands of DeSantis’s supporter, friend, and colleague, Florida Republican State Senator Blaise Ingoglia, who sponsored several conservative pieces of legislation which DeSantis signed into law, including allowing a jury to sentence someone to death from a unanimous jury decision to a 2/3rds majority.
Scott, a junior senator, espouses traditional Republican viewpoints – he stands with Israel, criticizes the federal government, supports the police. There is a subliminal sense of pulling oneself up from the bootstraps in Scott’s life story, the child of a single mother who struggled to make ends meet. With a bachelor’s in political science, Scott has very little real-world working experience, having previously worked as an insurance and real estate agent.
It is too early to say which of the candidates will cement the nomination, though DeSantis’s fundraising capabilities and name recognition give him an early advantage. Regardless of who takes the nomination, the candidate pool indicates that the conservative Deep South was deeply unsatisfied with Trump as their President. Whoever becomes the Republican nominee will face off against an incumbent president – historically not a fight often won.
Engagement Resources:
- “Pro-Ron DeSantis super PAC to inherit state-level PAC war chest to support presidential run” Open Secrets is a nonpartisan, independent and nonprofit research group tracking the influence of money, how its allocated, and its influence in U.S. politics and legislation.
- Tim Scott, the Facts. Vote Smart states its mission is to help inform the public about the elected officials that represent them, educate the public about major election issues, and outline the components of the Voter’s Self-Defense System. They offer a free Voter’s Self-Defense Manual.