JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Support for the Separation of Church and State Should be Part of the Democrats Platform in the 2022 Mid-terms
In the upcoming Congressional elections Democrats should emphasize their commitment to supporting a democratic pluralistic society that respects individual rights, and the principle of separation of church and state, and how not showing support for these values opens the doors for outlawing abortions, banning books and other culture war issues.
Therapeutic Effect of Classical Music After a Pandemic
Brief #150 – Health & Gender Policy
By Yelena Korshunov
Two years of the pandemic drastically affected our life. Although the COVID-19 curve recently increased, we are eager to make steps toward revival. Theaters opened doors for the public in the 2021/22 season, museums welcomed visitors, and indoor performances became more frequent. We want to have our pre-pandemic routine back.
Wombsday
Brief #149 – Health & Gender
By Anora Morton, J.D.
On December 1, 2021, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the bombshell abortion case originating in Mississippi, was argued in front of the highest court of the land. On May 2, 2022, a legitimate draft of the Supreme Court opinion indicating the Court’s intent to overturn Roe v. Wade was leaked to the press. Today we await Wombsday – the day the Court officially repeals all abortion right precedent.
Qatar, Human Right, and the World Cup
Brief #136 – Foreign Policy
By Reilly Fitzgerald
The intersection of sports and politics have largely focused on this winter’s Olympic Games in China, and also the banning of Russian athletes globally. However, one gargantuan sport competition is set to take place this fall, and the controversy surrounding it has been to a large degree overshadowed by other parts of the world.
Why Overruling Roe v. Wade is a Democratic Party Failure
Brief #35 – Elections and Politics
By Roarke Cullenbine
With the leak of the Justice Alito’s draft opinion for Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, the court’s clear disregard for respecting prior precedent sets aside any concerns for the institution’s legitimacy. The real issue, of course, is the loss of the right to have bodily autonomy.
Why Hasn’t the DOJ Launched an Investigation into Trump’s Efforts to Overturn the Election?
Brief #34 – Social Justice
By Maureen Darby-Serson
While the January 6th committee filed in federal court claiming that former President Donald Trump corruptly obstructed an official proceeding and conspired to defraud the United Stated on the day of the Capital riot, the US Department of Justice has yet to file charges or do a thorough investigation into Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 Presidential Election. Why is that?
Goodbye Inefficient Light Bulbs, You Are No Longer Needed
Brief #143 – Environmental Policy
By Jacob Morton
The Biden administration replaces corrupt policy and outdated technology to save consumers money and help fight climate change. Reintroducing new energy efficiency standards for light bulbs previously initiated in 2007, but shot down by the Trump administration in 2019, Biden’s Department of Energy says goodbye to the inefficient and outdated incandescent light bulb.
What Does It Mean to be Held in Contempt of Congress?
Brief #33 – Social Justice
By Maureen Darby-Serson
Several subpoenas sent out by the January 6th committee have gone unanswered, holding certain individuals in contempt of congress for not appearing to speak to Former President Donald Trump’s participation in the insurrection at the US Capital. What does this mean?
The Ukraine Crisis: Situation Update # 8
Brief #125 – Foreign Policy
By Abran C
On May 8, 2022, it was reported by the governor of the Luhansk region in Ukraine that a Russian missile killed 60 people sheltering inside a school. The Luhansk region has seen fierce combat as Russian troops and separatist fighters seek to surround government forces in their eastward offensive.
Biden Administration Reinstates Remain in Mexico, Under Federal Court Order
Biden Administration Reinstates Remain in Mexico, Under Federal Court Order
Immigration Policy Brief #132 | By: Kathryn Baron | December 13, 2021
Header photo taken from: Wall Street Journal
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more immigration policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: Border Report
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Nearly a year ago, the Biden Administration suspended the Trump era Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), aka Remain in Mexico. The policy consisted of a set of rules requiring asylum seekers to wait in Mexican border towns while their cases were processed in the US. In April 2021, the Attorney-Generals of Texas and Missouri sued the Biden Administration for suspending MPP and called for an injunction to pause the policy’s termination. In August, the injunction was granted, claiming Biden’s suspension of the program was not executed in the appropriate procedural manner and therefore, fell extrajudicially, from the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
Though Department of Homeland Security repealed the decision instantaneously, the Biden Administration is still required to reinstate the policy while an official decision is underway. Ideally, as the courts deliberate and go through the proper protocol and bureaucratic systems, the Biden Administration will be allowed to permanently terminate the program. As of December 6, MPP has been relaunched at the El Paso, TX port of entry and could spread to others as well.
The current limit of migrants enrolled per day in El Paso is 30 but expected to increase as the policy expands to other locations (such as San Diego and Calexico). Biden’s version allegedly has more humanitarian-minded revisions, namely access to COVID-19 vaccines and improving access to legal counsel, but in essence is the same. Both renditions technically promise quick immigration proceedings, work permits as applicable, access to secure shelters and Mexican health care. However, migrants are still exposed to kidnapping, extortion, and rape while they await their case and the numbers are only expected to increase.
Policy Analysis
Early on, President Biden pledged to end the program and began the lengthy process of admitting migrants. All these efforts are quickly being reversed as the recent ruling demanded a reinstallation of the policy and has left thousands of migrants in stagnation, with the high likelihood of further backlogging an already congested immigration system. Director of Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center stated that when the US government relies “so much on NGOs to make things happen, they try to justify programs that are inhumane and don’t restore asylum.” Human rights and immigration-oriented organizations such as the ACLU and the National Immigration Law Center have borne the brunt of the burden during the Trump Administration to ensure migrants had access to legal counsel, basic human needs, health services, etc. This set a sort of unspoken precedent for civil society and organizations to fill the humanitarian gaps where the executive branch fell short.
Photo taken from: San Francisco Chronicle
Throughout the Trump Administration and in the wake of its tumultuous legacy, it is easy for civil society and NGOs to be left responsible for filling the gaps and bandaging the effects of a broken immigration system, but it is pivotal for the US to regain its status as a sovereign nation and beacon of asylum to hold its policymakers and all branches of government accountable in order to move forward.
Engagement Resources
The National Immigration Law Center: an organization that exclusively dedicates itself to defending and furthering the rights of low-income immigrants and strives to educate decision makers on the impacts and effects of their policies on this overlooked part of the population.
The ACLU: a non-profit with a longstanding commitment to preserving and protecting the individual rights and liberties of the Constitution and US laws guaranteed to all its citizens.
Center for Disease Control: the CDC provides updated information surrounding COVID-19 and the US responses
Last Minute Agreement to Raise Debt Ceiling
Last Minute Agreement to Raise Debt Ceiling
Economic Policy Brief #130 | By: Rosalind Gottfried | December 12, 2021
Header photo taken from: Komo News
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more economic policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: The Washington Post
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
After persistent bickering Senators Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer reached a procedural agreement allowing the Senate to pass an increase in the debt ceiling with a simple majority. This bill passed Thursday and is likely to quickly lead to an increase in the debt ceiling of 2-2.5 trillion dollars, which will cover the government’s debt payments through next year’s election.
A vote on the increase will be accomplished in the early part of this week in order to accommodate December 15th payments that would otherwise be defaulted on. The bill allowing the increase was attached to another bill postponing automatic decreases in Medicare, Farm aid, and other mandatory spending programs. The passage of this bill does not authorize any new spending. Congress will have to work quickly to pass Biden’s safety net program before Christmas. Biden is negotiating an amount of between 1.75 and 2.5 trillion dollars.
Policy Analysis
Photo taken from: Brennan Center for Justice
The Republicans refusal to condone raising the debt ceiling is temporarily suspended by this last-minute agreement and does not indicate a change of heart even among the ten Republicans who voted for the passage of the bill.
Likely it was an emergency mission to side step default and avoid a global crisis in response to any failure to pay our debts.
Engagement Resources
Senate clears the way for Congress to raise the debt ceiling before Dec. 15 deadline
Senate Clears Last Major Hurdle to Raising Debt Ceiling
The Future of Abortion Rights In The United States
The Future of Abortion Rights In The United States
Civil Rights Policy Brief #178 | By: Rodney A. Maggay | December 4, 2021
Header photo taken from: Ford Foundation
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more civil rights policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: The New York times
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
In 1973 the United States Supreme Court decided the landmark case Roe v. Wade. That case ruled that a woman’s choice to have an abortion is protected by the U.S. Constitution. The basis of the ruling by the Court was that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a “right to privacy” which includes the choice to have an abortion. The case then laid out a balancing test that focused on each of the three trimesters of a woman’s pregnancy.
In 1992 the Supreme Court decided the case Planned Parenthood v. Casey, another landmark abortion case. In this case, the Supreme Court decided that abortion is still a protected constitutional right as was established in Roe but decided to change the legal standard to use when analyzing statutes that dealt with abortion. Instead of the balancing test based on the trimester framework, the Court replaced that test with the “undue burden” standard. This new legal standard would now test abortion restrictions and hold them invalid if the restrictions “plac[ed] a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus.”
On December 1, 2021 the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. In 2018 the State of Mississippi passed the Gestational Age Act which prohibited abortions after fifteen weeks of pregnancy. Viability for a fetus outside the womb is generally considered to start at 23 – 24 weeks of pregnancy. The Mississippi law would thus ban abortions prior to fetus viability which would be in direct contradiction to the holding in Roe v. Wade which permits a woman the right to choose to have an abortion prior to the period of viability. The Court has not issued a decision in the case which is expected at the end of the Supreme Court’s 2021 – 2022 term. LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis
There is no more contentious issue in the United States than abortion rights. Since the landmark Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 there have been numerous attempts to have the case overruled while abortion rights supporters have done all they can to prevent that from happening. With three abortion cases before the Supreme Court for the 2021 – 2022 term it appears that the Court will be tasked again to decide whether Roe v. Wade should be overruled or upheld. The appellants in the Dobbs case even went so far as to ask specifically for the Court to overrule Roe.
Is there a chance that Roe v. Wade (and, the 1992 case Casey v. Planned Parenthood) could be overruled? While the political question of abortion easily places anti – abortion activists on the right and abortion rights proponents on the left it is the legal arguments and the legal standards used in the earlier abortion cases that gives hope to those on the right for the case to be overruled. Their point of contention is the grounding of the constitutional right to abortion in the “right to privacy.” However, there is no “right to privacy” specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. In the dissenting opinions of Roe Justices Byron White and William Rehnquist elaborate that the Constitution makes no mention of the “right to privacy.”
It stands to reason then that if there is no constitutional right to privacy then there can be no right to abortion based on that constitutional right. And, this is what the appellants in the Dobbs case are hoping the current Court will see and rectify. Constitutional law often begins with the text of a clause or amendment (the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clauses, the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures) but there is none that can be relied on in the case of abortion. Many legal scholars and opponents of abortion rights have understood this weakness in Roe’s legal reasoning for decades and now sense that the time has come for them to ask the Supreme Court to eliminate the ungrounded legal reasoning and overrule the case once and for all.
Photo taken from: The BBC
But even if the prospects to save Roe v. Wade look slim is there a chance that abortion rights can be saved even if the case cannot? After oral arguments in the Dobbs case it appeared that Chief Justice Roberts was open to upholding Roe v. Wade while also upholding the abortion restrictions that are at the heart of the abortion case out of Mississippi. But with at least five right leaning justices on the Court that might not matter if all of the five decide to vote to overrule Roe.
But there is a misconception that overruling Roe will outlaw abortion when that will not be the case at all. If Roe were overruled, then the issue of abortion rights would fall back to each individual state to decide for themselves. If Mississippi, Texas and other states decide to ban abortion completely in the wake of an overruled Roe v. Wade other states could very well decide that abortion would be permitted in their own states. More left leaning states like California, New York, Massachusetts, Colorado and Washington could bolster their laws that already permit abortion.
The likely outcome if the case is overruled would be some states that allow abortion and some states that would outright ban it. Abortion would no longer be constitutionally permissible but it would still be available depending on the state. A woman in Texas could still travel to Colorado for an abortion if she chooses. This might not please everyone but abortion would not be banned outright all across the U.S. and would still be available in some states if not all states. The country will simply have to wait until next year to find out how the Supreme Court will rule in this highly anticipated and closely watched case. LEARN MORE
This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
Center for Reproductive Rights – abortion rights group’s infopage on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case.
Planned Parenthood Action Fund – group’s infopage on abortion access in the U.S.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis Wants His Own Paramilitary Force
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis Wants His Own Paramilitary Force
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #32 | By: Abran C | December 8, 2021
Header photo taken from: Yahoo
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more elections & politics policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: Florida National Guard
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is looking to create the state’s own private civilian military force that would operate outside of federal control. The announcement came during a broader plan to increase funding to Florida’s National Guard. This additional $3.5 million tax payer funded plan calls for a new state-run force that would be added in addition to the already existing Florida National Guard and state police.
Florida had previously created a state guard during the second world war to fill in for national guardsmen who were fighting abroad but disbanded the unit in 1947. DeSantis recently proposed bringing back the unit with a force of 200 civilians that he claims would “not be encumbered by the federal government”. He has claimed that the force would allow him the flexibility to respond to events in the state, such as hurricanes and other emergencies, more effectively. Florida Democrats have expressed concern at the governor’s latest proposal. US Rep. Charlie Crist, who is running as a Democrat to challenge the governor in 2022, responded to the news saying, “No Governor should have his own handpicked secret police”.
Policy Analysis
Photo taken from: Wikimedia Commons
Were Florida to enact the governor’s plan, it would become the 23rd state with an active state guard joining other states like California and Texas. There is historical precedent for the creation of state guard forces in Florida but that was done during times of distress such as the second world war. Additionally there are also already guards, disaster response agencies, and state law enforcement, such as the Florida National Guard and state police to respond to emergencies that might hit the penninsula. Unlike the Florida National Guard, the new paramilitary force would answer solely to the Governor. The plan has come amid growing tension between the federal government and the Florida Governor. DeSantis has recently taken several actions attempting to antagonize the Biden administration over issues ranging from mask wearing, vaccinations, and immigration.
Some of the Governor’s recent inflammatory actions have included an attempt to sue the Biden administration over its immigration policies, a self-appointed state “public safety czar” to help keep Floridians safe from what in his view are dangerous illegal immigrants arriving at the U.S. border, the signing of an anti-protest bill (HB1) that allows for detention of demonstrators, and even withholding og funding from Florida schools that required students to wear masks to combat the COVID-19 pandemic.
It is likely that the new force will be used to carry out more of the draconian policies that will win him the favor of a far-right base. The paramilitary force would be accountable only to the Florida Governor and have no oversight federally.
It could be used in a similar way to the way that Texan governor Greg Abbott used the Texan state guard in 2015 to monitor federal military exercises to protect Texans against baseless claims that the federal government under the Obama administration was attempting to implement military control of the state. The Florida Governor has made headlines numerous times for his inflammatory words, policies, and actions. The new force will likely further embolden DeSantis and cause increased clashes with the federal government.
Actions such as these come on the heels of a trend of Republican-led states taking steps to show their displeasure with the federal government and enacting extreme policies have stoked enhanced divisions and encouraged vigilantism. DeSantis’ endeavors have not happened in a vacuum. They are similar to the broader measures taken by other Republican-led states in banning abortions, restricting voting rights, and enacting harsh anti-immigration policies. DeSantis has continued trying to position himself as the most authoritarian of U.S. politicians and is taking more striking actions to prove it. These increasingly confrontational steps, taken by DeSantis signal trouble for our eemocratic institutions, and our unity.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
ACLU Florida– The mission of the ACLU of Florida is to protect, defend, strengthen, and promote the constitutional rights and liberties of all people in Florida. We envision a fair and just Florida, where all people are free, equal under the law, and live with dignity.
Office of Governor Desantis- Official website of Governor Ron DeSantis.
Variant of Concern – Omicron
Variant of Concern – Omicron
Health & Gender Policy Brief #125 | By: S Bhimji | December 2, 2021
Header photo taken from: The Scientist Magazine
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more health and gender policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: Financial Times
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Over the weekend, the world learned about another heavily mutated coronavirus variant named Omicron. First detected in South Africa, Omicron has now been detected in many nations. While not much is known about it, experts suggest that it could be more infectious than the delta variant.
Named after the 15th letter of the Greek alphabet, Omicron produces the same symptoms as the original coronavirus. The few cases first detected in South Africa were associated with a mild infection but the concern is that this particular variant may be more infectious and more likely to cause death or severe illness in vulnerable populations.
Many nations have already restricted flights from South Africa to prevent the spread of this variant. But whether Omicron will be as serious as the delta variant won’t be known for a few more weeks.
Policy Analysis
There is not much known about Omicron but it has generated global hysteria. Besides South Africa, Omicron has been reported in the Netherlands, Portugal, Canada, Australia, Hong Kong, Israel, Belgium, and Botswana- in each of these nations the virus has been linked to international travelers.
While sporadic cases of Omicron have been reported in Europe, the first case of this variant was just confirmed in California several days ago. That individual had just returned from a South African trip and tested positive on Nov 29. President Joe Biden will announce a strategic plan to combat Omicron on Dec 2, but he has indicated that there is no reason for any panic, as yet.
So far it is not known if Omicron can induce more severe disease compared to other variants but preliminary data from South Africa suggest that the rates of hospitalization have increased. Even though little is known about omicron, experts warn that this variant should be taken seriously. Many hospitals in the USA are still struggling with Covid infections in the unvaccinated and there is little room for complacency.
Luckily no deaths have been reported from omicron
What makes omicron unique from other variants?
Preliminary studies reveal that Omicron has nearly 30 mutations of which 26 are unique to this variant. In comparison, the delta variant has 7 and the gamma variant has 8. Scientists reveal that they are not worried about the number of mutations but are more concerned with the fact that not much is known about what these defects may cause in humans.
Photo taken from: New York Post
A few similar mutations in other variants have been known to increase susceptibility to infection, enhance transmissibility, and in other cases help the organism evade immunity. Fortunately, the majority of mutations are congregated at locations that are also targeted by the Covid vaccines.
Whether Omicron is a mild winter malady or a deadly infection remains to be seen; President Biden and his team of public health officials have increased their pleas for all Americans to get vaccinated or those who have been vaccinated to get the booster shots- to maximize the protection against the virus. Plus Americans should continue to wear masks, regardless of the vaccination status.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
COVID Variants: What You Should Know. https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/a-new-strain-of-coronavirus-what-you-should-know
SARS-CoV-2 Variant Classifications and Definitions. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/variant-info.html
The coronavirus is mutating—but what determines how quickly?https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/the-coronavirus-is-mutating-but-what-determines-how-quickly
The U.S. House Select Committee Investigation of the January 6 Attack on the Capitol: Part 5
The U.S. House Select Committee Investigation of the January 6 Attack on the Capitol: Part 5
Elections and Politics Policy Brief #31 | By: Erika Shannon | December 3, 2021
Header photo taken from: Getty Images
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more elections and politics policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: Human Events
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
There have been many changes on our nation’s home front since the January 6th insurrection in the U.S. Capitol; and some of these changes are being made to ensure that events like that will never occur again, on either side. Chairperson Bennie Thompson and his US House Select Committee panel have been investigating the events that transpired on January 6th with one mission in mind: preserve the democratic process. There have been endless subpoenas, documents submitted, and interviews, so what is still to come in this lengthy process?
Of course, there are the matters of getting people to cooperate who have been unwilling to do so. This includes people like former president Donald Trump and his closest cohorts, such as Steve Bannon and Mark Meadows. Earlier this month, Bannon was hit with a federal indictment and charged with two counts of contempt of Congress. This came after he refused to provide testimony or documents to the January 6th Select Committee. His defiance is seen as extreme due to the fact that he was not willing to even appear before investigators under subpoena, even if to assert other alleged privileges. It is seen as a move that may prompt others to follow suit and do their best to derail the investigation.
Policy Analysis
While Bannon’s contempt is seen as a problematic example of non-compliance, other allies of Trump have decided to come forward to seemingly avoid the problems that Bannon is now facing. Mark Meadows, Trump’s chief of staff at the time of the January 6th insurrection, is now cooperating with the House Select Committee. For now, communications have been through his attorney but he will soon appear for an initial deposition in front of them. Meadows is currently the highest profile member of the former President’s inner circle who is known to be actually cooperating with the investigation. Though he still may attempt to withhold certain information, his cooperation is a good sign for the committee’s efforts.
Meadows may not be following in Steve Bannon’s contemptuous footsteps, but other Trump allies may do so. Jeffrey Clark, head of the Environment and Natural Resources division of the Justice Department under Trump, allegedly attempted to use federal resources to delay the certification of the 2020 election results. He has attempted to claim that the information being sought by the Committee is protected by executive privilege, much like the former president believes himself. Recently he has agreed to testify but threatens to invoke the 5th amendment on questions that might incriminate him. Still, even if Clark invokes the 5th, Committee members will be able to gain insights into areas of possible criminality from the questions which Clark refuses to answer.
While progress is being made, the Committee is still issuing subpoenas to try and get as much information as possible. In late November, the panel sent out another five subpoenas. Groups subpoenaed include Proud Boys International, L.L.C. and the Oath Keepers. Henry “Enrique Tarrio, former chairman of the Proud Boys, was also subpoenaed by the Committee. Elmer Stuart Rhodes, a member of Oath Keepers, was subpoenaed due to his alleged suggestions that the Oath Keepers should engage in violence to secure their preferred election outcome.
Photo taken from: USA Today
The group 1st Amendment Praetorian and its chairman, Robert Patrick Lewis, were also subpoenaed, as Lewis was listed as a speaker on the permit for the January 5th rally on Freedom Plaza. Lewis suggested violence was imminent and the Committee would like to know how far his involvement goes.
While the Committee is trying to figure out how to get certain parties to comply with their investigation, they are receiving a good amount of information from former president Trump’s allies. Some of this information has the potential to get Trump in trouble; this is likely why the former president refuses to cooperate with the House Select Committee to this day.. Trump finds the panel’s work to be a joke, not realizing the severity of the investigation, and will eventually have to face them or possibly be indicted.
This brief is part of an ongoing series in the Select Committee’s investigation; further updates will be provided as the investigation continues.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
- To read the committee’s latest subpoenas or press releases, visit the January 6th Committee webpage.
Pandemic Barriers Inhibit Return to Low-Wage Jobs and Have Caused Massive Decrease in Migrant Labor Needed to Sustain US Economy
Pandemic Barriers Inhibit Return to Low-Wage Jobs
Immigration Policy Brief #131 | By: Kathryn Baron | November 30, 2021
Header photo taken from: Brookings Institution
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more immigration policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: Getty Images
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
The US needs roughly 10 million people to work low-wage and high-skilled workers to comfortably sustain the economy. Only 8.4 million Americans are actively seeking work in this stage of the pandemic; workers are resigning in record numbers and the number of Americans returning to low-wage industries are persistently low. On average, the US accepts roughly 1 million immigrants and 75% of those immigrants actively contribute to the American labor force. In 2020, the US only admit 263,000 immigrants.
The industries facing the most severe labor shortages include construction, transportation and warehousing, and accommodation and hospitality. Immigrants make up at least 20% of the workforces in each of the aforementioned industries. The US Labor Department’s monthly report noted the American labor force dropped by 5.5 million below pre-pandemic levels within the past year.
Policy Analysis
The OECD most recently estimated the number of migrant workers arriving at wealthy nations has fallen by almost 4%, the largest plunge since 2003. Currently, the only existing visa programs in the US designed to welcome low-wage workers is the H-2 program, which is usually capped at 66,000 per annum (excluding agricultural workers). The Department of Homeland Security can increase the cap up to 64,000 additional visas without Congress’s intervention. The Biden Administration opted to add an additional 22,000 visas earlier this year, and could potentially add more moving forward.
Photo taken from: Cato Institute
The lack of migrant workers is drastically affecting the US economy and has potential to alter trade relations as a result of reduced GDP, lower levels of remittances, and concerning levels of unemployment.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
- The National Immigration Law Center: an organization that exclusively dedicates itself to defending and furthering the rights of low-income immigrants and strives to educate decision makers on the impacts and effects of their policies on this overlooked part of the population.
- The ACLU: a non-profit with a longstanding commitment to preserving and protecting the individual rights and liberties of the Constitution and US laws guaranteed to all its citizens.
- Center for Disease Control: the CDC provides updated information surrounding COVID-19 and the US responses
Schools Are Failing to Teach Climate Change
Schools Are Failing to Teach Climate Change
Education Policy Brief #61 | By: Lynn Waldsmith | December 1, 2021
Header photo taken from: the BBC
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more education policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: The Independent
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Global warming is, above all else, a looming crisis for children.
With extreme weather events such as heat waves and wildfires expected to rise in frequency, intensity and duration under global warming, it should come as no surprise that younger generations will face many more such events over their lifetimes compared to their parents and grandparents. In fact, a new survey published in Science magazine predicts children born in 2020 could face seven times more climate disasters than those born in 1960.
Yet, what should come as a surprise is how so many American kids fail to understand the gravity of the issue. While Gen Z and Millennials are notably leading the fight against climate change, about a quarter of American kids surveyed in 2020 rejected the idea that global warming was some kind of emergency, more than in any other country surveyed in Western Europe or North America. In Miseducation: How Climate Change is Taught in America, a new book by investigative journalist Katie Worth, she discovered many U.S. kids don’t believe in human-caused global warming because they are not being taught about climate change in school, while others are not being taught accurately.
America has no national curriculum, leaving states to decide their own academic standards. Thus, an education in modern climate science is required in some parts of the country and nonexistent in others. Political divides across red and blue states are a major factor in fostering inequities in children’s science education. The Texas Freedom Network and the National Center for Science Education graded each state’s academic standards based on how well they taught climate change. No blue state got less than a B plus, and there were a few red states that got B pluses or even As, but the majority of red states did considerably worse.
Worth reviewed scores of textbooks, built a 50-state database and visited more than a dozen communities to talk to kids about what they’ve learned about the climate crisis. She found that from kindergarten to high school, students are either not being taught anything about climate change, or are still being taught that the climate “has always changed”, or reading textbooks that present global warming as a “debate.”
“It’s safe to say that across the country, intrepid teachers rigorously educate their students about climate science,” she writes in Miseducation. “It’s also safe to say that commonly, a teacher down the hall is miseducating them about it.”
Policy Analysis
There are numerous reasons behind the miseducation of U.S. students concerning global warming. First, many teachers, particularly those who are climate deniers themselves, are unable or unwilling to teach the science of climate change. The United Nations’ IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report concludes that countries must stop adding fossil fuel emissions and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere to stop the planet from getting hotter. But teaching or discussing that reality seems risky for many science teachers, who feel that they need to avoid politics in the classroom.
Other teachers lack the resources or knowledge to impart climate science. According to a 2016 study from the National Center for Science Education, fewer than half of all teachers listened to at least one lecture on climate change during their schooling, and most have never pursued continuing education on the topic after college.
But teachers don’t deserve all the blame. According to Worth, the fossil fuel industry is largely responsible for sowing seeds of doubt. And it’s little wonder so many children fail to take climate change seriously when their parents consider it to be a hoax.
“There’s been a multibillion-dollar campaign to make the American public doubt climate change,” she said, “and some of it has been specifically targeted at children.”
In her book, Worth describes how the industry has zeroed in on children for decades with fossil fuel–friendly educational materials, including an ExxonMobil comic book that taught kids about fossil fuel supply and demand in the 1970s to fossil fuel–funded educational programs in use today in at least 18 states that use friendly cartoon characters like “Oliver Oilpatch” and “Petro Pete.” These programs emphasize the free market, equating energy with freedom and promoting the idea that energy regulation will hurt the economy.
Photo taken from: NRDC
Worth found that many school districts still teach that global warming is a scientific debate when it is not. A 2016 survey led by Eric Plutzer of Pennsylvania State University found that one-third of American science educators teach students that “many scientists believe” global warming is natural, but a survey published two years ago by the Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society concluded 100 percent consensus was reached among research scientists on human-caused global warming, based on a review of 11,602 peer-reviewed articles.
John Cook, a research assistant professor at the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University, wrote in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, “The problem with ‘teach the controversy’ when it comes to human-caused global warming . . . is that there is no controversy—not a scientific one, at least. Teaching that scientists have major disagreements where they do not is simply to spread misinformation.”
In 2020, the National Education Association (NEA) issued a statement saying that it “recognizes the scientific consensus that global climate change is largely caused by human activity, resulting in significant, measurable damage to the earth and its inhabitants.” The same statement went on to challenge educators by noting, “Educators have the opportunity to embed elements of climate change into their lessons to ensure these students have the knowledge they need to address the issue in the capacity they see fit.”
Photo taken from: The Climate Center
Misinformation equals miseducation. And a mess of myriad viewpoints. Worth found teachers who disagree over whether to teach climate change, students who want to learn about the subject but are not taught, students who are taught about climate change but reject what they learn, and parents who are both proponents and opponents of teaching it.
With some parents targeting the teaching of critical race theory, works of literature they consider inappropriate, or mask mandates, Dr. J. Marshall Shepherd, a leading international expert in weather and climate, worries that climate science may be next.
“I cannot imagine a parent or organization objecting to school lessons about photosynthesis, the water cycle, or temperature,” he wrote in an article that he recently wrote for Forbes. “Yet, these same concepts are fundamental to climate science and would likely be challenged by someone if framed from the perspective of global warming.”
Despite the climate crisis itself and the bleak circumstances surrounding the way it is currently being presented to young people, those who are tasked with educating the younger generation are trying to focus on engaging students to focus on solutions.
The National Science Teaching Association says that climate science lessons should include discussing how to address the problem, namely by analyzing different strategies to reduce carbon emissions as well as ways to build resilience to the effects of climate change. Putting a focus on taking action is considered the right approach in terms of students’ mental health. In a 2016 National Center for Science Education survey of middle and high school science teachers who teach climate change, 88 percent said they talked about personal responsibility, like turning off lights or walking to school.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
Miseducation: How Climate Change is Taught in America:
https://globalreports.columbia.edu/books/miseducation/
Climategrades.org:
The National Science Teaching Association’s position statement on The Teaching of Climate Science:
https://www.nsta.org/nstas-official-positions/teaching-climate-science
National Center for Science Education Survey — Mixed Messages: How Climate Change is taught in America’s Public Schools:
https://ncse.ngo/files/MixedMessages.pdf
NEA 2020 statement on climate change:
Climate Change Education: Essential Information for Educators from the NEA:
Pew Research Center findings on Americans’ attitudes about climate change:
UNDP-Oxford Peoples Climate VoteResults:
Takeaways from the COP26 Climate Summit
Takeaways from the COP26 Climate Summit
Environment Policy Brief #128 | By: Jacob Morton | November 30, 2021
Header photo taken from: Toast
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more environmental policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: CNN
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
At the UN’s COP26 (Conference of the Parties) Climate Summit earlier this month, representatives from 197 nations gathered in Glasgow, Scotland with the goal of collectively accelerating global efforts towards achieving the climate goals of the Paris Agreement and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. The Paris Agreement was signed back in 2015, but most countries have thus far failed to live up to their climate action promises. The focus of the conference centered around three major pillars of climate change action: Adaptation, Finance, and Mitigation.
Adaptation focuses on the needs of countries and the solutions necessary for the world to cope with the humanitarian and economic impacts of climate change. From rising sea levels to more intense flooding and prolonged droughts, these issues held particular emphasis and claimed the most attention at the Summit. A working group was formed to define a collective goal for global adaptation, which would identify the needs and potential solutions for addressing the impacts of climate change that are already being felt by many countries.
Finance focuses on the financial investments necessary to fuel the global climate response effort. From adapting to the impacts of climate change, to mitigating its severity by limiting global warming to a 1.5-degrees Celsius increase, all countries will have to invest significant resources into this effort and wealthier countries will have to foot most of the bill. The majority of Parties present at the Summit agreed to at least double finance for adaptation, and the pledge of developed countries to provide $100 billion annually to developing countries was reaffirmed.
An original pledge of $100 billion was made back in 2009, with an equivalent annually occurring pledge to begin in 2020 but has never been met. The closest attempt was in 2019, when developed countries collectively provided $80 billion of climate-related funding to developing countries. That funding, however, came in the form of loans rather than grants, providing little real relief to the countries suffering the most from a problem largely created by the developed world. Similar to the goal-setting strategy for Adaptation, members of the Summit kicked off a “process to define the new global goal on finance.”
Mitigation focuses on preventing climate change (or the degree of its impact) as much as is still possible. Though climate change is already happening, and its impacts are already being felt, the goal of mitigation is to reduce its severity by ensuring we reduce global CO2 emissions enough to prevent the average global temperature from rising more than 1.5 ℃. To the Summit’s credit, the world’s top emitters, including China, the US, and India among others, agreed to continue working to accelerate their reduction of emissions to levels in accordance with the Paris Agreement, and a worldwide consensus to transition away from fossil fuels was reached (though India would only agree to “phase down” coal production, not “phase out”). However, agreement to reduce global emissions by 45% by 2030 (required to limit warming to 1.5℃ by 2100) was not reached, leaving many unsatisfied with the summit and critical that the wealthiest, most polluting countries are not acting fast enough.
Though an emissions reduction timeline that lives up to the Paris Agreement’s expectations was not agreed upon, the Summit did achieve the significant and long overdue goal of finalizing the “Paris Rulebook,” an agreed upon set of “rules and guidelines detailing how the Paris Agreement will operate in practice.” Several components of the rulebook have remained in debate for the past six years, including how to govern carbon markets (Article 6 of the rulebook). Article 6 was the last component still being debated and has implications for how countries are rewarded for meeting and overachieving Paris Agreement goals, such as emissions reductions or forest expansion, as well as how private industry is rewarded and incentivized through the sale of carbon credits. How countries measure and record their progress was also agreed upon, providing a new framework for full transparency.
Having reached these agreements in Glasgow, will now give greater “certainty and predictability to both market and non-market approaches in support of mitigation as well as adaptation.” Countries will be better able to create and commit to climate action plans because they now know what they can gain from their actions. Likewise, private industry can now consider the potential returns of including climate action in their market decisions, incentivizing the private sector to play a larger role in the global climate effort.
Photo taken from: Mark Carney (via Twitter)
The Summit made noteworthy gains in other areas as well:
- The United States announced its adoption of substantial new measures to cut methane emissions from US oil and gas production. The US Methane Emissions Reduction Plan claims to redouble government efforts to “dramatically reduce US methane emissions” (at least 30% by 2030), create union-friendly jobs, and “promote U.S. innovation and manufacturing of critical new technologies.” Over 100 countries present at the Summit agreed to reduce methane emissions by 30% by 2030.
- Membership in the coalition, “Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ)” grew to “over 450 firms representing $130 trillion in private capital.” Private asset owners have become increasingly important drivers of change via their investment power (voting with their dollar) through climate-focused initiatives, such as the Net-Zero Asset Owner Alliance, an international group of institutional investors committed to transitioning their investment portfolios to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
- More than 30 financial institutions announced a commitment to address deforestation, by using the influence of their collective investment power to eliminate deforestation by the beef, soy, palm oil, and pulp and paper industries. Additionally, a coalition of countries, including Brazil and Russia agreed to halt deforestation by 2030.
- Leading insurance companies acknowledged climate change as the “ultimate systemic risk,” calling for an orderly transition to a global low-carbon economy. The Association of British Insurers argued that if the transition is disorderly, “the value of many of these assets in which insurers invest will fall with little warning.”
Collectively, these achievements reflect what could be considered the most impactful result of the COP26 Summit: that the private sector now has a strong and established seat at the table.
Policy Analysis
Following the conclusion of the COP26 Summit, the UN expressed enthusiasm for what was accomplished, proposing that world leaders “[departed] Glasgow with clarity on the work that needs to be done, more robust and effective instruments to achieve it, and a heightened commitment to promote climate action —and to do so more quickly— in every area.” Patricia Espinosa, Executive Secretary of UN Climate Change, congratulated all Parties on finalizing the “Paris Rulebook,” saying, “This is an excellent achievement! It means that the Paris Agreement can now function fully for the benefit of all, now and in the future.”
Despite the select victories, many observers from the outside, as well as those directly involved agree that much more must be done to stave off the worst of the looming climate disaster. Alok Sharma, UK President of the COP26 says, “We can now say with credibility that we have kept 1.5 degrees alive. But its pulse is weak, and it will only survive if we keep our promises and translate commitments into rapid action.” More critical voices took a harsher stance during the summit, many calling out the hypocrisy of the Parties involved. Ani Dasgupta, President of the World Resources Institute, said in a statement, “It is inexcusable that developed countries failed to meet their commitment to deliver $100 billion annually starting in 2020 even as they provide hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies for fossil fuels each year.”
According to an analysis by the International Energy Agency (IEA), if all countries follow through on their current commitments, we would be on track to maintain an average global temperature increase of 1.8 ℃ by the end of the century.
Photo taken from: Phys.org
(Paris Rule Book – click or tap to enlarge)
However, skeptics, including the American investment management firm PIMCO, are quick to note that the IEA’s analysis “is based on countries fully implementing their announced commitments and pledges, which is highly unlikely,” and some climate scientists are predicting temperature increases between 2 – 4℃. Based on what countries are currently doing on the ground, the world is headed toward 2.7℃ of warming by 2100, according to NPR.
Though the results of COP26 feel to many like a Deja vu of empty promises, the Summit, at the very least, provided a much-needed update to the global climate action plan, and established a precedent for all countries to update their individual plans every 5 years, following a more immediate request for updated plans by 2022. Though that agreement (and most others made at the Summit) is not legally binding, some climate experts say, “it at least keeps political pressure on major emitters in the near-term.”
Additionally, the creation of a universal and transparent data tracking system to monitor each country’s progress will provide greater transparency and accountability. The finalizing of the “Paris Rulebook” will provide greater clarity and incentive for both the public and private sectors to invest in climate action. And perhaps the most promising takeaway from the Summit, is the increased engagement overall by the private sector, something that is vital to achieving the goals and timeline set forth in the Paris Agreement.
Engagement Resources
- World Resources Institute (wri.org): WRI is a global nonprofit organization that works with leaders in government, business and civil society to research, design, and carry out practical solutions that simultaneously improve people’s lives and ensure nature can thrive.
- Climate Crisis Advisory Group (ccag.earth): The Climate Crisis Advisory Group (CCAG) is an independent group of scientists which advises on climate change and biodiversity, headed by Sir David King. The group is funded by the Centre for Climate Repair. Its goal is to “provide the global public with regular analysis about efforts to tackle the global heating and biodiversity crises.”
- UNFCCC Secretariat (UNFCCC): The UNFCCC secretariat (UN Climate Change) is the United Nations entity tasked with supporting the global response to the threat of climate change. UNFCCC stands for United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The Convention has near universal membership (197 Parties) and is the parent treaty of the 2015 Paris Agreement.
Writer’s Sources
Birol, F. (2021, November 4). Cop26 climate pledges could help limit global warming to 1.8 °C, but implementing them will be the key. IEA. Retrieved November 26, 2021, from https://www.iea.org/commentaries/cop26-climate-pledges-could-help-limit-global-warming-to-1-8-c-but-implementing-them-will-be-the-key
Cogswell, N., & Dagnet, Y. (2019, June 13). Why does the Paris Climate Agreement need a rulebook? 7 questions and answers. World Resources Institute. Retrieved November 26, 2021, from https://www.wri.org/insights/why-does-paris-climate-agreement-need-rulebook-7-questions-and-answers
Mather, S. A., & Power, G. (2021, October 1). Climate and COP26: Takeaways from two delegates. Pacific Investment Management Company LLC. Retrieved November 26, 2021, from https://www.pimco.com/en-us/insights/viewpoints/climate-and-cop26-takeaways-from-two-delegates/
Sommer, L. (2021, November 13). Here’s what world leaders agreed to – and what they didn’t – at the U.N. climate summit. NPR. Retrieved November 26, 2021, from https://www.npr.org/2021/11/13/1055542738/cop26-climate-summit-final-decision
UNFCCC Press Office. (2021, November 13). COP26 Reaches Consensus on Key Actions to Address Climate Change. Unfccc.int. Retrieved November 26, 2021, from https://unfccc.int/news/cop26-reaches-consensus-on-key-actions-to-address-climate-change
The United States Government. (2021, November 2). Fact sheet: President Biden tackles methane emissions, Spurs innovations, and supports sustainable agriculture to build a clean energy economy and create jobs. The White House. Retrieved November 26, 2021, from https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/11/02/fact-sheet-president-biden-tackles-methane-emissions-spurs-innovations-and-supports-sustainable-agriculture-to-build-a-clean-energy-economy-and-create-jobs/
How Facebook Breeds Civil Conflict and Hatred Around the World
How Facebook Breeds Civil Conflict and Hatred Around the World
Technology Policy Brief #66 | By: Stephan Lherisson | November 28, 2021
Header photo taken from: The New York Times
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more technology policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: USA Today
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Frances Haugen, a former Facebook employee, leaked Facebook internal documents to the press, federal regulators, and Congress. The content of those documents showed how the social media platform uses potentially damaging algorithms to drive up use by its users while disregarding the negative effects of those algorithms including polarizing attitudes and divisiveness. Such attitudes have been proven to contribute to violence in places like Myanmar, Ethiopia, Sri Lanka, and India.
According to Haugen, Facebook’s algorithms produce information on your news feed that are driven by clicks. The more clicks a post gets the more likely it is to show up on your news feed. The issue is that content that gets angry responses from users is more likely to get clicks and because Facebook algorithms are programmed to promote content that has been clicked on. In countries that suffer from division by ethnicity for example, negative yet clickable content against one ethnic group can become wide spread and can influence further divisiveness and even lead to acts of violence.
For example, the Rohingya are a Muslim minority ethnic group that can mostly be found in Rakhine State, Myanmar. There have been tensions between the Rohingya and the majority Buddhist population in the country. In August of 2017, due to attacks by Myanmar’s military hundred of thousands of Rohingya escaped to neighboring Bangladesh.
Buddhists burned down Rohingya villages. They carried out murders and rapes. Their actions were described as genocidal by a report from UN investigators.
There was hate speech against the Rohingya that posted on Facebook, and Facebook commissioned an investigation into the matter. After the results of this commission were revealed Facebook admitted that its posts were used to incite violence against the Rohingya people. “Without dismissing the gravity of Facebook’s actions around the world, in Myanmar Facebook has acted like the internet for the entire country. It has been how the people have accessed the internet and how the people get information about things like COVID. At the moment Facebook has also condemned the military coup in the country and has been banned by the military as a result.”
In Ethiopia Facebook’s platform encouraged violence against ethnic minority populations in the midst of a civil war. The war was being carried out by Abiy Ahmed, Ethiopia’s Prime Minister and the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF), the former rulers of the country that were deposed by a public movement. Facebok was used to spread hate speech against Tigrayans .
In 2018 Sri Lanka saw riots that resulted from anti-Muslim attitudes. These riots followed hate speech against Muslims and rumors spread on the Facebook platform. The events caused the Sri Lankan government to block access to Facebook. In this case a probe commissioned by the social media platform revealed Facebook content may have lead to violence against Muslims.
In northeastern Indian state of Assam Assam there is an Assamese speaking majority group that is Hindu and a Bangali speaking minority Muslim group. There are Facebook posts in which Bengali Muslims are called parasites, rats and rapists. These posts have been viewed 5.4 million times.
George Floyd was a black man that was killed by a police officer who held his knee against Floyd’s neck as Floyd suffocated. Hours after Floyd’s death there was a spike of offensive posts on Facebook. Facebook was having trouble with hate speech closer to home.
Policy Analysis
Facebook increases profit by getting users to stay online on the site for as long as possible and anger-inducing posts help with that goal. According to Haugen producers of this negative content are incentivized to continue to produce this clickable content. Haugen also warned about the results of Facebook’s policies fanning the flames of hatred in foreign countries.
Part of the issue is the fact that Facebook does not police its content in foreign countries the way it does in the United States. However, even though Facebook said it was successful in detecting and erasing hate speech in the US , Facebook’s employees , such as Haugen, have warned that the platform was only removing a small percentage of the hate speech found in posts from the United States.
The social media company says it is attempting to reduce the number of hate filled posts that can be found on the site using artificial intelligence (AI).
Photo taken from: Time Magazine
One problem is that AI systems have a difficult time evaluating a person’s intent. In addition, Facebook is not programmed to understand the languages of the local people in the foreign countries it finds its way into. This lack of language can make it difficult for the website to distinguish what is being said in the context of said country.
Lawmakers in the US and Europe are crafting legislation to mitigate the harmful effects of platforms like Facebook.
For example the Filter Bubble Transparency Act would require internet platforms to offer an algorithm free version of their services. The proposed Digital Services Act in the E.U. would stop the misuse of algorithms to spread disinformation.
Writer’s Sources
Facebook can’t resolve conflicts in Myanmar and Sri Lanka on its own
Engagement Resources
https://slate.com/technology/2021/10/facebook-whistleblower-hearing-haugen-misinformation-anger.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-41566561
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-46105934
https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/25/business/ethiopia-violence-facebook-papers-cmd-intl/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/03/africa/ethiopia-tigray-explainer-2-intl/index.html
https://www.wired.com/story/facebooks-deceptive-math-when-it-comes-to-hate-speech/
https://time.com/5739688/facebook-hate-speech-languages/
https://iapp.org/news/a/proposed-filter-bubble-transparency-act-targets-algorithms/