Free Archives - Page 19 of 23 - Close Up Foundation

The Supreme Court Will Address DACA. What Will Follow?

Posted on October 30, 2019August 16, 2021 by Maura O'Brien

On November 12, 2019, the Supreme Court will hear arguments about the Trump administration’s efforts to end the immigration policy known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). The status of DACA recipients has been in limbo for over two years amidst administration actions and court injunctions.

What Is DACA?

After Congress failed in its attempts to pass a bill dealing with undocumented immigrant minors,¹ then-President Obama created DACA in the run-up to his reelection campaign in 2012.² The program deferred deportation for undocumented individuals who arrived in “the U.S. before their 16th birthday, were under age 31, had continuously resided in the United States since June 15, 2007,”³ had not committed serious crimes, and met educational or military service requirements.⁴ Considered a temporary fix awaiting congressional immigration reform, DACA allowed for infinite renewals of two-year deferrals.⁵

How Did DACA Reach the Supreme Court?

The Trump administration decided not to defend DACA in a possible court case,⁶ arguing that the Obama administration lacked the authority to establish the policy—a claim that opponents characterized as a misread of the law, open to judicial review.⁷ These opponents assert that the policy change did not meet federal standards and that the Trump administration violated due process and “the Equal Protection Clause because it was motivated by discriminatory animus.”⁸ Lower courts agreed and left the law temporarily in place.⁹ After repeated requests, the Supreme Court agreed to weigh in.¹⁰

The Supreme Court must decide if courts can review the policy change and if the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) made the change lawfully.¹¹ The administration argues that their agencies have the necessary discretion (so courts cannot intervene) and that their legitimate rationale included doubts about DACA’s legality¹² absent congressional authorization.¹³ DHS also claims that DACA encourages further illegal immigration, because it undercuts the “ability to send ‘a message that leaves no doubt regarding the clear, consistent and transparent enforcement of the immigration laws.’”¹⁴

Where Does DACA Stand Now?

Currently, DHS is not accepting new DACA applications, but it is continuing to process renewals.¹⁵ As of June 2019, there were approximately 660,880 active DACA recipients.¹⁶

What’s Next for DACA?

DACA activists have begun a 230-mile march from New York City to the Supreme Court,¹⁷ highlighting the significant personal stakes they want the Court to consider.¹⁸ Their allies cite DACA’s high polling approval,¹⁹ economic benefits,²⁰ and support from an array of large businesses.²¹ Their opponents argue that the executive order is an executive overreach,²² and they want a legislative compromise that includes increased border security and limits to further immigration.²³ President Trump has hinted at a possible deal,²⁴ depending on the Court hearing. The justices’ decision will likely come in June 2020.

VIEW: What’s on the Supreme Court calendar?

READ: Legal analysis of the DACA case on SCOTUSblog

For further reading on DACA, please see Close Up in Class’ Controversial Issue in the News on the subject.

Discussion Questions:

How present are recent immigrants in your school and community?
Do you think the DACA policy encourages other immigrants to enter the United States illegally?
Should DACA limit the number of deferrals that recipients can access? Should recipients be able to achieve lawful permanent resident or citizen status?
Should the fate of DACA be determined on its own, or should it be part of a larger set of immigration reforms? If the latter, what reforms are necessary?
Should a president be able to bypass Congress with an executive order to establish an immigration program like DACA, or is that an overreach (an abuse of power)?

Sources

Featured Image Credit: Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images, via https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/10/28/20909969/daca-workers-dreamers-supreme-court

[1] American Immigration Council: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/dream-act-daca-and-other-policies-designed-protect-dreamers

[2] NBC News: https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/smart-facts/what-daca-n854906

[3] Department of Homeland Security: https://www.dhs.gov/deferred-action-childhood-arrivals-daca

[4] Ibid.

[5] NBC News: https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/smart-facts/what-daca-n854906

[6] PBS NewsHour: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/trumps-decision-end-daca-explained

[7] Oyez: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/18-587

[8] Ibid.

[9] Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-daca/second-u-s-appeals-court-rules-trump-cannot-end-protections-for-dreamers-idUSKCN1SN1VN

[10] NBC News: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-agrees-hear-daca-case-win-trump-administration-n1020481

[11] Oyez: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/18-587

[12] CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/20/politics/justice-department-deferred-action-for-childhood-arrivals-supreme-court/index.html

[13] NBC News: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-agrees-hear-daca-case-win-trump-administration-n1020481

[14] Ibid.

[15] Department of Homeland Security: https://www.dhs.gov/deferred-action-childhood-arrivals-daca

[16] U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services: https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Resources/Reports%20and%20Studies/Immigration%20Forms%20Data/Static_files/DACA_Population_Receipts_since_Injunction_Jun_30_2019.pdf

[17] New York Daily News: https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-daca-dreamers-supreme-court-nyc-dc-make-the-road-immigration-20191022-7cj63amqnnhvhjfwyctyq52sum-story.html

[18] Vox: https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/10/28/20909969/daca-workers-dreamers-supreme-court

[19] Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/survey-finds-strong-support-for-dreamers/2017/09/24/df3c885c-a16f-11e7-b14f-f41773cd5a14_story.html

[20] PBS NewsHour: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/making-sense/4-myths-about-how-immigrants-affect-the-u-s-economy

[21] CNBC: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/04/major-companies-tell-supreme-court-ending-daca-will-hurt-the-economy.html

[22] Fox News: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/its-time-to-end-daca-its-unconstitutional-unless-approved-by-congress

[23] Fortune: https://fortune.com/2018/01/25/trump-daca-citizenship/

[24] Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-suggests-hes-open-to-daca-legislation-if-he-prevails-in-supreme-court-case/2019/09/06/94d0295e-d093-11e9-87fa-8501a456c003_story.html

Using the Harkness Method to Teach the News

Posted on October 24, 2019August 25, 2023 by Scot Wilson

A Brief Introduction to The Harkness Method¹

The Harkness method is a type of student discussion created at the Phillips Exeter Academy in 1930. At the time, most methods of education involved teacher-led lectures and rote memorization. But a wealthy philanthropist, Edward Harkness, promised a financial contribution of over $5 million (or almost $90 million in 2019 dollars²) to the school—if it adopted a revolutionary method of student-directed teaching in a “conference-like” atmosphere.³

“What I have in mind is [a classroom] where [students] could sit around a table with a teacher who would talk with them, and instruct them by a sort of tutorial or conference method, where [each student] would feel encouraged to speak up,” Harkness said of the school he envisioned. “This would be a real revolution in methods.” To bring this idea to life, the school used a portion of the money to change the classroom environment to suit student-centered instruction. Desks in rows became round tables, and class sizes of 25 to 35 were reduced to 12. Eventually, the now-signature Harkness table became oval, allowing the instructor to see and make eye contact with every student. The idea is that all people at the table are equal and, in the words of Harkness, “there are no corners to hide behind.”⁴

Exeter still uses the Harkness method in teaching today, in every subject. “What happens at the table is, as Harkness described it, ‘real revolution,’” the school notes. “It’s where you explore ideas as a group, developing the courage to speak, the compassion to listen, and the empathy to understand. It’s not about being right or wrong. It’s a collaborative approach to problem-solving and learning.”⁵ Exeter also offers an institute each year, bringing together more than 400 teachers to learn about implementing the method in their classrooms.⁶

Overview of the Harkness Method

In a traditional Harkness method discussion, 12 students sit at an oval table with a teacher acting as the facilitator. The primary goal of the method is to place students in the driver’s seat of their learning and to make learning a more participatory process. To achieve this, students come to the table having read a piece of material as background (e.g. a primary source, a news article on a current event, or a piece of literature). They actively participate in a discussion about the content while the facilitator monitors.

On the surface, this may seem like the Socratic method, but there is a significant difference. In the Harkness method, the teacher must give up the need to “guide” students to the “right” solution and instead be an active participant in the discussion.⁷ A sign of a high-quality Harkness discussion would be one that requires little to no direction by the teacher; instead, the learning occurs student-to-student. During the discussion, the teacher uses various discussion tracking tools to monitor students’ participation and dialogue and to ensure that participants are following norms and staying on topic. They can track everything, including who has spoken, amount of speaking time, and body language, to see the quality of conversation and monitor student gains.

Using this Method to Teach the News

While most schools have much larger class sizes than 12 and rarely have large oval tables, you can make modifications to employ this method. For example, Chicago teacher Aida Conroy was able to implement the method in a class of 33 and saw tremendous gains in college-readiness test scores that surpassed the standard “college-ready” score.⁸

Suggested Steps for Employing this Method in a Modern Classroom

Before actually using the method, you will need to introduce students to the Harkness method and give (or have students create) expectations/table norms.
1. Some examples of table norms include looking at the person speaking, staying engaged, and asking clarifying questions.
2. You should give students examples of what active participation looks like in a Harkness discussion (e.g. ask a question, present evidence from the text). These norms and participation guidelines could be a form you distribute or a poster in the room. Find more examples here.
Assign students an article (or two) on a current event or a historically controversial issue that you would like students to explore. Assigning the article(s) as homework would give students time to digest and come prepared with notes, talking points, questions, and ideas.
Place chairs or desks in an oval shape (as an oval table is likely unavailable), ensuring eye contact between all students. Invite students to join you in this Harkness discussion and remind them of the expectations and goals of the conversation.
Using a version of the Harkness table discussion tracking system, have students begin discussion of the background information they read. The first several times you do this, students will likely need more hands-on facilitation and reminders about expectations at the table. Again, these expectations can be unique to the specific class or those you introduced earlier.
Once the class is accustomed to this model, it could be possible to teach students to act as facilitators (and to use some basic table tracking tools). This allows smaller groups to discuss while the teacher floats to monitor, clarify, and observe student learning.
To more closely approximate the small class size of the Harkness method, consider placing students in pairs and designating each member of the pair as an A or B. Then, have a first-round discussion with all As participating while the Bs track their partners’ participation. After 15 to 20 minutes, switch roles.

Resources and More Information

Download Exeter’s free Harkness Toolkit pieces here
Read essays by educators who have used the Harkness model here
The Concise EHI Experience Guide to Harkness, created by a teacher who attended the Exeter Institute, can be found here

Sources

Featured Image Credit: Upland Country Day School

[1] Phillips Exeter Academy: https://www.exeter.edu/exeter-difference/how-youll-learn

[2] CPI Inflation Calculator: http://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1930?amount=5840000

[3] Boarding School Review: https://www.boardingschoolreview.com/blog/to-harkness-or-not-to-harkness

[4] Business Insider: https://www.businessinsider.com/phillips-exeter-harkness-table-2014-11

[5] Phillips Exeter Academy: https://www.exeter.edu/exeter-difference/how-youll-learn

[6] Phillips Exeter Academy: https://www.exeter.edu/programs-educators

[7] University of Bedfordshire: https://www.beds.ac.uk/jpd/volume-4-issue-3/harkness-learning-principles-of-a-radical-american-pedagogy/

[8] Boarding School Review: https://www.boardingschoolreview.com/blog/to-harkness-or-not-to-harkness

President Trump Seeks to Further Reduce U.S. Military Presence in Syria

Posted on October 18, 2019October 5, 2020 by Maura O'Brien

On October 6, 2019, President Trump made the surprising announcement that he would pull out most of the 1,000 U.S. troops in Syria, where the United States has been working with the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Force (SDF) to fight the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), al-Qaeda, and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and to repel Russian and Iranian influence in the region. Apparently, this announcement was made without the knowledge of most of President Trump’s cabinet, including the State Department.¹

The Syrian civil war erupted in 2011, when government forces violently suppressed protesters who were calling for Assad to step down. The conflict has been deadly and devastating, resulting in six million Syrian refugees and another six million citizens internally displaced (out of a population of around 18 million people).² The war has allowed for extremist groups, including ISIS, to gain power in the region; since 2014, the United States has partnered with the SDF to fight extremists and Assad’s forces.

However, Turkey—a NATO ally that is also fighting against Assad—has long considered the Kurds on their border to be a threat and have promised strikes against them in the last few months.³ The Kurds have benefited greatly from the partnership with the United States, which has allowed the formerly oppressed minority group to establish Kurdish schools and set policies that represent their interests.

Removing U.S. troops would allow Turkish forces to control the area in northeastern Syria along the Turkish and Iranian border, which is currently held by U.S. and SDF forces. Turkey presently claims that its goals include removing Kurdish forces from the area and resettling Syrian refugees along the border.

Throughout the week of October 6, U.S. troops have pulled back from the Turkish border. Increased violence in the region began almost immediately after President Trump’s announcement, and on October 9, the Turkish military fired shots in Syria. In response, the Kurdish authorities stated, “We call upon our people, of all ethnic groups, to move toward areas close to the border with Turkey to carry out acts of resistance.”⁴ ISIS suicide bombers have also attacked Kurdish positions in the Syrian city of Raqqa.⁵

President Trump’s withdrawal announcement met backlash from both Democrats and Republicans in Congress, with Senator Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a strong Trump ally, calling the move “short-sighted and irresponsible.”⁶ Critics argue that Turkey is planning on diluting the power of the Kurds in their historic homeland by resettling millions of ethnic Syrians in the area.⁷

In order to keep Turkish forces from attacking Kurdish allied forces and the Kurdish population in the area, President Trump tweeted that he would, “totally destroy and obliterate” Turkey’s economy if they did anything “off-limits” after the United States pulls out. The Trump administration has said that the Kurdish alliance is complete and that the Kurds are strong fighters, “but were paid massive amounts of money and equipment to [fight against ISIS].” President Trump indicated that it is time for the United States to remove itself from the conflict and bring troops home.⁸

Discussion Questions

What have you heard about the Syrian civil war?
Should the United States continue to keep troops in Syria? Why or why not?
How, if at all, should the United States support the Kurds in Syria?
Does the United States have a responsibility to ensure that its transition out of the region goes smoothly? Why or why not?
What should be the role of the United States in protecting oppressed groups around the world?

Sources

Featured Image Credit: Reuters

[1] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/07/world/middleeast/trump-turkey-syria-kurds.html

[2] United States Institute of Peace: https://www.usip.org/syria-study-group-final-report

[3] Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-to-pull-troops-from-northern-syria-as-turkey-readies-offensive/2019/10/07/a965e466-e8b3-11e9-bafb-da248f8d5734_story.html

[4] Fox News: https://www.foxnews.com/world/turkey-syria-kurdish-troops-military-assault

[5] CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/09/politics/syria-turkey-invasion-intl-hnk/index.html

[6] CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/07/politics/lindsey-graham-donald-trump-syria-troops/index.html

[7] The Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/10/danger-abandoning-our-partners/599632/

[8] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/07/world/middleeast/trump-turkey-syria-kurds.html

Understanding the Current Impeachment Inquiry

Posted on October 15, 2019July 9, 2021 by Maura O'Brien

In late September 2019, it was revealed that an officer at the Central Intelligence Agency filed an official complaint with the intelligence community’s inspector general, alleging that President Trump had engaged in an inappropriate phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky on July 25. The whistleblower alleged that President Trump threatened to withhold approximately $400 million in military aid to Ukraine unless President Zelensky agreed to launch an investigation into the business activities of Hunter Biden. (Hunter Biden—the son of former Vice President Joe Biden, a potential rival for President Trump in the 2020 election—used to work for a Ukrainian gas company.)¹

Shortly after this information became public and the White House released an edited summary of the phone call, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi announced that the House of Representatives would begin a formal impeachment inquiry, led by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff.²

What is Impeachment?

READ: The Close Up in Class Primer on Impeachment

Impeachment is the adoption of formal charges against the president or another civil officer in the federal government. The impeachment process begins in the House. The House is responsible for carrying out an investigation, or impeachment inquiry, into potential wrongdoing by an official. After the investigation, if a simple majority of the House votes in favor of formal articles of impeachment, the official is impeached. Impeachment does not mean an official will be removed from office.

Next, the process moves to the Senate. The Senate conducts a trial for the impeached official, and the chief justice of the Supreme Court presides. The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the senators present in order to convict the impeached official. The penalty for conviction is removal from office. In some cases, the Senate has also disqualified an official from holding public office again in the future.

Only two presidents—Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton—have been impeached, but both were acquitted by the Senate. To date, no president has been removed from office by the Senate. (The House launched an impeachment inquiry into the actions of President Richard Nixon, but he resigned before the full chamber voted on articles of impeachment.)

Impeachment is a Real Possibility; Removal is Much Less Likely

With at least 226 members of the House supporting the impeachment inquiry, it is a very real possibility that the House could impeach President Trump.³ And as more information has come to light, including a second whistleblower,⁴ allegations that President Trump asked other countries for investigations,⁵ and the arrest of two associates of Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani,⁶ public support for impeachment has grown.⁷ On October 8, Fox News released a poll indicating that 51 percent of respondents not only want President Trump to be impeached but removed from office as well.⁸

However, the path to removing President Trump from office contains several significant hurdles. Not only would a vote to convict President Trump, if he is impeached, set a striking precedent (as the first removal of a president in U.S. history), the fact is that the votes simply may not be there.

Currently, the Senate is made up of 53 Republicans, 45 Democrats, and two independents who caucus with Democrats. Even if all 47 Democrats and independents voted to convict in an impeachment trial, they would need the votes of 20 Republicans as well in order to remove the president from office. This would be difficult in normal circumstances; it is particularly unlikely with a national election approaching in 2020.

President Trump remains popular among Republican voters, with 87 percent voicing their approval to Gallup in mid-September. Among independents, the president’s job approval rating is 36 percent.⁹ For the 23 Senate Republicans up for reelection in 2020, as well as some Democrats in heavily Republican states, voting to remove the president from office could inspire their constituents to vote them out. For many senators, it may not be worth the risk, especially since voters will have the chance in November 2020 to vote on President Trump’s reelection themselves.

Discussion Questions

Do you believe President Trump should be impeached? Do you believe he should be removed from office? Why or why not?
Should asking a foreign government to investigate a political opponent in exchange for aid count as an impeachable offense?
Do you believe it is reasonable to require a simple majority vote (50 percent +) in the House for impeachment but a supermajority (67 percent +) in the Senate for removal? Why might these standards be different?
Besides removal from office, do you think an impeached president should face other less/more severe sentences if convicted?

Sources

Featured Image Credit: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images, Politico

[1] Politifact.com: https://www.politifact.com/facebook-fact-checks/statements/2019/oct/04/facebook-posts/theres-no-evidence-schiff-helped-write-whistleblow/

[2] Ibid.

[3] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/us/politics/trump-impeachment-congress-list.html

[4] ABC News: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2nd-whistleblower-forward-speaking-ig-attorney/story?id=66092396

[5] The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2019/oct/03/trump-news-today-live-impeachment-updates-ukraine-bernie-sanders-latest

[6] Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/two-business-associates-of-trumps-personal-lawyer-giuliani-have-been-arrested-and-are-in-custody/2019/10/10/9f9c101a-eb63-11e9-9306-47cb0324fd44_story.html

[7] Ibid.

[8] Fox News: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-record-support-for-trump-impeachment

[9] Gallup: https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx

Eliminate Illegal Immigration; Make Immigration Work for the Economy

Posted on October 9, 2019August 16, 2021 by Ashleigh Barber

Immigration policy and enforcement continues to be a major area of conflict between Democrats and Republicans. Currently, Congress is considering many bills related to immigration, asylum, migrant detention, and family separation. This week, we will look at two proposals that Republicans are advancing; two weeks ago, we examined two bills that Democrats are advancing.

Republicans have two main goals for immigration policy: to drastically reduce illegal immigration and to ensure that immigration is good for the U.S. economy.

In May, President Trump proposed sweeping changes to the U.S. immigration system. In addition to boosting border security and securing funding for a wall on the southern border, President Trump aims to reduce the number of poor or unskilled immigrants in favor of immigrants with education or expertise that will contribute to the U.S. economy.¹

Border security, and especially the proposal for a border wall, has received ample attention and is a central focus in two of our earlier posts (see: The Shutdown: It’s Over! … Isn’t It? and State of Uncertainty: Emergency Declaration on the Border). In this post, we will take up two proposals to change legal immigration in ways that Republicans believe will help the U.S. economy.

Secure and Protect Act of 2019

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) introduced this bill in May; it reached the full Senate in August. The bill addresses many aspects of immigration related to seeking asylum or refugee status and to the treatment of undocumented migrants. The bill would make several key changes to the system, including:

Lengthening the amount of time the government is permitted to hold children away from their families, from 20 days to 100 days;
Making immigration officers the sole authority on whether or not a minor is capable of making their own decisions in the immigration process;
Establishing refugee processing centers in certain countries (designated by the secretary of Homeland Security), especially in Central America; and
Barring people from countries with those processing centers from seeking asylum.²

These changes would allow the Trump administration to automatically reject asylum claims made by migrants from Central America; their only paths to entry would be legal immigration or the refugee process.

LISTEN: What is the difference between refugees and asylum seekers?

Deny Visas to Immigrants Who Cannot Afford Health Insurance

The Trump administration has plans to implement a policy of rejecting visa applications from immigrants who cannot prove that they could afford health insurance or other health-related costs.³ President Trump signed a proclamation on October 4 stating that the new practice will begin in November 2019.

Explaining the shift in policy, Randy Capps of the Migration Policy Institute said, “The administration is on-the-record wanting to cut legal immigration, and particularly wanting to cut legal immigration of lower-skilled, lower-paid immigrants who are probably less likely to have health insurance coverage.”⁴

Supporting his proclamation, President Trump said, “Immigrants who enter this country should not further saddle our health care system, and subsequently American taxpayers, with higher costs.”⁵

Summary

These two proposals, and the two Democratic proposals examined two weeks ago, show the different priorities of the two major political parties on the issue of immigration. While Republicans want to limit both legal and illegal immigration, Democrats are attempting to check the president’s power and to ensure humane treatment of undocumented migrants.

Discussion Questions

When you think of immigration, what do you see as the most serious issue?
Should the United States take steps to reduce numbers of legal immigrants? Why or why not?
When you compare the four proposals (two from Democrats and two from Republicans), whose vision for immigration do you most support?
What do you think the United States’ big-picture immigration goals should be?

Sources

Featured Image Credit: Handout/Reuters, via the Washington Post

[1] PBS Newshour: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/whats-in-trumps-immigration-proposal

[2] Library of Congress’ Congress.gov: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1494

[3] CBS News: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-administration-to-deny-visas-to-immigrants-who-cant-prove-they-can-pay-for-health-care/

[4] Ibid.

[5] NPR: https://www.npr.org/2019/10/04/767453276/trump-bars-immigrants-who-cannot-pay-for-health-care

Migrant Detention and Congressional Oversight

Posted on September 16, 2019July 9, 2021 by Scot Wilson

Immigration policy and enforcement continues to be a major area of conflict between congressional Democrats and the executive branch. Currently, Congress is considering many bills related to immigration, asylum, migrant detention, and family separation. This week, we will look at two bills that Democrats are advancing; next week, we will look at two bills that Republicans are advancing.

The HOMESTEAD Act of 2019 (H.R. 3868)

The full name of the HOMESTEAD Act is the Help Oversee, Manage, and Evaluate Safe Treatment and Ensure Access without Delay Act of 2019. The name comes from the Homestead shelter for migrant children.

The bill would make it easier for any member of Congress to visit a government-operated detention center that houses undocumented immigrants.¹It would also allow members of Congress to inspect the facilities without advance notice. (Currently, members of Congress must give 48 hours advance notice for an inspection, and the departments that oversee the detention centers are not required to allow entry to members of Congress. In April, three congresswomen from Florida attempted to visit one of the child detention centers in Homestead, Florida. The Department of Health and Human Services, the department that oversees the facility, denied them entrance.)²

Stop Cruelty to Migrant Children Act of 2019 (S. 2113 in the Senate; H.R. 3918 in the House of Representatives)

In addition to expressing concerns about oversight, some members of Congress have criticized the Trump administration for its detention policies.³ Researchers argue that the detention of children will have long-term mental and emotional effects.⁴ In fact, the administration’s own Department of Homeland Security issued a report that was deeply critical of conditions at four separate detention centers.⁵

This bill aims to address these conditions. The bill would:

Require that immigration officials make every effort to keep families together
Provide better medical care for children in detention centers
Set higher standards for detention centers in areas such as cleanliness, ventilation, and temperature
Provide staff for both supervision and attention to children’s welfare⁶

SEE: An Open Letter from Senate Democrats

Immigrants’ rights activists insist that this bill would protect children. A petition circulated by the American Civil Liberties Union states, “[W]e’ve uncovered tens of thousands of pages of evidence documenting U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials physically, sexually, and verbally abusing children.”⁷

But the Trump administration argues that by detaining families and making illegal immigration more daunting and difficult, it will deter the practices of illegal immigration. “One of the things that will happen, when they realize the borders are closing—the wall is being built, we are building tremendous numbers of miles of wall right now in different locations—it all comes together like a beautiful puzzle,” said President Trump.⁸

For this reason, and to avoid having to release undocumented families into the United States while their court cases are considered, the Trump administration is considering a rule change that would allow for indefinite detention of migrant families.⁹Twenty states are currently suing the administration to block the rule change.¹⁰

Thus, there is presently much action taking place in the area of immigration policy, but it is unclear what changes will come in the months ahead. Next week, we will examine two Republican proposals to address concerns over immigration.

Discussion Questions

When you think of immigration, what do you see as the biggest problems facing the country?
Do you think illegal immigration is a serious issue? Why or why not?
Do you think these two bills are addressing significant issues? Why or why not?
If you were advising your member of Congress about these two bills, what advice would you give them? How would you like them to vote?

Sources

Featured Image Credit: Handout/Reuters, via the Washington Post

[1] Congress.gov: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/3868/text

[2] Miami Herald: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/immigration/article228933679.html

[3] CNBC: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/29/trump-administration-bars-tours-of-migrant-detention-centers-democrats.html

[4] National Public Radio: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/08/23/753757475/lengthy-detention-of-migrant-children-may-create-lasting-trauma-say-researchers

[5] CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/06/politics/homeland-security-ice-facilities/index.html

[6] Congress.gov: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/2113/text

[7] American Civil Liberties Union: https://action.aclu.org/petition/cbp-stop-abusing-children

[8] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/21/us/politics/flores-migrant-family-detention.html

[9] Washington Post: https://beta.washingtonpost.com/immigration/trump-administration-moves-to-terminate-court-agreement-hold-migrant-children-and-parents-longer/2019/08/21/c268bb44-c28b-11e9-9986-1fb3e4397be4_story.html

[10] The Hill: https://thehill.com/latino/458843-20-states-sue-trump-administration-over-flores-rule

Reparations and the Demands of Justice

Posted on August 27, 2019July 9, 2021 by Ashleigh Barber

In January 2019, Representative Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) introduced H.R. 40: The Commission to Study and Develop Reparations Proposals for African Americans Act.¹ Reparations for slavery, Jim Crow, and systematic segregation and racism in major U.S. institutions is not a new idea, but it has never gained the type of traction that it currently has. In June, the House Judiciary Committee held hearings to begin exploring the idea.²

This bill would not automatically establish reparations. Instead, the bill would “establish a commission to study and consider a national apology and proposal for reparations for the institution of slavery, its subsequent de jure and de facto racial and economic discrimination against African Americans, and the impact of these forces on living African Americans, to make recommendations to the Congress on appropriate remedies.”³

WATCH: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) responds to the bill

WATCH: Ta-Nehisi Coates, author of “The Case for Reparations,” testifies before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties

Discussions about race, racism, and racial justice are becoming more central parts of our political discourse. The rising tide of white nationalism and white supremacy,⁴ including their increasing visibility in public spaces,⁵ has helped spur discussion about the legacy of racism in the United States. Movements and organizations such as Black Lives Matter and the Equal Justice Initiative, as well as publications such as Between the World and Me, The New Jim Crow, and the 1619 Project, have focused attention the legacies of slavery, Jim Crow segregation, economic exclusion, and mass incarceration.

In this social and political environment, the debate over reparations is taken more seriously—but is also more contentious—than it has been at other times.

Arguments in support of the bill:

The text of the bill contains arguments—findings—that support passage of the bill. Among those findings are:

Approximately 4,000,000 Africans and their descendants were enslaved in the United States and colonies that became the United States from 1619 to 1865.
The institution of slavery was constitutionally and statutorily sanctioned by the government of the United States from 1789 through 1865.
The slavery that flourished in the United States constituted an immoral and inhumane deprivation of Africans’ life, liberty, African citizenship rights, and cultural heritage, and denied them the fruits of their own labor.
Following the abolition of slavery, the U.S. government, at the federal, state, and local levels, continued to perpetuate, condone, and often profit from practices that continued to brutalize and disadvantage African Americans, including sharecropping, convict leasing, Jim Crow, redlining, unequal education, and disproportionate treatment at the hands of the criminal justice system.
As a result of the historic and continued discrimination, African Americans continue to suffer debilitating economic, educational, and health hardships, including but not limited to having nearly 1,000,000 black people incarcerated; an unemployment rate more than twice the current white unemployment rate; and an average of less than 1/16th of the wealth of white families, a disparity which has worsened, not improved over time.⁶

Arguments opposing the bill:

Charles Lane, a columnist for the Washington Post, argues that reparations may be unconstitutional because black people living today cannot show direct injury from slavery in the same way that other groups—such as Japanese Americans who lived through internment—have been able to do.⁷
Kevin Williamson, writing in National Review, argues that reparations would not accomplish what they are intended to accomplish and that the policies that would most help African Americans, and all Americans, would be economic and educational reform aimed at creating a dynamic and growing economy.⁸
Coleman Hughes, an African-American writer and student, argued against reparations before a congressional subcommittee, saying that reparations “would insult many black Americans by putting a price on the suffering of their ancestors. If we were to pay reparations today, we would only divide the country further, making it harder to build the political coalitions required to solve the problems facing black people today.”⁹
Representative Mike Johnson (R-La.) has spoken of “the injustice of monetary reparations from current taxpayers for the sins of a small subset of Americans from many generations ago.”¹⁰

The debate over this issue is taking place in the primary campaigns of Democratic presidential hopefuls, and Congress will continue to consider and possibly vote on the bill.

Discussion Questions

What do you view to be the strongest arguments for and against the idea of reparations?
If you were a member of Congress, what more would you want to know before voting on this bill?
Setting aside the question of reparations, do you think that establishing a commission to investigate the impacts of slavery, segregation, and systemic racism is a good idea? Why or why not?
If you are opposed to the idea of reparations in the form of cash or a check, do you think something else should be done to address the legacy and injustice of slavery and segregation? If so, what? If no, why not?

How to Get Involved

Students can continue to follow the bill on GovTrack.

Students can weigh in—as a group assignment or individually—by visiting this page.

Students can also research their member of Congress to see which committees they sit on. If their representative sits on the Judiciary Committee, they should consider contacting that member while the bill is still in committee.

Further Reading

The Case for Reparations by Ta-Nehisi Coates, in The Atlantic
The 1619 Project, a series of essays, articles, and podcasts produced by the New York Times
Would Reparations for Slavery be Constitutional? by Charles Lane, in the Washington Post

Sources

Featured Image Credit: 19th Century Engraving via New York Public Library Digital Collection (Public Domain) and Wikipedia

[1] Congress.gov: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/40/text

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] ABC News: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/white-supremacy-white-nationalism-entered-political-conversation/story?id=64998396

[5] Inside Higher Ed: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/06/27/white-nationalist-propaganda-rise-college-campuses

[6] Congress.gov: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/40/text

[7] Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/would-reparations-for-slavery-be-constitutional/2019/08/12/76677182-ba10-11e9-b3b4-2bb69e8c4e39_story.html

[8] National Review: https://www.nationalreview.com/2014/05/case-against-reparations-kevin-d-williamson/

[9] BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48665802

[10] Ibid.

Religious Freedom or the Right to Discriminate?

Posted on August 22, 2019August 22, 2022 by Ashleigh Barber

On August 15, the Department of Labor published proposed changes that would expand federal contractors’ ability to claim a religious exemption to equal opportunity and anti-discrimination rules.¹ The proposed rule change, as written, could allow employers with federal contracts to fire or refuse to hire LGBTQ employees, and could even be used to fire unmarried pregnant women if an employer claimed that it was against their religion to support having sex out of wedlock.

The Department of Labor cites recent Supreme Court cases, such as Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014)²and Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018).³ In each of those cases, the Court allowed businesses to claim that the U.S. right to religious freedom exempted them from certain state or federal regulations. (Masterpiece Cakeshop was decided on narrow grounds and the Court cautioned that it should not necessarily be read as precedent.)

Drawing on opinions expressed by the Supreme Court in those cases and in other cases, the Department of Labor’s rule change would allow groups and companies with federal contracts that identify as religious to “make employment decisions consistent with their sincerely held religious tenets and beliefs without fear of sanction by the federal government.”⁴

The proposed rule is stirring controversy, as many civil rights activists see the change as discriminatory. Patricia Shiu, who oversaw the federal contracting office under President Barack Obama, told Vox that the new rule has the potential to be interpreted very broadly. As Shiu explained to Vox: “The new rule would gut anti-discrimination protections in a ‘major and transformational way.’ While the rule seems to target LGBTQ individuals … it’s so broad that it creates a loophole for employers to discriminate against anyone. … [Companies] could ask for a religious exemption so they don’t have to hire women, by saying that their religion dictates that women cannot work outside the home.”⁵

Louise Melling, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), warned that the rule “authorizes discrimination in the name of religion.”⁶ The ACLU also tweeted, “Nearly one-quarter of employees in the United States work for an employer that has a contract with the federal government. This rule seeks to undermine our civil rights protections and encourages discrimination in the workplace—and we will work to stop it.”⁷

Sarah Warbelow, legal director of the LGBTQ rights advocacy organization Human Rights Campaign, called the rule “a license to discriminate.”⁸

An official with the Department of Labor defended the rule, explaining to ABC News: “The Department’s regulations for a long time have allowed religious organizations to take applicants’ and employees’ religion into account when making employment decisions, that’s not new. This proposal only seeks to clarify who qualifies as a religious organization and what religion means under the law. That’s it.”⁹

In addition, acting Secretary of Labor Patrick Pizzella told The Christian Post, “Today’s proposed rule helps to ensure the civil rights of religious employers are protected. As people of faith with deeply held religious beliefs are making decisions on whether to participate in federal contracting, they deserve clear understanding of their obligations and protections under the law.”¹⁰

Discussion Questions

Do you think that business owners and employers should have the right to refuse to hire someone on religious grounds? Why or why not?
Are there some types of organizations (such as religious charities) that should have the right to use religion in their hiring and firing practices? Should that same right extend to all employers?
How does this controversy connect to other issues you have heard about in the news? In history?
Do you think the Department of Labor should adopt this new rule? Why or why not?

How to Get Involved

This proposed rule change is open for public comment until September 16, 2019. Anyone can submit a comment, and these comments must be reviewed and considered by the executive branch before it makes the change official.

Read the full proposed rule and submit a comment here:

Implementing Legal Requirements Regarding the Equal Opportunity Clause’s Religious Exemption

Consider having students work in small groups or individually to submit a comment supporting or challenging the proposed rule.

Other Resources

For a detailed explanation of the rule change and background on the move, see: Vox’s Trump’s plan to let employers discriminate against LGBTQ workers, explained: It’s a political move with major consequences
For an editorial criticizing the rule change, see: Los Angeles Times’ Editorial: Trump’s new ‘religious freedom’ rule looks like a license to discriminate
For an opinion piece questioning the strong reaction to the rule change, see: Washington Examiner’s Fake outrage over Trump’s ‘anti-LGBT’ Labor Department rule

Sources

Featured Image Credit: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

[1] U.S. Department of Labor: https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/ofccp/ofccp20190814

[2] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/us/hobby-lobby-case-supreme-court-contraception.html

[3] Axios: https://www.axios.com/supreme-court-masterpiece-cakeshop-decision-dc2d9a59-76ce-40a3-8311-9da845d1ed9c.html

[4] U.S. Department of Labor: https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/ofccp/ofccp20190814

[5] Vox: https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/8/16/20806990/trump-religion-lgbtq-discrimination-rule

[6] Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2019/08/14/trump-administration-proposes-protecting-federal-contractors-who-fire-or-hire-workers-based-religious-beliefs/

[7] United Press International: https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2019/08/14/New-Labor-Dept-rule-would-exempt-religious-contractors-from-bias-claims/1031565800736/

[8] Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2019/08/14/trump-administration-proposes-protecting-federal-contractors-who-fire-or-hire-workers-based-religious-beliefs/

[9] ABC News: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-administration-rule-religious-litmus-test-federal-contractors/story?id=64976149

[10] The Christian Post: https://www.christianpost.com/news/labor-dept-new-rule-protect-religious-liberty-federal-contractors.html

Democratic Candidate Highlights: Part 1—The Early Announcers

Posted on June 5, 2019October 5, 2020 by Ashleigh Barber

The 2020 United States Presidential election is on Tuesday, November 3, and there are 20+ Democrats who have announced their campaign to run. As promised in our earlier post (found here), this post will be the first of several where we take a closer look at a few candidates—who they are and their stances are on some of the issues they prioritize. We will be going in order by candidacy announcement date.

Most of the information will come from the candidates’ own campaign sites, as the point of these posts is to give readers an idea of what each candidate’s platform is and how the candidates are presenting themselves to voters.

This post will include a closer look at some lesser known, but early announcing, candidates: John Delaney, Andrew Yang, and Tulsi Gabbard.

Candidate: Former Representative John Delaney, D-Md.
Slogan: Focus on the Future

Short Bio (excerpted from campaign site):

John Delaney’s grandparents came to the United States from Ireland and England, and found jobs in Jersey City, N.J., where one grandfather worked in a pencil factory and the other was a dockworker. He grew up in a blue-collar family in Wood-Ridge, New Jersey. With help from his father’s labor union, he was able to attend and graduate from Columbia University and Georgetown University Law Center. After law school, he decided to take a chance and start his own businesses. By 40, he had launched and led two companies that created thousands of jobs and were publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange. He was the youngest CEO on the NYSE with his first company. In 2004, he was named an Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year, and his businesses were voted to be among the best places to work. He was also the only former CEO of a publicly traded company serving in the House of Representatives during his three terms. In 2012, he took congressional office serving the Sixth District of Maryland and since then has introduced large-scale bipartisan legislation on infrastructure, tax reform, social security, and impact investing. On foreign policy, his work has centered on a strong national defense, strengthening alliances, and cutting sources of terrorism funding. He believes that the best policymaking focuses squarely on the future and gives that as the reason for founding the Artificial Intelligence Caucus and helping found the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus. In 2017, he was named to Fortune’s list of the “World’s 50 Greatest Leaders.” He says that his campaign commitments are the same as they were when he first ran for Congress: advance progressive values, find solutions and common ground, bring new ideas, and create forward-looking policies that help everyday Americans.

Issue:	Candidate’s Stance According to Campaign Site:
A National AI Strategy Learn more	The United States must create a government strategy that will provide the tools and skills needed for the country to win the international AI race. For that to occur, the United States must prioritize resources to eliminate gaps in national abilities compared to other high-tech countries, invest in areas of research that deserve additional funding, develop incentives for high-tech professionals to work for the government, support an immigration system that values high-tech professionals, and crack down on international intellectual property (IP) theft.
Climate Change and Climate Corps Learn more	Delaney proposes a $4 trillion climate change plan—a comprehensive roadmap of policy solutions to address the climate change crisis by focusing on six areas: A carbon fee and dividend direct air capture/negative emissions technology (NET); increasing the renewable energy research budget five-fold; challenge grants; a climate corps; and a carbon throughway. Most notably, Delaney proposes the creation of the Climate Corps as part of his National Service Program. The new program would provide opportunities for recent high school graduates to work in low-income urban and rural communities where Corps members would support these communities’ transition to a green economy, work on environmentally friendly projects, and fight climate change by working on the ground.
Department of Cybersecurity Learn more	In response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the government created the Department of Homeland Security. In response to continued cyber attacks, Delaney wants to create a Department of Cybersecurity with a sole focus on coordinating and implementing U.S. cybersecurity strategy, led by a cabinet-level secretary.
Other Issues Learn more	Delaney has addressed 18 other issue areas in detail on his campaign site. Visit his site to further research his platform: John Delaney’s Policy Platform

Candidate: Attorney and entrepreneur Andrew Yang
Campaign Slogans: Humanity First; Make America Think Harder (Math); Not Left, Not Right, Forward

Short Bio (excerpted from campaign site):

Andrew Yang was born in upstate New York in 1975. His parents immigrated from Taiwan in the 1960s and met in graduate school. His dad was a researcher at IBM who generated 69 patents in his career, and his mom was the systems administrator at a local university. He studied economics and political science at Brown and went to law school at Columbia. After a brief stint as a corporate lawyer, Yang ran a national education company that grew to become a national leader. His education company was acquired, and he decided to take the earnings and commit to creating jobs in cities hit hard by the financial crisis. By that time, Yang says he understood the power of entrepreneurship to generate economic growth, so he founded Venture for America, an organization that helps entrepreneurs create jobs in cities like Baltimore, Detroit, Pittsburgh, and Cleveland. In its first year, VFA trained 40 fellows; by 2017, more than 500 VFA fellows and alumni had launched dozens of companies and helped create over 2,500 jobs across the country. Yang received several awards from the Obama White House, being named a Champion of Change in 2012 and a Presidential Ambassador for Global Entrepreneurship in 2015. He believes that VFA resonates with so many people because it’s clear that there’s a growing problem in the United States: automation is destroying jobs and entire regions are being left behind. He says that together we can build a new type of economy: one that puts people first.

Issue:	Candidate’s Stance According to Campaign Site:
Universal Basic Income (UBI) Learn More	The most direct and concrete way for the government to improve your life is to send you a check for $1,000 every month and let you spend it in whatever manner will benefit you the most. The government is not capable of a lot of things, but it is capable of sending large numbers of checks to large numbers of people promptly and reliably. The United States has plenty of resources; they’re just not being distributed to enough people right now. As president, Yang will implement the Freedom Dividend, providing universal basic income (UBI) of $1,000/month to all American adults over the age of 18 so that we may all share in the prosperity we have contributed to and participate in the new economy. UBI is a version of Social Security in which all citizens receive a set amount of money per month, independent of their work status or income. Everyone from a hedge fund billionaire in New York to an impoverished single mom in West Virginia would receive a monthly check of $1,000. If someone is working as a waitress or a construction worker making $18,000 a year, he or she would essentially be making $30,000 with UBI. UBI eliminates the disincentive to work that most people find troubling about traditional welfare programs—if you work, you could actually start saving and get ahead. With the growing threat of automation, the concept has gained renewed attention, with trials being run in Oakland, Canada, and Finland as well as in India and other parts of the developing world. Today, people tend to associate UBI with technology utopians. But a form of UBI almost became law in the United States in 1970 and 1971, passing the House of Representatives twice before stalling in the Senate.
Medicare for All Learn More	Health care should be a basic right for all Americans. Right now, if you get sick, you have two things to worry about—how to get better and how to pay for it. Too many Americans are making terrible, impossible choices between paying for health care and other needs. Yang wants to provide high-quality health care to all Americans and believes that a Medicare for All system is the most efficient way to accomplish that. He believes such a system would be a massive boost to the economy, as people will be able to start businesses and change jobs without fear of losing their health insurance. In addition to creating a Medicare for All system, Yangs wants to shift the way doctors are compensated to promote holistic and empathic care and create incentives for, and invest in, innovative treatment methods and methodologies.
Human-Centered Capitalism Learn More	Americans need to make the markets serve them rather than the other way around. Profit-seeking companies are organized to maximize their bottom line at every turn, which will naturally lead to extreme policies and outcomes. Americans need government leaders who are truly laser-focused on the public interest above all else and will lead companies to act accordingly. As president, Yang will change the way the United States measures the economy, from GDP and the stock market to a more inclusive set of measurements that ensures humans are thriving, not barely making it by. New measurements like median income and standard of living, health-adjusted life expectancy, mental health, childhood success rates, social and economic mobility, absence of substance abuse, and other measurements will give Americans a much clearer and more powerful sense of how they are doing both individually and as a society. Yang also wants to rein in corporate excesses by appointing regulators who are paid a lot of money—competitive with senior jobs in the private sector—but then will be prohibited from going to private industry afterward. Regulators need to be focused on making the right decisions and policies for the public with zero concern for their next position. The government’s goal should be to drive individuals and organizations to find new ways to improve the standards of living of individuals and families on these dimensions. In order to spur development, the government should issue a new currency—the Digital Social Credit—which can be converted into dollars and used to reward people and organizations who drive significant social value. This new currency would allow people to measure the amount of good that they have done through various programs and actions.
Other Issues:	Yang has addressed 104 issue areas in detail on his campaign site. Visit his site to further research his platform: Andrew Yang’s Policy Platform

Candidate: Representative Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii
Campaign Slogan: Lead with Love

Short Bio (excerpted from campaign site):

Polynesian-Caucasian, Tulsi Gabbard was born in 1981 in Leloaloa, American Samoa, the fourth of five children born to Carol and State Senator Mike Gabbard. She grew up in Hawaii after moving there at two years old. Gabbard graduated from Hawaii Pacific University with a degree in International Business. At the age of 19, she co-founded Healthy Hawaii Coalition (HHC), a nonprofit grassroots organization whose mission is to protect the environment and improve individual and community health. In 2002, at 21 years old, she became the youngest person ever elected to the Hawaii State Legislature, where she served on the Education, Higher Education, Tourism, and Economic Development Committees. In 2004, when Gabbard’s fellow soldiers from the 29th Brigade were called to war in Iraq, she volunteered to join them. In 2006, she went to Washington, D.C., to serve in the Senate as a legislative aide to Senator Daniel K. Akaka, D-Hawaii. There, she advised Senator Akaka on issues relating to energy independence, homeland security, the environment, and veterans affairs. After returning home from her second deployment to the Middle East in 2009, Gabbard offered to serve on the Honolulu City Council and was elected on November 3, 2010. She served as chairperson of the Safety, Economic Development, and Government Affairs Committee, as vice chair of the Budget Committee, and as a member of the Zoning and Public Works Committee. In 2012, Gabbard ran for the House of Representatives for Hawaii’s Second Congressional District and defeated the former mayor of Honolulu in an upset victory in the Democratic primary. She went on to win the general election. When she took office in 2013, she became one of only two female combat veterans in the House and the first American Hindu ever elected to Congress.

Issue:	Candidate’s Stance According to Campaign Site:
The War on Terror Learn More	To defeat ISIS and other jihadist groups that have declared war on the United States, Gabbard believes the United States must do four things: Immediately end the illegal and counterproductive war to overthrow the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad; defeat ISIS militarily; find a political solution; and defeat ISIS and other Islamist militants ideologically.
Universal Healthcare Learn More	Gabbard believes that our present health care system is organized for the benefit of big insurance and pharmaceutical companies, and not for the American people. While the Affordable Care Act was a step in the right direction, many issues remain with it, including escalating costs and high copayments/deductibles. Most importantly, 27 million Americans are still uninsured. All Americans should have access to affordable health care through Medicare or a public option. Gabbard believes we must ensure universal health care and empower the government to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies to bring down the price of prescription drugs.
Campaign Finance Reform Learn More	Gabbard is committed to campaign finance reform, taking big-money superPACs out of politics, and empowering the people and their voices in our democracy. Some ways she suggests doing this include: Fighting to establish a system to provide public funds that will amplify small donations to federal candidates who agree to lower contribution limits, working to reduce barriers to the ballot box and increase turnout, supporting meaningful contribution limits so a wealthy few cannot use their economic power to shut out ordinary citizens, and working to strengthen disclosure requirements for outside groups.
Other Issues:	Gabbard has addressed several other issue areas on her old campaign site (from her run for Congress). So, until her presidential site is updated, visit this site to further research her policy ideas: Tulsi Gabbard on the Issues (Congressional Election Site)

Discussion Questions

Had you heard of any of these candidates prior to reading this? If not, why might that be? If so, in what context had you heard about them? If not, why might that be?
Looking at this list, do you notice anything interesting about the candidates? Are there any noticeable trends in their platforms, backgrounds, campaign language, stances on issues, etc.?
Are there any candidates from this list who immediately jump out at you as someone you agree with on any specific issues?
Of the candidates listed here, are there any that you think would have a chance of winning the Democratic nomination? Or a chance of defeating President Donald Trump? Why or why not?
Imagine that a less well-known candidate (like one of the three above) won the Democratic nomination. Do you think choosing a relatively unknown candidate to face President Trump would be a good or bad strategy for the Democratic Party? Why?

Sources

Featured Image: WhiteHouse.gov

Should Washington, DC, Become a State?

Posted on May 29, 2019October 13, 2022 by Ashleigh Barber

If you visit Washington, DC, one of the things you may notice is the license plates on local vehicles.

While the inhabitants of the District of Columbia pay federal taxes, they do not have voting representation in Congress – just one delegate whose votes do not count. So since 2000, after approval by the Mayor and City Council, DC residents have had a choice to use their license plates as a form of protest. “Taxation Without Representation” harkens back to the causes of the Revolutionary War and the principles under which it was fought.

The creation of a federal district was outlined in the Constitution, Article I, Clause 17 which allows Congress “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be…” This allowed Congress to create a federal district over which they had power as it would not be part of a state.

As Washington, DC has grown, so has the frustration of its population. Its citizens were not allowed the right to vote in the Presidential election until the passage of the 23^rdAmendment in 1961 which gave the District three Electoral Votes for President. But still, they have no voting representation in Congress.

Activists in Washington, DC are now trying to get the city approved as the 51^st state. With a population (estimated at 693,000 in 2017) greater than Vermont or Wyoming, its residents argue that they deserve two Senators and a Representative as much as any states are entitled to them. They argue that the residents pay taxes, serve in the military and contribute to the welfare of the nation as a whole, so they should be entitled to the same rights.

Those who oppose Washington, DC becoming a state explain that there was a reason that the framers of the Constitution did not want the federal district to gain too much power. In Federalist #43¹, one of the authors of the Constitution and future President James Madison, explained that if the capital were in a state, that state would have too much power as members of Congress would be beholden to it as part-time residents. However, Madison also writes that while not part of a state, the federal district’s citizens “will have had their voice in the election of the government which is to exercise authority over them.” This part of Federalist #43 is used by supporters of DC having representation in Congress to show that it wasn’t the intent for them to be disenfranchised.

In the election of November, 2016, DC voters overwhelmingly approved a referendum to make Washington the nation’s 51^st state.² To get around the Constitutional requirement that the federal district be under the control of Congress, the referendum carved out the area of the city with the White House, Congress and many of the federal departments as “federal district.” But the rest of the city would become the state of “New Columbia” with two Senators and a Representative. The referendum passed with over 78% of the vote.³

While she can’t vote on legislation, Eleanor Holmes Norton, DC’s delegate to the House of Representatives, did introduce a bill, H.R.51, the “Washington D.C. Admission Act” which would admit Washington, minus the federal properties, into the Union as the 51^st state. While it is very unlikely it will pass through Congress right now, the groundwork is being laid for the possibility that the State of New Columbia will add its star to the American flag sometime in the future.

Discussion Questions

Is using a license plate an appropriate form of protest? Why or why not?
What are the strongest arguments in support of Washington DC becoming a state?
What are the strongest arguments against Washington DC becoming a state?
Do you support statehood for Washington? Why or why not?
There is an argument that in order for Washington DC to become a state with representation, a Constitutional Amendment would need to be adopted allowing such a change. Do you think the current proposal, to carve out a federal district out of the federal buildings downtown and let the rest of the city become the new state, is allowable or do you believe the Constitution would have to be amended? How do you support your position?

Sources

Featured Image: A sign supporting D.C. statehood on display outside an early voting site in Washington. (Susan Walsh/AP)

^[1} Madison, James. Federalist #43. (1788) http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed43.asp

^[2] Davis, Aaron C, “District voters overwhelmingly approve referendum to make D.C. the 51^ststate.” Washinton Post, 8 November 2016. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/district-voters-overwhelmingly-approve-referendum-to-make-dc-the-51st-state/2016/11/08/ff2ca5fe-a213-11e6-8d63-3e0a660f1f04_story.html?utm_term=.4e6629923c72