It can be uplifting to think that we’re all in this COVID-19 crisis together. Unfortunately, the reality is actually not even close. In fact, some people are struggling more than others during this pandemic, such as migrant workers. Far from their home countries, these essential members of society are often finding themselves in limbo as they have been summarily skipped over in terms of aid. It’s a less than ideal situation to be in, so if you’re finding yourself on this rickety boat, it’s important to remain hopeful and to get to know the options available to you.
The Real Struggles
The COVID-19 pandemic has given light to a good number of flaws in the system. Among the problems the pandemic has exposed is just how grossly unsupported and under-represented migrant workers are. Indeed, it’s undeniable that few are having it worse than immigrants in this pandemic, and it’s this plight that’s best left unignored.
It’s a fact that many frontline healthcare workers are migrant workers.
Despite this, there’s an absence of solutions for immigrant healthcare in this pandemic, exposing the lack of coverage from testing to treatment for countless migrants.
Equally problematic is the widespread xenophobia and racial profiling throughout the country, particularly for Asian minorities.
All these issues (and more) are proof that there’s an immigration crisis in the United States in the time of COVID-19.
The Services You Can Turn To
As you navigate through life in a pandemic with the myriad uncertainties of being a migrant worker in a foreign and unsupportive land, it’s important not to give in to fear. Instead, look to those who are able to help strengthen your position and guide you through the oppressive red tape.
There are many benefits to hiring an immigration lawyer, and this expertise is doubly more important now than ever in the many ambiguities raised by the pandemic.
For non-English speakers, tapping translation services — including freelancers through job boards — will also help you understand your rights and situation better, as well as effectively communicate your predicament.
The Help You Can Get
While it does seem like migrant workers are unlikely to receive help from the federal government, know that the alternatives are growing in number. From the private sector to non-profit organizations, from state to local governments — more and more are starting to recognize the plight of migrants and marshaling the much-needed help.
Certain states provide legal support for migrants, regardless of status, so make sure to check in on your localities.
Some minority groups are offering essential assistance to their members, running the gamut from legal services to meal deliveries.
There are also free clinics all over the country offering services like testing and treatment for COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 cases, regardless of immigration status.
Indeed, despite the direness of the situation, take heart in knowing that there are pockets of hope available out there. However, you need to do your due diligence and make good use of the resources that you’re bound to find, as well.
submitted by Diane Harrison, healthspa.info
Image Credit: Pexels.com
Time to take a broad view of what community safety can look like.
Stop the enforcement of unjust laws:
Decriminalize all drugs, starting with marijuana. Adopt a harm reduction approach and treat it as a healthcare issue. Look at Sussmanto, the model of Portugal, where decriminalizing of drugs led to positive trends in such statistics as HIV infection, people seeking treatment, and teen drug abuse. (Vastag 2009)
Decriminalize sex work, following the lead of organizations such as the Sex Worker Outreach Project (https://swopusa.org/). Adopt policies that will actually ensure worker protections. (Sussman 2020)
Free everyone currently incarcerated on drug charges and sex work charges, as a first step towards closing prisons. End pre-trial detention.
Create safe Schools.
Reduce classroom size
Stop the use of carceral solutions such as suspensions and detention.
Reallocate excessive police funding to adequate school funding.
Invest in support staff and conflict mitigation strategies.
Create stable housing.
Implement housing first strategies.
As an interim measure demanded by the pandemic, fund rent and mortgages for those who were unable to pay to prevent a huge wave of evictions at the end of the state of emergency.
Redefine the Police role in mitigating social distress.
Allocate response and intervention for sexual assault and domestic violence to agencies trained and qualified to handle these volatile situations. There are several excellent organizations in the twin cities: the Domestic Abuse Project, Sexual Violence Center, Corner Stone, and Tubman Chrysalis Center.
Appropriately fund these organizations
It is significant to note that police themselves are involved in very high rates of domestic violence (Friedersdorf 2014)
Mental health services
Review options for expand mental health services and direct community engagement. (Hill 2029). Consider the response capacity of a Emergency Medical Team.
In considering alternatives to excessive investments in policing, we should consider the reality of their effectiveness in actually preventing crimes that we might believe make them essential. I will note recovery of stolen property, as one example, is extremely limited. Generally, the police report functions as documentation to an insurance claim; something that perhaps could easily be handled by some other agency.
Due process that protects innocent citizens has disintegrated into a system of "justice" where the worst possible outcome has reached a level of social anxiety where we now fear the possibility of someone escaping "deserved" punishment. That put’s everyone at risk of false accusations and tattle tale enforcement which has no basis in fact. Consider the case of Amy Cooper in Central Park (Vera 2020). We need to rethink justice in terms of harm reduction and restoration offered by models of transformative justice.
Special thanks to Ruby Levine for her contribution to this outline: https://www.8toabolition.com/
Vera Amir, 2020 “White woman who called police on a black man bird-watching in Central Park has been fired”, May 26, 2020, Retrieved June 14, 2020, https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/26/us/central-park-video-dog-video-african-american-trnd/index.html
Hill, Alexis, 2019, “Re-imagining Policing and Mental Health”, January 24, 2019, Retrieved June 14, 2020, https://www.policingproject.org/news-main/2019/1/24/reimagining-policing-and-mental-health-
Friedersdorf, Conor, 2014, “Research suggests that family violence is two to four times higher in the law-enforcement community than in the general population. So where's the public outrage?”,September 19, 2014, Retrieved June 14, 2020,https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/09/police-officers-who-hit-their-wives-or-girlfriends/380329/
Sussman, Anna Louie, 2Sussman020, “Don't have to fight for pennies': New Zealand safety net helps sex workers in lockdown”, The Guardian, April 27, 2020, Retrieved June 14, 2020, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/28/dont-have-to-fight-for-pennies-new-zealand-
Vastag , Brian. 2009 “5 Years After: Portugal's Drug Decriminalization Policy Shows Positive Results Street drug–related deaths from overdoses drop and the rate of HIV cases crashes” Scientific American, April 7, 2009, Retrieved June 14, 2020, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/portugal-drug-decriminalization/
Water is life. Water is Minnesota's most precious resource.
We don't need a voice in Washington that would trade Minnesota's north shore to a corrupt foreign mining company with the worst labor and safety record in the industry.
The threat of climate change is very real, but to many, seems too remote for immediate action. The violent impact of our militarism is immediate. War is the most destructive force on the planet, and the military is the largest single consumer of fossil fuels.
We don't need a voice in Washington that supports massive increases in our military budget, already more than sixty percent of our federal budget.
The pandemic has shown us the lack of resiliency in our healthcare system, and emphasized the growing inequality of wealth in America.
We don't need a voice in Washington that opposes the expansion of health care in our society, even promoting the privatization of our existing medicare services.
We need voices in Washington that will promote the strength of our communities; the safety, health, and economic security of our citizens; and the future of our planet. When you vote for Paula Overby for U.S. Senate, you are that voice.
Candidate for U.S. Senate
B for Bernie. But Bloomberg also starts with B. Two diametrically opposed positions running for the same DNC endorsement. How could the party of the people possibly be making exceptions for a self-funded billionaire to be on the same debate stage with Bernie Sanders. There has been an enormous migration of wealth in the United states over the past 50 years. While the 1% consumes nearly all of the wealth and the military budget continues to swell, the average person struggles to pay rent, access healthcare, keep up with rising debt, or even pay for an education.
We are clearly at a crossroads in American history, and we will soon discover which direction the DNC will decide to endorse. The people have spoken, and we will soon discover if the progressive movement will hold the line. No major social reform has come without conflict. While Bernie Sanders represents the political revolution, Our Revolution, the media conceals a less obvious class war in America: the opioid crisis, increased alcoholism, rising suicide rates, school shootings, people dying for lack of medications and healthcare, even the growing assault on our environment.
Clearly, as Bloomberg's appearance on the democratic debate stage affirms, the billionaire class is not ready for peace talks. The progressive movement must hold the line.
B for Bernie. But seriously I had another thought in mind. In 2016, it was basically just Hillary and Bernie. That was plan A. We all know how that turned out, and many of us understand how rigged it was against Bernie. Even in court, the Democrats stated outright that they had no obligation to be fair which by itself is a huge indictment of the our two party system. Most Bernie supporters stuck with the democrats and voted for Hillary (who as you may recall was endorsed by Bernie). Bernie has been very clear about the fact that his goal is to bring young people and progressives to the democrat party. There is a questionable legitimacy in the assertion that the democrat party is becoming more progressive, but that will be seen soon enough.
I support Bernie and I contribute to his campaign because I like his messaging and the ideas he’s promoting. I also support Tulsi Gabbard for the same reason, even as I know she won’t win the nomination. Both parties just approved another $20 Billion pentagon budget increase which is about the only thing they all agree on. Nobody except Tulsi Gabbard is talking about the devastating financial and social cost of our endless wars. For Bernie it’s just a footnote.
Bernie’s running again in 2020 so that’s plan B. (plan A has already failed us). I’m also quite certain that Bernie will not get the nomination either, and Bernie supporters will do pretty much what they did in 2016. Elizabeth Warren is perhaps the best proof of that in the way she has taken all of Bernie’s ideas. I’m also quite certain we will not see Bernie Sanders again in 2024.
This is what will happen, in my opinion, after watching years of campaign strategies, and myself running as an independent candidate three times. We all like to believe that these candidates are running on some individual initiative but that’s not how it works. There is a party strategy and the winner is chosen by the party, not the people. Remember when Bernie was touting the progressive progress that came out of his campaign in the form of concessions to prohibit super delegate votes on the first round of balloting? The broad candidate field is going to split the delegate counts. There will not be a decision in the first round, and the super delegates will decide the nomination in the second or third round. There will also be intense intimidation of Bernie delegates as there was in 2016 and there will be delegate defections according to the demands of the party. Maybe there’s an outside chance that Biden or Buttigieg will beat Trump, but it’s not going to give us any progressive reforms.
I’d like to believe in your plan B and people will vote for independents, but honestly, there are relatively few independents running. The independent movement is growing but it is still very fragmented. Still, if one or two were elected, that would be progress. Perhaps the Green candidate in Maine might have the best opportunity. They have ranked choice voting.
There are many good reasons why we need a third party. Americans certainly believe it. The congressional approval rating rarely gets above 20 percent and 57% of Americans say a third major political party is needed . 46 percent of Americans identify as independent. Why then are all those independent voters still voting for one of the two major parties?
There are also a few reasons why third parties can’t succeed in our current electoral process. The political system is heavily biased toward the two major parties, and sustained by corporate wealth and media. Both parties cooperate to preserve their combined hold on power.
People aren’t really voting on policies any more, despite growing anxieties about liberalism, soaring costs in education and healthcare, inequality of wealth, stagnant wages, climate catastrophes, endless wars, and a flood of personal and national debt. But the threat of social and economic collapse, or even the environmental crisis, seems to pale in the two party political narrative. Republicans advance the odious threat of a nation overrun by foreign nationals and Democrats portend the total collapse of our very democracy, undermined by Russian interference and the erratic behavior of our current president. It’s a shallow threat in light of a 2014 study from Princeton University which concluded that America is an Oligarchy, not a republic and certainly not a democracy.
It all makes for good theater. In 1988, the League of Women voters withdrew from sponsorship of the presidential debates. According to League President Nancy M. Neuman, "It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and honest answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public." Today’s democratic debates are hosted by CNN, carefully orchestrated to provide good viewing entertainment and guide voters toward the desired outcome. It is precisely the kind of charades League President Nancy M. Neuman was referring to back in 1988.
The political narrative is clear: third party candidates take votes away from the major candidates. Third party candidates spoil their elections. With the possible exception of Ralph Nader in 2000, there is little evidence to support that claim. Hillary Clinton blames Jill Stein for her loss to Donald Trump. Speculation assumes those voters would have voted for Hillary and conveniently ignores the fact that Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson received over three times as many votes as Jill Stein which may have drawn votes away from Donald Trump.
Now, Hillary Clinton is attacking Anti-war candidate Tulsi Gabbard as a Russian assest and setting up the same spoiler narrative she leveled against Jill Stein. But, Bloomberg news reports, “Don’t Worry About Tulsi Gabbard.” The spoiler narrative is a fear tactic intended to ensure voters remain loyal to one of the oligarchs duopoly.
Our elections are not arranged for the benefit of the people, but rather to serve the wealthy. Voters are disenfranchised, separated from a meaningful voice in our political process. Voter behavior is controlled by carefully crafted narratives, propaganda, and political marketing campaigns. All of that advertising makes running for office a cost prohibitive exercise for the vase majority of Americans.
Protests may give us a voice but it largely goes unheard. From the lessons of Standing Rock, we know if a protest interferes with the agenda of the ruling elite it will be put down by aggressive force. True activism disrupts the system in a manner that demands change. Power operates by attacking the disruptive voice; ask Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, or Chelsea Manning. If you could, you might ask Jeffery Epstein what happens when you become a threat to the private lives of powerful politicians. We can continue to vote for the oligarchy, or we can demand an inclusive voice, and a true government of the people, by the people and for the people, something we have been fighting for since those words were first uttered by Abraham Lincoln in the Gettysburg address back in 1863.
People want to choose their doctor.
A principle problem for Medicare for all is the fact that it follows in the shadow of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The ACA expanded health care access by increasing tax payer funding: something people refer to as “throwing money at the problem.” There was no cost containment. Taxes increased, and costs continued to increase with a net migration of wealth from the middle class to the upper class. Millions did get improved health care access through medicaid, but the majority saw no benefit, and millions more saw steep rate increases. It is the inequity in the system that makes it untenable to voters. The current Medicare system is already a confusing range of options, supplemental plans, and Medicare advantage. The disadvantage of Medicare Advantage is once again the perplexing problem of choosing a suitable network of providers. The health care industrial complex will certainly game the system as they have done with Medicare Advantage, to the tune of of some $70 billion dollars from 2008 to 2013. Given the lack of meaningful oversight, transparency, and accountability, it’s not surprising that people are suspicious of Medicare for All.
People want to choose their doctor. They don’t want to navigate an incomprehensible maze of insurance options, hoping to find a network that includes their doctor. In the end, they still pay out-of-pocket for the the specialist who didn’t happen to be in the network. Creating confusion is a deliberate tactic that prevents the kind of consensus needed for meaningful healthcare reform.
Whenever I hear a presentation on the carbon fee/dividend plan, it comes off sounding like a plan that would provide a Universal Basic Income derived from oil revenues. It is after all a public resource and perhaps citizens should be getting some revenue from that resource much like the Alaska Permanent Fund derived from oil revenues. The fund has paid an annual dividend since 1982 that has been as high as $2,072 per person, or $8,288 for a family of four.
Still, when something sounds too good to be true, it usually is. I started getting suspicious when I heard the big oil companies were supporting a carbon fee/dividend. The plan would add a fee to fossil fuels based on the CO2 equivalent emissions of fossil fuels. Consumers would pay higher costs on virtually everything because energy is a substantial cost of production for most products. The fee would then be distributed to each citizen offsetting the higher cost. Clearly, it’s not a dividend based on revenue like the Alaska plan. It’s more like a sales tax where the consumer gets a rebate at the end of the year. In theory, low wage earners would get a larger dividend than they pay in fees but I’ve yet to see any actual numbers that would substantiate that theory.
In global markets, the impact becomes much more complicated. Import fees would be imposed to encourage foreign producers to also implement the carbon fee and discourage companies from migrating to no fee regions. American consumers would still pay higher prices for those fees but there would be no dividend as the fees would remain in the country of origin. Oil exports would receive a rebate. That seems to incentivize exporting U.S. oil and allowing consumers to pay the higher cost for foreign oil.
All of this will presumably be balanced out by tariffs and trade agreements. Every product produced would essentially require a carbon fee adjustment in an environment where it may be difficult to determine if it was produced with fossil fuels. I can’t imagine the complexity of that.
The fee would affect the real cost of using fossil fuels and should create incentives for greater efficiency, alternative material sourcing, and renewable energy sources but it is not clear that these alternatives can match the economic growth demands of today’s economic models. That goes to the real problem of projected economic growth that exceeds the foreseeable capacity of the planet. That problem is not being addressed by a recirculating tax rebate plan.
That brings me to what’s in it for the corporate denizens of wealth. The plan they support which of course is the only plan our congress would possibly adopt was drafted by the Climate Leadership Council, that includes a long list of major oil producers like ExxonMobile and BP as well as many other large corporations like GM and Pepsico. Their proposal provides for a carbon tax in lieu of environmental regulations including EPA’s regulatory authority of CO2 emissions, repeal of the Clean Power Plan, and an end to federal and state tort liability for emitters.”
Here the theory goes, that market forces will eliminate the need for these regulations. In an environment of ever-increasing wealth inequality, with congress determining the market forces, I have a pretty clear idea of who the winners and losers will be.
UPDATED PER AMENDMENT -WEEK OF FERUARY 17, 2019
Minnesota Senate Bill SF 752,
Minnesota House Bill HF 708
(Ballot Access Inclusiveness Bill)
This proposal contains a comprehensive set of reforms to improve and modernize Minnesota's outdated statutory definitions of political parties. It encompasses revisions and modifications to arbitrary petitioning requirements, percentages, and timelines that as currently exist, create and sustain exclusivity to ballot access for the main two parties. Goals are to bring Minnesota's prohibitive standards in-line with neighboring states, to eliminate unconstitutional and inequitable restrictions, and to harmonize the various statutes while keeping robust system integrity and encouraging democratic participation. A formal request is hereby made for committee hearings to discuss these matters.
Section 1: Revises major political party threshold percent from 5% to 1%, for both direct petitioning and election results methods.(for reference WI, SD are at 1%, IA is at 2%).
Section 2: Modifies our system into recognition of two simple tiers of political parties versus the current three tiers. (to become major and minor only, like all other states).
Section 3: Allows petitions to be on common size 8-1⁄2x11 letter size paper(vs 8-1/2x14).
Section 4: Modifies oath on nominating petitions to allow signors to still participate in the major party primaries. (“I solemnly swear that I know the contents and purpose of this NOMINATING petition, that I do not intend to vote at the primary election for the office for which this nominating petition is made, and that I signed this petition of my own free will.”)
Section 5: Revises statute to allow signors to sign more than one nominating petition.
Section 6: Modifies the number of signatures required into ratios of flat numbers based on district size for state, county, and municipal races (400 for State Senate, 200 for State Rep, 200 for municipals, versus the current statutes set at 500 for all).
Section 7: Expands the days allowed to collect signatures from 14 to 88, by attaching the window to the general election vs the primary election (in alignment with the statutory window we have for Presidential electors). (WI gives 70 days, SD 112 days, IA 140 days).
Section 8: AMENDMENT IS FILED TO REMOVE THIS SECTION (to give a political party the ability to approve a candidate’s affiliation with it prior to filing for primary ballot).
Section 9: Addresses special election parameters. It adds 7 extra days for the SOS to conduct, adds 9 days to the (5 day)filing window, and reduces the number of nominating petition signatures required to half per the office sought.
Table 1. Petition signature requirements for major (recognized) party status
Table 2. Petition requirements and collection periods
Ironically the demise of the second wave feminist movement was the one piece of legislation fundamental to the concept of equality and basic human dignity, the Equal Rights Amendment, ERA was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution designed to guarantee equal rights for women. The National Woman’s Party had introduced the Equal Rights Amendment to every congress since 1923 until the feminist movement finally saw passage in the House in 1970 and the Senate in 1972.
The Republican Party included support of the ERA in its platform beginning in 1940, renewing the plank every four years until 1980. There was strong opposition in the democratic party from labor groups including the AFL-CIO, the American Federation of Teachers, and the American Nurses Association under the presumption that working class women needed government protection. Eugene McCarthy, leader of the Anti-war movement in the Democratic Party, was also chief author of the ERA.
Initially public support for the ERA was strong. Within a year after its passage in the Senate the ERA had been ratified by thirty states. Opposition to the ERA quickly organized around the protection of women. Phyllis Schlafly became the spokesperson for the Stop ERA movement emphasizing a threat to the security of middle-aged housewives. Organizers claimed women would lose their right to alimony and child custody.
Religious conservatives, Evangelical Christians, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, and Roman Catholics argued that the amendment would guarantee universal abortion rights, same sex marriage, and eliminate single-sex bathrooms. By 1977 only five additional states had ratified the amendment, three short of the required thirty-eight. By 1996 men had reasserted the “traditional marriage,” when Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act.
Philp A. Randoph, founder of the Negro American Labor Council (NALC) initiated the March on Washington in 1963 where Martin Luther King gave his infamous I Have a Dream speech. Neither of these groups felt women should be included in the Civil Rights Act. Black Women argued that black families were heavily dependent on women’s income and discrimination against women would be damaging to black families. The cause of black women was largely responsible for the inclusion of sex and gender in Title VII of the civil rights act of 1964.
On the basis of Title VII, Women continued fighting for equity in the courts, fighting for custody, fighting for alimony, and ultimately fighting for their very lives against the threat of domestic violence. In 1970 only 13 percent of families were headed by a single parent. By 1996 that number had doubled with 84 percent of these families headed by women. Dissolving family values fueled a divorce industry that would grow to fifty billion dollars by 2005.
The African American civil rights movement was split between civil disobedience and Black Power. The feminist movement was divided between empowerment and protectionism.
Perhaps the most effective tactic of the ERA opposition movement threatened that women would lose their exemption from the draft. A new chapter in the ERA story began this week when U.S. District Court Judge Gray Miller declared that exempting women from registering for the draft violates the Constitution's equal protection principles. Attorney Marc Angelucci, representing the National Coalition for Men, says, "There really is no more excuse to only require men to register."
The #MeToo movement is demanding greater protection for women against sexual assault and domestic violence at the same time income and social inequality are expanding. How we define equals rights is a challenging discussion that is clearly taking on new dimensions.