#the bill eliminates gender-affirming care for all minors | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

female-malice · 1 year

Text

Dave Zirin's article slandering Title IX lawyer Nancy Hogshead Makar:

Rightists have a genocidal perspective on trans kids. Now they want the federal government to use Title IX to further push trans young people from public life.

One Olympic gold medalist who supports a trans bans and has written upon it extensively has been the swimmer Nancy Hogshead-Makar and her organization Champion Women. As Dr. Johanna Mellis, cohost of the End of Sports Pod tweeted to me (and I reprint with permission): “Enraging how several cishet [cisgender, heterosexual] white women like NHM [Nancy Hogshead–Makar] who ostensibly vote Dem and believe in abortion rights are trans panic-ers and boosting their platform off such bigotry.”

I guarantee that these very forces will at some point call for Title IX to be thrown out. No one connected to women’s athletics should give them one droplet of credibility. They should be aghast to see Title IX, some of the most important legislation for gender equality ever produced by this country, used as a cudgel to keep trans kids off the playing field. They should call that what it is: an obscenity. Either Title IX is a shining example of inclusion or it is not. For it to be used months after its 50th anniversary as a tool for bigots is the true perversion in this story.

The anti-trans feminists of the sports world say that their support is only for this bill and that they aren’t part of the larger movement of exclusion backed by street violence being whipped up against trans people. This is a cheesecloth-thin cover for the reality of what this legislation represents. HR 734 is a not-subtle way of saying that trans people have no place in public life. Not surprisingly, the same GOP rallying in lockstep behind this bill is also pushing Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene’s (R-Ga.) “Protect Children’s Innocence Act,” which would make it a felony for doctors to provide gender-affirming health care to transgender minors. That is also going to be taken up this week. The GOP establishment is all in. The bills are strongly supported by the Conservative Political Action Conference and its leader, Matt Schlapp, who is accused of sexually assaulting a male staffer. At CPAC over the weekend, Michael Knowles, a GOP yipping head, called for the “eradication of transgenderism,” only to threaten lawsuits against people who accurately described his speech as violent and even genocidal. As a Jew, if someone at CPAC—perhaps next year—called for the “eradication of Judaism” and then explained it by saying, “We just meant Judaism, not Jews,” my mind would not be put at ease. And not surprisingly, there has been no condemnation of these statements either by CPAC or anyone who claims to be pro-trans in every area except for sports.

–

Nancy Hogshead-Makar's response to Dave Zirin's sorry excuse for journalism:

I. am. pissed. I know Dave Zirin. I've been on his podcast and he has my contact info, including being connected here on Twitter. Yet he uses me to make this ridiculous argument that pro-female bills that put up appropriate boundaries around our sport categories are "anti-trans" ... and that I'm part of an effort to eliminate Title IX. You have lost your mind.

Tell me Dave, how many times must I repeat that I want transgender people to have great lives, in employment, in classrooms, in living their best lives... but that there are a few places where biology matters. I've said it on CBS Sunday Morning, Dr. Phil, USA TODAY, Washington Post, Daily Mail ... just to name a few. So I missed Michael Knowles ... I am a liberal democrat and do not pay attention to CPAC. That's some shitty evidence of being "anti-trans". I've repeatedly said I am supportive of the Bostock Supreme Court decision, (businesses cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity or gender non-conformity) of the Obama regulations that required schools to not discriminate against trans students, but did not allow males in female sports.

Tell me Dave, you know my story of being way out front addressing sexual abuse in Olympic sport, and what it cost me. Was I doing it to "boost my platform" then?

Tell me Dave, as survivor of a violent rape followed by horrific PTSD, should I have to get changed in front of a male, however they identify? If you think I should "be kind" – fuck you.

Should I teach my 17 year old daughters that they should suppress their inner-voice of danger when they see males in our changing rooms?

If so, you're a misogynist, a woman-hater... someone who isn't allowing women to have their own boundaries, to be safe, to have our own spaces, our own sports, our own ability to shine and be recognized for what we do. We say "NO."

Biology matters in very few places, and where it matters it is absolute. There is no other way to chop up a person to give females half the opportunities to win. Males do not have the right to compete in OUR sport categories.

And I'm beyond offended that you wouldn't contact me about it.

14 notes · View notes

pashterlengkap · 7 months

Text

At last night’s Republican presidential debate, former Vice President Mike Pence said, “We’re going to pass a federal ban on transgender chemical or surgical surgery anywhere in the country.” LGBTQ Nation contacted his campaign asking if he intended to outlaw gender-affirming care for all people, regardless of age. His campaign hadn’t responded by the time of publication. While Pence’s comment also mentioned “protecting” kids from “radical gender ideology,” his response caught the attention of Alejandra Caraballo, a civil rights attorney and clinical instructor at the Harvard Law School Cyberlaw Clinic. Caraballo posted a video of Pence’s comment on Wednesday night and wrote via Twitter, “They’re going to ban care for trans adults too. It was never about protecting kids.” Related: LGBTQ+ group reveals national effort to “eliminate” queer people from public life Bans on drag and gender-affirming care are just the start… “While most anti-transgender healthcare bills in recent years focus on minors, anti-LGBTQ forces ultimately seek to ban all forms of transition-related care, regardless of age,” a recently released report by the Movement Advancement Project (MAP), an organization that tracks policies on LGBTQ+ issues and voting, stated. Get the Daily Brief The news you care about, reported on by the people who care about you: Subscribe to our Newsletter “They are pursuing this goal in a variety of ways,” the report added, “including: defining ‘minor’ to include at least some adults; by banning state funds from covering this medical care (e.g., in Medicaid, state employee health plans, and for those in incarceration); explicitly allowing private insurers to refuse to cover this care; and more.” They're going to ban care for trans adults too. It was never about protecting kids. https://t.co/aqXjDEfhj4— Alejandra Caraballo (@Esqueer_) September 28, 2023 Three in 10 bills introduced in state legislatures during 2023 sought to ban or restrict medical care for both transgender children and at least some transgender adults, MAP noted. This included bills re-defining a “minor” as including adults up to ages 19, 21, or 26. One in seven bills included provisions that either banned private insurers from covering transition-related medical care, or explicitly allowed them to refuse coverage for such care, regardless of age. At least nine states explicitly ban Medicaid coverage of trans-related health care, regardless of age. Medicaid is a state health insurance program for low-income individuals. These states include Arizona, Florida, Kentucky, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. “These provisions knowingly and intentionally seek to cut off access to this medically necessary care,” MAP wrote. “Without insurance coverage, most forms of health care, including transgender-related health care, are unaffordable to the average person. This is especially true for transgender people, who experience far higher rates of poverty and employment insecurity due to discrimination.” Movement Advancement Project A graph showing the increase in legislation targeting gender-affirming care for transgender adults Various right-wing politicians have described trans identity as a “delusion” and a “mental illness.” Far-right Daily Wire host Michael Knowles called for eradicating “transgenderism” during this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference. Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy and House Republicans have expressed opposition to making bathrooms, workplaces, and the military more inclusive of trans adults. Other state legislation has also sought to erase trans adults from public life by increasing the difficulty of obtaining accurate identity documents that accurately reflect trans adults’ correct gender identity, banning trans people from using public bathrooms matching their gender identity, and rolling back other existing nondiscrimination protections for transgender people through new or expanded religious exemptions, MAP noted. http://dlvr.it/SwkjSb

1 note · View note

dontmeantobepoliticalbut · 3 years

Text

In late March, before Arkansas lawmakers officially blocked minors from obtaining gender-affirming medical care, Willow Breshears, an 18-year-old trans woman in Little Rock, spoke of her fears to a local news outlet: “The people who are legislating [against] these trans kids have no grasp of what a trans experience is.”

Most in the medical community would agree with her.

As similar bills are introduced and debated across the country, transgender children and their families have gone public to explain that treatments like puberty-blocking hormones and gender-affirming hormone therapy are medically necessary and potentially lifesaving. But they’re not the only ones speaking out. Every major medical association in the United States — including the American Medical Association, the Endocrine Society, the Pediatric Endocrine Society, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry — has issued statements supporting gender-affirming care for youth that have met specific diagnostic criteria (the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, for example, says adolescents are only eligible for puberty blockers if they’ve demonstrated “a long-lasting and intense pattern of gender nonconformity or gender dysphoria,” have the ability to understand the benefits and risks of the medication, and have parental consent). Many of the same groups have issued explicit statements opposing the bills or testified against them in state hearings.

Yet while opposition in the medical field has been overwhelming, it has not been unanimous. A small number of highly controversial doctors and researchers have been pushing these anti-trans bills. Representing organizations with seemingly professional names like the American College of Pediatricians or the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine, they have effectively accomplished for gender dysphoria what anti-vaxxer medical professionals have sought to do for their cause: give credence to the notion that no scientific or medical consensus exists regarding the relative safety and efficacy of a given treatment, despite the clear and growing evidence to the contrary.

“The policy debates about banning gender-affirming medical care have been really hard to watch because every major medical organization is opposed to these bills,” said Jack Turban, a fellow in child and adolescent psychiatry at Stanford University School of Medicine who focuses on transgender youth. With no support from the mainstream medical community, conservative legislators have gone and found “this handful of people who have ‘MD’ after their name” but lack the research, experience, and evidence to back their claims, he said.

“Proponents of these bills claim that they are advocating in the interests of transgender children, which is actually ludicrous,” said Hannah Willard, the vice president of government affairs at Freedom for All Americans, a bipartisan group pushing for protections against LGTBQ discrimination nationwide. “These fringe extremists are trying to push a narrative that transgender people need saving from the medical experts.”

The last few years have brought an onslaught of anti-trans legislation; most recently, these proposed laws are attempting to ban trans children from playing in sports leagues that match their gender identity. One wave of legislation, which peaked in 2017 and 2018, aimed to limit trans kids’ ability to use the bathroom or locker room that corresponds to their gender identity. But last year, perhaps prompted by sensationalist and inaccurate right-wing media coverage of a Texas custody case involving parents who disagreed over treatments for their trans child, a new set of bills began appearing in legislatures across the country aimed at prohibiting or even criminalizing giving puberty blockers and gender-affirming hormones to minors. In the 2019–2020 legislative year, at least 15 states introduced bills prohibiting healthcare for trans youth. This year, at least 13 states have introduced similar bills. Arkansas is the first state to ban gender-affirming healthcare. On Monday, a committee in the Texas Senate heard testimony on a bill that would make it a felony for parents to provide their children with puberty blockers, hormones, or other gender-affirming care.

At least on the surface, proponents of these bills have framed their need in medical terms. The Arkansas bill, for example, makes a host of pseudoscientific claims: that the majority of gender-nonconforming children “come to identify with their biological sex in adolescence or adulthood,” that puberty blockers are being prescribed “despite the lack of any long-term longitudinal studies evaluating the risks and benefits of using these drugs,” and that “the risks of gender transition procedures far outweigh any benefit.”

But these assertions are either misleading or verifiably false, according to experts in the field. Studies have consistently shown that providing gender-affirming care to gender-diverse children — which includes allowing them to socially transition and access puberty blockers and gender-affirming hormones — is correlated with lower rates of suicide and mental illness. Studies have also shown that children who aren’t supported, such as those who undergo therapy with the aim of eliminating their trans identity, have worse health outcomes and are more likely to have thoughts of suicide.

Proponents of the anti-trans healthcare bills often distort the findings of these studies, experts told BuzzFeed News. Kristina Olson, a professor of psychology at Princeton University who in 2018 received a MacArthur grant to study the social and cognitive development of trans and gender-nonconforming youth, said the claim that children eventually identify with their birth gender as they enter adulthood is a misinterpretation of an outdated study, as other scientists have explained elsewhere.

More recently, critics of gender-affirming care have promoted a widely criticized and methodologically flawed study that appeared to indicate that gender dysphoria was being spread through social circles. In reality, this misconception was from parents of gender-nonconforming children.

Heron Greenesmith, a senior analyst at Political Research Associates, a progressive think tank dedicated to studying the American right, told BuzzFeed News that the widely accepted studies into best practices for trans youth have been undermined by a few physicians and mental health providers who espouse right-wing or explicitly anti-LGBTQ views. “People tend not to question folks with a medical degree,” Greenesmith said.

Brennan Suen, the LGBTQ program director at Media Matters for America who has tracked the anti-trans legislation and its media coverage, said “the anti-LGBT right” goes to great lengths to highlight the few medical professionals who agree with them because they give a “veneer of credibility” to the supposed dangers posed by gender-affirming treatment.

One organization has played an especially significant role in boosting the claims behind the bill, including by talking with lawmakers and submitting expert testimony during legislative hearings. According to Willard with Freedom for All Americans, the American College of Pediatricians has helped shape the debate in “nearly every state legislature pushing these bills,” including Georgia, where the first anti-trans healthcare bill was introduced, as well as Pennsylvania, Alabama, and Utah. ACP has also supported the federal bill that Republicans recently introduced into Congress. Quentin Van Meter, the ACP president, is the "foremost person being cited by anti-trans advocates,” Greenesmith said.

Turban, the Stanford researcher, has described ACP as a “small but clever anti-LGBT group [that] created a legit-sounding name.” He told BuzzFeed News that ACP is not the country’s leading organization for US pediatricians; that group is known as the American Academy of Pediatrics. In 2002, the AAP issued a statement in support of parents of the same sex, prompting a small number of socially conservative physicians to leave the group and found ACP. Since then, ACP has issued many controversial anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQ statements. It is currently designated as an anti-LGBTQ hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Newer groups are also playing a role, including the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine. Last year, SEGM was cited in an Idaho bill barring trans people from changing the sex on their birth certificate. A federal court has since struck down the law. (In an email, a SEGM spokesperson said they never expressed support for the Idaho bill and that they “object to the politicization of healthcare.”) SEGM member William Malone told a Christian news site in 2019: "No child is born in the wrong body, but for a variety of reasons some children and adolescents become convinced that they were."

Media coverage has also confused matters. After initially gaining traction in the right-wing press, ACP is now routinely quoted in prominent news outlets. “We are basically being blackmailed (into providing hormone treatments) by that adolescent who’s emotionally troubled into doing something that they don’t understand,” Van Meter told Reuters last month in an article about the Arkansas law. Although the article notes that ACP belongs to a “minority of dissenters” within the medical community, it mentions neither the organization’s history of promoting anti-LGBTQ claims nor its certification by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group. “It is completely irresponsible for the media to cite an extreme anti-LGBTQ group with an innocuous-sounding name like American College of Pediatricians,” said Brianna January, an LGBTQ researcher at Media Matters for America. “Placing its dangerous disinformation next to credible sources makes it falsely appear that this is a debatable topic, skewing how the public and policymakers understand the issue."

In statements to BuzzFeed News, both ACP and SEGM denied that they were promoting misinformation. Michelle Cretella, ACP’s executive director, called pediatric transition “an atrocity, not healthcare” and said that “society is being lied to and bullied by a medical establishment driven by a dangerous ideology and economic opportunity, not science and sound medical ethics.”

SEGM member Roberto D’Angelo said the group was concerned with the “low quality of evidence” in gender-affirming treatment. “The key issue under consideration is how to weigh the low-certainty findings of improvements in mental health associated with medical interventions against the many known and many more as-yet-unknown long-term health risks,” he said.

Opponents, including members of ACP and SEGM, have called for “hypothesis-driven randomized controlled clinical trials” to evaluate care models for treating gender dysphoria in children, but those techniques aren’t realistic or ethical, said Turban. Given the existing evidence for providing trans youth with gender-affirming care, and the fact that it’s already widely accepted in the medical field, no institutional review board would permit a randomized trial of puberty blockers or gender-affirming hormones, he said. Moreover, the study could never remain blind, since the effects of being given the medication would be impossible to hide.

Given the statements from every major medical association in the country, there is a clear and inarguable consensus supporting gender-affirming care. But that doesn’t mean these treatments carry no risk, Turban said. Regardless of the population or the medical issue at play, physicians are trained to weigh a treatment’s potential benefits against its risks. The same is true in caring for trans youth.

Medical providers and researchers still want more data to better understand various treatments, despite an established consensus. “We all agree that we need more data and that we wish there was more research,” said Olson, the Princeton researcher. But providers should still use the existing body of data to determine the best treatment for a trans child, she said: “I think it’s an unfair bar that we’ve created for trans healthcare.”

But for now, all eyes are focused on the legislation being pushed in states across the country. And the fear in the trans community is very real.

Casey Pick, a senior fellow for advocacy and government affairs at the Trevor Project, which operates a crisis intervention and suicide prevention helpline for LGBTQ youth, said their counselors have reported trans children and their families calling to ask what these bills are and when they’ll go into effect. Callers are distressed that the legislation will prevent them from getting the care they need, Pick said.

“This should not be treated as a philosophical debate,” she said. “This is a real concrete concern to real, actual LGBT youth.”

197 notes · View notes

bountyofbeads · 5 years

Text

The New Stephen Miller

In Ken Cuccinelli, President Trump’s biggest immigration hard-liner has found the consummate ideological ally.

When President Donald Trump’s administration on Monday rolled out its so-called public-charge rule, which would allow the government to deny permanent residence to legal immigrants receiving public assistance, whispers of Stephen Miller were immediate.

Miller, the 33-year-old Trump adviser, has created many of the White House’s most controversial immigration policies over the past two and half years, and sure enough, when Acting Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Ken Cuccinelli announced the plan, which is scheduled to take effect in 60 days, reports detailing Miller’s handiwork were not far behind. It was as though Cuccinelli, in briefing journalists on the rule, had served as little more than a suited vessel for Miller’s worldview. But to shift focus away from Cuccinelli is to ignore the very real convictions he brings to bear in this administration.

A former senior White House official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to be frank, told me that one of the chief challenges in staffing this administration has been finding people whose fervor for hard-line immigration policies matches that of the president, and whose résumé includes even one line of government experience. Miller has thus found himself on an island at times in his attempt to execute his more extreme visions for the nation’s immigration system. (A screaming match on the topic of, say, the proposed Mexican border wall is not unusual, said the source, who was party to one such exchange.)

Enter Cuccinelli. The former Virginia attorney general joined the Trump administration in late May. His background includes trying to eliminate birthright citizenship, questioning whether Barack Obama was born in the United States, and proposing to make speaking Spanish on the job a fireable offense. Accordingly, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell advised the president against nominating Cuccinelli to any post that required Senate confirmation. To some, Cuccinelli’s arrival meant that Miller had, at long last, found the consummate ideological ally. (A representative for Cuccinelli declined my request for a phone interview with the director.)

Cuccinelli may well have been created in a Trump-branded petri dish. He’s spent decades advocating for far-right positions on a variety of social issues, and the 50-year-old practicing Catholic enjoys widespread support among conservative evangelicals. Cuccinelli used his 2013 loss to Terry McAuliffe in the Virginia gubernatorial race to reinvent himself as a conservative pundit, and for the past few years has offered a reliably pro-Trump perspective across cable networks (a bonus for anyone seeking this president’s favor). As someone who built much of his popularity on polarizing immigration policies and incendiary rhetoric, Cuccinelli was as natural a choice as any for an administration hoping to make progress on the president’s signature issue ahead of the 2020 election.

This week, Cuccinelli has gone on a media blitz of sorts to defend the administration’s crackdown on legal immigration. The new public-charge rule specifically allows the government to deny permanent residency to legal immigrants it deems a financial burden, based on an individual’s current or likely reliance on programs such as food stamps or Medicaid. In an interview with NPR yesterday, Cuccinelli went so far as to suggest a rewrite of the Emma Lazarus poem inscribed on the base of the Statue of Liberty. “Would you also agree that … ‘Give me your tired, your poor’ are also part of the American ethos?” the host Rachel Martin asked Cuccinelli. “They certainly are,” he replied. “Give me your tired and your poor who can stand on their own two feet, and who will not become a public charge.”

Cuccinelli began his career as a state senator in Virginia, where he served from 2002 to 2010. In 2008, he introduced legislation that would have allowed employers to fire those who didn’t speak English in the workplace. Under his plan, those fired would have subsequently been ineligible for unemployment benefits. At the time, state Senate Majority Leader Richard Saslaw called it “the most mean-spirited piece of legislation I have seen in my 30 years down here.”

In 2009, Cuccinelli ran a successful campaign for Virginia attorney general, serving under Governor Bob McDonnell. Much of the controversy surrounding Cuccinelli’s four-year tenure touched on health care—he was the nation’s first attorney general to file a lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act—and LGBTQ rights, including his defense of a state law prohibiting sodomy, which was struck down in 2013, and his attempt to remove sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes within state universities’ nondiscrimination policies.

Cuccinelli was just as active on the issue of immigration. In 2010, he issued an opinion that authorized law-enforcement officers to check the immigration status of anyone they stopped for any reason, a move that followed a similar practice in Arizona. That same year, he said it didn’t “seem beyond the realm of possibility” that Obama was born in Kenya—a statement he later walked back.

All of which was enough to splinter support across the Republican Party when he decided to run for governor in 2013. As The Washington Post’s Marc Fisher noted in the spring, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which was a major backer of McDonnell, refused to give Cuccinelli a dime toward his campaign. After then–Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling withdrew from the race, he also declined to back Cuccinelli, arguing that it was crucial for the party to “reconnect with a more diverse voter base.” Cuccinelli, upon winning the GOP nomination, lost the general election to McAuliffe by two and a half percentage points.

Cuccinelli continued to remain active in the party. He advised Ted Cruz’s campaign in the 2016 presidential race. He went so far as to lead the senator from Texas’s effort to unbind delegates ahead of the party’s convention, and yelled “Shame! Shame!” on the floor to protest Trump’s nomination. But like so many other anti-Trump Republicans, Cuccinelli quickly fell in line, and has spent much of the past two and a half years praising the president.

The public-charge rule is in many ways the result of this administration’s inability to enact its desired “merit-based” immigration laws through Congress. With Trump’s first term nearing its conclusion and Congress impossibly gridlocked, many more such crackdowns on immigration—both legal and illegal—are likely to originate in the executive branch. If the latest rollout is any indication, it could be that Cuccinelli, as much as Miller or anyone else, is eager to bring those ideas to life.

Trump’s White Identity Politics Appeals to Two Different Groups

The president’s overt racism now risks fragmenting his coalition.

David A. Graham | Published August 8, 2019 | The Atlantic | Posted August 18, 2019 11:45 AM ET |

Over the past month, President Donald Trump has embarked on a concerted push to place race at the heart of the 2020 election, first by saying that a group of four progressive congresswomen of color should “go back [to] the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came” and then with a sustained campaign against Representative Elijah Cummings, an African American Democrat. Trump has been using race as a political wedge for nearly a decade, dating back to his campaign against an Islamic community center in lower Manhattan; these moves are, as I have argued, a more explicit version of that long-standing strategy.

Commentators seeking to contextualize this political strategy have sometimes labeled it “white identity politics,” a phrase that mirrors the label (often pejorative) given to politicians who have emphasized race and gender issues. Calling it “white identity politics” also emphasizes the way in which whiteness, though commonly treated as a default or an absence of race, is very much an identity of its own.

But simply labeling Trump’s strategy as white identity politics doesn’t differentiate it from other race-based approaches to politics, much less explain why it works, what its limitations might be, or to whom it appeals.

These are all questions that the political scientist Ashley Jardina explores in a book published earlier this year, aptly titled White Identity Politics. (She is a professor at Duke, where I sometimes teach journalism.) Jardina’s research finds that it isn’t just pundits and political scientists who have zeroed in on whiteness as an affirmative political identity: Many white Americans are identifying themselves with their racial group as well. That’s a departure from recent years, though it has likely happened at other times in American history as well, and it has important political ramifications. White identity was an important predictor of voting for Trump.

But Jardina finds some surprising things about white identity politics. For one thing, there seems to be a real psychological divide between whites who hold animus to other racial groups and those who show little sign of typical racial prejudice but are concerned about protecting their own group—though in practice, they often end up supporting politicians and policies that do hurt minority groups, as with Trump. Meanwhile, despite common oversimplifications about who these voters are, Jardina finds little evidence to suggest they are largely members of an economically fragile working class.

Trump’s political success has been built in part on his ability to appeal to both whites who are prejudiced and those who are not, using the same policy ideas. But moves like his attacks on the “squad” or Cummings test the outer limits of this two-pronged strategy, threatening to turn off whites who don’t think of themselves as prejudiced. There’s been a 10-percentage-point drop in white identifiers—whites who indicated their racial identity is really important to them—since the 2016 election. Trump’s recent moves toward cutting budgets for entitlement programs popular among white identifiers also risk alienating the voters who helped put him in office. Jardina walked me through her research, and discussed how her findings might apply to the president’s recent racist outbursts. This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity and concision.

David A. Graham: I see a growing number of people using the phrase white identity politics, sometimes to mean different things. What do you mean when you refer to white identity politics?

Ashley Jardina: The term refers to the psychological attachment to their racial group that many whites in the United States possess. Whites with a racial identity feel a sense of racial solidarity with their group and see whites as having similar interests. White identity politics refers to the way in which this sense of racial solidarity influences whites’ view of the political world. Generally what that looks like is whites with a sense of racial identity prefer political candidates and policies that protect their group’s interests. In the U.S., protecting these interests often means attempting to preserve privileges and advantages that whites, on average, have relative to other racial and ethnic groups.

Graham: Is this a recent phenomenon?

Jardina: I think of it as an episodic phenomenon. Until recently, it might seem like we haven’t seen white identity influencing whites’ political preferences in any serious way. But if we had historical political polling data, we might. For example, it isn’t hard to imagine that the white backlash to the civil-rights movement was not just about racial animus, but also about whites feeling like their political power was going to shift markedly as African Americans achieved more political rights and opportunities. Another moment white identity politics was likely at play was in the U.S. in the 1920s, just before the passage of the 1924 Immigration Act. Coming on the heels of a large influx of immigrants from eastern and southern Europe, many Americans were worried about the changing racial composition of the United States. If you read the Congressional Record at the time, politicians were having very similar conversations to the ones we’re having today. They expressed opinions about what the racial composition of the country should look like and considered from where we should limit immigration. Most of these conversations were about maintaining the image of the U.S. as a “white” nation. Members of Congress even talked about preserving the “Nordic stock” of the nation.

My argument is that the reason white identity politics matters today in a way it didn’t matter in the 1980s or 1990s or even 2000s is because of a confluence of things happening in the political and social environment. The country is changing demographically because of immigration that took place in the 1990s and early 2000s, and because of differences in birth rates across racial and ethnic groups. The U.S. is becoming far more racially and ethnically diverse at a rapid pace, and perhaps most symbolic of these changes was the election of Barack Obama, the nation’s first black president. These are all factors in the political environment that some whites, I argue, are interpreting as a threat to their group’s power and their status.

Graham: You draw some conclusions about what the typical white identifier looks like. Can you sketch that?

Jardina: It’s not who you might expect. I think the term white identity politics often conjures up this image of a working-class white man who maybe lost his manufacturing job and feels he’s being left behind. There’s not a lot of evidence that such a person is the typical white identifier. People high on white identity tend to be older and without college degrees. Women are actually slightly more likely to identify as white than men. And white identifiers are not exclusively found among those in the working class. White identifiers have similar incomes, are no less likely to be unemployed, and are just as likely to own their own home as whites who do not have a strong sense of racial identity.

Graham: There’s an idea in circulation that white identity politics is driven less by poverty than by a sense of fragility—a sense that one’s economic status is endangered. Is there evidence for that?

Jardina: I find very little evidence that a sense of economic vulnerability leads whites to adopt a racial identity. I asked people whether they think their families are better or worse off than they were a few years ago and find that their answers to this question are not at all predictive of whether they identify as white. I also looked to see whether people who were worried about losing their job might be more likely to identify as white, and I don’t find a relationship there, either. There really isn’t a strong relationship between subjective or objective economic circumstances and the propensity to adopt this identity.

In addition to whether or not someone went to college, I find that higher levels of white identity tend to be associated with certain personality traits. Whites who are more authoritarian or who score higher on this metric we call social-dominance orientation—a psychological predisposition that leads individuals to prefer hierarchy, or to believe that society should be organized hierarchically—these are the white people more inclined to identify with their racial group.

Graham: You say about 38 percent of whites score high on racial identity but low on racial resentment. What does that look like in practice?

Jardina: This is a really important distinction for a number of reasons. When social scientists think about how people act as groups in society, we make this distinction between the negative attitudes that people hold toward out-group members and the attitudes people have toward members of their in-groups. Traditionally, we have often focused on the negative out-group attitudes that white people have toward people of color. We call these attitudes racial prejudice.

White identity is an in-group attitude. There isn’t necessarily a strong relationship between feeling favorable toward one’s own racial group and strongly disliking members of other racial groups. Many white identifiers aren’t especially racially prejudiced in the classical sense. Nevertheless, they do want to do things that benefit their group, and while they’re not necessarily motivated to do so at the expense of other racial or ethnic groups, it turns out that the policies and candidates white identifiers support in the name of their group’s interests can hurt other groups. In a world in which whites have a disproportionate share of power and resources, having a preference for protecting your group inherently preserves a system of racism and racial inequality.

This distinction between whites who have a sense of racial identity and whites who are racially prejudiced matters a lot for today’s politics. Many of Trump’s racist or racially charged remarks likely appeal to two distinct sets of white voters. Take a recent example, when Trump told several members of Congress to “go back to your countries.” We might think that this remark, which is racist because it suggests that these women of color are not truly American, would only seem acceptable to the most racist of whites. But this sentiment might also appeal to white identifiers who look around a more racially and ethnically diverse nation and worry that they are no longer seen as prototypical members of the United States.

Graham: I suspect a lot of people will view this skeptically: Is there really a difference here? The example that persuaded me in your book concerned “racialized” programs like welfare and Medicaid.

Jardina: I find that white identity isn’t at all associated with views on a lot of policies that we know traditionally are overwhelmingly associated with racial prejudice. People with high levels of racial animus are far less supportive of welfare and Medicaid, social-welfare policies that have been associated with erroneous and disparaging stereotypes about African Americans. White identity is unrelated to attitudes on these policies. Whites with high levels of identity are not any more supportive of reductions to these policies than whites with no sense of racial identity. There are some social-welfare policies that I and other scholars have argued are traditionally associated with whiteness or with disproportionately benefiting white people: Social Security, Medicare. These are especially popular among white identifiers.

The distinction between white identity and white racial prejudice also matters when we think about political mobilization. We know that both white identity and racial prejudice were powerful predictors of Trump support. Whites high on racial prejudice and whites high on white identity were both likely to vote for Trump. Trump was an unconventional Republican candidate, in that he parted ways with the traditional GOP party platform: He promised to protect Social Security and Medicare, a campaign promise that appealed distinctly to white identifiers.

But Trump was very strategic and very much set out to attract both the racially prejudiced whites and whites who were high on a sense of identity. For instance, Trump has basically hammered over and over again the issue of immigration—an issue very important to whites who feel a sense of prejudice toward Latinos and to whites who are worried about the loss of their race’s numerical majority in the country. All Trump has to do is say, “I’m going to restrict immigration; I’m going to build a border wall.” This message appeals to both types of white people but for different reasons.

Graham: When Trump adopts these racist attacks, does he risk turning off white identifiers who aren’t high on racial animus?

Jardina: It’s a little complicated. What we do know is that when Trump associates himself with extremist groups or white supremacists, many white identifiers are turned off. It’s a little more complicated when you’re talking about remarks that apparently to some white Americans are more ambiguous in terms of whether they’re seen as racist, like “Send her back.”

There may have been a period in American politics where, when politicians made racist or racialized comments, the public would recoil. One of the things I’ve found in my research is that accusations of racism have become politically ineffective. People often see them as “crying wolf.” Think about the “Go back to where you came from” controversy. In reaction to Trump’s racist remarks, Democrats were outraged and called Trump racist. Republicans simply responded by saying, You just want to make everything about race. You just want to play the race card.

Trump does this all the time. He makes racist remarks and then denies that his remarks were racist. It allows Republicans to completely spin the narrative. After the “Send her back” controversy, a lot of the conservative talking points drew attention away from the “Send her back” language. The narrative became that “these four members of Congress were complaining about America so Trump told them to leave.”

Graham: It’s reframing them as classic “Love it or leave it” rhetoric.

Jardina: Right. But there is some evidence that despite his efforts, Trump has turned away some of his initial supporters. I’ve found that after the 2016 election, there was a 10-percentage-point drop in the number of white people who identify as white. I’m working on a study now with some colleagues that tries to understand why we’ve seen this drop. What we’ve found thus far is that the drop has largely been motivated by dislike or disgust toward Donald Trump. There’s also some evidence that Trump is partly responsible for a reduction in levels of racial prejudice among some whites. Since Trump’s election, white Republicans have not become less racially prejudiced, but white Democrats have.

Both these changes are really interesting and surprising, because social scientists often think of these racial identities and racial attitudes as really stable dispositions—ones that people adopt early in their lives. They don’t tend to shift, even when things are going on in the political environment. The fact that Trump is, in part, causing these shifts is really surprising.

Graham: At the same time, we see Trump talking about cutting budgets in the second term, and his most recent budget cuts entitlements. Is that likely to hurt him with white identifiers?

Jardina: Yes, and it’s an opportunity for Democrats to win over these white identifiers, since Democratic candidates tend to be more supportive of protecting these programs than Republicans. But Trump can always play the immigration card. He can talk about cutting these programs and then distract by turning the public’s attention back to immigration and talking about an immigration crisis.

He’s done this before. Think about Trump’s strategy leading up to the midterm elections. Suddenly, we have a caravan of migrants coming to storm the border. The midterm elections happen, and suddenly, no caravan. It’s a very effective strategy, because many people are concerned about immigration, and it is an issue that is especially important to white Republicans, both those who are high on white prejudice and high on white identity.

Graham: Yeah, but the midterm elections were awful for Republicans. Are you saying the results might have been worse if not for that rhetoric?

Jardina: One thing we need to think about is the difference between changing voters’ attitudes and mobilizing voters. Is Trump’s racist rhetoric actually mobilizing white liberals and mobilizing people of color in response? It’s clear his rhetoric isn’t doing much to turn away Republicans. After his “Send her back” remarks, Trump’s approval ratings actually went up with Republicans. So when we think about the results of the midterms, or look toward 2020, the big question, I think, isn’t whether Trump’s racist messaging is going to alienate his supporters. It’s whether whites and people of color are appalled enough by Trump’s racism to show up to the polls and vote.

#president trump #trumpsucks #trump news #president donald trump #trump administration #trumpism #trump scandals #u.s. immigration and customs enforcement #immigration reform #immigration #immigrants #u.s. news #u.s. government #us politics #politics #politics and government #u.s. politics

0 notes

thisdaynews · 5 years

Text

Warren takes on Harris and Biden in battle for black support

New Post has been published on https://thebiafrastar.com/warren-takes-on-harris-and-biden-in-battle-for-black-support/

Warren takes on Harris and Biden in battle for black support

Polls so far tend to show Sen. Elizabeth Warren is doing better with white voters than black voters. | Amr Alfiky/AP Photo

2020 elections

The Massachusetts senator is making an aggressive play for African American support — and the outcome could well determine whether she’s the nominee.

CHICAGO — Elizabeth Warren was on a roll.

The 2020 hopeful stood onstage at the Apostolic Faith Church last weekend and delivered a policy sermon of sorts, interspersing calls to shutter private prisons and forgive student loan debt with stories from scripture. The mostly African American crowd spurred her along with shouts of “yes” and “that’s right!” — and, unlike Amy Klobuchar and Tulsi Gabbard before, Warren got a standing ovation. When musicians started playing to signal Warren that her time was up, the Rev. Jesse Jackson waved them off so she could keep going for 10 more minutes.

Story Continued Below

“I am in this fight because I am not afraid. I know our fight is a righteous fight,” Warren said.

The enthusiastic reception at Jackson’s Rainbow PUSH Coalition convention was a small but public validation of a yearslong effort by the Massachusetts senator to make inroads with African American voters. Facing an uphill battle against rivals with deep ties to the black community — namely former Vice President Joe Biden and Sens. Kamala Harris and Cory Booker of New Jersey — Warren has moved aggressively to win over a constituency that could well determine the nominee.

Her plan, described by a half-dozen black activists and movement leaders who’ve been contacted by Warren personally as well as her own campaign aides, is a mix of one-on-one outreach to black political leaders when no one’s watching, and a deliberate focus on racial justice woven throughout her policy proposals. Above all, Warren is determined to outwork her opponents and to demonstrate to skeptical African American voters that she will fight for them in the White House.

“For grassroots activists especially, to get a personal call, it’s a rare thing to happen but when it does people take note,” said the Rev. Leah Daughtry, a Democratic political strategist who co-authored the book “For Colored Girls Who Have Considered Politics.”“The personal outreach is really remarkable in my opinion, and it’s a testament not just to her but to the team she’s built really pointing her in the right direction.”

It’s unclear whether it will be enough. Warren’s relatively weak standing among black voters is one of the biggest questions hanging over her candidacy. It’s almost impossible to win the nomination without significant black support, especially in the South. In 2016, it was Bernie Sanders’ undoing even as he gained traction with young black voters.

Polls so far tend to show Warren doing better with white voters than black voters. Three national surveys this week showed her trailing Biden and Harris among black voters by double digits. Washington Post-ABC News and Quinnipiac had Warren at 4 percent among African Americans, while CNN pegged her support at 12 percent. At some rallies in cities with large black populations — such as Chicago this past weekend or Memphis earlier this year — her crowds have been whiter than is representative.

There haven’t been many public polls of the important early primary state of South Carolina —where over 50 percent of the primary electorate in black — but a Post and Courier-Change Research poll conducted a few weeks before the first debate had Warren performing better than her national average with black voters. She had 14 percent, compared with 11 percent for Harris 52 percent for Biden.

Still, several activists and leaders in the black community said that Warren has been laying the groundwork herself to compete with Biden and Harris. Jackson, for one, dismissed the idea that the presence in the field of two African American candidates as well as the No. 2 to the first black president would doom Warren’s efforts to win favor among black voters.

“Jimmy Carter did it from Plains, Georgia. Bill Clinton did it from Hope, Arkansas. Blacks voting for whites isn’t new, whites voting for blacks is new,” Jackson said in an interview after Warren’s speech. “I watched people respond as she was quoting scripture and the ministers were saying ‘She’s coming down the line with it!’ And people began to stand up because wherever she has a platform she draws fire. I mean in a positive sense, she draws fire.”

Warren is also playing a quieter game behind the scenes to win over black leaders. She has barraged officials and activists with phone calls, text messages, and emails.

Sometimes Warren reaches out to offer support in political fights making headlines. Other times it’s more random. Nelini Stamp, the national organizing director for the Working Families Party, said Warren emailed her a few months ago out of the blue. The senator, Stamp said, was prompted by a tweet she’d written remarking on a campaign swing through the South that Warren was on.

“She’s been really reaching out to a lot of black movement leaders and individuals across the spectrum,” Stamp said, noting that the Working Families Party is in the midst of its endorsement process and has not picked a candidate. “She is making a concentrated personal effort.”

Nikema Williams, a Georgia state senator and chair of the Georgia Democratic Party, said Warren has reached out to her a number of times as well.

“There’s no pattern — she’s truly speaking to people engaged for the first time and people who’ve been in it forever,” Williams said. “She’s just doing a really good job at retail politics, people remember how you make them feel.”

As for policy, Warren’s flurry of proposals address race in ways that go beyond the standard box-checking of criminal justice reform and mass incarceration. Her student loan debt forgiveness plan includes a $50 billion fund for historically black colleges and universities and minority-serving institutions. When she announced her plan to eliminate the filibuster in order to advance progressive causes, Warren noted that for generations the supermajority rule “was used as a tool to block progress on racial justice.”And she framed her housing plan as a “first step to addressing the Black-White wealth gap.”

In her stump speech, Warren tries to connect the barriers minorities face to her broader message of combating economic inequality.

“Why is the American middle hollowing out?” Warren often says.“Why is it that people who work hard every day find a path so rocky and so steep, and for people of color even rockier and even steeper?”

Some black activists point to a speech Warren gave to the Edward Kennedy Institute in Boston in September 2015 as the moment when her outreach ramped up.

“None of us can ignore what is happening in this country. Not when our black friends, family, neighbors literally fear dying in the streets,” Warren said. “It comes to us to once again affirm that black lives matter, that black citizens matter, that black families matter.”

Aimee Allison, the founder of the She The People national network of women of color in politics, said Warren’s policy proposals show she’s been listening closely to leaders in the black community.

“I have said from the beginning — it could be a person of any race or gender who could be the leader of the new American majority,” she said. “What people of color care most about is the policies. They want to know what you are going to do and want there to be a sense of trust.”

#black #Foreign #Politics #support

0 notes

pashterlengkap · 2 months

Text

Texas Gov. gives curt 6-word reply to proposed U.N. investigation of state’s anti-LGBTQ+ laws

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) issued a curt six-word response to media reports of LGBTQ+ advocates asking the United Nations to investigate the “deteriorating human rights situation” for queer people in the state. “The UN can go pound sand,” Abbott wrote in a post on X published on Sunday. He signed at least seven anti-LGBTQ+ bills into law last year. State Republican lawmakers have introduced at least 141 pieces of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation during the most recent legislative term. Related: GOP lawmaker calls LGBTQ+ people “filth” He was asked about a nonbinary teen’s death and he responded by calling LGBTQ+ people “filth” that a “Christian state” should keep out. In late January, LGBTQ+ advocacy groups filed a petition with the U.N. claiming that the state of Texas has violated international human rights law with its passage of seven anti-LGBTQ+ laws last year. Stay connected to your community Connect with the issues and events that impact your community at home and beyond by subscribing to our daily newsletter. The letter of allegation – signed by GLAAD, the ACLU of Texas, Equality Texas, the Human Rights Campaign, and the University of Texas at Austin School of Law Human Rights Clinic – was submitted to 17 independent experts, working groups, and special rapporteurs at the U.N. The letter described the actions taken by state officials last year that were hostile to the human rights of LGBTQ+ people. “In 2023, the Texas Legislature targeted the LGBTQIA+ community through hostile laws that have disrupted (or will disrupt) the ability of LGBTQIA+ persons to effectuate their rights,” the letter stated. “Taken individually, the seven pieces of legislation discussed in this submission will disrupt the lives of LGBTQIA+ people of various ages and backgrounds. Put together, the Bills are a systemic attack on the fundamental rights, dignities, and identities of LGBTQIA+ persons that opens the gates for discrimination by both public and private actors.” “Considering the danger this represents, we humbly ask for you to make inquiries into this backsliding of human rights of LGBTQIA+ persons in the state of Texas, United States of America. Furthermore, the United States federal government has failed to adopt necessary and adequate measures to prevent these abuses. While some federal courts have placed injunctions on some of the Bills, the federal government has not adopted a proper response to the systemic attack on LGBTQIA+ persons living in the state of Texas,” the letter added. The UN can go pound sand. https://t.co/JpWguPHGHJ— Greg Abbott (@GregAbbott_TX) February 25, 2024 The letter drew attention to S.B. 14, which was signed by Abbott in June 2023, a bill that bans gender-affirming care for transgender minors and requires those already transitioning in the state to detransition. A federal court issued an injunction against the law. The letter also pointed to S.B. 17, passed last year, which banned diversity programs at public universities and precludes references to gender identity and sexual orientation – as well as other identities – during staff training. The law has been used to eliminate LGBTQ+ spaces at public universities and, the letter said, to eliminate HIV testing programs. Texas’s S.B. 15, signed in June 2023, banned transgender students from participating in school sports, and it’s also mentioned in the letter. The letter also mentions the state’s drag ban, S.B. 12; a bill allowing public schools to hire religious chaplains, S.B. 763; H.B. 900, a ban on “sexually explicit” materials in school libraries that is so vague critics say it can be used to ban any book mentioning sexuality at all, including the Bible; and H.B. 2127, which bans local governments from providing anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ people that go beyond what state law already says. The letter asked the U.N. to investigate each of the bills and to ask Texas officials how… http://dlvr.it/T3HlrB

0 notes

supersweetstrawberrystuden-blog1 · 7 years

Text

Organizing A on Line Casino Night To Fundraise For Charity

If the team is in the direct and stays in the minority following the elimination of 1 participant about 75 minutes, then it is the right time to try to wager on complete less as a winning group, as is typical in such situations, will go on the defensive. In this situation, the probability is fairly low rating, the game comes to an end (82%twenty five of the match ending). Online and offline judi bola perform is extremely comparable; taking part in on-line is generally cheaper as there is no journey time, no gasoline and no resort bills to contend with. The bets however are the same. So as you is in a situation to see sports betting and gambling can definitely be a good kind of enjoyment to the individuals who participate in this kind of actions. It is also a good way for people to create money and lose money. Because gambling was initial produced a massive selection of individuals have made vast fortunes and there have also been website guests to shed everything they experienced. The main reason individuals are so entertained by it and fairly frequently invest a tons of time performing it can be as an end result of money they could win. Here I will be heading to demonstrate you how you can make much more income on sports betting. Awareness. The primary drag of the metropolis is the location to be during the celebration. It is active, thrilling and filled with individuals of each kind from all more than the country and the world. Cultures come with each other in one big party. But Roulette Gambling - Four participant suggestions They Don't Want You To Know believe in everyone by your own requirements. A wrong word can begin a battle just because of gang colors, territory or even gender. Be good, be pleasant and be careful of the motives of others about you. The only thing that you need to realize first of all is usually that with SBOBET, you stand a great possible for earning money from sporting occasions. You can find varieties of sporting engagements that you can consider into consideration and bet on. It is a extremely reliable way to get to generate cash as a result all. Everything you have to do is to produce a sensible option in your wager. This will make certain that you have the edge which you so much required in customers. It is the type of edge that lots of individuals are playing and have had the oppertunity to produce great achievements and advancements within their life. Finally, we can learn from Matusow a most beneficial lesson, being that enthusiasm will prevail. It is passion that wins POKER tournaments. And, enthusiasm that wins in life. You see, via Matusow's lifestyle, we have affirmation that when against all odds, we have within ourselves the strength and spirit to attain the not possible. It's common understanding that almost all men love sports. The actual activity may differ but the passion for sports activities within men is at a typical level. Why not gather up the guys and capture a professional sports activities game? This action is fun with the men simply because it allows you to make a weekend out of it. Most professional sports teams are located in major cities. Prior to purchasing tickets to the game see what other attractions the metropolis has to offer. You may discover that the game was the minimum thrilling component of the trip!

0 notes

rightsinexile · 7 years

Text

Publications

“More than 65 million people have been forcibly displaced, and more than half of those are children. It is a time when solutions are urgently needed. Yet despite this humanitarian crisis, we have seen countries reacting with fear rather than leadership, criminalizing migration and detaining countless vulnerable people.” - Annual Report 2016. International Detention Coalition (IDC). 2016.

“Perhaps the most significant contribution of this book to the existing literature is its focus on the interrelationship between the different actors in asylum determination, and its analysis of synergies and interactions, which can lead not just to an improved dialogue, but to improved decision-making in asylum cases.” - Book Review: Assessment of Credibility by Judges in Asylum Cases in the EU, edited by Carolus Grütters, Elspeth Guild and Sebastiaan de Groot. Maria-Teresa Gil-Bazo. Common Market Law Review, vol. 53(6). Newcastle University. 2016.

“In general, a person is likely to face a real risk of persecution or serious harm from the state on the basis of their Baha’i faith and a grant of asylum will usually be appropriate.” - Country Policy and Information Note - Iran: Baha’i. UK Home Office. November 2016.

“While Christians continue to face societal discrimination and some violence, the number and severity of violent incidents targeting Copts and their property has decreased, although the government in some cases failed to adequately protect religious minorities.” - Country Policy and Information Note - Egypt: Christians. UK Home Office. November 2016.

“Decision makers must therefore consider whether the person – even though only practicing Falun Gong in their own home – would on return be at risk of such denunciation in their particular circumstances. […] In cases where it is found that a Falun Gong practitioner would only practice in private on return and not be at risk of denunciation, the reasons for such ‘discretion’ will need to be considered.” - Country Policy and Information Note - China: Falun Gong. UK Home Office. November 2016.

“In particular, where denationalization breaches relevant international law norms, then deprivation of nationality valid under domestic law may be ineffective to eliminate the designation of a State as ‘the country of his nationality’ in the application of article 1A(2).” - Deprivation of nationality, ‘the country of his nationality’ in Article 1A(2) of the Refugee Convention, and non-recognition in international law. Eric Fripp. International Journal of Refugee Law. October 2016.

“Whereas the environment in Uganda offers a good starting point for early solutions planning, in Kenya there is a need to identify opportunities within a restricted policy framework and develop strategies for increasing those opportunities through influencing policy change. In terms of global refugee hosting environments, Kenya is much more the norm.” - Early solutions planning. Regional Durable Solutions Secretariat (ReDSS) and International Rescue Committee. 2016.

“Analysis of the case law of the ECtHR reveals that the Court offers limited protection to applicants whose asylum claims relate to FGM/C. We conclude that the legal protection offered to actual or potential victims of FGM/C remains limited and a number of obstacles exist.” - Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting as a ground for asylum in Europe. Annemarie Middelburg and Alina Balta. International Journal of Refugee Law. October 2016.

“Were the Bhutanese refugees victims of South Asia’s geopolitics? The Bhutanese refugee crisis was the failure of South Asian countries to amicably resolve a domestic crisis leading to a gross human rights violation and adding to the refugee crisis of the 21st century.” - Global refugee crisis and South Asia’s geopolitics: The case of the Bhutanese refugees. Lopita Nath. Himalayan Research Papers Archive, vol 10(1). 2016.

“The difference this time is that the President of Sudan, Omar Al Bashir, declared a four month ceasefire on 17 June 2016. This unilateral ceasefire declaration is applicable to [Southern Kordofan] and [Blue Nile] (and Darfur) and all the incidents mentioned in this report constitute a breach of this ceasefire.” - Human Rights Update: July, August and September 2016. The Sudan Consortium and National Human Rights Monitors Organisation. 2016.

“[This article] asks whether Japan’s low recognition rate signifies a lack of compliance with norms of international refugee protection and, after concluding in the affirmative, why this might be the case.” - Japan and international refugee protection norms: Explaining non-compliance. Andrew Wolman. Asian and Pacific Migration Journal, vol. 24(4). October 2015.

“In November 2016, EU+ countries recorded 75,844 applications for international protection. This was [the] third consecutive month with [a] decrease in numbers of lodged applications and the lowest monthly total since May 2015.” - Latest Asylum Trends. European Asylum Support Office Newsletter. December 2016.

“Non-governmental organizations are susceptible to being exploited by the state authorities in charge who are shying away from responsibility for their own policies. The study describes in detail the trend towards outsourcing and privatization in facilities for the detention of migrants in the European Union and the impact on the migrant detainees themselves, as well as on politics and the society that we live in.” - Migrant detention in the European Union: A thriving business. Lydie Arbogast. Migreurop. July 2016.

“The article first explores how [Safe Country of Origin (SCO)] practices have developed in European law and practice since their inception, including the role of European courts in assessing their legality. This European experience is then contrasted with Canada’s short-lived experiment with its analogous Designated Country of Origin (DCO) system, which, in 2015, was deemed unconstitutional by the Federal Court of Canada.” - Safe country? Says who? Cathryn Costello. International Journal of Refugee Law. December 2016.

“After years of massive budget cuts in the traditional media sector, reporting from the ground has become a rare opportunity for many journalists. Yet media outlets do have the power to drive discussions, raise awareness and help amplify the political, humanitarian and fundraising calls to support people in need.” - Suffering in silence: The ten most under-reported humanitarian crises of 2016. CARE International. 2016.

“This article argues that states have always revised international law regarding displaced people to protect their own security interests and changing circumstances of displacement. The time is thus ripe for the creation of an additional instrument of international law to protect the 35 million displaced people who do not meet the definition of ‘refugee.’” - The curse of the nation-state: Refugees, migration, and security in international law. Jill I. Goldenziel. Arizona State Law Journal. July 2016.

“This paper seeks to develop a working definition of the externalization of migration controls and how such externalization of the border implicates the human rights of migrants, and asylum seekers in particular.” - The impact of externalization of migration controls on the rights of asylum seekers and other migrants. Bill Frelick, Ian M. Kysel, Jennifer Podkul. Journal on Migration and Human Security. 2016.

“[This article] discusses prospects for refugee protection in Indonesia, evaluating regional and national trends vis-à-vis irregular migrants, and concluding that, despite the development of a draft national law, refugees in Indonesia are unlikely to find durable solutions in the country in the near future.” - The status of asylum seekers and refugees in Indonesia. Nikolas Feith Tan. International Journal of Refugee Law. October 2016.

“UNHCR is, in a very real sense, the treaty body of the Refugee Convention. Its statutory protection mandate for refugees invests its Guidelines, the Executive Committee’s Conclusions, and the annual Notes on International Protection with an authority that all courts and decision makers, as well as governments, should recognize and acknowledge.” - UNHCR and courts: Amicus curiae … sed curia amica est? Geoff Gilbert. International Journal of Refugee Law. November 2016.

“It was noted that no government or UN agency will engage with Taiwan, however APRRN is well placed to engage and to conduct trainings. It was highlighted that the Taiwan Government would welcome such engagement […] Preliminary engagement has identified needs as: setting up a new RSD system and building capacity of government officials and civil society actors.” - 6th Asia Pacific Consultation on Refugee Rights Report. APRRN. 2016.

“Reviewing international and regional refugee law, the article analyzes the broader understanding of the notion of "refuge" and its complexity expressed in regional and national legal frameworks, taking account of lawyers, scholars and activists who criticize the narrow scope of the classical refugee definition from 1951 which has become distant from current refugee voices and struggles.” - New trends in migratory and refugee law in Brazil: The expanded refugee definition. Catherine Jane Tinker and Laura Madrid Sartoretto. Universidade de Santa Cruz do Sul. December 2016.

“The article deals with people claiming asylum in the UK on the basis of a well-founded fear of persecution due to their sexual orientation or gender identity (SOGI). Although the UK is a country that respects and actively promotes SOGI rights, the UK does not always provide adequate protection to those who come to the UK in need of refuge. For many years, people persecuted because of their SOGI were not considered a member of a particular social group and were therefore not afforded international protection pursuant to the 1951 Refugee Convention.” The recognition of refugees based on sexual orientation and gender identity in the UK: An overview of law and procedure. Allan Briddock. Birkbeck Law Review. November 2016.

“In recent years, increasing numbers of families and individuals have arrived at the US border from Central America, in particular, from Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala. This study sought to examine pre-migration trauma exposure and current mental health functioning of migrant families arriving at the US border from the Northern Triangle region, with specific attention to the reasons offered for leaving their home country and the frequency with which migrant families appear to satisfy legal criteria for asylum.” Pre-migration trauma exposure and mental health functioning among Central American migrants arriving at the US border. Allen Keller, Amy Joscelyne, Megan Granski, and Barry Rosenfeld. PLOS ONE. January 2017.

“Turkey hosts more refugees than any other country in the world, having taken in more than 2.7 million refugees from neighboring Syria alone since the civil war began in 2011. Despite Turkey’s generous humanitarian approach, long-term integration prospects for these refugees remain limited.” The evolving approach to refugee protection in Turkey: Assessing the practical and political needs. Metin Çorabatır. Migration Policy Institute. September 2016.

“In response to the surge of unaccompanied immigrant children at the border in the summer of 2014, I expanded my pro bono work with students and started a law school deportation defense clinic. [...] Within a few months, the Clinic accepted dozens of cases that were transferred to northern California from detention facilities across the country. The pressure to accept such a large number of cases so quickly came from funding sources and from other legal services providers who were having difficulties managing their own caseloads. The clients uniformly suffer from trauma as well as cultural challenges.” Contemplating a rebellious approach to representing unaccompanied immigrant children in a deportation defense clinic. Bill Ong Hing. Clinical Law Review. October 2016.

“The report concludes that the humanitarian enterprise, as presently structured, is in deeper crisis than is generally acknowledged by the ‘powers that be’—the oligopoly of western donors, major UN agencies, and large NGOs that define how the system functions. This enterprise is the world’s safety net and provides essential services to the survivors of conflict and crisis but there are huge gaps and inefficiencies. Much of what is provided is dictated by political calculus rather than rational assessment of need. The system is ‘stuck in the eternal present’ and ill-equipped to deal with emerging and potentially civilization-threatening events. Moreover, despite its claim to universality, it remains very much northern and western in its modus operandi.” Planning from the future: Is the humanitarian system fit for purpose? Randolph Kent, Christina Bennett, Antonio Donini, and Daniel Maxwell. Tufts University. November 2016.

“The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announces that the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) is extending the designation of Somalia for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for a period of 18 months, effective March 18, 2017 through September 17, 2018. This extension allows eligible Somali nationals (and aliens having no nationality who last habitually resided in Somalia) to retain TPS through September 17, 2018, so long as they otherwise continue to meet the eligibility requirements for TPS.” Extension of the Designation of Somalia for Temporary Protected Status. US Department of Homeland Security. January 2017.

“This final rule revises Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulations to eliminate the categorical exception from expedited removal proceedings for Cuban nationals who arrive in the United States at a port of entry by aircraft. As a result of these changes, Cuban nationals who arrive in the United States at a port of entry by aircraft will be subject to expedited removal proceedings commensurate with nationals of other countries.” Eliminating Exception to Expedited Removal Authority for Cuban Nationals Arriving by Air. US Department of Homeland Security. January 2017.

“After 25 years of rule by unelected President Isaias Afwerki, Eritrea's citizens remain subjects of one of the world's most oppressive governments. In May 2016, a United Nations Commission of Inquiry (CoI) established by the Human Rights Council in its final report said it found reasonable grounds to believe the government has committed numerous crimes against humanity. The government's ‘totalitarian practices’ and disrespect for the rule of law manifested ‘wholesale disregard for the liberty’ of Eritrea's citizens, the CoI concluded.” World Report 2017 - Eritrea. Human Rights Watch. January 2017.

#publocations #february #2017 #refugees #publications

0 notes