JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
The Hijab in Sports
Brief #87 – Foreign Policy Brief
by Reilly Fitzgerald
The hijab is an article of clothing that has sparked debate for years due to its connections to the Islamic faith for some…
X Marks the Spot as Elon Musk Makes More Enemies
Brief #94 – Technology Policy Brief
by Mindy Spatt
In a letter threatening suit on June 20, X cited this report in accusing the CCDH of “making inflammatory, outrageous, and false…
Path for Democrats to Regain the House Runs Through New York
Brief #88 – Elections & Politics Policy Brief
by Ian Milden
Democrats lost their majority in the House of Representatives in the 2022 mid-term elections. However…
The Week That Was: Global News In Review
Brief #86 – Foreign Policy Brief
by Ibrahim Castro
Last week the United States Department of Justice called for the removal of a floating border barrier that has raised territorial and humanitarian concerns.
Russian Bombing Can’t Break the Spirit of the Citizens of Odessa
Brief #85 – Foreign Policy Brief
by Yelena Korshunov
On the night of July 18th Raisa woke up from a terrible roar and heart-rending children’s screams.
Carbon Taxes: Balancing Climate Change Mitigation with Sustainable Economic Growth
Brief #157 – Environmental Policy Brief
by Inijah Quadri
Carbon tax implementation has emerged as a pivotal tool for promoting a transition towards a greener economy.
Navigating the Information Jungle: Social Media, Disinformation, and Political Polarization
Brief #93 – Technology Policy Brief
by Inijah Quadri
Disinformation is an orchestrated campaign designed to propagate lies, distortions, and half-truths…
Why The Religious Liberty Argument Threatens Civil Rights And Anti – Discrimination Statutes
Brief #209 – Civil Rights Policy Brief
by Rodney A. Maggay
Legal scholars are wondering if this refusal to serve another person could be extended to matters outside LGBQT+ issues.
FDA Legalizes Nonprescription Birth Control, but Legal Challenges Await
Brief #81 – Health & Gender Policy Brief
by Geoffrey Small
According to the FDA, “Almost half of the 6.1 million pregnancies in the U.S. each year are unintended.
For Republicans, “Parent Choice” is About Power, not Freedom
For Republicans, “Parent Choice” is About Power, not Freedom
Education Policy Brief #83 | By: Rudolph Lurz | May 23, 2023
Former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (left) debates Republican gubernatorial candidate Glenn Youngkin, hosted by the Northern Virginia Chamber of Commerce on September 28, 2021, in Alexandria, Virginia. Photo taken from: cnn.com
__________________________________
During a debate in the 2021 Virginia gubernatorial campaign, Terry McAuliffe made a serious blunder. He stated, “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.”
His opponent, Glenn Youngkin, seized on that mistake. Youngkin made “parent choice” in education the centerpiece of his campaign, especially concepts such as CRT (Critical Race Theory) and LGBTQ+ issues. Youngkin framed McAuliffe’s stance as anti-parent and elitist, and rode that messaging all the way to a surprise victory in a state that has trended blue in recent years.
The exact target of parent anger in districts nationwide is difficult to pinpoint, but can best be explained with the near-ubiquitous term of “anti-woke”. Parents and policy makers who prescribe to this philosophy claim that public school districts are indoctrinating students with so-called “woke” ideology. This includes things like the acceptance of non-binary and transgender students, health classes which include discussion of LGBTQ+ issues, and the role of racism in American history.
“Parent Choice” has become the mantra of those who stand in opposition to curriculum issues such as these. School board meetings have become raucous and even violent. School board members have received violent and obscene threats, drawing the attention of the Attorney General and Department of Justice. Attendees at these meetings sometimes do not even have children in the districts involved. Attempts to bar non-district attendees from these meetings have been denigrated as authoritarianism. The DOJ’s efforts to protect school board members have been framed as portraying parents as terrorists. Ted Cruz, in a letter co-signed by other Senate Republicans, stated, “Parents and other citizens who get impassioned at school-board meetings are not domestic terrorists. You may believe that, but too many people involved in this issue seem to think harsh words can be criminalized. Getting the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division involved in the matter only makes this worse—dramatically worse.”
To Republicans like Senator Cruz, whether or not the protestors have children in the school district is not relevant. Advocacy coalitions such as Moms for Liberty get the word out, and meetings that were once sparsely attended have become loud battlefields of partisan vitriol.
Analysis
As I noted in a previous brief, the current criticism of public education is not a traditional GOP attack angle. The standard refrain was that public districts were failing, and parents should receive a voucher to use the per pupil funding of their child toward the tuition of the private school of their choice. Vouchers are a popular form of school choice, which advocates for the idea that the money should follow the student. “Butts in seats” is shorthand for a common funding formula used by school districts. A district map determines which areas are zoned for elementary, middle, and high schools. Students attend their districted school, and the number of students who are counted as “present” in the first few weeks of the year determines the funding levels for the next academic year. The per pupil figure in that formula is determined by many factors, including property tax revenues and state funding.
Every district is different. School choice advocates vary from those who would like to take their kid’s entire per pupil amount and get a voucher from a Catholic school (which raises church/state concerns), to those who want the option to attend a different public school in the same district. That argument is more logically sound, as funds allocated for that student remain in the district instead of leaving for private schools. However, it still is problematic. If one district school is performing poorly, how many families are allowed to leave for greener pastures? Would the district then be obligated to provide transportation to schools on the other side of the county?
These are questions I am used to discussing as an education policy analyst. This latest trend under the guise of “parent choice” is both bizarre and alarming. Advocacy groups like Moms for Liberty are not seeking opt-out clauses or pushing for vouchers. They want to control the education options for the entire district. Vicki Baggett, an English teacher in Florida, has personally filed over 150 forms seeking the removal of books from district libraries across the state.
“Parent Choice” is a solid rallying cry for firing up suburban moms to vote Republican. It uses warm terminology with the positive connotation of having a voice in the education of their children. What parent wouldn’t want that?
The issue with this modern movement is that it’s anything but warm and fuzzy parents cheering for their own kids. It is centered on activist partisans who seek power at the state and federal levels. If groups are advocating for the removal of entire sections of books from school libraries and chilling any classroom discussions on topics they do not like, that is not “parent choice”.
That is dominion.
Parents should absolutely have a voice in their kids’ education. They have public forums at school board meetings to make their voices heard. There are appropriate avenues available for parent input and dissent.
Parent voices become alarming when they demand dominance over the education options for every student in the district. Those voices become frightening when they show up at districts where their kids don’t live and demand dominance there, too. Those voices require DOJ intervention when they begin threatening school board members with violence if they don’t get their way.
For the civic health of this nation, and the decentralized local control that traditional Republicans used to advocate for, it’s vital that school board meetings become boring again.
If you are threatening other parents and educators and screaming at the top of your lungs in a county 200 miles away, you’re doing it wrong.
Engagement Resources
An Update on Foreign Military Support for Ukraine
An Update on Foreign Military Support for Ukraine
Foreign Policy Brief #77 | By: Yelena Korshunov | May 23, 2023
Volodymyr Zelensky signs the guestbook at the Bellevue Palace before heading into talk with Germany’s President Frank Walter Steinmeyer. Header photo taken from: inkl.com
__________________________________
This month Ukraine’s President visited Italy, Germany, France and Great Britain. As a result of the meetings, the European leaders agreed on the transfer of new large packages of military aid to Kyiv and announced the creation of a coalition for the supply of Western fighter jets and the training of Ukrainian pilots. But will the new round of arms deliveries to Ukraine make the country ready for a counteroffensive?
One of Zelensky’s achievements during this trip is the creation of the fighter jet coalition: the British will train F-16 pilots and, together with other members of the coalition, transfer fighters to Ukraine. At the same time, the British have been hinting they have the opportunity to train the Ukrainian Air Force pilots on any aircraft. In Great Britain where there are pilot training centers, including for flights at low altitudes.
The announcement of the creation of a coalition can really be a kind of trigger for other countries in the direction of fighter jet deliveries. However, it is not clear whether F-16s will be supplied to Ukraine as part of the coalition. Various options are being discussed.
Great Britain announced that it would send to Ukraine drones and missiles for anti-aircraft missile systems. They are invaluable for Ukraine because they counter Russian missile and drone attacks. France also has promised to deliver several dozen armored vehicles and light tanks, including the AMX-10 RC, in the coming weeks, according to a joint statement issued after President Emmanuel Macron’s talks with Ukraine’s president. Some of them arrived in Ukraine earlier and already have been mastered by Ukrainian crews.
In addition to that, a 2.7 billion euro aid package was announced by Germany. It includes Marder BMP, Leopard tanks, 200 drones, and 100 armored vehicles. Germany is one of the centers of production of weapons in Europe, including Leopard tanks. The other day, the German weapons manufacturer Rheinmetall and the Ukrainian company Ukroboronprom concluded a major agreement on the creation of a joint arms manufacturing venture. This act is not just about the current purchase of some weapons, but also about long-term cooperation.
Quite recently, on May 9th, another American aid package was announced. New in this package was equipment for the integration of Western air defense systems into the air defense system of Ukraine; however, these deliveries will take several months. The Ukrainians themselves have been calling for the integration of foreign weapons into the unified information system of the air defense of Ukraine since the very beginning of the supply of foreign equipment at the start of the war.
Reflecting the latest news, Alexander Lukashenko, self-proclaimed President of Belarus and an ally of Putin, has said that all the statements about the Ukrainian counteroffensive are “disinformation”. Lukashenko has traditionally stated that Ukraine and Russia should sit down at the negotiating table without any preliminary demands from Kyiv.
Ukraine’s President Volodymir Zelensky is welcomed by France’s President Emmanuel Macron upon his arrival at the Elysee presidential palace in Paris on May 14, 2023. Photo taken from france24.com
Analysis
In fact, the French, German and British packages saturate the armed forces of Ukraine with the equipment that it already received earlier. The only exception was the mention in the Franco-Ukrainian declaration that France would provide an anti-aircraft SAMP-T-Mamba air defense system known for its exceptional quality. Previously it was said that they will be installed in the Spring.
There was no dramatic news during Zelensky’s visit except for the discussion of the fighter coalition. After the war ends, Ukraine will certainly adopt an ambitious program of re-construction of its armed forces, and those who are now supplying Ukraine with their armored vehicles understand that this equipment will remain in Ukraine’s service. It will need to be serviced, modernized, and updated with new systems, as part of post-war plans.
Important Tech Accountability Measures in California May Get Picked Up by Congress
Important Tech Accountability Measures in California May Get Picked Up by Congress
Technology Policy Brief #88 | By: Mindy Spratt | May 19, 2023
Header photo taken from: calmatters.org
Summary
Two measures being considered by the California State Legislature would rein in egregious practices by tech companies that critics have long complained about. They are of course opposed by industry that may well see them as the tip of an iceberg, as they mirror efforts in other states and at the federal level. But some nonprofit advocacy organizations are also opposed.
Analysis
Senator. Susan Talamantes Eggman’s (D-San Joaquin) Right to Repair Act (CA Senate Bill 244) would require companies to eliminate roadblocks that now prevent consumers from fixing electronic products like cell phones and appliances, forcing them to buy new ones whenever something goes wrong. The bill would provide additional benefits to the state by reducing the amount of electronic waste.
According to Californians Against Waste, a co-sponsor of the bill, easier access to repairs would also bring much-needed economic relief in the midst of rising prices. A recent report found that Californian families could save $330 per year by repairing electronics themselves or using independent repair shops, adding up to a total savings of $4.3 billion across the state.
New York state already has a Right to Repair law on the books, although it doesn’t encompass as many products as the California proposal. “The passage of the New York law demonstrates that there is nationwide economic and environmental urgency to extend digital rights to consumers and clear landfills from electronics and appliances waste” said Clara Vazeix, a Policy Analyst for Californians Against Waste.
New York and California are not alone. According to Stateline.org, 17 other states are considering similar bills, and facing “furious” opposition from the tech industry. And federal action may be coming. President Biden issued an executive order on the subject in 2021, requesting that the Federal Trade Commission draft new rules to prevent manufacturers from limiting the right to repair, and Rep. Joseph Morelle, (D-NY-25) introduced a federal Right to Repair Bill in 2021.
Also on the agenda in Sacramento this legislative session is the California Journalism Preservation Act (CA Assembly Bill 886). The bill, introduced by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D- Oakland) would require tech platforms such as Facebook and Google to pay fees to newspaper publishers when they reprint local content. According to Wicks, “Currently, creators of quality journalism are not adequately compensated for the use of their content that takes a tremendous investment to produce, and therefore, cannot reinvest enough in journalists and newsrooms.” The fees from the new charges would primarily go to fund local journalism jobs.
Who could be against that, other than Google and Facebook? The media advocacy group Free Press for one, who said, in a letter to California Assembly Members, that the Act “is the wrong solution to the state’s local-news crisis. This bill is nothing more than a huge handout to the same companies — including conglomerates like Gannett and hedge funds like Alden Global Capital — that have systematically destroyed local news.”
The Executive Vice President & General Counsel of the News/Media Alliance, Danielle Coffey, disagrees. According to Coffey, “The dominant tech platforms reap the vast majority of the online revenue at news publishers’ expense”, decimating newsroom budgets and creating more opportunities for misinformation. Her organization, whose website says it represents “nearly 2,000 diverse publishers in the United States—from the largest groups and international outlets to hyperlocal sources…” supports the California bill and is advocating for similar legislation on the federal level.
The federal Journalism Competition & Preservation Act (JCPA), which came close to passing in Congress last year, was recently reintroduced by Senate Antitrust Chairwoman Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Senator John N. Kennedy (R- LA.)
Like the California Act, the federal one has been criticized by advocacy organizations as being too little too late. According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation the JCPA would “limit the organizations that could get compensation under this scheme to publications with 1,500 employees or fewer. But that won’t preserve competition, because the loss of local and independent news has already happened.”
Engagement Resources
- Gadget Industry Tosses a Wrench Into ‘Right to Repair’ Efforts Elaine S. Povich – Feb. 2, 2023
- The Journalism Competition and Preservation Act Will Produce Neither Competition Nor Preservation, Katharine Trendacosta and Mitch Stoltz June 29, 2022
- New York Right-to-Repair Law Promises Easier, Cheaper Electronics Repairs, Nicholas De Leon, Consumer Reports, January 6, 2023
The End of Title 42 and a New Beginning for Immigration Policy
The End of Title 42 and a New Beginning for Immigration Policy
Immigration Policy Brief #133 | By: Arvind Salem | May 19, 2023
Header photo taken from: npr.org
Summary
On May 11th at 11:59 PM EDT, a pandemic-era immigration policy deriving from a law known as Title 42 expired after being in effect for over 3 years. Title 42, part of a larger law known as the Public Health Service Act of 1944, was designed to help the President take emergency actions to control the spread of contagious diseases into the country: in this instance to control the spread of COVID-19. However, the period of national emergency ended, and Title 42 along with it.
Before the enactment of Title 42, migrants could cross illegally and request asylum, allowing them to remain in the United States after they were screened and released until their immigration case was reviewed. Under Title 42, many migrants were prevented from seeking asylum and returned across the border. Notably, there were no legal consequences for someone attempting to illegally cross the border under Title 42, encouraging many repeat attempts. Title 42 was also not a blanket ban on asylum as there were certain exceptions, including unaccompanied children, Ukrainian refugees and migrants deemed to be vulnerable. The surge in migrants that qualify for an exception from Title 42 means that its use has been waning even before it has officially ended. Overall, Title 42 resulted in migrants being denied asylum over 2.8 million times.
With the end of Title 42, United States migration policy will become governed by Title 8 of the United States Code. Title 8 carries more severe consequences for migrants attempting to enter the United States illegally. Title 8 and other border policies will remove migrants found ineligible for asylum through a quick deportation process known as expedited removal, which would also ban them from the United States for 5 years.
Analysis
The end of Title 42 has huge political consequences and enormous consequences for the policy area of immigration as a whole. Politically, it creates a fracture in the Democratic party. Several moderate Democrats criticized Biden’s action to lift Title 42 and attempted to extend it. Meanwhile, this is a uniting moment for Republicans that allows them to energize their base around the issue of border security as the President has to navigate a post Title 42 world. Biden has already struggled with public approval on immigration, with a recent Reuters/Ipsos poll finding that 60 percent of Americans disapprove of President Biden’s handling of immigration compared to just 26 percent that approve. The expected migrant surge post Title 42’s expiration is likely to exacerbate this problem and allow Republicans to attack Biden for his handling of immigration and border security.
The end of Title 42 represents a crossroads for President Biden and the country on how they want to move forward on immigration policy. Reforms in the area of immigration policy have largely stalled, with the last big immigration package coming under President Reagan in 1986 with another smaller package coming under President Bush in 1990. With Congress seemingly unable to take action, President Biden is doing most of his work through Executive orders, including efforts to address overcrowding, stricter asylum rules, and attempting to speed up the process, all in an attempt to disincentivize illegal crossings and to stop people from paying smugglers to help them enter the United States.
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.
An Early Look at the 2024 Race for the Republican Presidential Nomination
An Early Look at the 2024 Race for the Republican Presidential Nomination
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #77 | By: Ian Milden | May 16, 2023
Header photo taken from: cnn.com
Summary
The race for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination has started to develop. This brief will examine where the race stands at this point by looking for insights from early polling data. The brief will also discuss some of the limitations of our knowledge and uses of early polling data.
Analysis
The race for the Republican Presidential nomination has started to develop. Former President Donald Trump filed to run in November of last year. Former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, former Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson, radio host Larry Elder, and biotech executive Vivek Ramaswamy have all launched campaigns for the Republican presidential nomination. Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina has formed an exploratory committee, and he appears likely to go forward with a campaign.
Several other Republicans have expressed interest in running, and they could join the race in the coming weeks and months. These Republicans include former Vice President Mike Pence, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, and New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu. These potential candidates have to make a final decision soon to build effective campaign organizations that can compete in the early primaries.
Some Notes on Polls
There are a handful of polls that can provide some insight on the current state of the race, though there are some caveats that I should mention before looking at the data.
First, polls are not predictive. They are meant to capture the thoughts and opinions of a target audience (in this case, likely Republican primary voters) at a specific point in time. Those thoughts and opinions can change over time, so examining trends over time tends to provide the most insight. Examining trends over time is difficult to do early in a campaign.
Second, if you have read my previous work incorporating polling data (which I often did for this website when looking at Senate races in the 2022 mid-terms), you would know that I do not value the topline (or horse race) numbers very much. Instead, I am more concerned with the underlying demographic trends that are used to come up with the topline numbers. The underlying demographic trends in polling data tend to be more consistent from pollster to pollster even as the topline numbers shift since different pollsters will have different methods and formulas for figuring out what they think election day turnout will look like.
Third, most polls at this point are national polls, which is not how the primary is decided. Individual states vote on different days. Some candidates may post better numbers in specific states, such as a candidate’s home state. This won’t be reflected in a national poll, but some of the underlying data from the national poll may indicate where a candidate has the best chance of competing since most of the underlying trends repeat themselves at the state level. For example, candidates who struggle with college-educated voters are likely to perform worse in states with a greater percentage of college educated voters.
Fourth, since candidates are still able to launch campaigns, some polls may not incorporate candidates who have not launched a campaign. Other polls will incorporate candidates who have decided not to run for President in this election cycle. The entrances and exits of candidates from the race can change the minds of respondents, and updated polling data would be needed to reflect those changes.
What the Data Tells Us
The early data from every poll I have been able to find paints one clear picture: The race for the 2024 Republican nomination is currently Trump’s race to lose. He consistently leads in the polls by sizable margins, and he does so with substantial support from most of the underlying demographic trends. If you are interested in looking at some of those trends for yourself, this spreadsheet has some of the underlying demographic trends from the ABC News and Washington Post poll conducted at the end of April and beginning of May.
There are a few notable areas of weakness for Trump. For example, he gets substantially less support from college graduates, women, and voters in more urbanized areas when compared with voters who did not graduate from college, men, and rural voters. Trump also performs better among voters who identify as more conservative rather than moderates or independents. These trends are not going to be problematic for Trump in a Republican Primary because the Republican party’s base voters are increasingly from rural areas, lack college degrees, and are self-identified conservatives.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has been the closest competitor to Trump in most polls, but his support has been declining in recent surveys. His support skews towards college-educated voters, women, and voters in more urbanized areas. DeSantis likely got support from these voters due to his prominence in conservative media as a Trump alternative. These voters may now be looking for an alternative to DeSantis due to his abrasive personality and his political fights with entities like Disney. Many of these voters are not seeking someone with a personality and temperament that is similar to Trump’s. I would not be surprised if his support continues to decline among these voters if he launches a campaign and does not make substantial changes to appeal to these voters.
If someone is going to beat Trump in the primary, they are going to have to figure out how to chip away at the solid support he has right now. The recent indictment in New York State does not appear to have damaged Trump’s standing within the Republican party, at least according to Reuters’ polling data from last month. Trump’s support seems to be durable, as his support is coming from the same demographics who supported his two previous campaigns. The other candidates for the Republican nomination need to adjust their campaign and communication strategy to adapt to this reality since hoping that Trump will be forced out of the race is an exercise in wishful thinking.
The Week That Was: Global News in Review
The Week That Was: Global News in Review
Foreign Policy Policy Brief #76 | By: Ibrahim Sultan | May 16, 2023
Header photo taken from: english.elpais.com
This is our 7th in a series designed to help our readers catch up on international events of the past week.
End of US policy Title 42
Last week the policy known as Title 42 expired, ending one of the country’s most controversial border restrictions in recent memory. Title 42 is a Trump-era policy that had allowed US authorities to rapidly turn away most migrants and refugees who arrive at the country’s southern border, without giving them an opportunity to apply for protection. US officials are now expecting to see a surge in the number of migrants and refugees attempting to enter the country’s Southern border. The large number of people now expected to pass through is a result of the policy that kept thousands of people from making asylum claims in the first place. In another controversial move, the Biden administration deployed military troops to the border. These actions have drawn major concern from rights groups that accuse Washington of cracking down on asylum, which is a right recognised under both US and international law.
Turkish Elections
Turks last week began voting in the country’s first elections since a number of traumatic events, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the deadly earthquakes back in February, and the invasion of Ukraine. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who has ruled the country for the past 20 years is facing his toughest challenge to the presidency. His public support has waned against the backdrop of a severe economic crisis, lingering effects of the earthquake, rising costs of housing, and the large number of refugees in the country. Kemal Kilicdaroglu, who is Erdogan’s main rival, represents a bloc composed of six political parties and has also secured the backing of many other opposition groups. Additionally, million’s of first-time young voters who make up almost 8% of the Turkish electorate support Erdogan’s opposition and want a change after 20 years under his rule. The election outcome will have major consequences for the region and would affect a wide range of international events, from migration to Europe, to the wars in Syria and Ukraine, to the addition of further members into NATO and more.
Chile’s Conservatives will rewrite the country’s constitution
In 2020 Chileans voted to draft a new constitution to replace their current one which was drafted under former dictator Agusto Pinochet. The largely independent and left-wing constituents drafted the first rewrite, which focused mainly on social benefits, environmental rights, gender parity and Indigenous rights. The failure of this constitutional draft was seen as a blow by many who saw it as a chance to uphold environmental and indigenous rights for the region and the globe. This draft ultimately failed to pass because of a struggling economy and rising crime that many attributed to the new left-wing government. After the Chilean public voted on a new round of right-wing constitutional drafters last week, conservative parties, many of whom objected to a constitutional rewrite, will now be able to implement their version of a redraft and put it to a vote in the coming year.
Arrest of former Pakistani Prime Minister
Late last week Pakistan’s former Imran Khan was granted bail by the country’s High Court. His release comes just days after his dramatic arrest over corruption charges set off an outpouring of anger against the country’s military. The dramatic arrest triggered clashes with police and paramilitary forces across the country that resulted in the killing of a dozen people, and nearly 2,000 protestors arrested.The former PM is accused of corruption for illegally acquiring land and unlawfully selling gifts sent to him by foreign leaders while in office. Pakistan has a tumultuous history with arresting its Prime ministers, often with the army taking control of the country in the interim. Political turmoil in the country is currently being exacerbated by the record high inflation, unemployment, and natural disasters that have struck the country.
Help Wanted: Seeking Support for Unaccompanied Children
Help Wanted: Seeking Support for Unaccompanied Children
Social Justice Policy Brief #146 | By: Steve Piazza | May 15, 2023
Header photo taken from: nytimes.com
Please note: This is the second part of a report on how child labor laws are failing to protect minors from work related abuses (see U.S. RESIST NEWS Social Justice Policy Brief # 146) and the implications that has for their education. This time the focus is mainly on unaccompanied migrant children.
Policy Summary
Federal government educational support for qualified migrant children comes from the Migrant Education Program (MEP), which is administered by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Migrant Education (OME). The program provides grant funding under Title 1, Part C to all states, which in turn decide how the money will be used. Typically, state MEPs will offer academic, counseling, and other services to support all migrant children PreK-12 regardless of status.
OME programs also include incentives for State Educational Agencies (SEAs) to collaborate with MEPs in other states since migrant families tend to move to where the work is.
An immigrant child has legal status if he or she is accompanied by a parent or guardian who was granted official entry of some sort (even or if the child himself/herself were granted some sort of official entry. Otherwise they are considered undocumented.
Although undocumented migrant children in the United States are allowed access to PreK-12 education, unlike other migrant children they lack basic protections of federal and state social programs safeguarding their overall well being, not to mention assurances that they end up in school at all. Undocumented children are either children who are unaccompanied by a parent or a guardian or have a parent/guardian who themselves are either undocumented or whose environment is not deemed appropriate for children.
Policy Analysis
Unaccompanied minors are detained and processed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). HHS oversees the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), which has the responsibility to secure the release of children to sponsors it has verified, whether family members or not.
According to HHS, the number of children ORR serves has grown from 8,000 prior to 2012 to 128,904 in 2022. The Labor Department puts that last number at 146,925, while already having processed 46,825 this year.
Yet, too many unaccompanied youths are released to individuals who have not been adequately verified, and many of them end up being forced to work jobs involving long hours and hazardous conditions. School for them is not an option. Even if unaccompanied children are in good homes, economic situations there might require them to help out financially. That’s not quite trafficking, but it can have the same effect on a child’s education.
Government attempts to address the issue have fallen short. Recently, a report by Hannah Dreier of the New York Times on migrant child labor abuses of unaccompanied youth has called out the Biden Administration for failing to properly heed warnings that abuses have been taking place.
According to Dreier, the Biden Administration has since committed itself to the issue, but only after the administration refused to comment on why they ignored notifications and blame volleyed back and forth between agencies. Dreier went on to tell PBS, “no single agency is really responsible for these children after they’re released to sponsors.”
ORR Director Robin Dunn Marcos told NPR they lack the personnel and resources to monitor what happens to the migrant children once they’re released. It’s been proposed that HHS be provided with $7.3 billion to strengthen the migrant support infrastructure in 2024, but that’s a long time away.
Existing programs, like The Education for Homeless Children and Youth program, just don’t go far enough. Authorized under Title VII-B of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, that program may provide relief to some unaccompanied children as long as they’re identified and not lost in the trafficking landscape.
Directly addressing the school issue itself is also an enormous task. By law, all children regardless of status must be allowed to attend school. Education Week reports that migrant services are available for 302,000 eligible students, including 28,000 out-of-school youths.
Even for those in school, the staggering academic results show that progress is not where it should be. The Migrant State Agency Program’s 2016 performance report for migrant students grades 3 to 8 showed less than 30% proficiency standards in reading and language arts. It was even lower for math. Some of this has to do with the transitory behavior of migrant families, ongoing language barriers, and agricultural labor exceptions in existing laws, but it is an indication that much improvement is needed.
Test scores are only part of the indication that they are being underserved. Long term effects are worth considering since about 55% of migrant workers claim to have received no more than a ninth grade education. More than half of those never even made it to the seventh grade.
Meanwhile, child labor abuses remain a reality. That’s not surprising in an economy where opportunists coveting gainful bottom lines are incentivized on the backs of children. Such practices run counter to the systemic change necessary for societal norms to reflect what’s best for them.
Prioritizing unaccompanied migrant children’s welfare over production costs related to auto parts factories, meat packing plants, restaurants, and construction sites may seem herculean. But devoting protective resources now is a powerful step towards eliminating abuses not only for them, but for all children. It also teaches them the humanity they’ll need to influence how the economy, not to mention migrant programs, ought to run in the future.
Engagement Resources
- Kids in Need of Defense (KIND) is an immigration advocacy organization committed to maintaining protections for children. Here is a link to an information sheet about providing support to unaccompanied minors: https://supportkind.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/UIC-Schools-Convening-Fact-Sheet-June-2021_updated.pdf
- The Young Center for Immigration Children’s Rights has been directly serving unaccompanied minors for almost 20 years. To learn more visit: https://www.theyoungcenter.org/about-the-young-center
Two Judges Have Opposing Rulings, and Backgrounds, on Abortion Rights
Two Judges Have Opposing Rulings, and Backgrounds, on Abortion Rights
Health & Gender Brief #161 | By: Geoffrey Small | May 12, 2023
Header photo taken from: sfchronicle.com
Last month two federal judges issued contradictory rulings on the abortion medication mifepristone, the most commonly used procedure in the United States. In Texas, U.S. Federal District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk ruled that a 20-year old authorization by the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) should be put on hold until the federal government appeals a lawsuit against the medication. Meanwhile, in Spokane, Washington, U.S. District Judge Thomas Rice ruled against federal officials hindering access to the medication in 17 states where Democratic Attorney Generals sued to preserve access. Exploring the two judges opposing views through their cultural backgrounds, education, and career paths can help identify a systemic pattern of political and religious influence in the effort to take away reproductive rights from women.
Matthew Kacsmaryk
Photo taken by Business Insider
Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk was born in Gainesville Florida to a family who had antiabortion beliefs. He graduated from a Christian University in Texas and received his law degree in the same state. Kacsmaryk became a member of the Federalist Society in 2012, which is a conservative legal organization that promotes a strict and libertarian-based interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. After a brief five-year period as an Assistant District Attorney in the State of Texas, he began working for the First Liberty Institute in 2014, where LGBTQ advocacy groups stated his writings referred to homosexuality and transgender identities as mental health issues. He also represented clients that were sued for discrimination against the LGBTQ community. In 2017, he was nominated by the Trump administration to serve as a federal judge and was eventually appointed by the Senate in 2019.
Thomas Owen Rice
Photo taken by The Spokesman-Review
Judge Thomas Rice was born in Spokane, Washington and spent his whole career working for the Federal Government. He began his career in the U.S. Department of Justice in 1986, after receiving his law degree at Gonzaga University. He worked for 26 years as an Assistant District Attorney in Washington, until he was nominated by the Obama administration to serve as a Federal Judge in 2011 and later appointed by the Senate in 2012. He was also appointed as a Chief Judge for his district.
On April 21st, the Supreme Court blocked Kacsmaryk’s decision to ban mifepristone until arguments are heard during the appeal process. The religious and cultural background of Kacsmaryk may be a clear indicator of his antiabortion influence in the federal court system. However, the stark contrast in career paths of these two federal district judges highlights the need for placing a higher standard on vetting potential candidates. It is clear that Kacsmaryk’s background in working for the federal government pales in comparison to Rice. Organizations like the Federalist Society and Liberty Institute may serve as an incubator for federal justices that oppose reproductive rights. The fact that Rice spent most of his career working for the federal justice system may have served as a buffer against influence from special interest groups with certain political and religious agendas. The Hatch Act mandated that federal employees are not allowed to engage in partisan political organizations, until it was amended in 1993 to allow partisan participation during off-duty hours.
Organizations like Lambda Legal and Alliance For Justice are sounding the alarm over appointed federal judges whose legal background and influence from special interest groups harm reproductive rights. That’s why it is important to donate to these organizations, in order to educate the public and the United States Senate on how our justice system is being influenced to carry out an antiabortion agenda.
Links to Donate
Navigating the Complexities of Content Moderation: Strategies and Challenges in the Digital Age
Navigating the Complexities of Content Moderation: Strategies and Challenges in the Digital Age
Technology Brief #87 | By: Inijah Quadri | May 10, 2023
Header photo taken from: fastcompany.com
Policy:
Content moderation is the process of monitoring and filtering user-generated content to ensure that it adheres to a platform’s guidelines and community standards. The rise of social media platforms and user-generated content has led to an increase in false content and misinformation, which can have significant social, political, and economic consequences. Misinformation can be intentionally created to manipulate public opinion, spread conspiracy theories, or promote divisive content. It can also arise inadvertently due to a lack of understanding or misinterpretation of facts. The challenges of content moderation include determining what constitutes harmful content, addressing the scale of misinformation, balancing freedom of expression with the need to prevent harm, and ensuring transparency and fairness in the moderation process.
According to a recent EU report, misinformation and disinformation campaigns have increased significantly over the past decade, driven by technological advances, social media platforms, and geopolitical tensions. Other studies by the MIT Media Lab and the RAND Corporation found that false news stories are 70% more likely to be retweeted than true stories, and it takes true stories about six times longer to reach 1,500 people than false stories. Yet another recent Pew Research Center survey revealed that more than half of US adults believe misinformation on social media is a major problem, and 48% believe the government should play a more significant role in addressing the issue.
Analysis:
Content moderation can be performed using a combination of human reviewers, automated algorithms, and user reporting. Major platforms like Facebook and Twitter have implemented various content moderation strategies, including employing thousands of human moderators, using artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning to detect and remove harmful content, and allowing users to report inappropriate content.
Government regulation of content moderation is another approach. For example, Germany’s Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG), implemented in 2017, requires social media platforms to remove illegal content within 24 hours of receiving a user complaint. In the European Union, the Digital Services Act (DSA), proposed in 2020 and still under negotiation, aims to establish a legal framework for regulating content moderation and holding platforms accountable for illegal content. Here in the United States, ongoing discussions revolve around potential revisions to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which provides immunity to platforms for user-generated content.
Case studies demonstrating different approaches to content moderation include:
a. Facebook’s Oversight Board: Established in 2018, Facebook’s Oversight Board is an independent body responsible for reviewing content moderation decisions. In January 2021, the board upheld Facebook’s decision to suspend former President Donald Trump’s account but also criticized the platform’s policies and urged for clearer guidelines.
b. Twitter’s Approach to COVID-19 Misinformation: Twitter implemented stricter content moderation policies to combat COVID-19 misinformation, including labeling misleading information, providing links to authoritative sources, and removing content that could cause direct harm. This case demonstrates the proactive steps platforms can take to combat misinformation during public health crises.
c. YouTube’s Removal of QAnon Content: In October 2020, YouTube announced a crackdown on conspiracy theory content, specifically targeting QAnon, a baseless conspiracy theory that had gained significant traction on the platform. This move highlighted the responsibility of social media platforms to curb the spread of harmful conspiracy theories.
Striking the right balance between freedom of expression and harm prevention is a complex task that requires continuous assessment and improvement. Governments, social media platforms, and stakeholders must work collaboratively to develop transparent, fair, and adaptable content moderation strategies that evolve with the ever-changing digital landscape. By fostering a culture of accountability and promoting information literacy, we can empower individuals to make informed decisions and contribute to a healthier online environment for all.
Engagement Resources:
Center for Humane Technology: The Center for Humane Technology is a non-profit organization focused on addressing the societal impacts of technology, including content moderation and misinformation.
First Draft: First Draft is a non-profit organization that provides resources and training to help journalists, researchers, and civil society organizations address misinformation and disinformation.
Poynter Institute’s International Fact-Checking Network: The International Fact-Checking Network is a global coalition of fact-checking organizations that promotes best practices and high standards in fact-checking.
NewsGuard: NewsGuard is a service that rates news websites based on their reliability and transparency, helping users identify trustworthy sources and combat misinformation.
Global Disinformation Index: The Global Disinformation Index is a non-profit organization that aims to create a global benchmark for disinformation risk, helping to inform policy, investment, and platform decisions.
Can a UN Treaty Curtail Industrial Revolution on the High Seas?
Can a UN Treaty Curtail Industrial Revolution on the High Seas?
Environmental Policy Brief #154 | By: Todd J. Broadman | May 4, 2023
Header photo taken from: marketplace.org
Policy:
Oceans make up over 70% of the Earth’s surface and contain 95% of total habitat – only 9% of which has been classified. Most of that watery habitat lies unprotected from human exploitation. That is beginning to change. In early March of this year, a UN treaty was signed that aims to protect the high seas: the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction treaty (BBNJ). The agreement creates marine protected zones, preserving ocean ecosystems throughout the earth’s deep oceans, areas beyond national boundaries. A country’s marine boundary extends 200 nautical miles off-coast.
While the UN’s “30×30” agreement intends to protect 30% of all land and 30% of all water, just 3% of the ocean is “fully protected.” Previous to this agreement, in 1982, there was an agreed upon framework about how to use the extensive resources of the seas: the Convention on the Law of the Sea. This Convention attempted to frame and limit deep seabed mining, commercial fishing, and research, yet only 1.2% of the high seas came under its protection.
BBNJ claims to be legally binding and the agreement was only arrived at after five long, previous rounds of negotiations. The scientific community have been relied upon to prioritize regions of the ocean for protection. For example, Douglas McCauley, an ecologist at the University of California Santa Barbara, presented his findings on “biodiversity hotspots,” areas of importance due to species richness, extinction risk and habitat diversity.
Analysis:
In spite of the media excitement surrounding this new agreement, the BBNJ agreement has not been formally adopted; there is an upcoming meeting to do just that. Existing global marine organizations, though not bound by its content, are expected to “promote the Treaty’s objectives.” To add a further dose of realism, the Treaty defines a protected area as one that is “managed” and “may allow, where appropriate, sustainable use provided it is consistent with the conservation objectives.”
It is not an overstatement to say that scientists are more familiar with the moon and outer space than with our deep oceans. There are an estimated 240,000 marine species and to date only 17,903 have been evaluated for possible extinction. If nothing is done, the rate of species extinction will accelerate, well before given a chance to understand what species have been lost. What we do know is that half of our atmosphere’s oxygen has its origin in the ocean’s phytoplankton.
According to Dr. McCauley, “We’re effectively seeing an industrial revolution in the ocean.” As on land, commercial investments are driving ocean resource development – the so-called “blue economy” which extends to marine genetic resources. The BBNJ does attempt to address these resources as well, outlining how the “benefits” of such genetics can be shared – in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals for example. Also troubling is what may be exclusive reliance upon this and similar agreements. Liz Karan, Director of Ocean Governance project at Pew, said the BBNJ is “the only pathway to safeguard high seas biodiversity for generations to come.” Sixty nations need to ratify the Treaty before it can be implemented.
This latest Treaty, though ambitious, is a success only to the extent that participating countries adhere to its environmental protections. Recent rulings are not encouraging in this regard. China was recently taken to the Permanent Court of Arbitration for commercial fishing that encroached upon Philippine national waters in the South China Sea and the court ruled against China. China’s reaction: “It is only a scrap of paper.”
Each member state will have to go through an internal national ratification process for the BBNJ, a path fraught with difficulty as we experienced with the Paris Climate Accords. Beyond this, the legal framework for high seas enforcement and dispute resolution have not been worked out. And then there is the question of who pays for it.
At least we have recognition and a decided leaning towards protection of what makes up 70% of our planet. While government representatives are diligently working to seal these protections, the International Forum for Deep Sea Mining Professionals will be holding their 11th Annual Deep Sea Mining Summit 2023 in London on May 3rd and 4th. Immediate economic interests like these will likely not be constrained by well-meaning language in a UN Treaty.
Engagement Resources:
- https://marine-conservation.org/ uses the latest science to identify important marine ecosystems, advocate for their protection, and measure progress toward effective, sustainable marine protection.
- https://aida-americas.org/en uses the law and science to protect the environment and communities suffering from environmental harm.
- https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/projects/ocean-governance addresses the challenges of a changing world by illuminating issues and creating common ground.