19 February 22
Live on the homepage now!
Reader Supported News
Neither mainstream American political party has a compelling message for working-class voters. As a result, voters are starting to vote in line with their cultural opinions, not their class interests. Unfortunately, that’s good news for the Right.
Biden’s failure to fulfill the liberal punditry’s most breathless predictions about his administration is bad news for America’s working class, most of whom are living paycheck to paycheck. It’s also bad news for the Democratic Party, which has been hemorrhaging working-class voters for decades and has now entered triage.
The Democratic Party’s top brass has portrayed this shift as a conscious strategy. As New York senator Chuck Schumer put it, “For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia.” But those numbers don’t add up electorally. To stay afloat, the party needs to win back the working-class voters it’s lost. And to do that, it needs to demonstrate that it’s able to enact policy in workers’ favor, which the Biden administration has so far been unable to accomplish.
In light of this troubling state of affairs, debates are raging about the reason the Democratic Party has lost its way with much of working-class America. One thesis is that we’re witnessing a dramatic and devastating process of class dealignment: that with neither party successfully appealing to voters on the basis of class, noneconomic issues are coming to dominate voter decision-making instead of class interests. A recent Jacobin article by Matt Karp lays out the argument from a socialist perspective, making the case that the Democrats have largely failed to serve as a party for the working class, and so voters are ultimately distributing their support based on cultural rather than economic ideas.
A major dilemma for class dealignment theory is that it is difficult to prove. Political commentators, journalists, and theorists can offer plenty of anecdotes — and often eloquent and thoughtful explanations — about the phenomenon, but it’s difficult to support with data. We can prove that traditional working-class Democratic Party strongholds are disintegrating, but it’s harder to find evidence that the shift is occurring because class interests are being replaced by cultural affiliations. It may be the case instead that working-class voters simply no longer support progressive economic ideas.
To better understand the particulars of American working-class voter behavior, I conducted a study that analyzed the beliefs and political attitudes of a particular subsection of working-class Americans: those who are susceptible to labor automation. This research supports the dealignment thesis — and perhaps points the way out of the ever-escalating culture wars.
A Case Study in Class Dealignment
It is quite common for political pundits and analysts to frame the presence of automation as an abstract concept, a cause for concern on account of its future but not present-day implications. But research shows that technological change is already widening inequality and reducing worker power. This doesn’t always take the form of the complete automation of an entire occupation; in fact, it more frequently involves the automation of individual tasks within an occupation. For example, packing boxes has not been completely automated (yet), but box-packing jobs are shrinking in number as many of the traditional tasks involved in the work are now done by machines.
The economic consequences of this technological change are well-known: power shifts away from workers and toward capital owners. Meanwhile, wages rise for individuals who work in already highly paid white-collar occupations and stagnate for blue-collar, low-wage workers. This technology-driven divergence is compounded by a basket of other regressive and disequalizing trends, from financialization and indebtedness to the gutting of the American welfare state since the 1970s. The short of it is that the demographic most susceptible to automation has borne the brunt of the damage wrought by neoliberalism.
All of this is why the people most susceptible to labor automation offer a salient case study in the presence or absence of class dealignment. This demographic’s recent and ongoing experience with economic disempowerment should, it seems, firmly align their interests with a progressive economic agenda bent on greater redistribution, broader ownership of assets, and the public provision of social goods like health care, housing, and education. Since Democrats are more likely than Republicans to support these policies (which isn’t to say their support is guaranteed, given the stranglehold of moderates on the party), one would expect automation-susceptible individuals to gravitate toward the Democratic Party.
But that hasn’t happened. Instead, they’ve shifted their support toward Republicans and away from Democrats in the last few decades. This shift has not corresponded with an abandonment of left-wing economic views, suggesting that this group is in fact undergoing a process of class dealignment.
My study, which relies on data spanning from 1990 to 2016, defines automation-susceptible individuals as people with automation potential rates at 70 percent or higher. They are disproportionately in the lowest third of the income bracket, concentrated in the American South and Rust Belt, and they tend to have lower levels of education on average. Hispanic and black Americans tend to have the highest rates of automation susceptibility, as do individuals seventy years or older, those who are unemployed or disabled, and those who are from a non-Judaic or non-Christian faith. In total, they represent a significant portion of working-class America.
Their economic experiences are also, perhaps unsurprisingly, matched with a dimmer, more cynical, and more apathetic view of the world and humanity. When compared with the third of Americans that is least susceptible to automation (hereafter referred to as the lowest third), the third that is most susceptible to automation (hereafter referred to as the highest third) is over 5 percentage points less likely to be politically engaged, 15 percentage points more likely to be disapproving of the media, 4 percentage points less likely to have an optimistic perspective on life, and over 23 percentage points more likely to have a negative view of humanity and a more authoritarian outlook. These results are presented below in Figure 1.
But despite antagonistic views on globalization and liberal cultural beliefs, the highest third is over 7 percentage points more supportive of progressive economic ideas than the lowest third. This includes beliefs in affordable health care and housing, the presence of a strong social safety net, and the need for economic redistribution.
In 1990, the highest third was over 4 percentage points more likely to support Democrats than the lowest third. But when I looked at data only in the years since 2000, I saw that the highest third is over 1 percentage point more supportive of Republicans. Throughout this more contemporary window, antagonism to globalization and liberal cultural values has persisted, which may offer a cogent explanation of exactly why the shift toward Republicans is occurring.
The fact that the most automation-susceptible demographic swung from Democrats to Republicans while maintaining overall support for left-wing economic ideas is significant, especially in a particularly tribal and polarized political moment. It suggests that class dealignment is in fact occurring: this group still wants progressive economic change, but since it’s not on offer, the matter is deemphasized and replaced with cultural issues more prevalent in the discourse.
The Politics of the Working Class
At any point over the last few decades during which this troubling shift has occurred, a more left-wing economic agenda might have been alluring to this demographic. But the Democrats either didn’t see or ignored the writing on the wall, shifting instead toward more centrist economic politics.
The policies championed by Democrats in recent decades have coincided with a significant increase in household debt, a decline in inflation-adjusted standards of living for many working-class Americans, and a significant increase in both wealth and income inequality.
Meanwhile, as the Democratic political establishment has shifted away from progressive economic ideas, it has chosen to advance cultural ones. The problem is that advancing progressive cultural ideas in a vacuum is a recipe for class dealignment.
Democrats talk a big game about Black Lives Matter, women’s empowerment, acceptance of all LGBTQ individuals, and the welcoming of immigrants. Yet when it comes to legislating, many of these same Democrats will resist every opportunity to enact the broad economic policies that would provide greater security, opportunity, and health to people of color, women, LGBTQ people, and immigrants (the vast majority of whom, of course, are working-class themselves). The result is a political mixture that is both ineffective on its own terms and also unpopular with working-class voters, who might be more amenable to progressive social ideas if they were packaged with an economic agenda they support. Instead, Democrats have traded working-class support for the support of socially liberal professionals.
Unfortunately for both the Democratic Party’s electoral prospects and the future of progressive legislation, the party’s embrace of class dealigning politics is likely to bring any opportunity for meaningful change to a halt. Republicans seem poised to dominate in the 2022 midterm elections, and working-class frustration is increasingly manifesting as political support for far-right populism. That frustration could have been harnessed by the Democrats if they hadn’t gone out of their way to deemphasize economic issues, but instead it’s now suppurating in a grotesque far-right form.
This rise of the populist far right should be disquieting to everyone. Donald Trump demonstrated the hunger for a strong, culturally conservative, and authoritarian leader among one segment of the working class. Yet Trump was bumbling and incompetent, incapable of pursuing a clear political agenda and crystallizing his political influence under a coherent set of ideals.
For that reason, Trump is not the political figure progressives should worry most about. Indeed, as the backlash to decades of disequalizing, anti-worker, and elitist economic conditions continues to kindle resentment among the working class, and the Democrats continue to cede ground to the Right, Trump may be succeeded by another opportunistic right-wing populist — one more calculating, principled, maneuvering, and ultimately effective in remaking society. If that comes to pass, class dealignment will have played a significant role.
Russian soldiers. (photo: Sergei Karpukhin/Reuters)
"In the absence of the readiness of the American side to agree on firm, legally binding guarantees of ensuring our security by the United States and its allies, Russia will be forced to respond, including through the implementation of military-technical measures," the Kremlin said on Thursday in an 11-page response to written proposals submitted by the US in late January on Moscow's security demands.
The US and NATO have firmly rejected Russia's demand that Ukraine be forever banned from the alliance, stating that countries should be free to choose their own allies and defensive partnerships. Though Ukraine has sought to join NATO for years, it's not on the formal track to become a member at any point in the near future. But with an estimated 150,000 troops surrounding Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin has demanded that the issue be resolved now.
Putin has complained about NATO's eastward expansion for years, ignoring the ways in which his aggressive behavior has pushed countries like Ukraine closer to the alliance and to the West more generally. Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014 and annexed Crimea, and since that year has supported rebels in a war against Ukrainian forces in the eastern Donbas region. Experts say Putin's bellicose posture toward Ukraine is linked to his broader ambitions of seeing Russia regain the power and influence it enjoyed across the region and beyond during the Soviet-era.
Russia on Thursday once again denied any plans to invade Ukraine, despite its massive military buildup on the border of its next-door neighbor.
"There is no and is not planned any 'Russian invasion' of Ukraine, which the United States and its allies have been declaring at the official level since autumn last year, therefore statements about Russia's 'responsibility for the escalation' cannot be regarded otherwise than as an attempt to put pressure on and devalue Russia's proposals for security guarantees," the Kremlin said.
Russia has gathered roughly 150,000 troops on Ukraine's border, according to the Biden administration, which has warned that a Russian invasion could occur at any moment. On Tuesday, Moscow claimed it was withdrawing some troops from Ukraine's border, but the US and NATO rejected this and said there have been no signs of Russian de-escalation.
The Biden administration has warned that Russia is looking for a pretext to invade, and could use covert operatives to stage some kind of sabotage to try to justify it.
"Russia says it's drawing down those forces. We do not see that happening on the ground. Our information indicates clearly that these forces, including ground troops, aircraft, ships, are preparing to launch an attack against Ukraine in the coming days," Secretary of State Antony Blinken said to the United Nations Security Council on Thursday, amid reports of shelling in eastern Ukraine.
A U.S. aircraft carrier. (photo: Michael W. Pendergrass/Getty Images)
Henry Norr, a progressive activist since the 1960s, has held a variety of jobs, including teacher, machinist, and journalist. He was fired from his job as a technology columnist at the San Francisco Chronicle after writing one column about Israel, then being arrested in an antiwar protest. He welcomes your feedback at henrynorr at gmail dot com.
I haven’t had much truck with the Democratic Party since 1965 or ’66, when I was expelled from my college chapter of the Young Democrats because I said out loud that I was rooting for the Viet Cong to win the war the US government was waging against them. The only Democratic presidential candidate I’ve ever voted for was George McGovern, the antiwar senator who got the nomination in 1972. (Admittedly, I might have made some different choices if I’d ever lived in a state that wasn’t “safe” for the Democrat.) And I never donated money to Democratic candidates.
Until, that is, 2018 and then again in 2020, when I decided the insurgent candidates now known as “The Squad” were worth supporting. Now – as punishment for my sins, I suppose – I get calls, texts, and emails almost every day from candidates all over the country, running for a variety of offices but mostly the House, who describe themselves as progressives. I dutifully check out their campaign websites, and some turn out to sound like just mainstream Democrats, in whom I don’t have much interest (even if I’d rather see them in office than a Republican). But I’ve been heartened to discover dozens of aspirants to the House who mostly live up to their progressive branding: they speak out strongly in favor of a Green New Deal, Medicare for All, voting rights, immigration reform, racial justice, reproductive rights, criminal justice reform, affordable housing, and so on. Many are a stronger on slogans than on specifics, but by the standards of American politics in the 2020s, they sound remarkably right-on.
Concerned that the sites I was looking at were somehow unrepresentative on this score, I decided to undertake a systematic survey of all the non-incumbent progressive House candidates I could identify. That’s not to say the records of incumbents who call themselves progressives don’t also deserve scrutiny, but they are better known, and I was particularly curious about the possibility of an expanded Congressional left, so I concentrated on non-incumbents – some challenging incumbent corporate Democrats, others seeking the Democratic nomination to run for open seats or against incumbent Republicans.
Besides the candidates who had contacted me, and a few more I came across on my own, I got most of my survey subjects by looking at the endorsements of three progressive advocacy groups: the Justice Democrats, the Working Families Party, and Brand New Congress. A few more came from the endorsements of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee and Our Revolution.
In all, I ended up with a sample of 39 House candidates. They are definitely an appealing lot: nearly all are women and/or people of color; most are young and photogenic; they all have impressive records as activists, non-profit officials, or in some cases state or local officeholders; and their platforms check all the boxes that dominate today’s progressive discourse. Unfortunately, though, my expanded research confirmed my initial impression: more than 3/5 of these progressive candidates – 24 out of the 39 – make no mention whatsoever on their campaign sites of issues of war and peace.
And it seems that none of the many advocacy groups that endorse progressive candidates condition their support on candidates taking a position on these issues. Consider, for example, Justice Democrats. I’ve supported them in the past, they played a major role in promoting the campaigns of the current “Squad,” and their own organizational platform includes a pretty good call for a “Progressive Foreign Policy”. Yet of the six new House candidates they’re supporting this year, only one – Rana Abdelhamid, a child of working-class Egyptian immigrants who is taking on establishment incumbent Carolyn Maloney in NY-12 (parts of Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Queens) – addresses military and foreign-policy matters, and even she devotes only a couple of sentences to them.
The next stop in my research was the Working Families Party (WFP), and the results there were even more depressing from anti-militarist perspective: Of the 10 House candidates they’ve endorsed, again only one – Nida Allam, the daughter of Indian and Pakistani immigrants who is running in NC-06 (Durham, Chapel Hill, and surrounding rural areas) – addresses issues of foreign and military policy. Allam’s position, like Abdelhamid’s, is not as detailed as I’d like, but at least it includes pledges to support reducing the military budget, to seek repeal of the 2001 and 2002 Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMF), and to seek an end to aid and weapons sales to regimes committing human rights abuses.
Brand New Congress, a group I’d previously been only dimly aware of, turned out to have the most candidates with the clarity and courage to speak out against U.S. foreign and military policy among its list of endorsees: of the 16 hopefuls it’s endorsing for the House, fully half have some kind of statement about military spending and imperial bullying on their websites.
Of these eight, Stephanie Gallardo, who is challenging incumbent Democrat Adam Smith in WA-09, a district that runs from Seattle to Tacoma, has the most forceful statement: she calls for “an end to imperialist wars and exorbitant spending on militarization,” including specifically “nuclear arms reduction and disarmament” and “a drastically reduced Pentagon budget.” The daughter of refugees from Pinochet’s coup in Chile, she defines herself as a “Democratic Socialist” right under her name on her home page. (Her site is also notable for the strongest candidate statement on Palestine and Israel that I’ve ever seen from an American politician. It begins “The United States must end all aid to the state of Israel and take a clear stand in support of Palestinian liberation” and goes on to endorse the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement.)
Others on the BNC list also take strong positions on military issues:
* Angelica Dueñas makes a brief but bold call for “reducing our military budget by 50%” and promises to push for negotiations to eliminate nuclear weapons, ban weapons in space, and regulate the use of autonomous robots and drones. Dueñas is mounting a second challenge to longtime incumbent Democrat Tony Cárdenas in CA-29 (part of southern California’s San Fernando Valley) after winning 43.4 percent of the vote in 2020.
* Imani Oakley, who is challenging incumbent Democrat Donald Payne Jr. in NJ-10, including Newark, declares “we live in a state of perpetual war and international conflict fueled by racism, hawkish politicians, and greedy multinational corporations.” She goes on to promise that in Congress she will seek to “dramatically reduce military and weapons spending, … advocate for the end of the “forever wars” in the Middle East, …defend the humanity, dignity, and safety of the Palestinian people,… [and] fight to end all forms of state violence on the international stage by eliminating taxpayer-funded support for foreign countries – including the Israeli, Chinese, and Myanma[r] governments — that commit genocide and other violent human rights violations.”
* Brittany Ramos DeBarros bases her outspoken opposition to militarism on her experience in Afghanistan, where she saw combat while serving as a captain in the U.S. Army. On her campaign site she writes “We need to completely reclaim and reframe the conversation on national security. The war profiteers have made billions while the establishment politicians in their pockets abdicate their duty to our troops, sending them to kill and die in counterproductive, unjust wars with no clear objective or end point in sight.”
Now a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, Ramos DeBarros is running against a conservative, pro-cop Democratic for the chance to take on the incumbent Trump-loving Republican in NY-11. The district – known for, among other things, Staten Island’s large population of police and prison guards – went overwhelmingly for Trump in 2016 and even more so in 2020, but redistricting seems to have improved Democratic prospects.
(Probably because Ramos DeBarros lives in New York City, and because she putting forward such progressive politics in such a conservative district, and perhaps because she seems to have an exuberant personality, she has attracted more media attention than the other candidates discussed here. The Nation profiled her and the right-wing New York Post recently ran an exposé, with a video she posted to her Instagram page in 2019 with the hashtag #dropbootiesnotbombs, showing her stripping off her uniform and gyrating in her red lingerie to Edwin Starr’s hit song “War” (“What is it good for? Absolutely nothing!”) at an anti-war burlesque show at a Brooklyn bar.
* Melanie D’Arrigo, who is running for a vacant seat in NY-03, on the north shore of Long Island not only declares that “It’s time to stop never ending wars, protect our military families and stop increasing our already overly bloated military budget,” but also has a website section dedicated specifically to “Denuclearization,” including a call for “non-proliferation agreements to reduce nuclear stockpiles” and “restricting first use of nuclear weapons.”
* Shervin Aazami (CA-32, another part of the San Fernando Valley) presents detailed critique of the hawkish record and close ties to weapons manufacturers of the incumbent Democrat he’s challenging, Rep. Brad Sherman, and explicitly denounces “imperialism and militarism” and “multinational defense corporations seeking to maximize profit.” Under the heading “Defund our military-industrial complex and endless wars,” explains that “Due to the profligate greed of the defense industry aided and abetted by hawkish bipartisan neoconservatism, the United States continues to fund endless, morally vacuous, brutal, and destructive foreign wars.”
* Rebecca Parson, challenging incumbent Democratic Rep. Derek Kilmer in WA-06, on the Olympic Peninsula, says “We need to stop invading other countries for resource extraction, the enrichment of the military-industrial complex, and market expansion for American corporations.” Among the specifics she proposes: ending U.S. support for the war in Yemen, ending the Presidential Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMFs) going back to the Cold War. And “closing Guantanamo Bay and abolishing torture.”
* Erica Smith, who hopes to unseat incumbent Democratic Rep. Deborah Ross in NC-02, (central North Carolina) is considerably less outspoken on foreign and military policy, but her website does say “We need to end the endless wars and reign in the authority that allows every President, regardless of party, to engage in acts of war without congressional approval.”
So those eight BNC endorsees have pretty strong positions on the issues I’m concerned with here, as well progressive domestic causes. Unfortunately, the other eight on the group’s list avoid foreign policy and military issues altogether. Among them, perhaps surprisingly, are two prominent candidates with well-known ties to Sen. Bernie Sanders, Amy Vilela (NV-01, Las Vegas) and Nina Turner (OH-11, the Cleveland area): Turner, who is notably outspoken on most issues, was once president of the Sanders-affiliated group Our Revolution and then a national co-chair of his 2020 presidential campaign, while Vilela co-chaired his 2020 presidential campaign in Nevada and recently won the endorsement of Rep. Cori Bush. (I don’t know whether or not this is part of the explanation, but Vilela’s About page does note that her husband is a Major in the U.S. Air Force.)
As for the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (BoldProgressives.org), their list includes six non-incumbents seeking House seats, of whom three address militarism and related issues: two mentioned above – Erica Smith (NC-02) and Brittany Ramos DeBarros (NY-11), plus Attica Scott (KY-03), whose “Issues” page includes: “It is painfully clear that the United States cannot continue to engage in ongoing violent conflict and war. We are asking mostly young people to go to war in order to line the pockets of defense contractors.”
Our Revolution, to my surprise, has so far endorsed only three hopefuls for the House, all in Texas and all silent on military or foreign-policy matters.
Finally, four candidates who evidently haven’t been endorsed by any of the advocacy groups – perhaps because they’re distinct longshots – made my list of progressive candidates with platforms that address international and military as well as domestic issues:
* Shahid Buttar, who two years ago took 22.4 percent of the vote against Nancy Pelosi in CA-12 (San Francisco), is taking a second run at the soon-to-be-82-year-old House Speaker this year (shahidforchange.us). An immigrant of Pakistani descent from the United Kingdom, Buttar is a longtime activist in various left causes, including grassroots opposition to the war in Iraq. Given that background, it’s not surprising that he’s running on a strongly progressive platform or that it includes a section labeled “Foreign Policy and Military,” but I was disappointed that that section wasn’t stronger: while one of the several “Specific actions” it calls for is “Ending U.S. military support for foreign regimes that abuse human rights, from Saudi Arabia and Israel to the Philippines,” it makes no mention of cutting the Pentagon budget, closing bases, or nuclear disarmament.
* Muad Hrezi, the son of Libyan asylum-seekers, is challenging John B. Larson, chair of the House Democratic Caucus, in CT-01, which includes Hartford and surroundings. Under the heading “A Just Foreign Policy,” he observes that “The forever wars we’ve engaged in over the last two decades—in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, and elsewhere—have destabilized entire regions and come at a tremendous human, economic, social, and political cost.” He calls for cutting the Pentagon budget by $1.2 trillion over ten years and for “conditioning aid to countries based on their respect for human rights, whether it’s Saudi Arabia, Israel, or Nicaragua.” That budget cut comes out to only a relatively modest 15 percent or so, and Hrezi doesn’t explain why we should be giving any aid to the Saudis and the Israelis, but both proposals would be improvements over current policies.
* Alexandra Hunt is challenging incumbent Democrat Dwight Evans in PA-03 which encompasses much of Philadelphia. When she first contacted me to solicit a contribution and I checked her “Issues” page, I was impressed with her position on domestic issues but found the usual problem, so I emailed her to say I might donate a little “but not nearly as much as I would if you came out four-square for slashing the military budget, ending the forever wars, and in general giving up on our imperial madness.” She promptly wrote back “You are one step ahead of me, but not far! I am rolling out my foreign policy platform in the very near future. It breaks down how I would cut the Pentagon budget, end endless wars, and stop American imperialism. I discuss Central America, the Middle East, China, nuclear weapons, and diplomacy on my platform.”
Less than a week later, the new section appeared on her site, and I was bowled over: it’s a long (1,220 words!), well-informed, and thorough-going critique of U.S. foreign and security policies. The section on the Pentagon budget details a list of cuts she pledges to fight for (including closing 60 percent of foreign bases), which she says will reduce the budget by 48 percent – still not enough, but like Ms. Dueñas’ 50-percent proposal, a good start.
(Hunt’s revised platform also added a good statement on the Middle East: “Since its founding, Israel has waged a colonial war on the Palestinian people with the aim of replacing them with Jewish settlers. … The United States funding of military aid to Israel enables these crimes that deny Palestinians their basic freedom and human rights. Alexandra will fight to end U.S. militarized aid to Israel and advocate for Palestinian human rights.”)
Unfortunately, I doubt Hunt has much of a chance: she’s a white woman challenging a Black man in a majority Black district, and a political novice up against an incumbent who was first elected to office in 1980. On top of all that, much of the media coverage of her campaign that I’ve seen focuses not on her stands on issues, but on the fact that she worked as a stripper during her college years.
* Mckayla Wilkes (MD-05) is challenging incumbent Rep. Steny Hoyer, the 82-year-old House Majority Leader (second in command after Nancy Pelosi) and, like Pelosi, a champion of corporate-friendly “moderation.” Her lively “Issues” page checks the usual progressive boxes but puts an unusually radical spin on them. Her Green New Deal page, to cite just one example, includes “Guaranteeing a just transition to workers in extractive sectors (such as oil, gas, shale, and industrial agriculture) by nationalizing dominant actors” and building a “a 100 percent renewable energy sector that is democratically controlled.” Elsewhere she calls for “democratizing the stock market” by establishing a “social wealth fund” – a federally-run investment fund that would pay out a set percentage of its value every year in the form of an equal dividend to every American adult.
As to military and foreign policy, Wilkes’ platform is nowhere near as comprehensive and detailed as Hunt’s, but it’s not bad. Under the rubric, “End the Forever Wars,” she writes:
“The United States’ aggressive military adventurism has been a complete failure. The federal government has poured trillions of dollars into wars which only serve to starve domestic social programs and cause human misery abroad. Instead of an arrogant and shortsighted foreign policy, we need an anti-imperialist foreign policy based on peace and cooperation. That’s why Mckayla supports ending U.S. support for the illegal Saudi military campaign in Yemen; pulling American troops out of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria; passing a new Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) that severely curtails the president’s ability to start military engagements without congressional approval; and redirecting at least $200 billion in defense funding toward foreign aid and domestic social programs.”
Senate Candidates
“Several of the progressive advocacy groups also endorse some Senatorial candidates. Among the non-incumbents, to judge by their online platforms, there’s only one – Morgan Harper (OH) – I’d classify as mostly a real progressive, but she makes no mention of military or international issues (morganharper.org). Neither does Lucas Kunce (MO), whose platform focuses on breaking up monopolies and abolishing corporate PACs, or Malcolm Kenyatta (PA), whose platform is more extensive but consists mostly of centrist Democratic talking points. (One example: he calls for “a moratorium on new fracking,” not an outright ban on this destructive technology.) As for Mandela Barnes (WI) and Charles Booker (KY), neither’s website includes an “Issues” page at all. No doubt all of these candidates would make better Senators than their Republican adversaries, but none seems likely to stand up to the war machine.
Conclusions
- It’s great to see so many compelling candidates running for Congress on such progressive platforms, including stances such as support for a Green New Deal and Medicare for All that were considered fringe positions just a few years ago. I am not in a position to judge the chances of these candidates winning their primaries, much less the November elections, but if even a third or a quarter of them make it, that would be a big boost to the left wing of the Democratic Party.
- Some of these progressives do address military spending and related issues, if not generally with as much clarity and detail as I’d wish. On the other hand, it’s dismaying to find that a clear majority of these otherwise progressive candidates – again, 24 of the 39 in my survey – say literally NOTHING in their online platforms about issues of war and peace and, in particular, the enormous sums the U.S. government spends every year on weaponry, offshore bases, and the rest of the military machine.
- Evidently not a single one of the progressive groups whose candidate lists I surveyed makes it a condition for their endorsements that the candidates speak out on these issues. I don’t know how these groups arrive at their endorsements – the lists don’t appear to reflect clear political differences – but all of them include many candidates who stand silent on international and military matters.
- Several of the candidates or campaign staffers I complained to, on the phone or via email, about these omissions explained that they developed their platforms to focus on issues that are top of mind among their constituents, and that the military budget and the rest of the issues I wanted them to raise simply don’t pass that test. Maybe that’s all true, but if it is, it is in part due to the failures of the progressive movement: after all, not only is militarism a threat to everyone’s security, but paying for it – to the tune of approximately 53 cents of every dollar Congress spends, also severely limits the resources available for the domestic programs all these candidates champion. Shouldn’t it be part of every progressive politician’s job to make these connections?
I’m sure all these progressive candidates honor the memory of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. They are too young to have heard his celebrated “Beyond Vietnam” speech at the Riverside Church in New York City in 1967, but is it too much to expect of them – all of them – to take to heart, and to their constituents, his observation that “A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death”?
Candidate Statements
Below is a list of all 39 candidates in my survey – all non-incumbents running for the House on progressive (to varying degrees) platforms. I’ve divided them into two groups, the 15 whose platforms include at least some opposition to military spending and aggressive foreign policies and the 24 on whose websites I found no mention of these issues.
Candidates whose platforms in some way address military spending, foreign policy, etc.:
Shervin Aazami (CA-32)
Challenging incumbent Democratic Rep. Brad Sherman
Website: shervin4congress.com
Endorsed by: Brand New Congress
Primary date: June 7
Rana Abdelhamid (NY-12)
Challenging incumbent Democratic Rep. Carolyn Maloney
Website: ranaforcongress.com
Major organizational endorsements: Justice Democrats
Primary date: June 28
Nida Allam (NC-06)
Challenging incumbent Democratic Rep. Kathy Manning
Website: nidaallam.com
Major organizational endorsements: Working Families Party
Primary date: May 17
Shahid Buttar (CA-12)
Challenging incumbent Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi
Website: shahidforchange.us
Major organizational endorsements: NA
Primary date: June 7
Melanie D’Arrigo (NY-03)
Seeking Democratic nomination for a vacant seat
Website: darrigo2022.com
Major organizational endorsements: Brand New Congress, Indivisible
Primary date: June 28
Angelica Dueñas (CA-29)
Challenging incumbent Democratic Rep. Tony Cárdenas
Website: angelica4congress.com
Major organizational endorsements: Brand New Congress
Primary date: June 7
Stephanie Gallardo (WA-09)
Challenging incumbent Democratic Rep. Adam Smith
Website: electgallardo.com
Major organizational endorsements: Brand New Congress, RootsAction
Primary date: August 2
Muad Hrezi (CT-01, around Hartford)
Challenging incumbent John B. Larson, chair of the House Democratic Caucus
Website: hrezi.com
Major organizational endorsements: NA
Primary date: August 9
Alexandra Hunt (PA-03)
Challenging incumbent Democratic Rep. Dwight Evans
Website: alexandramhunt.com
Major organizational endorsements: NA
Primary date: May 17
Imani Oakley (NJ-10)
Challenging incumbent Democratic Rep. Donald Payne Jr.
Website: oakleyforcongress.com
Major organizational endorsements: Brand New Congress
Primary date: June 7
Rebecca Parson (WA-06)
Challenging incumbent Democratic Rep. Derek Kilmer
Website: rebeccaparson.com
Major organizational endorsements: Brand New Congress
Primary date: August 2
Brittany Ramos DeBarros (NY-11)
Seeking Democratic nomination to oppose incumbent Republican Rep. Nicole Malliotakis
Website: brittanyforthepeople.org
Major organizational endorsements: Brand New Congress, Progressive Change Campaign Committee
Primary date: June 28
Attica Scott (KY-03)
Seeking Democratic nomination for a vacant seat
Website: atticaforcongress.com
Major organizational endorsements: Progressive Change Campaign Committee
Primary date: May 17
Erica Smith (NC-02)
Challenging incumbent Democrat Rep. Deborah Ross
Website: ericaforus.com
Major organizational endorsements: Brand New Congress, Progressive Change Campaign Committee
Primary date: May 17
Mckayla Wilkes (MD-05)
Challenging incumbent Democratic Rep. Steny Hoyer
Website: mckaylawilkes.com
Major organizational endorsements: RootsAction
Primary date: June 28
Candidates whose platforms are silent on military spending, foreign policy, etc.:
Amane Badhasso (MN-04 – in and around St. Paul)
Challenging incumbent Democratic Rep. Betty McCollum
Website: amaneforcongress.com
Major organizational endorsements: NA
Primary date: August 9
Greg Casar (TX-35 – Austin)
Challenging incumbent Democratic Rep. Lloyd Doggett
Website: casarforcongress.com
Major organizational endorsements: Justice Democrats, Working Families Party, Our Revolution
Primary date: March 1
Jessica Cisneros (TX-28)
Challenging incumbent Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar
Website: jessicacisnerosforcongress.com
Major organizational endorsements: Justice Democrats, Working Families Party, brand New Congress, Progressive Change Campaign Committee, Our Revolution, Indivisible
Primary date: March 1
Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (FL-20, in southeast Florida)
Technically an incumbent seeking reelection, after winning a special election to succeed the late Alcee Hastings on January 11, 2022. But she got only 23.76 percent of the vote, edging out the runner-up in a crowded field by just five votes, or 0.01 percent, and at least seven other candidates have already entered the race against her for the August primary.
Website: sheilafordistrict20.com
Major organizational endorsements: Brand New Congress
Primary date: August 23
Kina Collins (IL-07)
Challenging incumbent Democratic Rep. Danny K. Davis
Website: kinacollins.com
Major organizational endorsements: Justice Democrats, Indivisible
Primary date: June 28
Jasmine Crockett (TX-30, Dallas and southern suburbs)
Seeking nomination to replace retiring Democratic Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, competing with BNC endorsee Jessica Mason and others
Website: jasmineforus.com
Major organizational endorsements: Our Revolution
Primary date: March 1
Jerry Dickinson (PA-18 – Pittsburgh and surroundings)
Seeking nomination to replace retiring Democratic Rep. Michael Doyle (competing with Summer Lee and others)
Website: jerrydickinson.com
Major organizational endorsements: Brand New Congress
Primary date: May 17
Maxwell Alejandro Frost (FL-10)
Seeking Democratic nomination for seat vacated by Democratic Rep. Val Demings
Website: frostforcongress.com
Major organizational endorsements: NA
Primary date: August 23
Odessa Kelly (TN-05)
Seeking to replace retiring Blue Dog Democratic Rep. Jim Cooper
Website: odessaforcongresss.com
Major organizational endorsements: Justice Democrats, Brand New Congress, Indivisible
Primary date: August 4
Daniel Lee (CA-37, in Los Angeles County)
Seeking to replace Democratic Rep. Karen Bass, who is running for Mayor of LA
Website: danielwaynelee.com
Major organizational endorsements: NA
Primary date: June 7
Summer Lee (PA-18 – Pittsburgh and surroundings)
Seeking to replace retiring Democratic Rep. Michael Doyle, competing with BNC-endorsed Jerry Dickinson
Website: summerforpa.com
Major organizational endorsements: Justice Democrats, Working Families Party
Primary date: May 17
Derek Marshall (CA-08, north and east of Los Angeles)
Seeking nomination to challenge incumbent Republican Rep. Jay Obernolte
Website: derekmarshallca.com
Major organizational endorsements: NA
Primary date: June 7
Jessica Mason (TX-30 – Dallas and southern suburbs)
Seeking nomination to replace retiring Democratic Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, competing with Our Revolution endorsee Jasmine Crockett and others
Website: jessicamasonforcongress.com
Major organizational endorsements: Brand New Congress
Primary date: March 1
Jamie McLeod-Skinner (OR-05 – Oregon’s central coast, Salem, and southern suburbs of Portland)
Challenging incumbent Democratic Rep. Kurt Schrader
Website: jamiefororegon.com
Major organizational endorsements: Working Families Party
Primary date: May 17
Bryan Osorio (CA-21, in California’s Central Valley)
Seeking Democratic nomination to challenge incumbent Republican Rep. David Valadao
Website: osorioforcongress.com
Major organizational endorsements: Our Revolution:Kern County
Primary date: June 7
Delia Ramirez (IL-03, south and west of Chicago)
Seeking Democratic nomination in a new district (Rep. Marie Newman, who represented the old IL-03, is running in IL-06 in 2022)
Website: deliaforcongress.com
Major organizational endorsements: Working Families Party
Primary date: June 28
Sol Sandoval (CO-03, western Colorado)
Seeking Democratic nomination to challenge incumbent Republican Rep. Lauren Boebert
Website: sandovalforcolorado.com
Major organizational endorsements: Working Families Party
Primary date: June 28
Ashmi Sheth (NY-10, encompassing the west side of Manhattan and parts of Brooklyn)
Challenging incumbent Democratic Rep. Jerrold Nadler
Website: ashmiforcongress.com
Major organizational endorsements: NA
Primary date: June 28
Nina Turner (OH-11, the Cleveland area)
Running against incumbent Democratic Rep. Shontel Brown, who upset her in a special election in November, 2021
Website: ninaturner.com
Major organizational endorsements: Brand New Congress
Primary date: May 3
Amy Vilela (NV-01 – Las Vegas)
Challenging incumbent Democratic Rep. Dina Titus
Website: amyvilela.org
Major organizational endorsements: Brand New Congress
Primary date: June 14
Neal Walia (CO-01 – Denver)
Challenging incumbent Democratic Rep. Diana DeGette
Website: nealwaliaforcongress.com
Major organizational endorsements: Working Families Party
Primary date: June 28
Marsha Williams (IL-17 – northwest Illinois)
Challenging incumbent Democratic Rep. Cheri Bustos
Website: marshawilliamsforcongress.com
Major organizational endorsements: Brand New Congress
Primary date: June 28
Tom Winter (MT-01 – western Montana)
Seeking Democratic nomination for a new seat
Website: winterformontana.com
Major organizational endorsements: Progressive Change Campaign Committee
Primary date: June 7
Claudia Zapata (TX-21 – parts of Austin and San Antonio and areas to the west)
Seeking the Democratic nomination to oppose Republican incumbent Rep. Chip Roy
Website: conclaudia.com
Major organizational endorsements: NA
Primary date: May 24
A worker at an Amazon warehouse. (photo: Helen H. Richardson/Getty Images)
Federal labor officials on Thursday officially set a union vote for thousands of Amazon workers at a Staten Island warehouse. The in-person election is set to run between March 25-30. Meanwhile, workers at another warehouse in Bessemer, Ala., are voting by mail for the second time on whether to unionize. The results of the two election are likely to come within days of each other.
Labor organizers are pushing to create the first unionized Amazon warehouses in the U.S., where the company is now the second-largest private employer with 1.1 million workers.
The Staten Island union election is a product of a fledgling labor group unaffiliated with any national union. Organizers, calling themselves the Amazon Labor Union, are current and former Amazon workers. Their leader Chris Smalls had staged a walkout over working conditions at the Staten Island warehouse early in the pandemic and was fired the same day.
The campaign is pursuing union elections at a total of four Amazon warehouses on Staten Island, where workers pack and process orders from shoppers in the massive New York market. Organizers say they hope to win longer breaks, better medical and other leave options, and higher wages.
Amazon had challenged various elements of the union-election petition. The company has argued unions are not necessary, touting its health, education and other benefits, as well as its pay starting at $15 an hour and averaging $18 an hour.
Since the walkout in March 2020, Staten Island warehouse workers have filed several labor complaints against Amazon, alleging interference with organizing efforts. The National Labor Relations Board later accused Amazon of illegally threatening, interrogating and surveilling the workers, which the company denies.
The labor board approved a union election for Staten Island warehouse workers after a hearing with Amazon and organizers.
The New York warehouse would be the second Amazon facility to get a union election in two years. Last spring, Amazon warehouse workers in Bessemer, Ala., voted against unionizing in a stinging landslide defeat for labor. But later, federal labor officials scrapped that election and ordered a re-do, ruling that Amazon's anti-union campaign had tainted the results.
In early February, ballots went out again to 6,100 Amazon workers at the Bessemer warehouse. Workers are voting by mail; the hand-tally of ballots is set to begin on March 28 and expected to last several days.
Men hold signs as they march during a protest against the recent remarks by President Joe Biden to freeze Afghanistan's assets in Kabul, Afghanistan, Feb. 15, 2022. (photo: Sahel Arman/AFP/Getty Images)
Biden’s decision to allocate $3.5 billion for compensating 9/11 victims’ families has sent teams of lawyers scrambling.
In separate letters sent to the court Tuesday, Kreindler & Kreindler and Motley Rice, law firms representing other 9/11 victims in similar cases, claimed that their plaintiffs should get a cut as well. The so-called Havlish plaintiffs, who are set to receive the $3.5 billion, were among the first to file suit against the Taliban seeking compensation and won a court judgment for several billion dollars in 2006.
In his letter to the court, attorney James P. Kreindler claimed that the Havlish plaintiffs represent only 47 victims who died on September 11 and that the court award of the funds would be “to the detriment of the families of the other 2,930 individuals killed that day” and could “irreparably harm” them. Kreindler & Kreindler’s and Motley Rice’s own clients, the lawyers argued, who had filed suits against Sudan, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and other foreign governments and private entities, should be entitled to the Afghan money as well.
Already, compensation funds, including one financed by money appropriated by Congress, have paid billions of dollars to the families of victims of 9/11. But the potential for greater payments from foreign governments allegedly tied to the 9/11 hijackers and the Biden administration’s unprecedented seizure of Afghan central bank money have fueled another boom in lobbying and legal advocacy.
Kreindler & Kreindler, in a message to its clients this week obtained by The Intercept, emphasized that there are many outstanding legal issues surrounding the $3.5 billion in Afghanistan central bank funds and that they are working on intervening.
“We are disappointed that the DOJ did not take action that would have made these assets available to the 9/11 Families immediately and on an equitable basis and we are continuing to work with our lobbying team and reaching out to law and policy makers to urge them to do so now,” the law firm noted.
Andrew Maloney, a partner at Kreindler & Kreindler, argued his firm deserves Afghanistan’s money because they didn’t fight the Taliban hard enough. “The reality is, the Afghan people didn’t stand up to the Taliban. … They bear some responsibility for the condition they’re in.” Kreindler & Kreindler and Motley Rice did not respond to a request for comment.
The potential payouts for the attorneys themselves are considerable. The law firms have worked on a contingency basis and have squabbled over fee arrangements in the past. But under even a conservative 15 percent fee structure, the Afghan funds would create a windfall of $525 million in legal fees. Some lobbyists may also reap a massive payday from the Afghan funds. In a lawsuit filed in federal court last year, alleging breach of contract, lobbyists formerly working with Kreindler & Kreindler revealed that the plaintiff’s firm had compensated its lobbyists by promising them a percentage of the 9/11 victims’ awards.
K&K, as it is known, is among the many 9/11 victims’ law firms that have orchestrated sophisticated lobbying campaigns to earn themselves and their clients more.
In December, K&K registered the lobbying firm Nueva Vista Group, a well-connected team of Democratic lobbyists to work on 9/11 litigation issues, including issues around the Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Act. The company’s co-founder, Irene Bueno, was an aide to former President Bill Clinton and a major Democratic donor who advised the Biden campaign on outreach to the Filipino community.
That month, K&K also retained EFB Advocacy, a company run by a former aide to Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, to shape policies around 9/11 litigation. K&K has also long retained the services of Ballard Partners, a firm closely tied to the former Trump administration.
When Congress passed the Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Act, legislators appropriated $3.3 billion in payments in three rounds, from 2017 through 2020. There were multiple attempts last year to update and include “catch-up” payments, or lump sums for certain families eligible for additional disbursements.
Records show many of the leading law firms representing 9/11 victims have spent considerable amounts of money on lobbying. Wiggins Childs Pantazis Fisher & Goldfarb, one of the co-counsels to the Havlish plaintiffs along with Jenner & Block, contracts the Klein/Johnson Group, a firm run by a former aide to Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., on laws relating to 9/11 victim compensation.
And there is little comparison to the influence exerted by Lee Wolosky, one of the lead Jenner & Block lawyers involved in the lawsuit. As The Intercept reported this week, Wolosky served as a special counsel to the Biden administration’s National Security Council working on Afghanistan issues as recently as last month. In January, he left the White House and promptly joined the Havlish case.
Cozen O’Connor, the Philadelphia-based law firm working on 9/11 families’ suits against the Saudi government, retains Endgame Strategies, a firm run by a former Republican strategist. Cozen O’Connor lawyer Sean Carter denied that his firm will seek the central bank funds. “Neither we nor any lobbyist working with our firm has made any proposal to any U.S. official related to the Afghan funds,” wrote Carter in an email.
None of the law firms contacted by The Intercept gave information on their fee structures relating to the 9/11 litigation. But a recent lawsuit, filed last October by a lobbyist formerly employed under contract with K&K, provides a window into the gusher of money expected from the litigation and the various incentives for lobbyists working on this issue.
In 2012, Kreindler sought the services of Jack Quinn, a prominent lobbyist, for help influencing legal rules around litigation over 9/11 victim lawsuits. In an initial contract, Kreindler promised .775 percent or 1 percent of the net recovery of legal awards from the consolidated 9/11 litigation to Quinn and another lobbying firm. In other words, as Quinn lobbied to advance the interests of the litigation, he and other lobbyists would receive a percentage of the legal awards.
Quinn, over the years, lobbied for a range of policy changes beneficial to the litigation, including the passage of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, which changes sovereign immunity rules to assist plaintiffs seeking compensation from foreign governments over the attacks on 9/11. Quinn, in a breach of contract lawsuit filed last year, claimed he also lobbied in 2020 to overturn language in the Sudan Claims Resolution Act that would have “erased 9/11 families claims against Sudan.”
Quinn has demanded payment from K&K, arguing that the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund has already distributed some $7 billion and that the lawyers involved in these cases have refused to compensate him adequately according to the terms in his original contract.
Quinn’s attorneys did not respond to a request for comment.
As the legal squabbling continues — with the courts deciding how to dole out the $3.5 billion the Biden administration seized from Afghanistan — several million Afghan citizens face the immediate risk of starvation. The sanctions and bank seizures have not only devastated the Afghan economy, but also forced a mass migration crisis. There are multiple reports of families selling children to afford food to eat and Afghans already dying from lack of food.
“Our people stood side by side with your nation for years, sacrificing more than any other nation in the war on terror,” wrote Sima Samar, the former minister for women’s affairs of Afghanistan, along with more than 125 Afghan women leaders in a recently circulated open letter to Biden, sharply criticizing the seizure of the $7 billion from Afghanistan’s central bank.
“The 9/11 terrorists were not Afghans, and the commander of the terrorists was not an Afghan. We are ourselves victims of this terrorism,” they wrote. “The people of Afghanistan should not be victimized again by this collective failure. The assets of Afghanistan belong to its people. … Taking funds from the Afghan people is the unkindest and inappropriate response to a country that is going through the worst humanitarian crisis in its history. It is the squeezing of a wounded hand.”
A migrant caravan began their short-lived attempt to reach the US from Tapachula, Mexico, on November 18, 2021, before Mexican immigration authorities intercepted them. (photo: Jacob Garcia/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images)
Photos published by Reuters show the migrants, mostly from Central and South America, using needles and plastic thread to tie their lips together in a bid to pressure Mexican authorities to expedite their asylum claims.
The harrowing images are another sign of the desperation of migrants stuck in the southern city of Tapachula, at the border with Guatemala. Backlogs mean some wait months for asylum claims to be processed and humanitarian visas to be granted to legalize their stay in the country.
The dramatic protest also reflects an increasingly tense situation in Tapachula, where a recent massive influx of thousands of migrants from Central and South America, Haiti and other countries has overwhelmed Mexican authorities.
The number of people applying for refugee or asylum status in Mexico has nearly doubled since 2019, reaching an all-time high of 131,448 claims in 2021 — 39 percent of which came from Haitians, according to government data released last month.
Roughly 70 percent of the asylum claims are processed in Tapachula, where the country’s largest immigration center is located.
Several migrants who participated in the protest told journalists that they felt a need to express their mounting frustration over delays in getting their claims processed.
“I got an appointment in three or four months and I don’t have the money to stay in this city for that long,” Rafael Hernandez, from Venezuela, told AFP.
Others said they were carrying out the dramatic action to shine a light on the difficult conditions they are living in, with many sleeping in parks and on street benches for weeks and relying on humanitarian aid for food. According to Reuters, a dozen people participated in the protest.
“I’m doing it for my daughter,” Yorgelis Rivera of Venezuela told the news agency. “She has not eaten anything in the last few hours and I see no solution from the authorities.”
“We are like prisoners here,” Rivera added, saying she has been waiting for a response from Mexico’s migration agency for more than a month.
In a news release, Mexico’s National Institute of Migration, the agency overseeing immigration matters, characterized the migrant mouth-sewing protest as “senseless.”
“It is very concerning that these measures were taken with the consent and support of those who call themselves their representatives, with the intention of pressuring migration authorities on a service that is already being provided,” the statement read.
Mexican immigration authorities said they are dealing with asylum requests and giving priority to “vulnerable groups like children, adolescents, pregnant women, crime victims, people with disabilities and senior citizens.”
In recent years, Mexico has faced mounting pressure from the United States to stem the massive flow of migrants fleeing violence, poverty and climate change, and prevent them from reaching the U.S-Mexico border.
In return, the Mexican government has repeatedly urged the Biden administration to increase funding for Mexico and Central America — where most of the migrants come from — to create more jobs and deter migration.
During the 2021 fiscal year, U.S. authorities took more than 1.7 million migrants into custody along the Mexico border, an all-time high. Arrests by the Border Patrol also reached the highest levels ever recorded, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection data obtained by The Washington Post.
While migrants rarely sought protection in Mexico in the past, stricter border enforcement at the U.S.-Mexico border and a slowdown in U.S. asylum processing has led to a spike in people now claiming asylum in Mexico. According to migrant advocates and human rights groups, this has further strained an already flawed immigration system.
Raymundo Tamayo, Mexico director for the International Rescue Committee, a humanitarian aid group, said the “exponential growth” in the number of migrants seeking protection in Mexico, either to stay in the country or continue north, has posed significant financial and logistical challenges to Mexico’s immigration system.
“While Mexico has migration policies that align with international asylum laws, in practice, the reality is very different,” Tamayo said. “The asylum system has been completely surpassed.”
Dana Graber Ladek, chief of mission in Mexico with the U.N. International Organization for Migration, said the group has seen an unprecedented number of individuals arriving in Mexico, not only from Central and South America, but from as far as Africa and Asia.
Graber said the “drastic” measures taken by migrants Tuesday “reflects a lack of migration alternatives for these individuals who are applying for asylum, even if they might not qualify for it.”
“The asylum system is oversaturated at this point, and this is precisely why we are looking for alternatives working with the government of Mexico, hoping to identify ways to change their visa system and offer work permits for individuals who are interested in staying in Mexico,” she added.
"Scientists have been observing the trend for decades as water expands because of higher temperatures, as glaciers melt and as ice sheets are diminished." (photo: Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
U.S. coastlines are expected to endure on average another foot of water by 2050, according to a report released Tuesday.
“The United States is expected to experience as much sea level rise in 30 years as we saw over the span of the entire last century,” Rick Spinrad, the NOAA administrator, said. “Current and future emissions matter, but this will happen no matter what we do about emissions.”
The report predicted 10 to 12 inches of additional sea level rise by midcentury, though projections for specific regions and communities vary because of changes in land height. Some parts of the coastal U.S. are subsiding, while others are experiencing uplift or rebound
Global warming — which is driven by the use of fossil fuels — is the primary cause of sea level rise. Scientists have been observing the trend for decades as water expands because of higher temperatures, as glaciers melt and as ice sheets are diminished.
Previous reports have provided broad ranges of how much the seas will rise, but the science is now more specific and can provide a more assertive view of how the world’s coasts will look in a few decades, regardless of future emissions.
“2050 is in our headlights, and we can speak with confidence and clarity about what will occur,” William Sweet, a NOAA oceanographer, said.
Rising seas could hamper economies, cause more dramatic flooding, inundate freshwater areas with salt and cause a host of other problems. About 40 percent of the U.S. population lives in a county along the coast.
Coastal flooding risks are expected to rise dramatically by midcentury, the NOAA experts said.
“A single flooding event, one that now happens every four to five years on average in coastal communities in the southeast United States, will happen four to five times every year,” Nicole LeBoeuf, an assistant administrator for NOAA’s National Ocean Service, said.
So-called sunny day floods — when coasts are inundated not due to storms, but because of high tides — are projected to increase dramatically, too.
The analysis, which was published in cooperation with other federal agencies like NASA, is designed to help communities plan to move vulnerable public buildings away from the coast, prevent construction in areas where inundation is likely and help retrofit homes and other buildings for a flood-prone future.
The data will also help form a baseline for insurance and real estate risk adjustments over sea level rise in the private sector, LaBoeuf said.
The report’s findings are based on tide gauge data, satellite data, increasingly powerful climate modeling and other coastal monitoring measurements.
Sea level rise will vary widely by region.
The East and Gulf coasts, in general, can expect more sea level rise than average because of coastal subsidence — sinking land. The West coast will see less dramatic changes.
Beyond 2050, the possibilities broaden widely and scientists expect the world’s emissions choices to have a substantial impact on the trajectory of rising seas.
The report includes five scenarios for sea level rise by 2100. The lowest limits sea level rise to about two feet in comparison to 2000. The highest scenario predicts more than 7 feet of additional sea level rise since the turn of the millennium.
Some climate change processes, such as Antarctic ice sheet instability, are not well understood and scientists acknowledge that there are surprise scenarios that could accelerate how fast seas rise.
Follow us on facebook and twitter!
PO Box 2043 / Citrus Heights, CA 95611
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.