The Time for Action is NOW... #STOPGorsuch

Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted (11-9) to send the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the full Senate for a vote. The vote could happen as early as this Thursday.

This nomination is important to the lives of EVERY American as the rulings of the Supreme Court have profound and widespread impact for generations.  As the highest Court in the country, the Supreme Court is vital to ensuring that the Constitution and laws of this nation protect the rights of ALL Americans.

Judge Gorsuch’s judicial record shows a pattern of decision making that puts the rights and protections for workers, women, people of color, immigrants, the disabled, those in the criminal justice system, the LGBTQ community, consumers, and others AT RISK. You can read detailed materials regarding Judge Gorsuch’s record here.

This is a critical time in the history of our nation. The actions taken by the Trump Administration in its first few months in office are real threats to the values that undergird our country. The Supreme Court should serve as an independent backstop and guardian for these values.  We cannot allow the appointment of a Justice who will not honor this role by upholding critical American values.

Republican Senators have indicated what they’ll do if they are unable to obtain the 60 votes necessary to confirm Judge Gorsuch. They will work to change the Senate rules by lowering the number of votes needed for confirmation.  Every Supreme Court Justice now on the bench was subject to the same 60-vote rule for confirmation.  There should be no change now to enable Judge Gorsuch to be confirmed with fewer votes.

TAKE ACTION NOW!! BE SURE YOUR VOICE IS HEARD!!

  • Call your Senators TODAY toll free at 1-888-877-2040 -- tell them to vote NO on the Gorsuch nomination and to vote NO on changing the rules for this nominee!
     
  • Make a call to your Senator every day to tell her/him that you DO NOT support the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice who will not support the rights of all people and that you DO NOT support changing the rules!
     
  • Encourage your neighbors, friends, co-workers, and family members to also make the call. THIS IS CRUCIAL. ACT NOW TO STOP THIS NOMINATION!

 

Want to know more, read the articles below and then CALL YOUR SENATOR toll free at 1-888-877-2040!

New York Has a Great Subway, if You’re Not in a Wheelchair

Writing in the New York Times this week, Sasha Blair-Goldensohn argues that equitable accessibility should be a top priority for municipal infrastructure and transit — and reminds readers that policies designed to aid vulnerable populations often produce a “curb-cut effect” that ends up benefiting everyone.

Read the full commentary>>>

Expanding Opportunity in City Contracts: St. Paul’s Racial Equity Strategy

When Rick Harris, owner of Ideal Commercial Interiors (ICI), moved to the Twin Cities seven years ago, he struggled to get the private sector contracts that had been his bread-and-butter during his three decades of business in California. 

"Coming here was totally different. I kept trying to get my foot in the door and instead would have it shut in my face," Harris said. ICI is certified by the North Central Minority Supplier Development Council and the Central Certification Program as a small, minority-owned business, but Harris noted that the greatest obstacle he faced was not discrimination, but inertia. 

"Businesses were not open to building relationships with new vendors. They preferred to maintain the same decades-long ties with people they knew and were familiar with — but that impedes access to the market," he said. "It’s bad for the economy when you have these small businesses that can’t grow because they’re consistently locked out of the market." 

For a city that struggles with staunch racial inequities in employment and poverty, these barriers to entry pose persistent challenges to the local economy. 

"The state says it wants to create more jobs for people of color, but to do that, you have to understand that minority-owned companies hire more employees of color, and so you have to focus on helping these companies grow," Harris said. 

That is precisely what the City of St. Paul is working to do. With the help of the city’s comprehensive efforts to foster racial equity in its municipal contracting, Harris has been able to fill the void of private sector work with city, county, and state contracts — which now make up 90 percent of his business.

According to David Gorski, a human rights specialist for the City of St. Paul, "The broader goal is to make the local economy more inclusive, to create a launching pad for small businesses," especially those owned by people of color and women.

Supporting entrepreneurs of color boosts local economies

St. Paul is a rapidly diversifying city; nearly half the city’s residents are people of color, and communities of color — especially Black communities — are leading population growth. But these communities continue to face persistent racial inequities in opportunity. Unemployment for people of color is 12.6 percent in the city, compared to 5.3 percent for Whites. For African Americans, unemployment skyrocketed from 9.6 percent in 2000 to 18.8 percent in 2014. Almost two in three people of color in the city are economically insecure — with family incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty level — and one in five are working poor, struggling to make ends meet despite working full-time. 

In an attempt to combat these longstanding disparities, St. Paul launched its Racial Equity Initiative in 2014. This initiative includes numerous policy and practice reforms to make racial equity an explicit goal for the city — not only to foster inclusion and community justice, but as a necessary precondition for a prosperous, thriving local economy.

Connecting businesses owned by entrepreneurs of color to city contracts is a crucial lever in this work, because these firms represent key areas of growth in the local economy. Businesses owned by people of color in Minnesota are growing significantly faster than average, with 118 percent growth from 2002 to 2012, compared to 10.3 percent growth for all firms in the state. The number of small businesses owned by African Americans in the state grew by about 60 percent between 2007 and 2012, while small businesses owned by Whites declined 3.4 percent. Yet, many of these businesses are small and undercapitalized, with few employees.

Though the state government of Minnesota has recently received criticism for its inequitable procurement practices, St. Paul has been meeting and exceeding many of its racial equity goals. For example, the city aims to award at least 25 percent of public contracts to small businesses. Within that small business goal, the city sets further targets to reach 5 percent of firms owned by people of color, and 10 percent of women-owned firms. In 2016, more than 30 percent of the city’s total business went to small businesses, with 5 percent awarded to businesses owned by entrepreneurs of color and more than 12 percent awarded to businesses owned by women. 

St. Paul’s progress in upping contracting equity can be traced to concerted efforts to reform and innovate practices within the city’s Purchasing and Contract Compliance Divisions. This work began with the assistance of Bloomberg Philanthropies What Works Cities initiative, through which the Government Performance Lab at the Harvard Kennedy School helped the city better understand why it wasn’t adequately reaching small businesses and businesses of color. What they found mirrored the hurdles Harris noted in the private sector. 

"Vendors felt that we were closed off," said Jessica Brokaw, deputy director of procurement, contract compliance & business development for the city. "They felt we had preferred vendors and that was that." 

This led to a series of structural changes to the procurement process. The city rolled out a new online bidding platform that made the process more transparent and accessible, and ensured that any vendor could download bids free of charge. They also revised the language of bids — from PhD reading level to eighth grade reading level— so that most any vendor could understand them without an attorney.

Wherever possible, officials also streamlined certification processes. For example, a vendor can become registered as a minority-owned business enterprise (MBE), a woman-owned business enterprise (WBE), or a small business enterprise (SBE) through one-day Central Certification Program (CERT) community workshops that are hosted monthly. These certifications are recognized by Hennepin County, Ramsey County, Minneapolis, and St. Paul, making it easier for businesses to pursue public procurement and contracting work regionally. The increased community engagement is reflected in attendance at the annual procurement fair, hosted by the city’s Department of Human Rights and Equal Economic Opportunity. In 2017, 350 vendors showed up within the first three hours alone.

Perhaps most impressively, the city has made significant changes to open up public contracts to new businesses. Starting in 2014, the city has changed five-year agreements to yearly agreements whenever possible, and broken down larger projects into small subcontracts to increase opportunities for new and small businesses to bid. 

"We decided to not renew hundreds of master contracts — some of which we had held for 20 years," Brokaw said. "We got lots of pushback, because there were vendors who didn’t really have to compete for years upon years, and there were city departments who didn’t want to have to orient new vendors to how we operate." 

When the city opened up contracts to a more competitive market, however, "the city and the local economy benefited," Brokaw noted. "The bids are lower, so the city is saving several million dollars, and our relationship to the community is so much stronger because vendors can see that we are open to them." 

Bridging the public-private contract divide through mentorship

In addition to the structural and procedural changes noted above, one of the key facets of St. Paul’s efforts to promote small business growth among minority entrepreneurs is the Construction Partnering Program (CPP)

Founded by the city and administered through the Metropolitan Economic Development Association (MEDA) and the Association of Women Contractors, CPP supports emerging small businesses owned by women and people of color by fostering long-term partnerships between these firms and larger industry experts in the region.

In general, the odds can be stacked against small businesses trying to expand: They don’t always have access to the same product lines or discounts because they don’t buy in large enough quantities. They often lack access to the kind of financing necessary to purchase the kind of bonds that are required to insure projects or to cover their costs for the months it can take for contracts to pay out. 

"It creates a catch-22 because the financials limit the size of contracts a business can take," said Salah Tarraf, participant in the CERT and CPP programs and owner of Tarraf Construction, a general contractor operating in the Twin Cities for 17 years. "We have so many fantastic contractors of color who want to grow, but are held back because they can’t take larger projects." 

The city has stepped in to remove some of the financial barriers: city projects up to $100,000 no longer require bonds, so they are now more accessible to small contractors. Through CPP mentorship, however, the city also hopes to start bridging the gap between public and private work. 

Tarraf Construction has been partnered with McGough, a large general contractor headquartered in St. Paul, for the past 13 years. This relationship has allowed Tarraf to benefit from the insight and experience of the larger firm, and McGough has helped them break into the private market by inviting them to bid on subcontracts for their work and including them in negotiations as an "equal partner." 

Though it remains an "uphill battle" to get the private sector to work with small companies, Tarraf said he gives "a lot of credit to St. Paul. The city has been really supportive of the minority community, and I think it’s been a success." 

Stop the Abuse of Court-Imposed Fines and Fees

More than $50 billion in debt is currently being held by approximately 10 million people because of their involvement in the criminal justice system. Much of this debt is because low-income people simply do not have the money to pay fines and fees.

While “debtors’ prisons” are technically outlawed, courts and police departments have used loopholes within the law to place people in jail for the nonpayment of fines and fees. The practice, which targets the most vulnerable communities, plays an integral role in wealth and income inequality, and contributes to the growing racial wealth gap in our country.

But researchers around the country have shown that fees can be limited and debt collection practices can be managed in a way that does not prey on low-income communities. Policymakers can limit the use of fines and fees that directly contribute to burdensome debt, create barriers to housing and employment, and result in imprisonment and recidivism.

Ending the Debt Trap: Strategies to Stop the Abuse of Court-Imposed Fines and Fees, a new brief from PolicyLink, lifts up promising strategies that are being implemented across the country to ensure that judicial fines and fees do not contribute to burdensome debt for low-income communities and people of color. The brief looks at ways in which the use of fines and fees has expanded over time, the impact of these practices, and the inefficiency of these policies as a budget tool for local governments.

Banks’ Community Benefits Agreements Bring Billions in Community Reinvestment

Financial institutions have a long history of failing to meet the needs of low-income communities and communities of color — whether through discriminatory practices that strip wealth from neighborhoods of color or systematic disinvestment that has left too many struggling communities without access to affordable banking. 

Over the past few years, however, community advocates have been putting an established advocacy tool to new use to bring the voices and needs of underserved communities to the negotiating table with local banks. 

Community benefits agreements (CBAs) — contracts that have traditionally been used to ensure that local real estate development projects create opportunities for local workers and communities — are increasingly being applied to banks to increase access to financial services for disadvantaged communities. 

"Banks have an important role to play in our communities, and these community benefits agreements help ensure they fulfill that role for everyone, including low- and moderate-income communities and communities of color," said John Taylor, president and CEO of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC), the driving force behind the recent proliferation of bank CBAs. In this incarnation of CBAs, banks team up with local community organizations to negotiate key services and resources targeted to communities traditionally underserved by banks. 

In 2016, NCRC worked with hundreds of local community organizations to negotiate three large merger-related CBAs with Huntington Bank, KeyBank, and Fifth Third Bank. Collectively, these three agreements will bring $62.6 billion in lending and investments targeted to low- and moderate-income communities and communities of color across 23 states. 

Reversing systematic disinvestment in low-income communities and communities of color 

Bank CBAs capitalize on the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) — a longstanding federal policy designed to encourage banks to meet the needs of moderate- and low-income neighborhoods. The CRA was passed in 1977 in an attempt to combat redlining — a destructive and discriminatory lending practice that denied or severely restricted access to mortgages, credit, and other financial resources necessary to promote economic growth within communities of color. 

"The CRA has certain pressure points where communities have an opportunity to advocate for their needs," said Thomas Keily, consumer data and research coordinator at the Western New York Law Center, one of the grassroots NCRC members involved in the KeyBank CBA. Mergers, acquisitions, and CRA exams are intervention points where banks enter regulatory review and may be amenable to negotiations with community advocates. 

Because bank mergers often result in branch closings that cut jobs and can reduce access to banking in certain locations, the CRA encourages banks to commit resources to counteract negative community ramifications. Traditionally, however, banks have sought to meet their CRA requirements without ongoing engagement with community leaders. The recent spate of bank-merger CBAs represents an important departure from business as usual. 

Through a combination of in-person meetings, site visits, and conference calls, banks and representatives from several dozen community organizations negotiate the details of these agreements over the course of months. The resulting contracts include a wide range of commitments targeted to low-to-moderate income areas. 

For example, the hundred-plus community partners representing six cities that came to the table to negotiate the Huntington Bank CBA identified four key focus areas for investment: affordable housing, workforce development, small business development, and supportive services, including community needs not typically associated with financial products, such as social services. 

"The goal was to create a plan that was holistic and considered all the assets needed for a community to thrive and for individuals to reach their potential within that community," said Catherine Crosby, executive director of the City of Dayton's Human Relations Council, one of the organizations representing Dayton, Ohio, in the Huntington Bank negotiations. She is also a member of the NCRC board. 

The resulting community development plan committed $5.7 billion in funding for single-family mortgages in low- and moderate-income areas and to low- and moderate-income borrowers, $3.7 billion in community development lending and investment for affordable housing, $25 million in grants for housing and small business credit services, and 10 new branch locations in underserved areas, among other investments. As this plan is implemented at the local level, community advocates have the opportunity to specify particular service needs within their local areas, such as down-payment assistance, loan counseling, or diversity requirements in bank hiring. 

The CBA investments for KeyBank, announced in March 2016, contained similar measures, committing $16.5 billion in investments and lending over five years. The most recent CBA with Fifth Third Bancorp, announced in November 2016, represents the largest investment by a single bank in recent history — $30 billion invested across 10 states through 2020. 

"The impact of billions of dollars in community reinvestment that comes from bank agreements cannot be overstated — the resources have a real, tangible impact, creating jobs and expanding access to mortgages, small business lending, education opportunities, and access to other financial resources," Taylor said.

The changes these CBAs are intended to implement come at a crucial time for Fifth Third. Earlier this month, the Federal Reserve released an assessment of the bank's 2011-2013 operations that found evidence of discriminatory practices during that time. As a result, Fifth Third's CRA compliance rating was lowered to "needs to improve."

Leveraging CBAs for equitable growth 

Access to basic financial products and services — including bank accounts, mortgages, and retirement accounts — is a crucial component of building long-term financial security. Without these services, many families and individuals living paycheck to paycheck must turn to payday lenders and check-cashing centers that impose exorbitant interest rates and fees on those who can least afford it. According to a study conducted in California, payday lenders are nearly eight times as concentrated in primarily African American and Latino neighborhoods compared to White neighborhoods, draining nearly $247 million in fees from these communities each year. 

"In Buffalo, New York, we've seen a systematic flight of financial resources within low-income communities and communities of color, especially in the city's east side," said Keily. "East of Main Street there are seven bank branches, but to the west there are over 25, and we see huge racial disparities in who gets mortgages." 

On a community level, access to capital to purchase homes, start new businesses, or take on community development projects is a necessary ingredient for spurring economic growth, yet the majority of disinvested communities are still systematically underserved by the banks that could be providing these services. This persistent legacy of disinvestment perpetuates poverty and stymies the kind of growth that could revive local economies. 

Through the CBA negotiation process, however, communities have increased leverage to hold financial institutions accountable for providing them with the services and resources that will enable them to thrive. 

"This process gives community members back their voice and keeps their needs at the forefront of the process," said Keily. As part of negotiations with KeyBank, Western New York Law Center enlisted 100 residents to write about their experiences with financial institutions — testimonials that helped bring lived experience to the data and research presented during CBA meetings. The organization is also working to establish CBA agreements with smaller local banks and recently announced a $101.2 million agreement between the Northwest Savings Bank and Buffalo Niagara Community Reinvestment Coalition (BNCRC), a NCRC community-based coalition member. 

As these agreements become increasingly popular, more and more banks are recognizing the value of working in concert with community to increase services and facilities in underserved markets. 

"Some leaders of banks are stepping up and doing the work we also need to see from our political leadership — building collaborations between bank leaders, community group leaders like our members, and other stakeholders to ensure that communities have economic opportunity," Taylor said. 

Delivering community benefits through broad coalitions 

Negotiating the competing priorities of hundreds of community partners while attempting to influence large financial institutions that hold all the purse strings is no simple matter. 

"NCRC did yeoman's work to bring everyone together," said Crosby. "A negotiation with this many parties is a push-and-pull process, so you need to have people who are thinking of the highest and greatest good for the community — not just themselves or their particular organizations." 

But she felt the outcomes were well worth the laborious process. 

"Formerly, the Human Relations Council would meet with the CRA officers for the bank to negotiate community investments, but this process is far more comprehensive and more impactful," Crosby said. There is also a key level of accountability, because communities can report to CRA regulatory bodies if a bank fails to make good on the promises encoded in the CBA. 

Though it's too early in the implementation process to quantify the impact of these commitments, Crosby noted that the relationships formed and strengthened between the community partners that came together these past months have already been a huge win. Keily emphasized the power of the process for raising community awareness and empowerment. 

"This shows us — and the community — what's possible when their voices are heard," he said. "It will be an ongoing process to implement this locally, but we're committed to keeping community members at the forefront of this process." 

RESIST Trump’s Disastrous Budget!

The preliminary budget released from the White House yesterday is a NIGHTMARE for the entire nation --- poor and low-income people, middle-income people, people of color, children, seniors, people with disabilities and chronic illnesses, working people, those living in rural areas, those living in urban areas. EVERYONE.

The proposed budget bolsters attacks on immigrants, threatens the well-being of communities, and decimates the values that undergird this country, while prioritizing military spending and tax cuts for the wealthy. If the full budget proposal to be released in May has ANY resemblance to this draconian preliminary budget, it must be considered DEAD ON ARRIVAL.The people of this nation CANNOT allow Congress to pass anything close to what is proposed. Additionally, a mild step back from the proposed budget will not be tolerated. The budget ultimately passed MUST be fundamentally different from what is being proposed by this Administration and must uphold the longstanding values of the country, advance fairness and inclusion, expand opportunity, and protect the nation’s most vulnerable.

Believers in justice, fairness, and decency cannot be silent during these attempts to wipe away years of work toward a more inclusive and equitable society.  NOW is the time to unite and organize!! All people, faiths, associations, and organizations who care about people and the nation, must come together to resist this assault on the American people and the fundamentals of responsible governance. We encourage EVERYONE to get involved. Stay alert and watch what is happening with the Trump Administration and Congress, call your congressional members and hold them accountable for your concerns, join efforts in your community to advance important policies, and push back against harmful ones. Click here to find out what is happening in your community and GET INVOLVED today. And, to learn more details about the preliminary budget document released yesterday, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities website has a number of resources.

This is a critical time in our nation’s history. We CANNOT allow the current Administration to destroy progress and inflict suffering on millions of people. Like you, PolicyLink will continue to resist and defend. Just earlier this week, we joined with our partners Public Advocates, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law, and Poverty & Race Research Action Council to launch CarsonWatch, a watchdog effort that will be fighting back against attempts to gut invaluable housing and community development programs and roll back the clock on civil rights protections, including important rules under the Fair Housing Act. We hope you’ll visit the website and join the effort by signing up for alerts.

In the days to come, PolicyLink will announce a framework for our broader resistance efforts that will provide additional ways to take action and be heard. Stay tuned. Be encouraged. We SHALL NOT be defeated.

New Travel Ban Blocked By the Courts, Still Biased against Muslims

<p>The Trump Administration’s revised “travel ban” executive order (a.k.a., the “Muslim ban”) was scheduled to go into effect today.&nbsp; Yesterday and early this morning, federal district courts in Hawaii and Maryland blocked the order’s implementation, on a nationwide basis.&nbsp;These court opinions emphasized the many public statements by the Administration indicating discriminatory intent against Muslims.&nbsp;</p><p>Both courts held that the revised executive order, like the original one, likely violates the Establishment Clause of the constitution.&nbsp;&nbsp;<b>“The clearest command of the Establishment Clause is that one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another.”</b>&nbsp; (<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/15/us/politics/document-Orde... v Trump</i>&nbsp;order</a>, p. 29. )</p><p>As we&nbsp;<a href="http://www.policylink.org/blog/new-executive-order-same-illegal-discrimi... the revised executive order was released, its central purpose remains discriminatory.</p><p>The executive order singles out majority-Muslim countries and discriminates against individuals based on religion, race, and national origin.&nbsp; It violates multiple constitutional provisions, and several federal laws.&nbsp; (See&nbsp;<a href="http://www.policylink.org/blog/new-executive-order-same-illegal-discrimi... a full list of legal claims likely to be brought against the executive order, and a detailed description of its provisions.)</p><p>Yesterday’s court opinions emphasized the plainly discriminatory purpose and effect of the Administration’s action, and highlighted the lack of any evidence that the order was based on valid national security objectives. &nbsp;Both courts focused on Administration figures’ multiple public statements indicating that the executive order intentionally targets Muslims:</p><ul><li>The court record “includes&nbsp;<b>significant and unrebutted evidence of religious animus&nbsp;</b>driving the promulgation of the executive order…”&nbsp; (<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/15/us/politics/document-Orde... v Trump</i>&nbsp;order</a>, p. 33.)<br>&nbsp;</li><li>“These statements, which include&nbsp;<b>explicit, direct statements of President Trump's animus toward Muslims</b>&nbsp;<b>and intention to impose a ban on Muslims entering the United States</b>, present a convincing case that the first executive order was issued to accomplish, as nearly as possible, President Trump's promised Muslim ban …&nbsp;In particular, the direct statements by President Trump and (former New York City Mayor Rudy) Giuliani's account of his conversations with President Trump reveal that the plan had been to bar the entry of nationals of predominantly Muslim countries deemed to constitute dangerous territory in order to approximate a Muslim ban without calling it one precisely the form of the travel ban in the first executive order."&nbsp; (<a href="http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/national/read-the-federal-jud... Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump</i>&nbsp;order</a>, p. 29.)&nbsp;<br>&nbsp;</li></ul><p>PolicyLink stands with advocates for immigrant communities and families around the world in opposing the discriminatory and needless revision of our nation’s longstanding immigration and refugee programs.&nbsp; As these courts have indicated, the travel ban is plainly discriminatory, and violates the most basic principles on which the country was founded.&nbsp; We are confident that courts will continue to protect individual rights against the excesses of this Administration.</p><div style="text-align:start; -webkit-text-stroke-width:0px; margin:0px"><strong><span style="font-size:medium"><span style="color:#212121"><span style="font-family:wf_segoe-ui_normal, &quot;Segoe UI&quot;, &quot;Segoe WP&quot;, Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif"><span style="font-style:normal"><span style="font-variant-ligatures:normal"><span style="font-variant-caps:normal"><span style="font-weight:normal"><span style="letter-spacing:normal"><span style="orphans:2"><span style="text-transform:none"><span style="white-space:normal"><span style="widows:2"><span style="word-spacing:0px"><span style="background-color:#ffffff"><font face="Calibri,sans-serif"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt">Advocacy Resources</span></font></font></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></strong><br>&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align:start; -webkit-text-stroke-width:0px; margin:0px"><span style="font-size:medium"><span style="color:#212121"><span style="font-family:wf_segoe-ui_normal, &quot;Segoe UI&quot;, &quot;Segoe WP&quot;, Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif"><span style="font-style:normal"><span style="font-variant-ligatures:normal"><span style="font-variant-caps:normal"><span style="font-weight:normal"><span style="letter-spacing:normal"><span style="orphans:2"><span style="text-transform:none"><span style="white-space:normal"><span style="widows:2"><span style="word-spacing:0px"><span style="background-color:#ffffff"><font face="Calibri,sans-serif"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt">Following are some of the many organizations working to protect our immigrant communities.</span></font></font></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></div><div style="text-align:start; -webkit-text-stroke-width:0px; margin:0px">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align:start; -webkit-text-stroke-width:0px; margin:0px"><div style="text-align:start; -webkit-text-stroke-width:0px"><div><div><ul style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px"><li style="margin:0px"><a href="https://www.nilc.org"><span style="font-size:medium"><span style="color:#212121"><span style="font-family:wf_segoe-ui_normal, &quot;Segoe UI&quot;, &quot;Segoe WP&quot;, Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif"><span style="font-style:normal"><span style="font-variant-ligatures:normal"><span style="font-variant-caps:normal"><span style="font-weight:normal"><span style="letter-spacing:normal"><span style="orphans:2"><span style="text-transform:none"><span style="white-space:normal"><span style="widows:2"><span style="word-spacing:0px"><span style="background-color:#ffffff"><span style="background-color:white"><span lang="en-US" style="background-color:white"><font face="Calibri,sans-serif"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt">National Immigration Law Center</span></font></font></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></a></li><li style="margin:0px"><a href="https://www.ilrc.org/"><span style="font-size:medium"><span style="color:#212121"><span style="font-family:wf_segoe-ui_normal, &quot;Segoe UI&quot;, &quot;Segoe WP&quot;, Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif"><span style="font-style:normal"><span style="font-variant-ligatures:normal"><span style="font-variant-caps:normal"><span style="font-weight:normal"><span style="letter-spacing:normal"><span style="orphans:2"><span style="text-transform:none"><span style="white-space:normal"><span style="widows:2"><span style="word-spacing:0px"><span style="background-color:#ffffff"><span style="background-color:white"><span lang="en-US" style="background-color:white"><font face="Calibri,sans-serif"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt">Immigrant Legal Resource Center</span></font></font></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></a></li><li style="margin:0px"><a href="https://www.aclu.org/issues/immigrants-rights"><span style="font-size:medium"><span style="color:#212121"><span style="font-family:wf_segoe-ui_normal, &quot;Segoe UI&quot;, &quot;Segoe WP&quot;, Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif"><span style="font-style:normal"><span style="font-variant-ligatures:normal"><span style="font-variant-caps:normal"><span style="font-weight:normal"><span style="letter-spacing:normal"><span style="orphans:2"><span style="text-transform:none"><span style="white-space:normal"><span style="widows:2"><span style="word-spacing:0px"><span style="background-color:#ffffff"><span style="background-color:white"><span lang="en-US" style="background-color:white"><font face="Calibri,sans-serif"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt">ACLU Immigrants'&nbsp; Rights Project</span></font></font></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></a></li><li style="margin:0px"><span style="font-size:medium"><span style="color:#212121"><span style="font-family:wf_segoe-ui_normal, &quot;Segoe UI&quot;, &quot;Segoe WP&quot;, Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif"><span style="font-style:normal"><span style="font-variant-ligatures:normal"><span style="font-variant-caps:normal"><span style="font-weight:normal"><span style="letter-spacing:normal"><span style="orphans:2"><span style="text-transform:none"><span style="white-space:normal"><span style="widows:2"><span style="word-spacing:0px"><span style="background-color:#ffffff"><span style="background-color:white"><span lang="en-US" style="background-color:white"><font face="Calibri,sans-serif"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt"><a href="https://www.cair.com/" target="_blank">Council on American-Islamic Relations</a></span></font></font></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li><li style="margin:0px"><a href="https://www.immigrationadvocates.org"><span style="font-size:medium"><span style="color:#212121"><span style="font-family:wf_segoe-ui_normal, &quot;Segoe UI&quot;, &quot;Segoe WP&quot;, Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif"><span style="font-style:normal"><span style="font-variant-ligatures:normal"><span style="font-variant-caps:normal"><span style="font-weight:normal"><span style="letter-spacing:normal"><span style="orphans:2"><span style="text-transform:none"><span style="white-space:normal"><span style="widows:2"><span style="word-spacing:0px"><span style="background-color:#ffffff"><span style="background-color:white"><span lang="en-US" style="background-color:white"><font face="Calibri,sans-serif"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt">Immigration Advocates Network</span></font></font></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></a></li><li style="margin:0px"><span style="font-size:medium"><span style="color:#212121"><span style="font-family:wf_segoe-ui_normal, &quot;Segoe UI&quot;, &quot;Segoe WP&quot;, Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif"><span style="font-style:normal"><span style="font-variant-ligatures:normal"><span style="font-variant-caps:normal"><span style="font-weight:normal"><span style="letter-spacing:normal"><span style="orphans:2"><span style="text-transform:none"><span style="white-space:normal"><span style="widows:2"><span style="word-spacing:0px"><span style="background-color:#ffffff"><span style="background-color:white"><span lang="en-US" style="background-color:white"><font face="Calibri,sans-serif"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt"><a href="http://www.advancingjustice.org/" target="_blank">Asian Americans Advancing Justice</a></span></font></font></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li><li style="margin:0px"><span style="font-size:medium"><span style="color:#212121"><span style="font-family:wf_segoe-ui_normal, &quot;Segoe UI&quot;, &quot;Segoe WP&quot;, Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif"><span style="font-style:normal"><span style="font-variant-ligatures:normal"><span style="font-variant-caps:normal"><span style="font-weight:normal"><span style="letter-spacing:normal"><span style="orphans:2"><span style="text-transform:none"><span style="white-space:normal"><span style="widows:2"><span style="word-spacing:0px"><span style="background-color:#ffffff"><span style="background-color:white"><span lang="en-US" style="background-color:white"><font face="Calibri,sans-serif"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt"><a href="https://www.nationalimmigrationproject.org/" target="_blank">National Immigration Project</a></span></font></font></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li><li style="margin:0px"><span style="font-size:medium"><span style="color:#212121"><span style="font-family:wf_segoe-ui_normal, &quot;Segoe UI&quot;, &quot;Segoe WP&quot;, Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif"><span style="font-style:normal"><span style="font-variant-ligatures:normal"><span style="font-variant-caps:normal"><span style="font-weight:normal"><span style="letter-spacing:normal"><span style="orphans:2"><span style="text-transform:none"><span style="white-space:normal"><span style="widows:2"><span style="word-spacing:0px"><span style="background-color:#ffffff"><span style="background-color:white"><span lang="en-US" style="background-color:white"><font face="Calibri,sans-serif"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt"><a href="https://nobannowallnoraids.wordpress.com/resources/know-your-rights/" target="_blank">#NoBanNoWallNoRaids</a></span></font></font></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li><li style="margin:0px"><span style="font-size:medium"><span style="color:#212121"><span style="font-family:wf_segoe-ui_normal, &quot;Segoe UI&quot;, &quot;Segoe WP&quot;, Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif"><span style="font-style:normal"><span style="font-variant-ligatures:normal"><span style="font-variant-caps:normal"><span style="font-weight:normal"><span style="letter-spacing:normal"><span style="orphans:2"><span style="text-transform:none"><span style="white-space:normal"><span style="widows:2"><span style="word-spacing:0px"><span style="background-color:#ffffff"><span style="background-color:white"><span lang="en-US" style="background-color:white"><font face="Calibri,sans-serif"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt"><a href="http://altotrump.com/resources/know-your-rights" target="_blank">AltoTrump</a></span></font></font></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li></ul></div></div></div></div><p>&nbsp;</p>

Arts and Culture, Achieving Equity

Across the nation, artistic and cultural practices are helping to define the sustainability of urban, rural, and suburban neighborhoods. In the design of parks and open spaces; the building of public transit, housing, and supermarkets; in plans for addressing needs for community health and healing trauma; communities are embracing arts and culture strategies to help create equitable communities of opportunity where everyone can participate, prosper, and achieve their full potential. And artists are seeing themselves — and being seen by others — as integral community members whose talents, crafts, and insights pave the way to support community engagement and cohesion.

Creating Change through Arts, Culture, and Equitable Development: A Policy and Practice Primer provides examples of these efforts by describing how equity policies working in tandem with arts and culture strategies are achieving equity goals. This is especially true among communities of color and low-income communities, where resources have seldom reached the level of support received by major arts institutions, nationally or locally.  

The report describes the role of arts and culture across many sectors: transportation, housing, economic development and financial security, health and food, youth and education, open space and recreation, and technology and information access. Each section offers examples of promising practices that have yielded such outcomes as support for Native artists in reservation-based cultural economies, creation of a citywide cultural plan, engaging low-income youth of color in using digital media, and efforts to address redevelopment, employment, food access, and environmental justice.

From the percent-for-arts programs created during the Great Depression to support artists, public works, and infrastructure to the establishment of the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities in the mid-1960s, the United States has a history of making investments in arts and culture. That history foreshadows the expanded opportunity that now exists to achieve equity by uniting community development to arts and cultural strategies. In the coming weeks, PolicyLink will announce a webinar that will further share the promising and proven practices highlighted in Creating Change through Arts, Culture, and Equitable Development: A Policy and Practice Primer.

PolicyLink Joins Public Advocates to Launch CarsonWatch


Will you help?

Today, PolicyLink is partnering with Public Advocates, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law, and the Poverty and Race Research Action Council to launch CarsonWatch to monitor activities at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Too much is at stake to let HUD’s activities go unmonitored.

The agency is being led by Dr. Ben Carson, a fair housing skeptic with zero housing or federal agency experience, who was appointed by President Trump and confirmed by the Senate to lead an agency whose impact will be felt among veterans, the elderly, and disabled as well as homeless families across the country. Already there are promises to cut $6 billion from the agency’s budget. Communities around the country are in jeopardy of losing flexible redevelopment funds that have received bipartisan support for decades.

Secretary Carson has the power to roll back the clock on civil rights protections – and has likened existing fair housing protections to “social engineering.” He could undermine programs that enable countless Americans to make their rent each month – and has called poverty a “choice.” The lives of many of the 100 million people in the United States currently living in poverty, which includes those living in rural and urban areas, will be further and unnecessarily disrupted by these cuts. Communities will face shortfalls for services they can’t cover. Families will be forced to struggle to further tighten insufficient budgets to make ends meet.

Secretary Carson also has the power to steer taxpayer support to Trump business interests, lining his boss’s pockets in the process. He even refused to rule out such unethical actions during his Senate confirmation hearing. We are deeply concerned about this appointment and worry that Americans may be at risk of losing their homes and watching their civil liberties dismantled before their eyes.

That’s why we’re proud to join Public Advocates, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and the Poverty and Race Research Action Council in the launch of CarsonWatch. We hope you will, too.

Sign up today to keep watch at CarsonWatch.org and follow us on Facebook and Twitter. 

Thank you for your support.

New Executive Order, Same Illegal Discrimination

Yesterday the Trump Administration released a new executive order, “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States.”  This order revises the infamous “Muslim Ban” executive order from late January, which was blocked by the courts.  We are confident that the courts will similarly block enforcement of the revised executive order.  

The new executive order makes some changes aimed at withstanding court scrutiny, but the basics of the order remain in place – including its illegal discrimination against immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries, without any factual basis in national security needs. (The Administration has stated that the new executive order will advance “the same basic policy outcome” as the prior order.) The Administration’s changes constitute tinkering around the edges, while leaving in place the order’s central, discriminatory purpose and effect.

Following is more detail regarding the new executive order, including a short explanation of legal claims against the order that are likely to be addressed by courts.  We have also included a list of some of the national advocacy organizations advancing legal and non-legal strategies to protect immigrants and refugees from the devastating effects of the Trump Administration’s hasty and baseless actions.

PolicyLink stands with advocates for immigrant communities and families around the world in opposing the discriminatory and needless revision of our nation’s longstanding immigration and refugee programs. To better serve the Equity Network in these challenging times, PolicyLink has added a seasoned public interest attorney, Julian Gross, to our staff. The information below was prepared by Julian, PolicyLink James O. Gibson Innovation Fellow, based in the PolicyLink Oakland office.

Changes in the New Executive Order

The new executive order is drafted more carefully than the prior order, and contains some changes clearly aimed at helping the order withstand court challenge. The new order is somewhat more limited in scope than the prior order: it applies only to individuals who are outside the United States as of March 16, and who do not have or have not recently had a valid visa. In addition, there are explicit exceptions to the new travel ban for many classes of people, including lawful permanent residents, others permissibly in the country, certain dual nationals and diplomats, persons who have already been granted asylum or refugee status, and others. Finally, there is a new “waiver” section, allowing discretionary case-by-case waivers for several other categories of people, including those needing immediate medical care, those who have provided assistance to the U.S. Government, and those working for international organizations, etc.

This narrower version eliminates some situations in which the prior order was obviously overbroad and plainly unrelated to valid security concerns. However, the core provisions of the prior order are still in place, and the majority of the legal claims that were raised in multiple lawsuits challenging the prior order are just as strong with regard to the new executive order. These claims are described below.

Crucially, the legal claim that was the main basis of the nationwide injunction against the prior executive order is not affected by the changes made by the Administration. (The Ninth Circuit upheld a nationwide injunction against the prior order based primarily on a holding that the order violated individuals’ procedural due process rights.) This and other claims are sure to be raised against the new executive order, either in existing cases or in new litigation, on behalf of states and affected individuals. 

Legal Claims Against the New Executive Order

The following legal claims were raised against the January 27 executive order. These and others will likely be raised against the new executive order as well.

  • Equal Protection. The Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection requires “strict scrutiny” of government classifications based on national origin or religion. Strict scrutiny is the highest constitutional standard, making it very difficult for the government to justify its actions and have them upheld by courts.
    • Claim: The executive order explicitly discriminates against individuals based on national origin, without adequate justification.
    • Claim: Based on the choice of countries the executive order targets, the executive order discriminates against individuals based on religion, without adequate justification. Note that the Administration attempted to partially address this claim in the revised executive order by removing the original order’s “religious minority” exemption, which was seemingly aimed at benefitting Christians, given the countries at issue. This claim still applies to other aspects of the new executive order, however, including the choice of countries affected.
       
  • Establishment Clause. The First Amendment prohibits the federal government from establishing a state-endorsed religion, or limiting the free exercise of religion. Government actions that discriminate between religions can be challenged under the establishment clause.
    • Claim: By singling out majority-Muslim nations without legitimate basis, the executive order discriminates between religions, in violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
    • As noted above, the Administration attempted to partially address this claim in the revised executive order by removing the original order’s “religious minority” exemption, which was seemingly aimed at benefitting Christians, given the countries at issue. This claim still applies to other aspects of the new executive order, however.
       
  • Procedural Due Process (Fifth Amendment). The Constitution’s due process clause requires a fair process before the government denies important personal rights and interests, often including adequate notice, court hearings, right to counsel, avoidance of arbitrary action, and so forth.
    • Claim: The executive order affects individuals’ protected rights without providing them adequate opportunity to defend themselves.
    • This claim is crucial, in that it focuses on the reality of how the order will be implemented, including the degree of access to courts and judicial oversight.
       
  • Immigration and Nationality Act. This law, passed by Congress in 1965, sets rules that the executive branch has to follow in dealing with immigration issues.
    • Claim: The executive order violates the INA, which prohibits the executive branch from discriminating between countries in issuance of visas, and which establishes rights to asylum for certain individuals.
       
  • Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). This federal statute requires courts to apply strict scrutiny in reviewing actions that inhibit individuals’ free exercise of religion.
    • Claim: The executive order violates the RFRA’s prohibition of government substantially burdening exercise of religion.
    • This claim is based on the executive order’s exclusive focus on majority-Muslim countries, and other aspects of its design and implementation.
    • As noted above, the Administration attempted to partially address this claim in the revised executive order by removing the original order’s “religious minority” exemption, which was seemingly aimed at benefitting Christians, given the countries at issue. This claim still applies to other aspects of the new executive order, however.

In addition to the above claims against the executive order, there are crucial legal issues that courts will have to address based on the Administration’s defense of the executive order. These include:

  • how much judicial review is permissible with regard to the executive’s actions assertedly related to national security and the country’s borders;
  • the ability of states to bring claims on their own behalf or on behalf of others; and
  • which of the above legal claims may be raised by non-citizens


Details Regarding Content of the Executive Order

The executive order suspends entry into the United States of non-citizens from Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Iran, Sudan, and Syria. (Executive Order Section 2(c).) The suspension initially runs for 90 days from March 16, 2017.

  • The order includes new provisions indicating that the travel ban applies only to individuals from the listed countries who meet all of the following criteria:
       (i) are outside the United States on March 16, 2017;
       (ii) did not have a valid visa at 5:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time on January 27, 2017; and
       (iii) do not have a valid visa on March 16, 2017.
       (Section 3(a).)
     
  • In addition, the order includes new provisions indicating that the travel ban does not apply to individuals from the listed countries who meet any of the following criteria:
       (i) any lawful permanent resident of the United States;
       (ii) any foreign national who is admitted to or paroled into the United States on or after March 16;
       (iii) any foreign national who has a document other than a visa, valid on the effective date of this order or issued on any date thereafter, that permits him or her to travel to the United States and seek entry or admission, such as an advance parole document;
       (iv) any dual national of a listed country when the individual is traveling on a passport issued by a non-listed country;
       (v) any foreign national traveling on a diplomatic or diplomatic-type visa, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visa, C-2 visa for travel to the United Nations, or G-1, G-2, G-3, or G-4 visa; or
       (vi) any foreign national who has been granted asylum; any refugee who has already been admitted to the United States; or any individual who has been granted withholding of removal, advance parole, or protection under the Convention Against Torture.
    (Section 3(b).)

     
  • The executive order includes a new waiver provision, allowing discretionary waiver, on a case-by-case basis, of the travel ban for individuals in any of several categories, including:
       (i) previously admitted for specific activities;
       (ii) previously established significant contacts with the United States but is outside the United States on the effective date of this order for work, study, or other lawful activity;
       (iii) seeks to enter the United States for significant business or professional obligations and the denial of entry during the suspension period would impair those obligations;
       (iv) seeks to enter the United States to visit or reside with a close family member (e.g., a spouse, child, or parent) who is a United States citizen, lawful permanent resident, or alien lawfully admitted on a valid nonimmigrant visa, and the denial of entry during the suspension period would cause undue hardship;
       (v) an infant, a young child or adoptee, an individual needing urgent medical care, or someone whose entry is otherwise justified by the special circumstances of the case;
       (vi) employed by, or on behalf of, the United States Government (or is an eligible dependent of such an employee) and the employee can document that he or she has provided faithful and valuable service to the United States Government;
       (vii) traveling for purposes related to an international organization or to conduct business with the U.S. Government;
       (viii) landed Canadian immigrant who applies for a visa at a location within Canada;
       (ix) traveling as a United States Government-sponsored exchange visitor.
       (Section 3(c).)
     
  • The executive order indicates that Iraqi nationals “should be subjected to thorough review,” but does not impose a presumptive ban, the way the order does with regard to the six listed countries. (Section 4.) This is a change from the prior executive order.
     
  • The executive order formally revokes the prior executive order, no. 13,769. (Section 13.)
     
  • The executive order instructs the Department of Homeland Security to request from other countries information it deems relevant to security evaluations of applicants for entry, and contemplates blocking entry of individuals from countries that do not comply with such information requests. (Sections 2.(a), (b), (d)-(f).)
     
  • The executive order instructs the Department of Homeland Security to develop a uniform, enhanced screening program “to identify individuals seeking to enter the United States on a fraudulent basis with the intent to cause harm, or who are at risk of causing harm subsequent to their admission.” (Section 5.)
     
  • The executive order suspends admissions under the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days. The order requires review of security procedures for screening individuals in the program, and indicates that the program may only be resumed “for nationals of countries for which the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence have jointly determined that such additional procedures are adequate to ensure the security and welfare of the United States.” (Section 6(a).) The new order removes the prior order’s legally questionable provision that future refugee admissions be prioritized for individuals facing religion-based persecution, but only where the person’s religion is a minority religion in the country in question.
     
  • The executive order caps the total number of refugees that can be admitted at 50,000. (Section 6(b).) The prior order’s permanent suspension of admission for refugees from Syria has been removed.
     
  • The executive order suspends the Visa Interview Waiver Program. (Section 9.)
     
  • The executive order contains other provisions relating to federal government reporting and reconsideration of certain programs and positions. (Sections 7 and 8.)
     
  • The executive order requires the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Attorney General to track and report a range of crimes and actions taken by foreign nationals. (Section 11.)

 

Advocacy Resources

Following are some of the many organizations working to protect our immigrant communities.

  

Pages