7 days.
When we look back on this period of our nation's history I hope that we all remember that it took only 7 days for President Trump to openly enact policies of discrimination. Really it wasn't even that long, though his executive actions against the Latino(a) population will take longer to implement. All of the people who insisted "it's just words, Trump hasn't actually done anything," while comparing him to Hillary Clinton should now see what he will do once given the power and opportunity. I hope we remember, but are we surprised?
If you're surprised by this turn of events then apparently you had your head buried in sand for the last year. Trump campaigned on this sort of legislation, and worse, but if you're surprised maybe you got lost in all the propaganda chanting of "Make America great again." To my eyes he has brought America back, but not to a period of greatness, to a period of discrimination, fear, and hatred. And, once again, it has only taken 7 days. We are still looking at more than 1400 days left in his reign of terror.
It is important at this juncture for us to connect with the rest of our society, and humanity in general, to close ranks against those who wish to drive us apart. We must remember the individuals already affected by the immigration ban and their stories. Here are a few of those stories:
Dr. Suha Abushamma- http://www.cleveland.com/court-justice/index.ssf/2017/01/cleveland_clinic_resident_from_1.html
Hamaseh Tayari- http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15055469.Anger_as_Glasgow_vet_is_stranded_after_being_caught_up_in_Trump_immigrant_ban/?ref=twtrec
International Scientistis- http://www.nature.com/news/meet-the-scientists-affected-by-trump-s-immigration-ban-1.21389
A compilation of stories- http://www.complex.com/life/2017/01/heartbreaking-stories-individuals-being-detained-as-a-result-trumps-executive-order
Eman Mohammed- http://time.com/4652798/donald-trump-immigration-ban-photography-eman-mohammed/
Fortunately there is some good news in the wake of so much turmoil. The people are rising up. People are protesting at airports around the country. Lawyers have come to the aid of people currently detained at airports just because they were in transit at the time this executive action was signed. Judges have come forward with injunctions halting the executive action in their jurisdiction. Even politicians are standing up against this order, Governors and and Senators, Democrats and Republicans alike. Here is a breakdown of our politicians' stances on the issue thus far:
Senators:
Oppose- 59
- 12 Republicans
- 45 Democrats
- 2 Independents
Silent- 37
- 36 Republicans
- 1 Democrat
Support- 4
- 4 Republicans
Governors:
Oppose- 13
- 5 Republicans
- 8 Democrats
Silent- 36
- 27 Republicans
- 8 Democrats
- 1 Independent
Support- 1
- 1 Republican
Even with this good news it is still too early to celebrate. We can celebrate when Trump's executive order on immigration is repealed, either by himself or by being deemed unconstitutional through our system of checks and balances. In the meantime, protect your neighbors, look out for your friends, fight back against discrimination, and never forget that we are a nation of immigrants and that is what makes America truly great.
Monday, January 30, 2017
Saturday, January 28, 2017
H.R. 441- SAFER Act of 2017
This bill appears almost unnecessary considering the current screening process for refugees entering the US. There are already additional screenings in place for Syrian's and those from the middle east (whether right or wrong these systems are in place which target those from the middle east and the repeal of such measures should be found elsewhere). There are three measures that are laid out as additional screening in this bill which are as follows:
1) Take and pass a lie detector test- This measure is absurd considering the substantial evidence that lie detectors can be manipulated and give false reads. (see here)
2) Submit a DNA sample to be compared to relevant terrorist databases- I can understand this measure as fingerprints are already taken for refugees and DNA can be a very effective crime investigation tool. That said, I do not believe that this should be applied to Syrians and Iraqis alone. If this policy is instituted it should be applied in the broader scope of all refugee applicants.
3) Background check by the Secretary of Homeland Security including all internet (i.e. social media) activity- Maybe the author of this bill should review the current screening process considering refugees already go through screenings by 4 different departments looking for security risks and connections to known bad actors.
Compared to some of the other things currently going on with our government this seems to be a low priority threat but it is still one to watch and is a good gauge of sentiment against those from the middle east
1) Take and pass a lie detector test- This measure is absurd considering the substantial evidence that lie detectors can be manipulated and give false reads. (see here)
2) Submit a DNA sample to be compared to relevant terrorist databases- I can understand this measure as fingerprints are already taken for refugees and DNA can be a very effective crime investigation tool. That said, I do not believe that this should be applied to Syrians and Iraqis alone. If this policy is instituted it should be applied in the broader scope of all refugee applicants.
3) Background check by the Secretary of Homeland Security including all internet (i.e. social media) activity- Maybe the author of this bill should review the current screening process considering refugees already go through screenings by 4 different departments looking for security risks and connections to known bad actors.
Compared to some of the other things currently going on with our government this seems to be a low priority threat but it is still one to watch and is a good gauge of sentiment against those from the middle east
Thursday, January 26, 2017
H.R. 400- Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act
Named the "Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act" an identical version of this bill has been submitted to the senate as S.87. I find the first couple of provisions in this bill particularly disturbing. Some of the provisions in this measure are as follows:
- Any employee or officer of a given state who complies with an ICE detainer will be seen as "acting as an agent of the Department of Homeland Security" and shall have "all authority available to officers and employees of the Department of Homeland Security"
- Anyone attempting to take legal action against the person who executed the ICE detainer will have to take suit against the federal government directly as the individual will be considered an employee of the Federal Government.
- Lawsuits will be prosecuted in accordance with section 1346(b) of title 28 of the United States Code
- Makes locations defined as sanctuary jurisdictions ineligible for federal funds under the following programs: economic development administration grants, community development block grants, and the protection of individuals against crime act.
Before I get too deeply into the issues with this bill let me start by making sure we all have a clear understanding of what a sanctuary city is. There is a great article from the Economist here. To put it bluntly these areas, sometimes entire states, shelter illegal immigrants. How and why they do that are truly the more important matters. The how can be by law or policy typically refusing to allocate local funds to enforce/execute federal detainers or investigate an individual's immigration status. The why is much more speculative but here are a few good reasons:
1) Humanitarian- most illegal immigrants, besides the fact that they are here illegally, are not criminals (See here) and deserve to be treated with compassion and basic human dignity including not having to live in constant fear of being arrested and torn away from their families.
2) Limited resources- we all hear the lament of how local police are under funded, facing cuts, etc. So, why would local police spend their valuable resources on illegal immigrants (a federal jurisdiction) when that money should rightfully be spent on protecting and supporting their local communities. This is especially true considering most illegal immigrants are not out commiting petty, let alone violent crimes, and so it would just be an additional strain on the community's resources to seek these individuals out.
3) A large portion of illegal immigrants pay taxes (for an abbreviated version see here)- this money not only boosts state and local economies but goes into the very police forces that are being expected to prosecute them
4) To avoid civil rights violations- when we talk about illegal immigration most Americans usually think of Mexicans despite the reality that only about half of illegal immigrants currently in the US are from Mexico. When local law enforcement starts seeking out those with questionable immigration status it would be easy to fall into the trap of discriminatory practices by targeting certain ethnic groups. The Latino(a) population is particularly vulnerable to this targeting because of the preconceived notion that makes people think most Hispanics are illegal.
Now, back to this little piece of legislation.
If you don't support sanctuary cities after what I've cited above I doubt I'll convince you. That said, even if you do not support sanctuary cities this legislation should still give you pause. The first two parts of this bill that I've laid out are the most concerning. To me this starts us down the road towards "special" police forces executing the will of the Federal government in defiance of local law. Like George Orwell's 1984 where citizens were routinely encouraged to report on each other this bill appears distinctly designed to turn local communities against each other. Now more than ever is a time for our local communities to unite and so this bill cannot be allowed to pass.
This bill was sponsored by Diane Black (R-TN). It was cosponsored by 65 representatives, all Republicans and representing 24 different states. The corresponding senate bill was put forth by Pat Toomey (R-PA). It was cosponsored by 23 senators, all Republicans and representing 19 different states. If you are concerned about this bill I would encourage you to check if your senator or representative is in support of it and write them with your concerns.
Wondering if your city is a sanctuary city? Check this list to find out
- Any employee or officer of a given state who complies with an ICE detainer will be seen as "acting as an agent of the Department of Homeland Security" and shall have "all authority available to officers and employees of the Department of Homeland Security"
- Anyone attempting to take legal action against the person who executed the ICE detainer will have to take suit against the federal government directly as the individual will be considered an employee of the Federal Government.
- Lawsuits will be prosecuted in accordance with section 1346(b) of title 28 of the United States Code
- Makes locations defined as sanctuary jurisdictions ineligible for federal funds under the following programs: economic development administration grants, community development block grants, and the protection of individuals against crime act.
Before I get too deeply into the issues with this bill let me start by making sure we all have a clear understanding of what a sanctuary city is. There is a great article from the Economist here. To put it bluntly these areas, sometimes entire states, shelter illegal immigrants. How and why they do that are truly the more important matters. The how can be by law or policy typically refusing to allocate local funds to enforce/execute federal detainers or investigate an individual's immigration status. The why is much more speculative but here are a few good reasons:
1) Humanitarian- most illegal immigrants, besides the fact that they are here illegally, are not criminals (See here) and deserve to be treated with compassion and basic human dignity including not having to live in constant fear of being arrested and torn away from their families.
2) Limited resources- we all hear the lament of how local police are under funded, facing cuts, etc. So, why would local police spend their valuable resources on illegal immigrants (a federal jurisdiction) when that money should rightfully be spent on protecting and supporting their local communities. This is especially true considering most illegal immigrants are not out commiting petty, let alone violent crimes, and so it would just be an additional strain on the community's resources to seek these individuals out.
3) A large portion of illegal immigrants pay taxes (for an abbreviated version see here)- this money not only boosts state and local economies but goes into the very police forces that are being expected to prosecute them
4) To avoid civil rights violations- when we talk about illegal immigration most Americans usually think of Mexicans despite the reality that only about half of illegal immigrants currently in the US are from Mexico. When local law enforcement starts seeking out those with questionable immigration status it would be easy to fall into the trap of discriminatory practices by targeting certain ethnic groups. The Latino(a) population is particularly vulnerable to this targeting because of the preconceived notion that makes people think most Hispanics are illegal.
Now, back to this little piece of legislation.
If you don't support sanctuary cities after what I've cited above I doubt I'll convince you. That said, even if you do not support sanctuary cities this legislation should still give you pause. The first two parts of this bill that I've laid out are the most concerning. To me this starts us down the road towards "special" police forces executing the will of the Federal government in defiance of local law. Like George Orwell's 1984 where citizens were routinely encouraged to report on each other this bill appears distinctly designed to turn local communities against each other. Now more than ever is a time for our local communities to unite and so this bill cannot be allowed to pass.
This bill was sponsored by Diane Black (R-TN). It was cosponsored by 65 representatives, all Republicans and representing 24 different states. The corresponding senate bill was put forth by Pat Toomey (R-PA). It was cosponsored by 23 senators, all Republicans and representing 19 different states. If you are concerned about this bill I would encourage you to check if your senator or representative is in support of it and write them with your concerns.
Wondering if your city is a sanctuary city? Check this list to find out
Tuesday, January 24, 2017
H.R. 193- American Sovereignty Restoration Act
Today I will be highlighting H.R. 193 which has been titled "American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2017." The title may sound vaguely appealing to some but what this bill is actually about is removing the U.S. from participation in the United Nations. You can read the actual bill here on Congress' website. As of today the bill has been introduced and referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. It has been with the committee since 1/3/17.
History:
A bill to remove the US from the UN has been introduced twice in recent years. First in February 2009 and again in March of 2011. Both of these bills were introduced by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) and both failed in committee.
Some of the key points of this bill are as follows:
- Terminate membership in the United Nations
- Closure of the US Mission to the UN (about 150 government positions in various departments interacting with the UN)
- Closure of the UN headquarters in New York and removal of that facility from US soil
- Termination of United States participation in UN peacekeeping operations
- The UN may not occupy or use any property of the US government
- Removal of diplomatic immunity for all UN personnel previously laid out in the Vienna Convention and other documents
- Repeal US membership in UNESCO
- Repeal membership in the UN Environmental Program
- Repeal membership in the World Health Organization
- Immediately ending involvement in all UN conventions and agreements
- To be effective 2 years after the date of enactment
All of that seems a lot to chew over. In a developed nation with military spending greater than the next 5 nations combined it is easy to ask "why do we need the UN?" or "what does the UN do for us?" Well to start here are 70 things the UN does to make a difference in people's lives around the world. If even one of those items has you nodding in agreement it may be time to pause and consider just what leaving the UN would mean.
The UN, above everything else, is a key diplomatic tool to connect our nation with the rest of the world. It provides a venue for negotiating trade deals with member nations and gives us access to scientific resources around the globe. In an ever growing international community it is important that the US stay active and involved with, not just our neighbor nations, but with the world at large.
If all of that's not concrete enough for you then take a look at New York's United Nations Impact Report for 2016 showing that the UN produced $3.69 billion dollars toward's New York City's economy last year alone. And that is not counting all of the contracts the UN makes with US businesses which totaled approximately $1 billion dollars for the combined 2014 and 2015 fiscal years (source here). Under a president who seems so determined to support American business it seems counter-intuitive and reckless to suddenly remove such a large contribution to our nation's economy.
An action such as this could only hurt our nation on the international level. With any luck this initiative will fail for the third time while still in committee but if it does get sent to the House for approval we should be ready to fight back. Those responsible for this bill are as follows:
Sponsor:
Mike D. Rogers (R-AL)
Cosponsors:
Walter B. Jones (R-NC)
Andy Biggs (R-AZ)
Jason Smith (R-MO)
Thomas Massie (R-KY)
John J. Duncan (R-TN)
Matt Gaetz (R-FL)
History:
A bill to remove the US from the UN has been introduced twice in recent years. First in February 2009 and again in March of 2011. Both of these bills were introduced by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) and both failed in committee.
Some of the key points of this bill are as follows:
- Terminate membership in the United Nations
- Closure of the US Mission to the UN (about 150 government positions in various departments interacting with the UN)
- Closure of the UN headquarters in New York and removal of that facility from US soil
- Termination of United States participation in UN peacekeeping operations
- The UN may not occupy or use any property of the US government
- Removal of diplomatic immunity for all UN personnel previously laid out in the Vienna Convention and other documents
- Repeal US membership in UNESCO
- Repeal membership in the UN Environmental Program
- Repeal membership in the World Health Organization
- Immediately ending involvement in all UN conventions and agreements
- To be effective 2 years after the date of enactment
All of that seems a lot to chew over. In a developed nation with military spending greater than the next 5 nations combined it is easy to ask "why do we need the UN?" or "what does the UN do for us?" Well to start here are 70 things the UN does to make a difference in people's lives around the world. If even one of those items has you nodding in agreement it may be time to pause and consider just what leaving the UN would mean.
The UN, above everything else, is a key diplomatic tool to connect our nation with the rest of the world. It provides a venue for negotiating trade deals with member nations and gives us access to scientific resources around the globe. In an ever growing international community it is important that the US stay active and involved with, not just our neighbor nations, but with the world at large.
If all of that's not concrete enough for you then take a look at New York's United Nations Impact Report for 2016 showing that the UN produced $3.69 billion dollars toward's New York City's economy last year alone. And that is not counting all of the contracts the UN makes with US businesses which totaled approximately $1 billion dollars for the combined 2014 and 2015 fiscal years (source here). Under a president who seems so determined to support American business it seems counter-intuitive and reckless to suddenly remove such a large contribution to our nation's economy.
An action such as this could only hurt our nation on the international level. With any luck this initiative will fail for the third time while still in committee but if it does get sent to the House for approval we should be ready to fight back. Those responsible for this bill are as follows:
Sponsor:
Mike D. Rogers (R-AL)
Cosponsors:
Walter B. Jones (R-NC)
Andy Biggs (R-AZ)
Jason Smith (R-MO)
Thomas Massie (R-KY)
John J. Duncan (R-TN)
Matt Gaetz (R-FL)
Monday, January 23, 2017
Welcome
Welcome to my blog!
With the current turmoil going on in American politics it is time to stand up, stay informed, and hold our elected officials accountable. Too much slips through the cracks because people don't have enough time/energy to research everything that's going on in congress. Here I hope to take the time to break down and make a watch/action list for bills currently making their way through congress that I see as a danger to the American people. Not everyone may agree, but I will attempt to lay out my arguments with as much factual evidence as possible. Whether it is eroding our human rights, failing to take responsibility for the planet, or placing needless restrictions on the states and individual Americans, it is our duty as citizens to take notice and make our voices heard about the things that matter most to us
With the current turmoil going on in American politics it is time to stand up, stay informed, and hold our elected officials accountable. Too much slips through the cracks because people don't have enough time/energy to research everything that's going on in congress. Here I hope to take the time to break down and make a watch/action list for bills currently making their way through congress that I see as a danger to the American people. Not everyone may agree, but I will attempt to lay out my arguments with as much factual evidence as possible. Whether it is eroding our human rights, failing to take responsibility for the planet, or placing needless restrictions on the states and individual Americans, it is our duty as citizens to take notice and make our voices heard about the things that matter most to us
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)