Why We Need to Raise the Minimum Wage

Posted by historymaniacmegan on October 27, 2016

1x-1

When the federal minimum wage law was signed by Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1938, it was meant to keep America’s workers out of poverty and increase consumer spending in order to stimulate the economy. Since then the federal minimum wage has been increased 22 times with its current value at $7.25 an hour. However, it is a poverty wage which doesn’t keep people from being poor nor has it kept up with the US cost of living. In fact, it’s said a full time job on $7.25 an hour can’t even support even the basic living essentials in all 50 states. Nevertheless, campaigns to raise the minimum wage have recently been gaining momentum across the country ranging from ballot initiatives to grass organizing to major legislative efforts in states and localities. Many have achieved some degree of success. Yet, at Capitol Hill, proposals to raise the minimum wage have gone nowhere, despite widespread popular support across party lines as well as economists. As for me, I feel that not only should the federal minimum wage be increased, it should also be adjust automatically to keep pace with cost of living that doesn’t exempt tipped workers and the disabled. While I do not believe raising the minimum wage would relieve poverty even at $15 an hour, I feel that it’s good responsible policy as well as the right thing to do.

This graph from the Department of Labor illustrates how the minimum wage has fallen by a third since 1968. If it was automatically adjusted for inflation from that time on, the minimum wage today would at least be $11 an hour.

The Minimum Wage Is an Arbitrary Value-The only good explanation as to why the minimum wage is a poverty wage is mostly due to increases requiring approval by Congress and it doesn’t keep pace with inflation or rising costs of living. This is why the new minimum wage value usually falls from the moment it’s set. The federal minimum wage today is $7.25 per hour. Does it mean it’s higher than it used to be? In terms of real dollars, yes. But in terms of buying power, no. When adjusted for inflation, the current federal minimum wage would need to be more than $8 per hour to equal its buying power in the early 1980s and nearly more than $11 per hour to equal its buying power of the late 1960s. For tipped workers, it’s $2.13 an hour which has remained unchanged for over 25 years. In other words, why the current minimum wage is $7.25 per hour has nothing to do with inflation adjustments. Because despite minimum wage increases, its buying power has dropped and keeps falling. Though President Obama has argued for the minimum wage to increase automatically with inflation which can eliminate requirements for formal congressional action, reduce time between increases, and better help low-income families keep up with rising prices. There’s even a bill called The Raise the Wage Act proposed by Senator Patty Murray and Representative Bobby C. Scott proposing to do just that along with raising the wage to $12 an hour by 2020 as well as set automatic increases starting in 2021 and eliminate the unfair subminimum tipped wage of $2.13 an hour. It’s a policy that makes far better sense the current one. Some states have also enacted rules to do the same thing. So why is the federal minimum wage a paltry $7.25 per hour? Well, since increasing it requires congressional approval, I think it has more to do with politics and employer preference for cheap labor. In other words, it’s an arbitrary value.

2. Most Minimum Wage Jobs Can’t Be Outsourced – While conservatives often argue that raising the minimum wage will lead many people to lose their jobs, we need to understand that most minimum wage jobs are in the service industry. Unlike jobs in manufacturing, it’s unlikely most of them could ever be outsourced overseas with globalization. Besides, when we’re talking about minimum wage employees, their pay has nothing to do with international competition. Because they’re not engaged in the export sector. Competition in the service industry is mostly domestic and localized as well as staffed by local workers and serving a local customer base. In other words, service jobs be in a specific location. The biggest threats to pay in service sectors aren’t foreign countries known for human rights violations but large multinational corporate chains who treat their employees like shit.

Recent trends show that most job creation has taken place in low wage industries. So it’s no surprise that a higher share of millennials work in low wage industries while lower shares work in mid or higher wage industries.

3. New Job Growth Has Been Concentrated in Disproportionately Low Wage Industries– Today more families than ever rely on low wage and minimum wage jobs to make ends meet especially since job losses during the Great Recession have hit higher wage sectors like construction, manufacturing, and finance hard. And according to a 2012 report by the National Employment Law Project, 58% of all jobs created post-recession were low wage occupations. This isn’t a short term trend either since 6 of the top ten growth occupations projected by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics for the next decade are low wage jobs, such as home health aides, customer service representatives, food preparation and service workers, personal and home care aides, retail salespersons, and office clerks. Raising the minimum wage would boost pay scales in these jobs where millions of Americans spend their careers today. And for many it’s getting harder for many workers to move beyond a low wage job. Thus, raising the minimum wage right now is more important than ever.

Here’s a picture on the hazards of domestic labor. Now people in these jobs usually earn minimum wage or less. Some of them earn more. But what this chart tells you that it’s anything but easy. In fact, it’s hard and thankless work. The same can go for many low wage jobs.

4. Most Minimum Wage Jobs Aren’t Easy– Those opposed to minimum wage increases argue that anyone could do a minimum wage job which doesn’t require a lot of responsibility. But that has no bearing on reality whatsoever. Service industry workers often have stressful work days as well as unpredictable work schedules. A lot of them don’t have nice work environments either. Not to mention, a lot of these jobs lack health benefits, paid leave, opportunities for advancement, and job security. Many minimum wage employees work on weekends and holidays. A lot of them work 8-hour days while some can work even more. Some even have more than one job if they work part-time. Some may even experience workplace injury or illness. A lot require constant human interaction, time management, and multitasking. Let’s just say there’s a very good reason why a lot of minimum wage jobs have high turnover rates. These aren’t easy jobs anyone can do. They’re thankless, stressful, and grueling jobs while these workers receive little respect for all the crap they put up with on a regular basis. I spent a Christmas season working at Macy’s which paid $8 an hour. I spent hours on my feet that I had a lot of aches and pains. I also had to deal with hours of Christmas music in the background. By the end of my shift I was exhausted. I have often seen ads for many of these jobs which have a long list of duties and responsibilities as well as skills like patience, knowledge, care, and communication. There are plenty of caregiving jobs with educational requirements that pay minimum wage like home healthcare and childcare. Hell, even hairdressers and manicurists can earn low wages and they have to go through cosmetology school. Some low wage jobs can require at least an associate’s degree or even a 4-year college education. Building services may also require special skills. For instance, janitors may have a wide range of duties besides indoor cleaning like maintenance, security, and yard work. The cleaning industry is known for hiring 17-23% of undocumented immigrants as well as posts a median pay of $10.68 an hour (though many school janitors get paid more than the teachers so it’s not always a low wage job). Bank tellers, data entry keyers, cooks, pharmacy assistants, clerks, hotel receptionists, and security guards can also be paid minimum wage. In many ways, I think the terms “low-skilled” or “unskilled labor” just refers to jobs with shitty pay.

Many people argue that low wage work is such because they don’t require a lot of skills, education, and lack social value. If that were true, then explain to me why Cesar Chavez became so famous for organizing farm workers for better conditions. Yeah, that doesn’t hold up.

5. Most Minimum Wage Jobs Don’t Lack Social Value– When most people think of jobs paying minimum wage, they tend to think about people working at fast food restaurants which only consist of 5% of low wage jobs. In fact, most low income jobs pay poor may have little to do with their value in society. Or if they do, then it might be a reason they’re paid so poorly in the first place. At any rate, they’re all around us which include security guards, nurse’s aides and home healthcare aides, child-care workers, educational assistants, maids and porters, janitors, call center workers, bank tellers, data entry keyers, food preparation workers, waiters and waitresses, cooks, pharmacy assistants, hairdressers, manicurists, fish and meat processors, sewing machine operators, laundry and dry cleaning operators, ambulance drivers, parking lot attendants, and farm workers. Sure there may be people in these jobs who make good money like a janitor at a public school or hairdressers. But we’re talking about general trends. We’re not necessarily talking about people who make no contribution to society. In fact, we’re talking about people in jobs that don’t get much respect. If you don’t believe me, then think about how Caesar Chavez became so famous for organizing California farm workers in the 1960s. Or why so many workplaces and corporations in the service industry take major steps to keep their low wage workers from unionizing.

epi-minimum-wage-family-03-12-2014-01a_sml_large

This is a graph from the Economic Policy Institute illustrating how a minimum wage increase would affect American families. After all, low wage workers are usually responsible for half of their family’s earnings. Not to mention, 1 out of 5 kids has a parent who’d be helped.

6. Raising the Minimum Wage Will Benefit Workers and Their Families– Even if you work full-time at $7.25 an hour, you’re lucky to retain $225 a week or $12,000 a year after taxes and deductions. This is precisely threshold of poverty for a single person. Not enough to pay rent or take care of dependent children. In fact, it’s barely surviving. In no state can a minimum wage worker afford a 2 bedroom unit at a fair market rent, working a standard 40 hour work week. Or at least without paying more than 30% of their income. But a lot of minimum wage workers are trying to pay rent and have dependent children to support sometimes by themselves, which is why many are on welfare and food stamps. In addition to the 1.3 million people working at minimum wage, raising it to $10 per hour would help 1.7 million working below it, and 21 million working above the minimum but below that amount. So you’re talking about a third of the workforce. 17.5 million children will also benefit since at least one of their parents will get a raise. Raising the minimum wage to $12 or $15 an hour could benefit even more. Not to mention since women and minorities are disproportionately represented in low wage jobs, raising the minimum wage could help close significant gender and racial pay gaps.

Here’s a snapshot on how many hours a person would have to work a week on $7.25 an hour to afford rent in the country. As you see, all the values are above 40 hours.

7. Raising the Minimum Wage Benefits the Economy– When workers are paid more, they’re more likely to spend more, especially when it comes to their own companies or hometowns. This explains why Henry Ford decided to pay his workers high wages to make and later buy his cars. Now Ford wasn’t a nice guy. But even he knew that workers are customers and the better a worker’s ability to participate in the economy as a consumer, the better off businesses and the economy will be as a whole. Though businesses might experience a dip in their profits, they’re able to pay higher wages without reducing employment because the savings can be substantial even if greater productivity and lower turnover may not fully pay for the minimum wage increase. Workers earning low wages are less committed to their jobs and less likely to stay for long. Employee turnover forces businesses to constantly find and train new workers, costing them significant money and time. Most of the time the new recruits may not be as optimally efficient during their training period as the experienced and productive workers they replaced. This can incur indirect costs to businesses from lost sales and imperfect customer service as new workers learn on the job. Add to that the fact a lot large retail companies like QuikTrip, Mercadona, Trader Joe’s, and Costco not only invest heavily in their employees, but also have the lowest prices in their industries, solid financial performance, and better customer service than their competitors. They also have better reputations, more work satisfaction, and less employee theft. 89% of small businesses in the country also pay their employees more than the federal minimum wage. Many small business owners believe higher wages level the playing field by preventing larger and less scrupulous firms from gaining a competitive advantage through very low labor costs. A strategy adopted by large corporations such as retail giants like T.J. Maxx, Walmart, Gap, and Ikea which have enjoyed record profits for years as well as employ 2/3 of all low wage workers. It’s no surprise why most small businesses support increasing the minimum wage to at least $12 an hour, some to even $15. In many ways, this makes a lot of sense since these large retail giants see workers as expendable while small businesses need to hold onto their best employees for as long as they can. Small businesses and large companies have proven that the key to their success is a combination of investment in the workforce and operational practices benefiting employees, customers, and the company.

This map show the lot of tipped workers many of whom can earn below minimum wage at a rate as low as $2.13 an hour + tips. But the system in paying tipped workers is so complex that these workers are subject to manipulation and abuse. Many have had their tips stolen by their bosses. And many live in poverty.

8. Current Tipped Minimum Wage Laws Are Terrible– According to the National Employment Law Project, an estimated 4.3 million people work in predominantly tipped occupations in the US. Employees classified as tipped workers if they receive at least $30 per month in tips and the current federal tipped worker minimum wage is $2.13 an hour, which is less than a third of the current federal minimum wage and has remained unchanged since the 1990s. While most tipped workers are in the restaurant industry, these include car wash workers, nail salon workers, valets, and airport attendants among others. Two thirds of tipped workers are women which makes the subminimum tipped wage a form of legislated pay inequity. Many tipped workers use these tips to support their families and to pay for higher education like student loans. Labor movements have called to eliminate the tipped minimum wage. 7 states already have and their tipped workers earn full minimum wage + tips which I strongly think is how tipped workers should be paid anyway. New York’s tipped minimum wage is $7.50 which is more than 83% its full minimum wage. And in Hawaii, tipped workers only earn less than half minimum wage if they receive more than generous tips. Other states and D.C. have also increased their tipped minimum wage above $2.13 an hour. But these rates aren’t equal and aren’t always fair. And personally, I find the idea of a subminimum tipped wage as absolutely unfair and ridiculous. Add to that the fact employers are required to make up the difference if a tipped worker’s base wage and tips doesn’t add to the full minimum wage. But this is a complex system that’s both difficult to comply with and largely unenforceable for these reasons:

It requires extensive tracking and accounting tip flows which even law-abiding employers find burdensome and difficult. This also allows less ethical employers to take advantage of this notorious complex system to illegally keep a portion of tips for themselves. Thus, this results in many tipped employees failing to receive the tips which they’re entitled to as well as have their income prone to manipulation and abuse.
Employers are allowed to average tips over the course of the work week and required to “top up” only if an employee’s average hourly earnings are less than the full minimum wage. They’re also allowed to estimate their workers’ tips in order to determine how much tax to withhold. Though this estimation approach isn’t sufficient for federal minimum wage compliance, many employers use this anyway though they don’t actually verify that their workers really do receive enough tips to bring them up to the full minimum wage. One southern New Jersey waitress told NELP, “They just take our total sales for the day—say it’s [a couple] hundred dollars—and they just [estimate] 15% of that.” Under the federal minimum wage law, this is illegal as well as overstates tips since many customers tip less than 15% and “a few times a week” a customer leaves no tip at all.
Tips are allowed to be pooled among various types of restaurant employees, giving a portion of those tips a server receives to legitimately be reallocated to other workers. This is a frequent and sometimes legally dubious practice at many businesses across the country as well as creates other opportunities for unethical employers to illegally skin off a portion of these tips for themselves or use to pay other employees whether they’re tipped or not.
Tipped workers who’ve experienced tip-stealing or other forms of wage theft are often reluctant to demand what they’re owed in fear of reprisal. Many of rely on their supervisors to schedule their shifts and make more or less in tips depending on what shifts they’re given. So complaining about being ripped off might lead to being scheduled on a less profitable shift or simply fired.
Tip stealing is rampant in industries that employ tipped workers who are often victims. Tip violations can take various forms but ultimately, they all result in tipped workers losing some of their tips to improve the employer’s bottom line. Some employers simply pocket a portion for tip pools while others can be less direct such as including non-tipped workers in the tip pool so they can be paid the lower minimum wage for tipped workers. Sometimes restaurants can take advantage of communication barriers among workers. The National Employment Law Project mentioned a waitress setting aside 15% of her tips for bussers but was expected to pay upfront and didn’t know whether they got it. They also discuss how waiters and waitresses in an upstate New York town exposed that managers had simply pocketed a portion of their tips they deducted, supposedly to share with the bussers. Additionally, they also talked about a Maryland waitress who already shared her tips with a captain, bussers, and host who finally contacted a union for help when the restaurant’s managers tried to take a portion of her tips for themselves as well. Several high profile lawsuits have recently been filed in response to these practices.
According to a 2014 report by the White House Economic Council and the Department of Labor, 1 in 10 surveyed tipped workers reported hourly wages below the federal minimum wage, tips included. This compared to 4% of all workers reporting earnings below minimum wage.
Compliance and enforcement challenges aside, despite requiring employers to make up the difference between tips and statutory minimum wage, it remains the case that customers are directly responsible for paying a portion of workers’ wages under this system. Thus, instead of being a gratuity for good service, having a subminimum tipped wage renders tips a customer-funded wage replacement and lowers labor costs for employers in a few select industries.
Work for tipped employees is inherently uneven and often unpredictable with most making substantial amounts on Friday and Saturday nights and much less other days of the week. In addition, bad weather, a bad economy, seasonal change, and a host of other factors can cause sudden drops in tipped income and economic insecurity. Also, tips can fluctuate widely and are often paid in cash.
Nationwide, the median tipped wage for servers is $10.11 per hour and $9.89 for waitresses. This despite claims from the restaurant industry that servers make a median between $16 and $22 per hour. The median wage for all workers nationwide is $16.48 per hour. Median wages for tipped workers in general are nearly 40% lower than overall median hourly wages.
46% of tipped workers depend on public assistance from the federal government which is well over the rate of 35.9% for all workers. 12.8% of tipped workers in the US live in poverty, including 15% of restaurant servers. In fact, servers experience poverty at well over twice the rate of the overall US workforce. They’re also only a quarter as likely as the workforce as a whole to receive employer-provided health insurance and are twice as likely to be uninsured. In states the federal tipped minimum of $2.13 per hour is implemented, 14% of tipped workers and 18% of servers live in poverty. In states where tipped workers are paid full minimum wage + tips, the poverty rate for them is 10.8% and 10.2% for servers.

Despite fierce contention in the media and in Congress, raising minimum wage has wide support among Americans. This NELP graph illustrates this.

9. Raising the Minimum Wage Has Wide Support– Most Americans feel the minimum wage is too low and are concerned about rising inequality. A 2014 Public Policy Polling shows that 80% of respondents don’t believe they could support themselves or their families on minimum wage. Other polls show that 7 in 10 Americans believe that income inequality is getting worse and nearly as many believe the government has a role to play in reducing the gap between rich and poor. A 2013 Washington Post/ABC News poll found that 57% of Americans want lawmakers to address income inequality. The Hart Research Associates shows that 75% of Americans support raising the minimum wage to $12.50 or more by 2020, including 92% of Democrats, 53% of Republicans, 73% of Independents, 80% of women, and 72% of non-college whites. On the small business front, support for increasing the minimum wage is 61% or 3 in 5. 63% of Americans support a $15.00 minimum wage. 71% of Americans favor eliminating the subminimum tipped waged to ensure tipped employees the same minimum wage as other workers. 82% support automatic annual minimum wage increases to ensure it keeps up with the annual costs of living. There is no reason why Congress should be unable to pass The Raise the Wage law right now, even with a Republican majority. At least as far as the American people are concerned.

10. Minimum Wage Laws Unfairly Exempt Disabled People– Under the current federal law, the Secretary of Labor can issue special wage certificates to employers allowing them to pay disabled workers a subminimum wage, sometimes just a few cents per hour and in segregated work environments where they often perform mundane tasks that don’t use their existing skills, interests, and talents. Yet, this exemption is based on an antiquated notion that encourages disabled workers to rely on Social Security Income, Medicaid, food stamps, or other government programs in order to get by. There are also current training and employment strategies to assist those with even the most significant disabilities to obtain integrated and meaningful work. And when paired with the right rehabilitative tools, training, and expectations, employees with disabilities can be as productive as their nondisabled peers. It’s also discriminatory since nobody should be paid below the minimum wage, disabled or not. And I say that even if the minimum wage is too low.

c9a69d01-32cf-4310-98a5-bef313c517b6image41

During the Gilded Age, those in blue collar professions worked in terrible working conditions with long hours and shitty pay. Many of these workers were children, some of them as old as kindergartners, mostly because their parents worked in the same place and didn’t earn enough to support a family. Still, we should also acknowledge that once workplace regulations and protections were in place, these large companies still earned money and lost nothing.

11. Blue Collar Jobs Used to Have Shitty Pay– Yes, I’m well aware that a lot of jobs in the service industry pay minimum wage or even less than that. And yes, I know many argue low wages are a cost-driven necessity for these jobs. On the other hand, you have a lot of blue collar jobs in mining and manufacturing which many people see as good paying jobs that many working class people lament leaving their hometowns or being outsourced. However, we should also acknowledge that blue collar jobs were the shit jobs of 19th and early 20^th century industrialization with dangerous conditions, long hours, and very low pay. And I mean like working in the mine for 14 hour days on a wage that can’t support your family. So now your eight year old has to drop out of school and go to work with you. It wasn’t unusual for whole families to work in a factory, including the kids who could be as young as four years old. Now we’re talking about a time when there were no workplace safety protections, no minimum wage, no workers’ rights, and institutionalized child labor. So what changed? Well, these workers organized into unions and went on strike for their rights, not just risking getting fired but also getting killed. And they faced staunch opposition from their robber baron bosses. Yet, once they got what they wanted, these blue-collar jobs were no longer seen as shit jobs by later generations. In fact, they were seen as jobs that could support a family and local economies benefitted just the same. But this shows us that the existence of shit jobs has more to do with an employer’s desire for cheap and expendable labor than what the job entails. Also, keeping workers dependent on them that they’ll put up with any abuse they give them. Not to mention, it supports the argument that low wages are a choice and not a cost-driven necessity. This is why a lot of corporations don’t want to raise the minimum wage or have their workers unionize. Not only that, but also that the shit jobs of today don’t have to be the shit jobs of tomorrow if we invest more in our workers. Raising the minimum wage is a good place to start.

12. Raising the Minimum Wage Saves Taxpayer Money– With wages being what they are, many low income workers have relied on public assistance because their paycheck can’t cover basic expenses. Even if they work for companies that could certainly afford to pay them a raise and benefits. American taxpayers spend an annual $153 billion in taxpayer money helping low wage earning families get by. This includes food stamps, Medicaid, CHIP, TANF as well as childcare subsidies and reduced-free school lunch programs. These programs help Americans meet a basic standard of living despite being targets for cuts and reductions. But having workers rely on public assistance has more to do with their employers paying them nothing more than poverty wages. Therefore, the government is indirectly subsidizing these companies that refuse to pay more. In fact, some companies like McDonald’s doesn’t even hide that half their workforce is on welfare and even encourage their employees to seek public assistance. Higher wages at work save taxpayer money since they lift more people out of poverty and produce more tax revenue. Sorry, libertarians, but cheap labor doesn’t come cheap.

This is a graph from the Economic Policy Institute that shows what the average minimum wage worker. Despite the stereotype of a teenage working after school, most minimum wage earners are adults who work full time as well as earn more than half of their family’s total income.

13. Low Wages Don’t Relieve Poverty– Contrary to what conservatives said about minimum wage jobs being for teens trying to earn extra money and experience, 89% of minimum wage workers are 20 years old or over while many are women and people of color. 37% of them have at least some college education. A third of them are over 30. Not to mention, 57% of minimum wage jobs are full-time and are unlikely filled by teens anyway. Some low wage industries don’t hire teens at all. That being said, statistics show a lot of low wage workers make nearly to over half their family’s income and 28% of them are parents. Sometimes they could be the family’s chief breadwinner, especially in single parent households. In every state working the minimum wage leaves a full-time worker with two kids below the poverty line. Not to mention, low-income wage earners may work multiple jobs which gives them even less time to spend with their kids as well as take care of themselves. At worst this could lead to a case like Maria Fernandes who worked so hard to make ends meet that she died from gas fumes in her car while napping between shifts. Fernandes was said to work 4 jobs and sometimes didn’t sleep for nearly a week. There were a couple occasions when single mothers were busted for leaving their kids unsupervised due to working 3 jobs and lack of available childcare options. Many low income workers have also experienced a considerable toll on their health while their children suffer in school and in life. No one who works for a living should have to live in or near poverty, especially full-time.

14. Raising the Minimum Wage Has Expert Support– In January 2014, over 600 economists across the country sent a letter to President Obama and congressional leaders arguing for a minimum wage raise to $10.10 by 2016 and then indexed to protect it against inflation. 7 of these were Nobel Prize winners. Even the Department of Labor supports this measure and think it’s a better idea than the current minimum wage laws we have now.

Here’s a map from the Wall Street Journal showing the minimum wage increases within each state. Of course, some pay below or have no minimum wage laws at all.

15. The Minimum Wage Has Been Raised in Localities and States– As of 2016, 29 states, D. C., as well as countless localities have raised the minimum wage, many in recent years. Some have even enacted measures to increase the minimum wage automatically with inflation and the costs of living. Not only that, but despite congressional Republican opposition, raising the wage in these states, D.C., and other jurisdictions weren’t just mere liberals pushing for it. Sure Washington State, Oregon, California, New York, Illinois, and Massachusetts voted for minimum wage increases. But so have red states like West Virginia, Arkansas, South Dakota, Nebraska, Alaska, Missouri, and Montana. Swing states like Florida, Michigan, Arizona, and Ohio have also raised their minimum wage. The fact minimum wage increases have passed in states of various political leanings should emphasize its widespread support among party lines.

Despite that many opponents of minimum wage increases argue that raising it would kill jobs or raise prices, keep in mind that none of them bring up this argument when it comes to skyrocketing CEO pay while regular wages remain stagnant. Seriously if your company can afford to give a CEO a generous severance package of a few million bucks, they can raise wages on their lowest paying workers. It’s not hard to see.

16. Opposition to Minimum Wage Increases Has More to Do with Self-Interest and Ideology– I know there are people who argue that raising the minimum wage would hurt the economy as well as kill jobs and raise prices. However, we need to understand that despite bipartisan and expert support, raising the minimum wage is still seen as a mainly liberal issue in the halls of Congress. Why? Because a lot of Republican politicians are bankrolled by big corporate lobbies who would rather use cheap labor, many of whom boast record profits and very much can afford to pay their workers more. There are a lot of libertarian and conservative economists and think tanks to back them up, some of whom want to abolish minimum wage which just makes workers even more prone to further exploitation. Believers in free market and trickle down economics usually see low wage jobs as a cost-driven necessity for economic prosperity. But employers often use this argument to justify not giving their impoverished employees a raise for decades, including your Gilded Age robber barons. Besides, no Fortune 500 CEO uses this argument when it comes to their own pay, which has skyrocketed dramatically. I mean the median CEO to worker pay ratio has risen from 20-to-1 in 1965 to 204-to-1 in 2015. Some of the highest paid CEOs make 300 times more than their typical employees. There are plenty of CEOs with million dollar salaries as well as stock options/grants, bonuses, benefits, and other perks. Hell, even bad CEOs receive generous severance packages whenever they left their companies in worse shape than when they took over. Yet, no libertarian or conservative argues that raising their pay will contribute to higher prices, job loss, or worse economies. Or why people end up paying higher prices and lose their jobs while worker wages remain stagnant. Yes, I know that a CEO’s job may require more skills, education, and talent than a lot of minimum wage occupations and that we’ve been through a recession. But it doesn’t convince me why conservatives and libertarians think raising the minimum wage will lead to economic ruin while raising CEO compensation won’t. Surely a company that can generously compensate its own CEO can pay its lowest earning workers $15 an hour, which is just small potatoes. So I think it’s more of a matter of corporate greed and self-interest.

This quote by Chris Rock perfectly explains why we need the federal government should raise the minimum wage. Most companies will not give their employees a raise by themselves. They need to be mandated to do it.

17. Large Employers Are Unlikely to Increase Wages on Their Own– While many conservatives and libertarians might tell us that workers would be better paid if it weren’t for all those pesky taxes regulations, it is not the case. The robber barons during the Gilded Age didn’t pay federal income taxes until the 16^th Amendment passed in 1916 and none of their tax dollars went to benefit their impoverished, overworked, and underpaid employees. Not to mention, their workplace policies are the reason why we have so many regulations and agencies to protect workers today. Besides, there are plenty of large corporations exploit federal tax loopholes so they don’t have to pay at all. And yet, conservatives and libertarians claim that if we get rid of the tax burden with social welfare programs and regulations, the “free market” will provide and take care of workers. Uh, excuse me but during the Gilded Age, those tax supported social programs didn’t exist and I’m pretty sure the free market didn’t take care of those low wage workers. Unions and the government policies they lobbied for while facing staunch opposition from these large companies. Besides, corporations lobby at all levels of government like crazy for direct and indirect public assistance like bailouts, subsidies, special tax breaks, deductions, tax and policy loopholes specifically designed for them, so-called “right to work” laws, and more. Say what you want about welfare, but I’d rather have my tax dollars go to assisting poor people than to a $3 billion a year corporate jet subsidy, a $200 billion Wall Street bailout, special tax breaks to hedge fund managers allowing them to pay a 15% tax rate, or a $70 billion a year home mortgage deduction with 77% going to people earning over $100,000. Sure corporations may like lower taxes and less regulations but even if they get what they want from their political lackeys, they will not give workers a raise unless they’re pressured to either by unions, government policy, or both. But wait, what about companies that pay workers better wages like Costco? Yes, there are big businesses that treat their workers generously like Costco but the Costcos in this world are the exception to the rule, especially in sectors that hire low wage workers. Therefore, federal government action to raise the minimum wage is necessary.

By raising the federal minimum wage to at least $10.10 an hour, corporations will only have to spend just 1/3 cent of every dollar spent on wages, according the the Congressional Budget office. So I’m confident these large companies with minimum wage labor can totally afford it.

18. Raising the Minimum Wage Is the Right Thing to Do– Economics aside, we should consider the fact that as earnings from corporations and the top 1% increased to dramatic new high, wages have stagnated or lost value even as productivity also rose. This could never be more true for low income workers. Raising the minimum wage will protect the most powerless in our workforce. Now could anyone say whether it’s fair for businesses to boast big profits while paying their employees poverty wages? Of course not. Is it fair for someone to live in poverty despite working a full-time job? Hell no. And if raising the minimum wage hurts their profits, why should I care? I mean a big company like McDonald’s is unlikely to lose business if they pay their workers $15 an hour since they’ll usually make a big profit anyway. Besides, most small businesses pay their staff more than minimum wage anyway since they can’t afford replacing them while retaining a competitive edge against their larger counterparts. As for price increases, well, they usually rise whether wages increase or not. And studies show that the increases won’t be much. What about jobs? If raising the wage results in reduced hiring and hours and more job loss by big companies, it won’t be due to economics. It would be more or less because of greedy executives who’d use just about any excuse to cut their workforces. Small businesses, on the other hand, are more worried about poor sales than being trounced by their big business counterparts than anything. Even if raising the minimum wage does hurt the economy like its critics have predicted, what about the concept of economic justice? I think that should matter. After all, labor is critical to a business’s success and workers who dedicate their time and effort into that company should get a bigger cut in that. Look, from how I see it, there’s no good reason to not raise the minimum wage. And above all, no one working a full time job should live in poverty. Even though I know that raising the wage won’t cure poverty any time soon, at least it can show a good example by making businesses invest more in their workforce. It’s about time.

86647-quotes-franklin-roosevelt-minimum-wage

As FDR said himself, nobody should work a full time job and still live in poverty. Workers have a right for a decent living wage which has been denied to many in the name of profit. So raising the minimum wage is the right thing to do. Besides, what’s wrong with economic justice for God’s sake?

Policing for Profit: The High Price of Low Taxation

Posted by historymaniacmegan on October 6, 2016

police-profit-asset-seizure

Nobody likes taxes. In fact, that’s why politicians always campaign on lowering them to lessen burdens on families. But we have to admit, if we didn’t pay them our governments couldn’t govern and provide services we need as a society. Believe me, our Founding Fathers found this out the hard way with the Articles of Confederation. The truth is, governments to raise money somehow and taxation is a fair way to do so. And I think a progressive tax system in which the rich are taxed more than the poor is sufficient since the rich earn more money. Yet, no matter what your tax bracket is, you still benefit from government services in some way. Still, if taxes are either too low or don’t provide enough revenue, then governments could be in trouble and sometimes cutting programs and staff may could lead to catastrophic results. Some local governments may find ways to enrich their coffers during times of financial pressure when other forms of revenue decline.

Guys, if you want to know why pot isn’t legal in California. Remember that its state police have funded efforts opposing marijuana legalization. And here we have two cops gloating over their booty.

In recent years, thousands of American cities and towns have relied on judicial fines and forfeiture to fund their governments, which is unhealthy for our democracy. Serious revenue declines, anti-tax popularity, local budget pressures have led municipalities to expand their use of revenue-generating law enforcement practices such as red light and speed cameras. However, public awareness hasn’t hit the national spotlight until the Department of Justice’s 2014 investigation into Ferguson, Missouri. We all know that the DOJ was looking into Ferguson due the police shooting of Michael Brown. But the racism and injustice in Ferguson was far worse. Between 2011 and 2013, the city collected 80% more fines and forfeitures by which point it raised 20% of its budget through this. Before the killing of Michael Brown, Ferguson anticipated that they’d collect an extra million through 2014 through police activity, raising a total of 25% through fines. This despite being home to a Fortune 500 company Edison Electric, a successfully revitalized commercial district, and an office park filled with corporate tenants that Ferguson could’ve taxed for all their worth. Well, if it weren’t for an amendment from the 1980s requiring citywide referendum approval on local tax increases, licenses, or fees. Even then, it wouldn’t be difficult since I think Ferguson’s 67% black population would’ve approved since they pay most city taxes anyway while the wealthy are barely taxed at all. Seriously, Ferguson’s tax system is incredibly unfair. Cities and their police departments may see increasing their dependence on fines as a viable strategy for funding their governments but it corrupts the justice system and brings great harm to the people it serves.

So far, John Oliver has been among the only people in the mainstream media to show the problem with profit policing. This one pertains to municipal violations which can screw the poor and minorities.

Profit Policing Is Not Normal nor Financially Healthy – For economically healthy municipalities, even when the absolute dollar total of fines and forfeitures may be large, they still represent a small proportion local revenue. Places like New York City, Washington D.C. and San Francisco only raise about 1-2% of their budget through civil penalties, which is about the norm. And that’s how it should be. Because most cities run on progressive tax revenue like income and property taxes. Ferguson doesn’t. In their budget, regressive taxes like sales and utilities account for almost 60% of the city’s revenue followed by municipal fines at 20%. By contrast, progressive taxes account for just under 12%. This means that Ferguson extracted more revenue from African American renters than from those owning the homes themselves. This is not how a local government should generate revenue and it’s no wonder that Ferguson has had trouble paying its bills since it incurred a debt of $3.7 trillion. And it had its credit rating downgraded to junk status by Moody’s in 2015. Even worse towns around Ferguson relied on fines for over 30% of their revenue. 3 towns in Louisiana reported collecting more from fines than from taxes with Henderson collecting $3.73 in fines for every tax dollar. Relying on fines to keep municipalities afloat isn’t normal because relying on bad behavior to balance local budgets isn’t financially viable. Making even less sense is jailing people who owe less money than it cost to incarcerate them, leading to bigger deficits as well as a cycle of dependency. As the Brennan Center’s Justice Center put it, “Having taxpayers foot a bill of $4,000 to incarcerate a man who owes the state $745 or a woman who owes a predatory lender $425 and removing them from the job force makes sense in no reasonable world.”

When law enforcement is most concerned with creating revenue from citations, protecting and serving the community is no longer a priority. Instead, the community is exploited with very harmful results. This is why for profit policing is bad.

2. Profit Policing Undermines Justice– Fines and civil forfeitures were set as disciplinary measures, not as a municipal fundraiser. They were never meant to contribute significant revenue to local governments. But this is exactly what happened in Ferguson that the city manager and police chief discussed using tickets to meet revenue benchmarks. Not to mention, police were encouraged to issue traffic tickets who were evaluated and promoted on how much cash they could gin up. In Saint Louis County, half the judges had incentives to find people guilty and coerce payment through threat of jail. Not to mention, civil asset forfeiture becomes big which results in prosecutors and police departments to adjust budgets and tactics in order to prioritize fundraising over public safety and justice. Often this could lead to police being better trained to pursue seizures and take advantage of lax standards for the department’s benefit. It’s very clear that whenever law enforcement is a fundraising tool, the justice system is severely compromised. Because when you use law enforcement to raise funds, then it’s not about promoting safety or justice. It’s about making money through people breaking the law which can hurt the nation’s most vulnerable people.

When it comes to policing for profit, racial minorities are often the victims and are disproportionately targeted. Here is Valerie Whitner from Pagedale, Missouri who along with her husband, accumulated $2,800 in fines for issues on their modest home. These include having chipping paint on a downspout, not having a screen door on the rear entrance of their home, and having weeds growing in their vegetable garden. Sometimes they were even issued fines for not having their home “up to code” without explanation. They were even threatened with demolition and were forced to take out pay day loans to keep their head above water and make mandated repairs.

3. Profit Policing Discriminates Against Minorities– While Ferguson had a cash-starved municipal government, they were hardly a poor city. Its government could’ve easily solved their money problems by taxing local businesses, one of which is a Fortune 500 company that makes $24 billion a year. The fact Ferguson relied on cops and courts to extract fines and fees to generate revenue was the result of more than a century of public policy choices designed to protect largely white business and property owners while passing the bills along to disproportionately black renters and local residents. Given Ferguson’s extraordinary climate of police harassment, you can guess who got slapped with the fines. Despite that Ferguson is only 67% black and sees plenty of white commuters, 85% of all traffic stops involved black motorists and were twice as likely to be searched and arrested than their white counterparts. This despite when searched, whites were 2/3 more likely to be caught with some sort of contraband. Municipal violations for not mowing the lawn or putting out trash in the wrong place at the wrong time were overwhelmingly issued to blacks. 95% of citations for jaywalking and 93% if arrests were issued to blacks. We should also account that Ferguson’s mayor, city manager, and police chief were white. Minorities are more likely to live below the poverty line. And it’s not just in Ferguson, but in a lot of communities with white leaders and a large minority population. You might know the case of Philando Castile who was shot by a cop in St. Anthony, Minnesota. But you may not know was that this guy had been pulled over by police 52 times within the last 14 years of his life and accrued over $6,000 in fines. Now he must’ve been an epically bad driver or racially profiled on an average of once every 3 months. It’s very clear that St. Anthony relied on Castile’s and his black neighbors’ money to balance their budget. Brennan Center estimates that 10 million people owe more than $50 billion in debt due to their involvement in the criminal justice system. 60% of this total is owed by blacks and Latinos with average totals around $7,000. That said, when police need money, it’s usually minorities who suffer.

splc-news-items-splc-lawsuit-closes-debtors-prison-in-alaba-1280x720

This woman is Harriet Cleveland who couldn’t afford to pay her $152 fine in traffic violations that she ended up spending jail time. This despite that she tried all she can to pay for it, even going without food and utilities. Her story illustrates what happens when poor people can’t afford to pay their fines right away. It’s sad and very exploitative.

4. Profit Policing Screws the Poor– Whenever cities use municipal fines and fees to generate local revenue, the poorest residents usually suffer the most. Not only are often targeted by police like in Ferguson (since many are minorities), but they’re among the least likely to afford the fines. In 2014, 75% of all Ferguson residents had active outstanding arrest warrants. Most of these involved people who couldn’t afford to pay. According to Arch City Defenders, citizens failing to appear or pay fines that were “frequently triple their monthly income” were liable to be jailed, sometimes for as long as 3 weeks. Those with outstanding warrants were rendered ineligible for most forms of public assistance and government-provided social services. This combined with public housing exclusion, often send residents out on the streets. Municipalities can also compound financial hazards for those fined by contracting with private probation collectors who can add additional, legally enforceable fees and interest to the amount the court has required. It doesn’t help those who can’t pay fines, can lose their licenses along with their jobs.

While running into a stop sign in California results in a $35 fine, the violator could end up paying up to $238 in Riverside County. This graph breaks it down.

5. Profit Policing Results in Higher Payments– This means that municipalities relying on fines to sustain their budgets might result in violators paying more money than originally owed. Even for a seemingly minor offense. This could happen in a number of ways:

Initially starting with a reasonable fine but tacking on surcharges and fees-For instance, a $35 fine for running a California stop sign can balloon into $238.00. San Diego is notorious for this since they could tack on as many as 10 surcharges with a $35 speeding ticket like a $40 state penalty assessment, $36 court penalty assessment, a $20 court construction fee, a $8 state surcharge, a $16 DNA identification, a $35 criminal conviction fee, a $40 court operations fee, a $4 emergency medical air transportation penalty, and $1 night court fee. All adding to $235.
Charging outrageous fines from the get go– Examples include charging $255.000 for driving over less than 25 miles over the speed limit, $500 for party noise, and $1000 on parents for juvenile graffiti. Some can consist of outrageous fines like $450 for stealing $5 of food.
Payment Plans– Those who can’t afford traffic tickets the first time may take this route in some states. But they can make paying off tickets more difficult and more expensive. In Illinois, people falling behind in payments can get hit with a 30% fee. And New Orleans charges $100 to start one.
Probation Fees– 44 states charge people various fees for being on probation. Many of these are handled by companies like Judicial Correction Services which charge a $10 set up fee and $140 per month. Those who couldn’t bring the entire amount had to report to JCS offices more frequently, sometimes multiple times a week. When people fell behind, JCS continued to collect its own fees which effectively extended their probations and guarantee the company more money. When people couldn’t pay, employees threatened to revoke their probation which resulted in jail time. It’s an unconscionable practice that should be outlawed.
Private Collectors– Not only they can collect on tickets but can add additional legally-enforceable fees and surcharges. They can also threaten people who don’t pay with jail. Sure they may charge the courts nothing. But they can charge people on probation a fortune.

The town of Pagedale, Missouri is a notorious example on how profit policing can lead to ordinances allowing fines be issued for very ridiculous reasons. Its police force has aggressively targeted its citizens for harmless conditions like screen door holes, chipped paint, weeds in garden, mismatched drapes, high grass, and you name it. Let’s just say we know Pagedale issued ticketing on these ridiculous rules in order to fill its coffers. Basically its motto would be, “If you can’t ticket violations, invent them.”

6. Profit Policing Results in More Oppression and Hostility– Those who live in municipalities that depend on fines to balance budgets are more likely to be stopped by police and fined. Sometimes this could be for the usual traffic violation. But sometimes it could be for things people really shouldn’t be fined for. For instance, in Pagedale, Missouri, residents can be ticketed and fined for having mismatched curtains, walking on the left-hand side of a crosswalk, wearing pants below one’s waist, having holes in window screens, having a barbecue in front of the house, and more ridiculous ordinances that you can find in a wacky law listing. In Ferguson, 75% of its residents have outstanding arrest records. Municipalities with profit policing are more likely to have a more militarized force as well as higher police brutality against minorities.

Policing for profit often creates distrust between law enforcement and communities. Because citizens being sponged are more likely to think that the system no longer works for them. And in a way, they’re right.

7. Profit Policing Leads to More Community Distrust- While trust between law enforcement and the public may be difficult without profit-driven policing practices, using fines to fund municipal governments erodes it even further. Police are sworn to protect the public and work with local communities to solve problems pertaining to crime and disorder. It’s one thing for cops to use excessive force on unarmed black people and get away with it due to systematic racism. But it’s even more unconscionable for cops to harass residents with absurd systems of fines and penalties on mostly extremely minor offenses. Making police revenue generators for cities and towns diverts them from their traditional role of community guardians and protectors. Not to mention, people have been taught to believe that local governments and police are supposed to work for them, not the other way around. Ferguson isn’t a feudal domain where police vassals can harass the peasantry as they please. Such actions lead to a growing distrust between the police and the community, especially among poor and minority citizens. And that’s not good.

Here’s a diagram from Arch City Defenders on Ferguson’s terrible court system to its African American residents. Notice how it’s a vicious cycle and how the people in charge seem to be white. I think imprisonment for debt isn’t even legal.

8. Profit Policing May Not Be Legal– For many people below the poverty line, facing for being unable to pay a speeding ticket can be a very real possibility. Municipalities significantly funded through fines rely on judges to find people guilty and force them to pay or serve jail time. However, the federal government has already established that judges can’t send people to jail for being too poor to pay fine through a 1983 Supreme Court case. Furthermore, debtors’ prisons were outlawed nearly 200 years ago.

Civil asset forfeiture is when police take your stuff on suspicion that it was used in a crime, which they can do whatever the hell they want with it. Though seen as a crime fighting tool, there have been so many cases where innocent people have had their stuff taken away from them. And many had a hell of a time getting it back through the court system. Here’s how hard it is to fight civil forfeiture.

9. Profit Policing Leads to Civil Forfeiture Abuse– Civil forfeiture is when police take people’s money and property without making an arrest. Under this, police don’t have to formally charge owners with a crime, just suspect their assets are tied in some way to illicit activity. And forfeiture is mostly approved without definitive proof of alleged criminal ties. Such property can include cars, homes, and even businesses. Yet, once government takes control of the person’s property, it’s typically sold off sending proceeds back to police departments and legal offices working the case. It’s regularly touted as a crime fighting tool like targeting wealthy criminal finances who may not carry all their cash in the same car. But since there’s a lot of booty potential for cops through civil forfeiture seizures, there’s a strong incentive to pursue this process aggressively and abuse these laws and exploit innocent owners’ lack of safeguards. This is especially true when a police department’s aim is the bottom line. Sometimes they could use it as a slush fund. In 2014, the Departments of Justice and Treasury deposited more than $5 billion into forfeiture funds, up from less than a $1 billion within the last decade. There are countless horror stories of law-abiding citizens who’ve gotten hopelessly entangled in the process. In a couple Texas border towns, it wasn’t unusual for police to pull over minority drivers before seizing whatever money and valuables in their possession. After that, they’d coerce them to sign their possessions over under forfeiture laws by threatening jail on trumped up charges or taking their children. And many must go through a complex legal maze to get it back. But due to lack of transparency and public reporting there’s not a lot of data to tell exactly how lucrative or common civil asset forfeiture is in each state. This has to be fairly common in places like Ferguson. Guess who ends up being victimized by this. Still, civil forfeiture is basically state sponsored theft and should be banned.

Civil asset forfeiture has been frequently abused by police in recent years. The DOJ in 2014 lists money taken from civil asset forfeiture at $5 billion up from nearly $1 billion in 2004.

10. Profit Policing May Not Be Constitutional– The 8^th Amendment bans cruel and unusual punishment as well as excessive bail and fines. Since profit policing can lead to higher fines and fees that people are unable to pay, it’s most likely unconstitutional. Since profit policing happens in minority communities, you can say it violates the Equal Protection Clause that bans discriminatory punishment as well as the Due Process Clause that requires neutral administration of criminal law. Then there’s civil forfeiture which I think is also unconstitutional under the 4^th Amendment that protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. So expect it in the Supreme Court.

When police departments are more directed to raising municipal revenue, law enforcement accountability goes out the window. Not only that, but leaves bad cops on the streets free to extort money from poor minority citizens as they please. Or confiscate people’s stuff if they think it’s involved in a crime. Like this guy.

11. Profit Policing Hurts Police Accountability– I am aware that police accountability hasn’t been very good lately due to how cops who use excessive force against unarmed black people get away scot free. And I know every police force has its bad apples who make the good cops look bad. However, when budgetary whims replace peacekeeping as law enforcement’s central motivation, then you can forget about police accountability altogether. Because when a police department’s main aim is profit, bad cops are more likely to get away with bad behavior. Not just “bad” as in morally corrupt and racist, but also in a job performance sense. For instance, Ferguson’s Darren Wilson who shot Michael Brown was fired from a previous job. Actually the whole police force Jennings, Missouri was disbanded for being awful. Not to mention, in Ferguson police were even encouraged to ticket and collect fines as well as were rewarded for it in career advancement. The demands were so intense that the police department had little concern with how officers did this, just that they do it a lot. Didn’t matter if their stops had little relation to public safety or questionable legal basis. Didn’t matter if the cops in question were menaces to public safety. Only cops who failed to issue an average of 28 tickets a month were disciplined. I’m sure Darren Wilson wasn’t one of them. At the same time, white police officers frequently fixed parking tickets for friends. Let’s just say it leaves so much room for corruption. After the Brown shooting, the DOJ found the Ferguson Police Department to be an abysmal failure. They reported, ““Ferguson’s law enforcement practices are shaped by the City’s focus on revenue rather than by public safety needs. This emphasis on revenue has compromised the institutional character of Ferguson’s police department, contributing to a pattern of unconstitutional policing, and has also shaped its municipal court, leading to procedures that raise due process concerns and inflict unnecessary harm on members of the Ferguson community.”

These are charts of St. Louis County municipalities with the biggest increases in non-traffic cases since 2010. Those who can’t afford to pay fines often have the system stacked against them. Meanwhile, the judges may often let their friends off easy.

12. Profit Policing Hurts Judicial Accountability– As we all know in scandals involving privatized prisons, whenever the courts’ aims is to increase revenue, the justice system is severely compromised. It is the same when it comes to municipal fines as well as “Cash for Kids.” Prior to the Michael Brown shooting, the city of Ferguson’s court system was ranged in the top 8 in Saint Louis County by generating more than $1 million in revenue during 2010. Their courts exceeded over $2 million in 2012. At the same time Ferguson Judge Ronald J. Brockmeyer owed $172,646 in back taxes and let his white friends off easy while extracting fees from Ferguson’s poor and black population. And many had the system rigged against them since they couldn’t afford a lawyer or pay a fine. Some even faced jail time. He’s had since been removed.

1200x630_289774_violence-erupts-in-ferguson-after-gran

What happened in Ferguson after Darren Wilson got off on shooting Michael Brown is a good example what could happen if a town has been under profit policing for far too long. This protest wasn’t just about police brutality they’ve put up for years but also on how often African Americans were exploited through other means. It was a disaster waiting to happen.

13. Profit Policing Hurts Public Safety– When revenue is the bottom line in profit policing, police departments focus more on issuing fines on petty offenses for municipal revenue than keeping people safe. It should surprise no one that some well-known police brutality victims were initially stopped for something preposterously minor. This illustrates how profit policing and law enforcement use of excessive force are clearly linked. North Charleston’s Walter Scott was stopped for a busted taillight before Michael Slager gunned him down. Having a busted taillight isn’t even in a crime in South Carolina. And this guy had a record for gratuitously using a taser. Sandra Bland and Samuel DuBose were stopped for minor traffic violations in Texas and Cincinnati like failing to use a turn signal or missing a front license plate. Philando Castile was also stopped for traffic violations for a whopping 53^rd time. Wilson stopped Michael Brown for shoplifting and jaywalking. The thing is, when profit policing is in place, abuse is rampant while public safety is compromised. Communities distrust the police who they don’t think work for them. Some may even show a lack of respect for the law and may refuse to cooperate with police. Bad police are allowed to patrol on the streets with guns and may even get away with police brutality. Minorities and poor people are continuously screwed and preyed upon. It is no wonder that Ferguson, Missouri was one police shooting away from civil unrest. We have to accept that public safety depends on the community’s relationship with law enforcement. Municipalities can’t protect their populace if they’re using police to fleece from them since it creates a toxic environment.

Here’s a letter from Ferguson’s mayor to one of the city’s policemen for his service. This pertains to him issuing tickets. Notice how they emphasized how he contributed to the city’s budget.

14. Profit Policing Corrupts Governments– Look, I know that many municipal governments use their police departments to enhance their coffers because they’re financially struggling and don’t want to raise taxes, especially when taxes would make more financial sense. However, when a government backs profit policing, they’re clearly not acting in the people’s best interests. This was certainly the case with Ferguson but other communities in Saint Louis County were demonstrably worse. Then there’s the fact many of these towns enacted ordinances just for the sake of generating more revenue through fines, especially if they’re unrelated to traffic and not technically illegal elsewhere. Ferguson’s were also skewed since their city manager congratulated the police chief for record citation revenue. While Ferguson’s cops held anti-black views so did their municipal employees as the DOJ found out through various e-mails mocking blacks through speech and familiar stereotypes. Most of Ferguson’s decisionmakers believed African Americans lacked personal responsibility despite that black residents made incredible efforts to pay their fines disproportionately handed out to them. White city officials meanwhile, condoned a striking lack of personal responsibility as the cause.

policing-for-profit-1

The National Security Threat of Domestic Terrorism (Depicted by the News Media)

Posted by historymaniacmegan on September 24, 2016

american-domestic-terrorism

When Americans think about terrorism, they usually imagine 9/11 and other attacks perpetuated by people who aren’t from this country and who aren’t like us. Groups like Al Qaida and ISIS usually come to mind. Yet, while foreign terrorist attacks like 9/11 are enough to make us frightened and willing to send troops to Afghanistan, there’s a national security threat more pressing that most people don’t pay much attention to. It’s called domestic terrorism which refer to terror acts carried out by US citizens or permanent residents on US soil. Domestic terrorists have committed 80% of attacks since 9/11 and killed more Americans on US soil than their foreign counterparts. Under current US law enforcement, the USA PATRIOT ACT defines acts as domestic terrorism those in which:

involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
appear to be intended –
1. to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
2. to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion;
3. to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping;
occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

Accurately referred to as “America’s Favorite Domestic Terrorist,” legendary abolitionist John Brown has become a highly controversial figure both for his anti-slavery ideology as well as his violent tactics. But he perfectly illustrates why Americans may have a hard time recognizing domestic terror even in their American history books.

But when it comes to identifying domestic terrorism in contemporary culture, a lot of Americans struggled since the perpetrators may look like them and may share ideas that they kind of agree with. A good case in point is American abolitionist John Brown who’s known for participating in Bleeding Kansas and trying to overthrow the institution of slavery through staging an unsuccessful raid on Harper’s Ferry in 1859 that killed 7 and injured 10. Brown’s raid on a government arsenal in present day West Virginia clearly fit USA PATRIOT ACT’s definition of domestic terrorism. Brown’s raid involved acts dangerous to human life that violated US and state criminal laws, were clearly intended to intimidate civilians and influence government policy, and definitely occurred on US soil. The fact he believed himself an instrument of God’s wrath in punishing men for the sin of slavery certainly proves that his extremist beliefs had a religious dimension. But since Brown’s motivation behind his attack on Harper’s Ferry was to overthrow the institution of slavery, well, he’s rarely seen as such even by modern day academics. Mostly because Americans agree that slavery was a very terrible sin and the fact it divided the country as well as took 4 year civil war to outlaw it. So in hindsight, Brown’s idea of destroying the institution of slavery through violence isn’t really that crazy (though to a point). And it’s mainly because of Brown’s abolitionist views no matter how extreme they were that he’s often seen as a heroic martyr and visionary to many people. Nevertheless, Brown’s actions prior to the American Civil War and the tactics he chose still make him a very controversial figure today. But Brown’s life and our perception of him illustrate why a lot Americans have difficulty identifying acts of terror by our fellow countrymen in the nation. This is a problem as I explain in this post in FAQ and list format.

This is a photoshopped picture that advocates gun control. However, it also illustrates the problem the media has with identifying domestic terrorist attacks.

If law enforcement has a clear definition on what domestic terrorism is, why is the term used so subjectively as a media and political term?

It’s mainly because when it comes to domestic terrorism, law enforcement and the mainstream media live in two different realities and have very different motivations for identifying what constitutes one. And the latter usually has more influence on the American people. Since American law enforcement’s main priority is ensuring public safety, their criteria for identifying terrorists acts is based on criteria defined in the USA PATRIOT ACT. So when it comes to defining domestic terrorism, all law enforcement care about is whether the act was criminal and endangered human lives, whether it was intended to promote a political agenda through coercion or intimidation, and whether it was committed by someone who lived in the US on US soil. That’s it. By contrast, the media defines domestic terrorism quite differently through the following criteria:

One of the most significant factors in how the media determines whether a violent attack is domestic terrorism is the suspect’s identity. If they’re Muslim, chances are that they’ll be labeled as a terrorist is very high.

Perpetrator’s Race and Cultural Identity – If the perpetrator is a Muslim American, their chances of being seen as a domestic terrorist are extremely high regardless of motivation. If it’s a non-Muslim white American with a conventional name, their chances of being seen as a domestic terrorist are usually dependent on other factors. As for the likelihood of non-Muslim blacks and Hispanics perpetrators, it’s very hard to say since both groups are often associated with criminal stereotypes though neither are widely perceived as terrorists.
Perpetrator’s Motivation– Any American Muslim perpetrator who commits an act of terror in the name of Islam will be automatically be labeled a terrorist in the media as well as linked to foreign Islamic terrorist groups like Al-Qaida or the Islamic State. Black and Hispanic perpetrators will only be identified as such if they’re connected to known terrorist groups or embrace an extremist ideology. But when it comes to non-Muslim white terrorists, it can vary considerably depending on their motivation. White violence against women, racial and religious groups, LGBT people, disabled people, and immigrants will usually be seen as hate crimes at best but not always and not without controversy (if the incident is covered at all). Yet, many hate crimes usually qualify under the USA PATRIOT ACT’s definition of domestic terrorism anyway. Anti-abortion and ecological extremists are less likely to be seen as domestic terrorists since a lot of people hold anti-abortion and environmentalist views. So like John Brown, labeling them as such is controversial though they’ll certainly be seen as nuts regardless political ideology. Then you have the anti-government perpetrators whose acts of terror may cause controversy if ever labeled domestic terrorism. This is especially the case when you’re talking about right-wing extremists or the open carry crowd (though open carry may be legal in some states, carrying a gun in public is an act of intimidation and coercion so it qualifies).
Nature of the Attack– In the media, the nature of the attack matters considerably such as the method and body count. Perpetrators who stage bombings that kill lots of people will most likely be seen as domestic terrorists. So would any attacks that involve hijacking, bioweapons, mass poisoning, hostage taking, chemical weapons, kidnapping, and property destruction. Shootings may depend on whether the perpetrator is either Muslim or clearly committing a hate crime. At any rate, they have to involve violence and/or fatalities. Despite causing hundreds of millions in property damage and having a sheer volume of crimes, eco-terrorists aren’t really seen as such since a lot of their crimes don’t get people killed. Same goes for left-wing Communist and anarchist terrorists. Merely using guns to intimidate people based on political ideology may not be labeled as domestic terrorism when it clearly is. Cyberterrorism may get some attention even though it’s not considered such while paper terrorism doesn’t get much attention at all.
Location– Attacks that take place in major cities are more likely to be labeled as domestic terrorism than ones in less urban areas, especially if they take place near places of great significance. In some ways, this makes sense but also ignores a lot of other terror incidents that take place around the country.

Meanwhile, if the perpetrators in question are white, right-wing, and stage a heavily armed takeover of a national wildlife refuge in Oregon, you might expect headlines like this. Since AP is held to very high journalistic standards, this headline tweet is appalling. These guys aren’t peaceful protesters. They have guns with them and they took over a national wildlife refuge in order to intimidate people and influence government conduct. It’s domestic terrorism, plain and simple.

If you watch TV news, you might get the impression the media is more likely to label a violent incident as domestic terrorism based on a biased set of criteria which gives Americans the impression that terrorists tend to be Islamic extremists. When in reality, Muslim terrorist attacks aren’t a very big threat to national security, even after 9/11. Why the media decide does this:

Contrary to what you might be accustomed to on the news, anti-government, racist, and other nonjihadist extremist killed nearly twice as many people as those by Islamic jihadist since 9/11. Many Americans don’t realize this, especially if they’re on a steady diet of Fox News. Maybe that’s because most nonjihadist terrorists are white.

Desire to Avoid Controversy– Domestic terrorism is a loaded word. And while the mainstream media likes sensational news stories, they also take great aims to avoid offending people. This is particularly true when a terror incident involves right-wing extremists since a lot of mainstream media outlets are owned by large corporate conglomerates. Some like Fox News even have a right-wing ideology. That’s not to say leftist terrorists exist since they certainly do since Occupy Wall Street might qualify since they have a long list of property crimes, rampant drug use, rape, murder, and assaults. But when Janet Napolitano brought up the threat of right-wing domestic terrorism in 2009, Republicans were furious.
Public’s Unwillingness to Identify with Terrorists– Like I said about terrorists, people are more comfortable to label a terrorist act as such if the perpetrator is different from them. And since a lot of people don’t know anyone who’s Muslim, Muslim perpetrators are more likely to be seen as terrorists than their non-Muslim counterparts. But when a terror incident involves white supremacists and other right-wing extremists, a lot of conservative politicians hesitate to declare it as such. Many of them even downplay dangers posed by right-wing extremism altogether. This is especially when Fox News glorifies a Nevada rancher who engaged in an armed standoff against the feds over grazing rights and a bunch of armed men for occupying a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon and the fact the current GOP presidential nominee has been endorsed by white supremacists. When it comes to right-wing domestic terrorism, most conservatives are like Draco Malfoy. Sure they may be totally comfortable having racist, xenophobic, homophobic, sexist, and anti-government views. And yes, they may not be happy with the political and cultural landscape these days as well as nostalgize about a past that never was. But like Draco Malfoy on Muggle-borns, most of these conservatives are neither extreme in their viewpoints nor are willing to resort to violent terrorist acts for them. On the other end, I may believe that this country should do more to protect the environment and stop climate change but that doesn’t mean I’m willing to bomb an animal testing facility because that’s crazy. But when someone commits an act of violence on behalf of their political agenda, it makes a lot of people who may share that perpetrator’s view to some extent very uncomfortable and reluctant to address it as an act of terror. So they don’t.
Sensationalism– We should understand that sensationalism sells and the media does everything it could to exploit violent terror incidents. The more violent it is and the nuttier the perpetrators seem, the more attention it will get and more ratings the media outlet will have. This is especially be the case if the perpetrator is Muslim.

According to a local law enforcement survey the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security, anti-government terrorism was seen as the top terrorist threat in their jurisdictions. And that percentage is far more than those who listed anything relating to Islamic terrorist threats. The media doesn’t really pay attention to this because most anti-government terrorists are white.

Unfortunately, the way the news covers domestic terror attacks has very negative repercussions in the country. Now it’s one thing to call a mass shooting in San Bernardino and at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando as domestic terrorism. Same goes for the Boston Marathon bombings. But it’s another when both these attacks are seen as acts of domestic terrorism while the mass shootings at Pittsburgh, Tucson, and Charleston are not. Rather as far as the media was concerned, these were attacks made by violently mentally ill white men. Sure it was an accurate assessment, but it doesn’t tell the whole story. For one, the man who fired an AK-47 at 5 cops in Pittsburgh was a white supremacist who believed Jews secretly ran everything and that Obama wanted to take away his guns. But as far as the media is concerned, he was just a crazy nutjob who killed 3 cops after his mom called police over a domestic dispute concerning a dog peeing on the carpet. Second, the Tucson shooter who tried to assassinate Congresswoman Gabby Giffords was a conspiracy theorist who believed in a New World Order to brainwash people. Third, the shooter who killed 9 people at the Emmanuel AME Church in Charleston was a white supremacist who donned a pro-apartheid jacket on his Facebook page, had a Confederate flag license plate, told racist jokes, advocated segregation, and went on a racist rant on how blacks are raping white women and taking over the world. Furthermore, he specifically chose to fire upon blacks at the church due to its long association with civil rights activism. Yet, these terror incidents were reported. Most aren’t covered by major news outlets at all. Negative repercussions of inadequate and sloppy coverage of domestic terrorism include:

The heavy attention on Islamic terrorism in the US media outlets had perpetuated rise and acceptability of Islamophobia as well as led to American Muslims being targets of everything from harassment to outright deadly violence. Featured here are American Muslims Yousef Abu-Salha, his brother-in-law Deah Barakat, and his sisters Yusor and Razan. Save for the Yousef, three people would later become victims of an anti-Muslim hate crime in a Chapel Hill condominium by one of their former white neighbors who was banned from the building. The man basically broke into Deah and Yusor’s condo and killed them and Razan in cold blood. Yousef would later say, “It’s a shame that you turn on a major news channel and you see a news story about ISIS and then they’ll cover our story and they do an okay job, but immediately after it will be another story about these radical groups. I think it sends US citizens a bad message that these Muslims are all the same.”

Legitimizes Discrimination– The media’s coverage of Islamic terrorism since 9/11 in the US and abroad has contributed so much to Islamophobia that Muslims in American pop culture have been nastily stereotyped as fanatical Islamic terrorists who hate our country and our western values. Each terror attack since then have been filtered by the media and consumed by the public as wrongdoings of Muslims around the world. Muslims have been further vilified and dehumanized in Hollywood movies like American Sniper. Because of this, American Muslims, Middle Easterners, and South Asians have become acceptable targets for profiling, oppression, and even terrorist attacks. For many Americans, just looking like a Muslim makes them an automatic terror suspect by default as well as someone to be feared. This is a major reason why welcoming Syrian refugees in the US has been so controversial even though it shouldn’t. Around the country, mosques have been fired on, defaced, or burned. Muslims have been shot and killed execution style in their living rooms, fatally stabbed on their way home as well as been beaten in their stores, schools, and on the streets. They’ve also been kicked out of planes, egged outside Walmart, scorched with hot coffee in a park, shot in cabs, and punched while pushing their children in strollers. They’ve had clothes set on fired and their children bullied in school. They’ve been threatened by neighbors who’d burn down their house if they didn’t move away as well as had their cemeteries vandalized and Quran desecrated. They’ve been fired for wearing hijabs and for praying. A Muslim congressman has received death threats. In Irving, Texas, heavily armed right-wing gunmen blocked entrance of a mosque and held banners reading, “we are the solution to Islamic terrorism.” Other armed anti-Islam demonstrations and “Muslim-free” businesses raise deep concerns. Civil and human rights advocates are challenging the use of “domestic terrorism” believing that it’s doled out in a racially-discriminatory manner that merely exacerbates hate they and law enforcement are trying to prevent. Exacerbating hate on a group of people who just happen to have the same religion as terrorists is not a solution to Islamic terrorism and just makes it worse. The fact that 55% of Americans hold an unfavorable view of Islam makes Islamophobia not just the biggest threat to American religious freedom, but also a potential threat to national security since Muslim communities play a crucial role in alerting law enforcement to terrorist threats.
Does Not Represent Reality– While the American public rightfully sees Islamic terrorists as a threat to safety, the reality of terrorism exists in all forms and that terrorists come from all racial and cultural backgrounds as well as embraced a wide range of extremist political and religious ideologies. For law enforcement officials, the biggest terrorist threats aren’t jihadists. Rather it’s far right wing extremists that have carried out well over half of the deadliest US terrorist attacks since 9/11, committing 93% of all extremist murders in the last 10 years. Most of their extremism is homegrown as well as pose a very real danger to this nation’s character such as pluralism, tolerance, and equality, which form the basis of a liberal democracy. Though jihadist terrorism is often reported on the news, the US has seen very little violent extremism by Muslims. On the other hand, white supremacists are among the most lethal since they’ve committed 83% of all right-wing extremist murders and 77% of all extremist killings in the past decade as well as were involved in 52% of shootings with police. They also regularly engage in various terrorist plots, acts, and conspiracies as well as other traditional forms of crime. Anti-government extremists, right-wing militias, and sovereign citizens are among the most common. But no matter what their ideology, right-wing extremists are also more numerous, cover a larger geographic range, and are more likely to live in your neighborhood. Not representing these groups in the media as the terrorists they are that we should condemn is very irresponsible, even if the station is Fox News.
Promotes Cultural Profiling– How the media has reported domestic terrorism can also lead to real but ineffective policies that have resulted in cultural profiling, particularly of Muslims and people suspected of being one. Those charged with plotting terrorism for the Islamic State faced more severe charges than militia members, “sovereign citizens,” and other anti-government extremist who’ve been prosecuted for similar activity (even though many more terrorist attacks in the US are carried out by non-Muslims). After 9/11, many American Muslims, South Asians, and those of Middle Eastern descent found themselves being subject to harsher security checks as well as are more likely to be on a no fly list or subject to surveillance. As a result, trust between law enforcement and Muslims has been strained. In recent years, anti-Islam bills became laws in 10 states. Florida and Tennessee passed laws revising the way they approve textbooks for classroom use as a direct result of anti-Islam campaigns. Don’t get me wrong, Islamic terrorists do exist in this country and do pose a threat to national security. But profiling Muslims as suspected terrorists by default is never excusable since the vast majority of them are regular people like us who just want to live their lives in peace and mind their own business.
Fails to Hold Public Figures Accountable for Their Rhetoric– The media is a huge influence in the American public but we should be aware what many public figures may say could be taken out of context by some nutjob who’d use it in a terror attack. It’s been widely suggested that political rhetoric may play a role in fueling hate crimes, especially since Donald Trump started running for president as well as said very hateful things about almost every demographic imaginable. But since he started running and calling on Muslim bans, anti-Muslim hate crimes dramatically increased to its highest levels since the aftermath of 9/11. It doesn’t help that Trump has been endorsed by white supremacist organizations whom he’s consistently failed to denounce. A lot of what’s said on Fox News has probably led to a lot of terror attacks and it doesn’t help that they have glorified anti-government terrorists like Cliven Bundy as heroes as well as inspired many nutcases to do horrible things that have killed people. Not to mention, a lot of conservative special interest groups have said similar things as well as many Republican politicians. I know there are liberal groups and Democrats who might inspire some degree of terror violence. But I single out conservatives since right-wing terrorism has become much more of a problem in recent years, according to terror experts and government organizations.And yes a lot of these radical right-wing extremists consume conservative media outlets like Fox News.
Ignores Very Real Threats– While Muslim terrorism in the news stirs fear and hatred for even the most ordinary Muslim Americans, the far more serious threat of the radical right has received relatively little attention. But bring that fact up in front of Republican politicians, expect outrage and even offense as an attack to demonize the right. The media seems to be just as deft to these threats, especially if it’s Fox News. Such response leads to downplay to take such threats as seriously as they should be by the public. Radical Right-Wing terrorists present a more deadly threat given their affinity for hoarding weapons and explosives. Not paying attention to these terrorists has consequences such as emboldening these people to carry out mass casualty attacks. Americans are much more likely to live near a white supremacist or anti-government sovereign citizen than a jihadist (A nearby town in my area had its own Klu Klux Klan chapter). When we’re talking about racial and religious minorities, living near a radical right-wing terrorist can put them in very real danger.
Compromises Public Safety for Vulnerable Populations– Whenever domestic terror incidents aren’t reported and treated as the heinous acts they are, people are left very vulnerable to attacks. This was very apparent in the South during segregation when countless African Americans were subject to lynchings as a way to control black communities and retain white supremacy. During the Civil Rights Movement, African Americans and other activists were frequent targets of white supremacist violence. Though white supremacy is no longer as acceptable as it was, the hateful ideology and violence hasn’t gone away. Recent incidents including a white supremacist firing on Black Lives Matter activists in Minneapolis, a NAACP building bombing in Colorado, and a black church shooting in Charleston. In every terror attack involving Muslims since 9/11, hate crimes against Muslims in America have become alarmingly high. A study from Georgetown University has reported 174 incidents of anti-Muslim violence from 2015 consisting of 12 murders, 29 physical assaults, 50 threats against people and institutions, 54 acts of vandalism, 8 arsons, and 9 shootings or bombings. Contrary to what the media might say, Muslims are far more likely to become terror victims than terror perpetrators. However, Muslims and blacks aren’t the only group in the country vulnerable to domestic terrorism in the nation even by white supremacists. White supremacist groups also target immigrants, minorities, Jews, LGBT people, and sometimes Christians. Targets for anti-government and sovereign citizens are law enforcement and other authority figures. Still, not recognizing clearly politically motivated attacks by non-Muslim perpetrators leaves many Americans especially vulnerable.

It is no secret that now GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump has been endorsed by the Klu Klux Klan over his racist remarks on Mexicans, blacks, immigrants, and Muslims. However, Trump hasn’t distanced himself from this white supremacist terrorist organization which has a long history of violence against blacks since its formation during Reconstruction. If a presidential candidate from a major party can’t denounce a terrorist endorsement, then that person isn’t fit to be president. Seriously, the KKK are beyond deplorable.

As you can see the state of how the news media depicts domestic terrorism is appalling. Excessive coverage of one group of terrorists has led to disproportionate fear, suspicion, and unjust discrimination against a religious minority and other others. But significant less attention of a far more serious homegrown terrorist threat has gone under the media radar and has neither been sufficiently challenged by our political culture nor law enforcement. Not only this disproportionate rate of media coverage lead to increased profiling and discrimination, it also makes the US less safe as a whole. Furthermore, it makes public figures less likely to take responsibility for their rhetoric that could inspire many of these nutjobs to commit heinous acts. Now while the government may be slow to act on domestic terrorism, the media doesn’t have to. In fact, if the media just got it together and report domestic terrorist attacks in a way they should, then it might actually encourage leaders to come up with policies combating it. After all, people didn’t take lynchings as serious acts of terrorism meant to intimidate black people during segregation in the South until Ida B. Wells investigated them in the 1890s and began an anti-lynching campaign to spread awareness about the atrocity. Today she is turning in her grave. If the news media should cover domestic terrorism correctly, then it must be depicted in a way that’s represents the reality. By that I mean showing that domestic terrorism can take many forms, be motivated by different ideologies, and committed by people of many different backgrounds. And that all these domestic terrorists should be treated as a national security threat to be taken seriously.

2931225700000578-3103341-image-a-64_1432954295853

Here we come to a bunch of heavily armed open-carry activists “protesting” at a mosque in Phoenix against “Islamic Radicalism.” In reality, they’re just a bunch of armed terrorists who are using their guns to intimidate the Muslims who worship there. This isn’t peaceful protesting, it’s domestic terrorism and should be treated that way. This should neither be tolerated nor encouraged by anyone. It’s utterly disgraceful anyone there with a gun wasn’t arrested. Because the country needs to know that armed protest rallies are never ever acceptable.

The Matter of Voter ID Laws

Posted by historymaniacmegan on August 18, 2016

1-1

Since this is a presidential election year in the United States, it’s not unusual to hear about voter ID laws which require some form of identification in order for a person to register to vote. As of 2016, 33 states have passed such laws. And since 2012, 17 states have new voter restrictions in place. The voter requirements in these states but the most popular measure in recent years is requiring citizens to show a photo ID to vote (though some may simply require a utility bill or bank statement). At the federal level, the 2002 Help America Vote Act required voter ID for all new voters in federal elections who registered by mail and who didn’t provide a driver’s license number or the last 4 digits of their Social Security number that was matched against government records. Proponents of these laws argue that voter ID laws are a common sense effort and places little burden on voters. They also have considerable support among Americans from all party lines. However, the laws have been subject to considerable controversy and various lawsuits at both state and federal levels. In 2013, the Supreme Court overturned parts of the Voting Rights Act that required approval for voter registration changes such as Voter ID laws, making it more difficult for voters to challenge them. Nevertheless, federal courts continue to rule on voter registration cases and there are sure to be more lawsuits to come. Since the right to vote has been enshrined as a fundamental right for all Americans 18 or over, I believe that voter ID laws are nothing but voter suppression tactics that should have no place in the democratic process.

Since the 1870s, African Americans and other ethnic and racial minorities in the South have been known to be targets of disenfranchisement, especially under segregation. In fact, this was a main reason why we had the Civil Rights Movement in the first place. Nevertheless, many states that have voter ID laws have had a history of disenfranchising minorities as well as high levels of racial stereotyping among whites. Not only that, but many older blacks in the South may not be able to get a photo ID because they were born during segregation and don’t have birth certificates.

Voter ID laws are racist.– Anyone who knows about American history could tell you that voting restrictions have a long history with racism. In fact, since after Reconstruction in the South, white Southerners would institute a series of laws, constitutions, and practices that were deliberately used to disenfranchise black citizens from registering to vote and voting. Measures used to disenfranchise blacks consisted of poll taxes, grandfather clauses, literacy tests, eight box laws, white primaries, and others. Were they constitutional? No, because the 15^th Amendment stated that voters shouldn’t be discriminated by race. Did the federal government do anything to stop it at the time? Not until after WWII. Nevertheless, many of these disenfranchisement measures in the South were a major reason why the Civil Rights Movement existed in the first place which eventually led the federal government to enact the Voting Rights Act as well as the 24^th Amendment abolishing the poll tax in national elections. As 2016, as many as 25% of voting age African American citizens 20% of Asian Americans, and 19% of eligible Hispanics, don’t have government issued photo identification, compared to only 8% of their white counterparts. Native Americans have also been fighting a slew of court battles over voter ID laws as well. Not to mention, out of the 33 voter ID states which have laws to prevent voter impersonation, only 6 of them have the same standards applying to absentee voters who usually tend to be whiter and older than their in-person counterparts. Mail-in absentee voter fraud is more common than voter impersonation. African American and Latino voters are known to be disproportionately low income and may not just lack a voter ID but also not be able to procure the underlying documentation necessary to obtain one. Latinos are also among the fastest growing racial demographics in the nation. It doesn’t help that some of the states that have passed voter ID laws have had a history of discriminating against minority voters as well as the fact that many older African Americans in the South simply don’t have a birth certificate due to being born during segregation. This July, a 3 judge panel of the 4^th Circuit Court of Appeals, struck down North Carolina’s voter ID law requirements, finding that the new provisions targeted African Americans with “with almost surgical precision,” and that legislators had acted with clear “discriminatory intent” in enacting strict election rules as well as shaping rules based on data about African American registration and voting patterns. There’s also a correlation that the higher the racial stereotyping in a voter ID state among whites, the stricter the voter ID laws. So to compare voter ID laws to Jim Crow is not a stretch, especially since most voter ID proponents tend to be white.

steve-frank67FAC2A7-A14C-4F72-D3C8-71613E397404

When it comes to voter ID laws, minority groups, the elderly, the young, and the poor tend to be disproportionately affected by them. This graph from the Brennan Center and Mother Jones shows this.

Voter ID laws are discriminatory against minorities, the poor, elderly, students, and the disabled.-According to the NYU Brennan Center, more than 21 million Americans (or 11% of eligible US citizens) do not have government issued photo identification and a disproportionate number of them are low-income, racial and ethnic minorities, and the elderly. 18% of Americans over 65, 18% of Americans between 18-24, and 15% of those making less than $35,000 a year don’t have voter ID. Aside from possibly disenfranchising minorities, many low income people simply can’t afford the necessary documentation to get an ID or have the time to get one (because a lot of them work long hours and have low job security). Many don’t have any education past high school so sorting out many potential agencies and requirements to get a photo ID can be challenging. Those without a driver’s license in rural areas may not have access to transportation while many senior citizens may not own a computer as well as have birth certificates with erroneous names (since a lot of mistakes were made in old birth certificates. And corrections cost money). College students are often not at their permanent residence during election times, are less likely to drive, and their student ID may not be seen as valid in states like Texas. Then you have many elderly African Americans in the South who can’t get a photo ID because they don’t have a birth certificate on record (due to being born during segregation). Homeless people can’t get an ID because they have no permanent address. Then you have voters who were born in a different state than they lived in now. Obtaining needed documents from another state costs extra money and often requires another agency in another state that the voter may not have lived in for many years. Finally, you have women who’ve changed their legal names after they’ve gotten married or divorced who may have difficulty obtaining ID in states where the name has to exactly match the voting rolls, especially if they’re low income, elderly, or minority. This goes the same for transgender people as well.

In recent years, states with strict voter ID laws tend to be championed by Republican dominated state legislatures. Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight has measured that such states tend to have lower voter registration as well as a higher Republican net swing. Sure this might sound biased even though I’ve checked and tried to use a graph from as reputable source as I can.

Voter ID laws are not politically neutral.-Until recently, only a handful of states required voter ID. Today 33 states do. In a recent opinion by US Circuit judge Richard Posner, a Reagan appointee, compared the laws to the poll tax implemented to stop blacks from voting in the Jim Crow Era South. To him the only reason to impose voter ID laws, “is to discourage voting by persons likely to vote against the party responsible for imposing the burdens.” Posner is probably right since many voter ID laws tend to be sponsored by Republicans and passed by Republican dominated state legislatures, especially in swing states where elections are more competitive. One of the strictest and infamous voter ID laws is in Texas where voters must show one of 7 forms of state or federal issued photo ID, with a valid expiration date: a driver’s license, a personal ID card issued by the state, a concealed handgun license, a military ID, citizenship certificate or a passport. And the name must exactly match the one on the voter rolls. So concealed weapons permit fine, but not state issued student ID cards. Clearly there’s political bias here, especially if you consider that Texas is a Republican dominated state that allows guns on college campuses while young people are more likely to vote Democrat. So are racial minorities who consist of a fast growing electorate and poor people. Meanwhile, an older black veteran who showed 3 forms of ID was turned away in 2013. Also, despite being the more common form of voter fraud, only 6 out of the 33 states have voter ID laws pertaining to absentee voters who tend to be older, whiter, and more conservative than the voters most of these laws target. Then there’s the fact Republican politicians have been heard made comments Pennsylvania’s House majority leader Mike Turzai boasting that strict new voting laws would “allow Governor Romney to win” the state in 2012 (though these laws were struck down later). At the same time, a conservative group called True the Vote claimed that Democrats routinely drop off busloads of illegal voters at polling throughout the country despite evidence to the contrary. North Carolina county precinct chairman Don Yelton told the Daily Show in 2013 that if the state’s new voter restriction “hurts a bunch of lazy blacks who just want the government to give them everything, so be it.” So there’s evidence to suggest that conservatives understand that keeping certain kinds of people away from the polls is kind of the point and voter ID laws may have helped conservatives keep liberal-leaning demographics away from the polls amid record low-turnout. Despite that voter ID laws have wide support in the US, bipartisan legislation it is not.

The vast majority of voter ID laws have been put in place to deter voter impersonation. According to News21, there have only been 10 known cases of this since 2000. More people have been struck by lightning or claimed to see UFOs than commit voter impersonation, a crime you’ve have to be crazy to do.

There is no need to prevent voter fraud.– While proponents of voter ID laws tend to talk about voter fraud like it’s a major crime wave, the mere suggestion that “voter fraud is rampant” earned a “Pants on Fire” rating from Politifact. Most voter ID laws are aimed at voter impersonation of which there were only 31 documented cases in the US from 2000-2014, out of a billion ballots cast, by the way. More people have been struck by lightning or claimed to see UFOs that same period. Proponents may also alleged that registrations of dead and out of state voters as a vulnerability in the US electoral system. After all, Pew cited that there were more than 1.8 million dead voters and 3 million registered in multiple states nationwide. And voter ID supporters fear that motivated individuals could exploit registration irregularities to impersonate dead voters or former residents, casting multiple fraudulent ballots. However, most cases of alleged voter fraud involving dead people have been shown as a result of incorrect matching of voter rolls and death records as well as clerical errors. Not to mention, the basic fact it’s not unusual for multiple people to have the exact same name. Besides, such form of fraud is illogical as the risks such as a $10,000 fine or 5 years in prison far outweigh the benefits of casting an extra vote for the voter’s desired candidate. Besides, voter impersonator takes a lot of effort which according to a Wisconsin judge, “To commit voter-impersonation fraud, a person would need to know the name of another person who is registered at a particular polling place, know the address of that person, know that the person has not yet voted and also know that no one at the polls will realize that the impersonator is not the individual being impersonated.” Someone would have to be absolutely insane to commit something like that because one vote isn’t guaranteed to sway an election. Multiple studies have shown that almost all cases of in person voter fraud are the result of a voter making an honest mistake, and even these are extremely infrequent. Besides, absentee ballot fraud is more common than voter impersonation, but not by much. Then you have proponents claiming about ballot stuffing undocumented immigrants voting, too. But voter ID laws don’t prevent these things and neither are significant problems. Thus, voter fraud is anything but rampant and mostly nonexistent.

Voter ID law proponents tend to think that getting a state photo ID is relatively easy and free. My experience with getting a photo ID in college taught me quite differently even though I was able to get a ride from my dad (since I don’t have a driver’s license), had all the documentation, and lived near a DMV that was open 5 days a week. Many people who live in voter ID states don’t have the documentation on hand, don’t live near an accessible DMV, and face other obstacles preventing them from obtaining a photo ID. So what may seem easy and free to one person is actually costly and burdensome. Then again, even under the best circumstances, obtaining a photo ID is still pretty damn hard.

Getting a state photo ID card is more difficult than it looks.– When I first got my state photo ID in college (since I don’t have a driver’s license), I was required to have my birth certificate, my Social Security card, and other documentation to show to the DMV. Unfortunately, I didn’t have my Social Security card with me at the time since my parents kept it in the fire safe so we had to go back. Luckily my parents had saved the documentation so I could get one with few problems. After all, the nearest DMV to me is only closed on Sunday, Monday, and holidays, with 8:30 am-4:15 pm for regular business hours, save Thursday when it’s open till 6. Besides, I have parents who could drive me. Still, advocates of voter ID laws make it seem that getting a photo ID is easy for anyone who’s eligible to vote when my firsthand experience tells me that it’s not necessarily the case. And for a rural resident without a driver’s license, I had it easy and under the best circumstances. For thousands of eligible citizens, obtaining a photo ID can be costly and burdensome. Though many states with strict voter ID laws offer a free, these IDs require documents like a birth certificate that can cost up to $25 in some places or possibly more. Many people in rural areas have trouble accessing ID offices, especially if they don’t have a driver’s license. A 2015 Alabama lawsuit cited a high schooler who couldn’t vote because she lacked a driver’s license. Sure she could get a state issued ID at the nearest DMV like I did. But the nearest DMV to this girl is only open one day per month and she has no access to public transportation to another DMV that’s 40 miles away round trip. But at least she doesn’t live Sauk City, Wisconsin whose DMV office is only open 4 times per year while 25% of Wisconsin’s DMVs are open less than one day per month. If you’re an African American born in the Jim Crow South before 1960, there’s a good chance you don’t have a birth certificate and may need to go to court. If you work in a low wage job, do think your boss would mind if you take several hours off work to get a government issued ID? Most of the time they’d fire you if you try. If you live in another state from the one you were born in, you might have to pay a pretty penny or travel great distance to fetch those records. And if you live in Texas, there’s a 1 in 3 chance that your county has no ID-issuing offices at all, leading some rural residents to travel 100 miles to the nearest location and only a quarter of those offices have extended hours.

This map shows the costs on voter ID laws in each states with them at the time. Note that many of these states are strapped for cash and can use their funds for better things like education. Basically, voter ID laws cost the government more money to combat a virtually non-existent problem.

Voter ID laws cost taxpayer money.– While many courts have accepted voter ID laws, they’ve only done so as long as the states have key provisions such as making sure the voter ID is free of charge (they’re not), accessible to everyone (they’re not), and that there are public outreach and education efforts to make everyone aware of the new requirements. However, none of this is free to the taxpayer and implementation costs millions of dollars in voter ID states. $20 million on average, in fact, including the state’s price to issue free cards to avoid costly lawsuits, voter education and publicity to inform voters and ensure they aren’t turned away at the polls, and dozens of new costs for state and local officials from updating forms and websites to hiring staff to inspect IDs and handle provisional ballots on Election Day. So enacting these laws aren’t cheap. Add to that the financial costs states are spending to defend them in the courts, too.

This is a flyer on Pennsylvania’s voter ID law which was passed in 2012 and struck down by a state judge in 2014 who saw it as unconstitutional since it places an undue burden on hundreds of voters. To be fair, even if the main part of the Voter Rights Act was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2013, the constitutionality on voter ID laws is not sound.

Voter ID laws are unconstitutional.– The right to vote is protected by more constitutional amendments than any other right we enjoy in the United States along with additional federal and state statutes which guarantee and protect voting rights. Declarations by the Supreme Court state that the right to vote is fundamental because it’s protective of all our other rights and that states can’t value one person’s vote over another. Sure the Supreme Court may have struck down a critical part of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, this does not mean that voter ID laws are constitutional. While some state IDs are free (though many tend to average $22), the documentation required like passports, driver’s licenses, and birth certificates are often not. And many Americans simply can’t afford to pay for them. Could be an equivalent to a poll tax? Possibly and I know poll taxes go against the 24^th Pennsylvania’s voter ID law was struck down by Commonwealth Court Judge Bernard L. McGinley in 2014 as “violative of the constitutional rights of state voters” as well as to place an undue burden on hundreds of already registered voters due to lack of infrastructure and state support for obtaining required IDs.

Rally Marks 1-Year Anniversary Of Supreme Court Decision On Voting Rights Act

Caption: “WASHINGTON, DC – JUNE 25: Activists attend a Voting Rights Amendment Act rally in Capitol Hill June 25, 2014 in Washington, DC. The rally marked the one-year anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder which held a section of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is unconstitutional.” In American democracy, voting is a fundamental right and a sacred civic responsibility. Voter ID laws are unfair, disenfranchise people, as well as decrease people’s confidence in the system that some may not show up at the polls.

Voter ID laws violate civil rights and undermine the democratic process.– In democracy, nothing is more fundamental than the right to vote, which is deemed sacred since it gives people perhaps the only political voice they have in elections. Disenfranchisement is to deprive a person of that voice while voter ID essentially disenfranchises people through requirements in a discriminatory fashion and placing unreasonable requirements on individuals for registering or voting. Furthermore, it places a disproportionate burden on millions of voters on an infraction that’s only possible but highly unlikely and unproven. Voter ID laws also lead to lower turnouts since they decrease many voters’ confidence in the system since they’re seen as a way to prevent certain types of voters from casting their ballots. They are unconstitutional and illegal for they discriminate against the poor and racial minorities as well as have been implemented to influence election incomes. These states need to get rid of these oppressive laws which make voting a privilege, not a right which it is.

votingrights_230-aclu

Stolen Pay: Why We Need to Know About Wage Theft

Posted by historymaniacmegan on August 16, 2016

Depositphotos_18442503_s-800x533

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump often likes to cast himself as a protector of workers and jobs as well as a great businessman. However, recently he’s come under considerable scrutiny as it’s been recently revealed that he’s been involved in more than 3,500 lawsuits over the past 3 decades. A large number of these pertain to ordinary Americans who say that Trump and his companies have refused to pay them for their work. According to USA Today, these include a Florida dishwasher, a New Jersey glass company, a plumber, a carpet company, painters, 48 waiters, dozens of bartenders and other hourly workers at his resorts and clubs all over the country, real estate brokers who sold his properties, and even several law firms that once represented him in these suits and others. Trump and co. have also been cited for 24 violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act since 2005 for failing to pay overtime or minimum wage, according to the US Department of Labor data. In addition to the lawsuits, there were more than 200 mechanic’s liens filed by contractors and employees against Trump, claiming that they were owed money for their work since the 1980s. These range from a $75,000 from a Plainview, NY, heating and air conditioning company to a $1 million claim from a New York City real estate banking firm. On his Taj Mahal casino in Atlantic City, the New Jersey Casino Commission in 1990 show that at least 253 subcontractors weren’t paid in full or on time, included workers who installed chandeliers, walls, and plumbing.

All of these actions described above paint Trump and his sprawling organization frequently failing to pay small businesses and individuals, then sometimes tying them up in court and other negotiations for years. In some cases, Trump’s team financially overpowers and outlasts much smaller opponents, sometimes draining their resources. Some just give up the fight, settle for less, end up in bankruptcy, or out of business altogether. Such actions described above are well-known cases of wage theft. Donald Trump has been a long practitioner of this but he’s hardly the only one. In recent years, workers ranging from NFL cheerleaders, Senate cafeteria workers, fast food workers, retail workers, high tech engineers, nail salon workers, and computer animators have found themselves victimized by this very real and very heinous act by their employers. Often, employees find themselves powerless to do anything about it. And if they do, they often have to act through the court system and risk losing almost everything. But since people rely on their job so much to make a living, this is a very important issue with it becoming the fastest growing crime wave in the United States. But it’s not often reported and it’s tough to see how widespread this problem is. However, at any rate, wage theft is a problem we need to discuss and need to demand action on because it affects so many people’s lives. And here I have this handy FAQ guide to show you.

Yes, this is what wage theft actually is. Unfortunately, Mr. Orange Nuclear Meltdown doesn’t understand this. Because he’s been a constant violator according to the lawsuits former employees subject him to.

What Is Wage Theft?

Wage theft is when an employer denies pay and/or benefits that are rightfully owed to an employee. Wage theft can be conducted through various means such as failure to pay overtime, minimum wage violations, employee misclassification, illegal deductions in pay, working off the clock, having tips stolen, or not being paid at all. In short, the boss is not paying workers for all of their work. Or not paying for the work at the rate they said they would or what the employees are entitled to by law.

If you experience any of these at work, you might be a victim of wage theft. Because these are common signs like being paid under the table, kept working despite clocking out early, having tips stolen, and not receiving meal or rest breaks.

Types of Wage Theft:

Overtime– This is the most common form of wage theft. The US Fair Labor Standards Act dictates that employees are entitled to receive overtime pay calculated at least 1.5 the regular rate for all time worked past 40 hours a week. Some exemptions only apply to public service agencies or employees who meet certain requirements in accordance to their job duties along with no less than a $455 weekly salary (or $23,660 a year). So unless employees meet the exemption criteria, they’re usually entitled to overtime if they work over 40 hours a week period. Employers can’t change overtime laws and can’t avoid paying overtime by enacting a no-overtime policy or getting employees to agree on special deals. Unfortunately, it’s common for employers to treat overtime as a personal choice when it’s not. And despite regulations, many employees aren’t being paid overtime due to them. Common overtime violations include:

Improperly Calculated Overtime Pay– Employers must calculate overtime on the actual 40-hour workweek regardless of pay period whether it be weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly. Many employers are said to average hours over 2 or more weeks, not including all payments in calculating overtime pay rate, not paying employees for all hours worked over a 40 hour work week, not including time spent preparing for work (donning and doffing), and requiring employees to wort through unpaid meal breaks. Such errors may not always be accidental.
Comp Time Instead of Overtime Pay– Compensatory time is paid time off for extra hours worked that’s generally granted to hourly employees instead of overtime wages. It can sometimes be legal (though it’s often not due to fear of employer abuse) but employers must pay it at 150%, the same rate as overtime wages. To give employees to take compensatory time or extra paid time off in lieu of overtime pay is illegal under federal law. Furthermore, those who do take the compensatory time option aren’t always guaranteed time off whether they want it or need it.
Employees Not Allowed to Report Work over 40 Hours Per Week– Many employers have rules that no overtime work will be permitted or paid for unless authorized in advance. Some employers choose to ignore when hourly employees work overtime or don’t allow employees to work overtime hours. This violates overtime rules.
Misclassification of Employees as Exempt Workers– Exempt employees are by law workers not entitled to receive overtime pay. Whether an employee is exempt or not can be confusing. However, it has nothing to do with one’s job or job description or whether one is paid a salary or hourly. It depends on what an employee actually does on their job on a daily basis that determines whether or not they’re legally entitled to overtime pay.

Not Paying for Meals and Rest Period Pay – Meals need not be counted as work time if they are at least 30 minutes long and the employee is relieved from active duty during the meal period even if they must remain available. An employee who works through lunch is working and that time must be counted. An employee who eats a sandwich at the desk or is required to monitor a machine is working through lunch. However, many employers who have their employees work through lunch are guilty of this.

Not Paying for Off the Clock Work– Many FLSA lawsuits involve employers failing to include time spent by employees performing work activities outside their normal shifts. Some may come early and start working before the official start time of their shifts. Such time is work time and must be included in FLSA pay computations, provided only that the employer knew or should’ve known that the employee was beginning work early (and to the extent that the employee spent pre-shift time performing work activities). Pre-shift roll calls are work time. Time spent setting up equipment before the official start of a shift is work time. Some employees may similarly stay late after shifts performing works which should be counted as work time as well. Travel time and on-call time is work time. Time spent by an employee cleaning equipment after the close of a shift is work time. Post shift work time can also include time spent by an employee performing job related activities on the way home like a secretary dropping off the day’s mail at the post office or delivering some paperwork to a customer or supplier. Some employees take work home. That time may well be work time. Similarly if an employee is contacted at home by phone for work related reasons, the time spent is work time (as well as when an employee is called back to work, the time counts as work time). This is a very common wage violation by employers.

Minimum Wage– The federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. It’s a poverty wage that’s not able to support a family but that’s beside the point. For tipped workers, it’s $2.13 an hour as long as it’s fixed and the tips add up to be at the federal or above the federal minimum wage which I think is stupid. Some states also have legislation that sets a state minimum wage as well. Depending on the state, the employee is always entitled to the higher standard of compensation. A common form of wage theft for tipped employees is to receive no standard pay and stealing tips. The Wage and Hour Division is said to be generally contacted by 25,000 people a year in regards to concerns and violations of minimum wage pay. Paying employees less than minimum wage is a very common wage theft practice.

Missclassification is a common method of wage theft in which employers try to pass their workers off as independent contractors. The difference between employee and independent contractor is in this infographic.

Misclassification– One of the more extensive and insidious forms of wage theft which leaves workers especially vulnerable. Under the FLSA, independent contractors aren’t covered by tax and wage laws that apply to regular employees. Nor do they receive the same protection as employees for certain benefits. Thus, independent contractors aren’t entitled to a minimum wage, overtime, insurance, protection, or other employee rights. Nor do employers pay Social Security, Medicare, payroll taxes, or federal unemployment insurance on contract employees. Independent contractors also have to pay payroll taxes to the IRS. The difference between the two classifications depends on the permanency of employment, opportunity for profit and loss, as well as the worker’s level of self-employment along with their degree of control. Nevertheless, employers are strongly motivated to classify regular employees as contract workers to save costs, a practice known as pay roll fraud. A 2007 study in New York state found that 704,785 workers or 10.3% of the state’s private sector workforce was misclassified each year. For industries covered in this study, average unemployment insurance taxable wages underreported due to misclassification was on average $4.3 billion for the year while the unemployment insurance tax underreported in these industries was $176 million.

Illegal Deductions– Employees are subject to forms of wage theft through this method. Trivial to sometimes fabricated workplace violations are used to validate deductions. Any deduction that brings an employee to a level of compensation less than the minimum wage is also illegal. In many states, employers are required to issue employees documentation of deductions along with earnings. Failure to issue such documentation is generally prevalent in workplaces subject to wage theft.

Full Wage Theft– Employers are legally obligated to pay employees. However, this doesn’t always happen and is the most blatant and extreme form of wage theft.

Other– These may include putting pressure on injured workers not to file for workers’ compensation, being denied time off or vacation time they have required, being denied pay for sick leave or vacation time, not paying final paycheck to workers who’ve left, delaying payments (not paying on scheduled paydays or on a timely basis), bounced paychecks, stealing and pooling tips, unpaid internships, not reimbursing expenses, not keeping or fabricating records of hours worked, not paying for training, and under staffing. These could depend on state and local jurisdictions.

According to the FBI, more money is lost to wage theft than in any other property crimes including robbery, auto theft, burglary, and larceny. And money number is only from the reported cases.

How Common Is Wage Theft?

Wage theft is widespread in the United States existing in all professions and affecting all workers regardless of race, gender, or legal status. When it comes to ripping employees off, employers don’t discriminate. But low-income workers and immigrants tend to be the most vulnerable. Yet, this could happen to higher income employees as well such as in high tech companies. So don’t think you can’t become a victim of wage theft because you can. While no one knows exactly how big this problem is, federal and state agencies have recovered $933 million for wage theft victims in 2012 while property taken in all thefts and robberies amounted to under $341 million. Research suggests that American workers are getting screwed out of $20 billion to $50 billion annually. The odds of you becoming a victim of wage theft are likely but some workers are more vulnerable than others.

130204_VFC_UndocumentedFarmWorker.jpg.CROP.rectangle3-large

Undocumented immigrants are the most vulnerable to wage theft due to their precarious legal status that leaves them unable to speak up without risking deportation. Many employers take full advantage of this by paying them under the table and threatening to call immigration on them if they get out of line.

Who Are Most Vulnerable to Wage Theft?

Low income workers are the most vulnerable to wage theft, particularly in fields that employ women, people of color, and foreign born populations. Foreign-born women are at a much greater risk for wage violations than their male counterparts. Undocumented immigrants stood at the highest risk levels. Education, longer tenured employment, union membership, and English proficiency proved to be influential factors in reducing wage theft for the aforementioned demographics. Wage theft is more common in small businesses with less than 100 employees than larger companies. Workplaces with flat rate compensation or cash under the table payments also reported a higher instance in wage theft. We should also take into account that while low income workers are most vulnerable to wage theft, they’re the least likely to report it as well as suffer the most devastating consequences. When a worker only earns a minimum wage ($290 for a 40 hour workweek), shaving a mere half hour of the day from the paycheck could mean a loss of more than $1,400 a year, including overtime premiums. That could be nearly 10% of a minimum wage employee’s earnings which could be the difference between paying the rent and utilities or risking eviction and the loss of gas, water, or electric service.

This infographic illustrates the real costs of wage theft which consist of less income, time poverty, and a poor workplace environment. Wage theft is wrong, it hurts families, it hurts people’s well being, and leads to further worker abuse.

Why Is Wage Theft Bad?

Think of it this way, if you spend several hours working your ass off and your boss doesn’t pay you the money or benefits you should be receiving, you would surely feel very upset about it. After all, you worked for it, you earned it. Therefore, your employer is required to pay you for all the work you did for them. This is how the employer-employee relationship is supposed to work. If your boss doesn’t pay what you deserve, then it’s obviously unfair. Your boss is ripping you off. Wage theft costs workers billions of dollars a year, a transfer from low income employees to business owners that worsens income inequality, hurts workers and their families, and damages the sense of fairness and justice that a democracy needs to survive. And when low wage workers are underpaid, taxpayers face the burden of supporting workers whose employers haven’t paid into Social Security taxes and other funds. Plus the millions of dollars lost in tax revenue. Not only that, but the money your average low income worker loses in unpaid wages is not reinvested in the economy. Meanwhile businesses who do pay their employees without resorting to wage theft find it hard to compete in a market with their additional employee-related expenses.

Employers resort to wage theft because it keeps their costs down, saves them money, and easily get away with it. In other words, when it comes to profit margins, wage theft is good business despite being illegal.

Why Would Employers Commit Wage Theft?

Many businesses violate wage and hour laws for 3 reasons. First, paying employees less gives them a competitive advantage or higher profit and have little fear of getting caught or punished. If a business can get away with illegally paying its employees a below minimum wage with no overtime, it will be able to sell its products more cheaply than one who complies with the laws and pays their workers time-and-a-half for overtime work. If a business pays its “interns” nothing while its competitors all pay interns the minimum wage, it will be able to charge clients less and steal business away from its competitors. Second, even if a business doesn’t lower prices to undercut competitors, it still pockets the difference between the wage owed and the wage paid. Thus, the employee’s loss is the owner’s extra point. Third, there’s a very low chance the employer will be caught cheating on wages so most don’t usually think twice about the consequences. After all, employers usually can afford the better legal defense and the fact wage theft laws are typically weak and insufficiently enforced. As of 2014, there are only 1,000 to 1,100 federal Wage and Hour Division investigators for the whole country who are responsible for investigating over 7 million businesses and protecting over 100-135 million employees. In 2012, they only conducted fewer than 35,000 investigations and recovered about $280 million in unpaid wages to 308,000 workers. State labor departments and attorneys general combined recovered even less. Not to mention, many federal wage theft cases are thrown out because the Department of Labor couldn’t resolve them within two years. At the state and local level, it’s often even worse since few local governments have the resources to combat wage theft and several states have cut their labor department’s. Even if businesses do get caught, they’re rarely punished. Consequences for violations found are often no more than an order to pay back the wages owed or even a fraction of the total amount. This despite that the FLSA makes the employer liable for the full amount as well as additional equal amount for liquidated damages. But at any rate, the FLSA’s civil penalties for willful and repeat violations are too small to deter offenders from engaging in similar violations in the future. For instance the maximum penalty for failure to pay overtime and minimum wage being $1,100 whether the culprit be some local ice cream shop or a giant multinational corporation like Walmart. Yet, Wage and Hour failed even to seek a penalty in most of its cases for many years. And despite that the FLSA makes repeated willful pay violations a misdemeanor punishable by up to 6 months in jail, criminal penalties are rarely if ever used. At state and local levels, wage theft laws can be even weaker while enforcement is even more insufficient.

Wage theft often goes underreported mostly because the party with the power and resources is often the perpetrator or the employer. Victims who decide to take action often face uphill battles, lost savings, lost careers, and possibly very little back pay and justice if they win. It’s a very sad situation.

Why Does No One Talk About Wage Theft?

Because unlike your typical property crimes, wage theft usually happens behind closed doors and is not easily detectable. It’s also conducted by more powerful people typically stealing from those with few resources to do anything about it. In fact, many workers may not realize their employers are stealing from them for years into their job. Or may not know that their boss may be doing anything illegal or violating their rights under the law. But if they do, they may not report the incident anyway if calling out their employer means losing their job or other forms of retaliation like shorter hours, less pay, or increased workloads. Many immigrants are often confronted with threats of calls to immigration services if they complain or seek to redress, especially if they’re undocumented. Some employees in white collar professions are even threatened with criminal prosecution or possibly blackmail to keep them from leaving. Even if they do sue and win, they often end up losing their careers and possibly their life savings to litigation fees. As for settlement, most workers who win their wage theft case usually don’t see a dime. Not to mention, it rarely makes front page news unless the case pertains to a class action lawsuit against a large corporation. So wage theft remains vastly under reported though cases filed in federal court have been on the rise.

In 2009-2011, warehouse workers sued Walmart for paying them less than minimum wage as well as denying the paid vacations they were promised. Walmart denied this because wage theft is one of the ways the retail giant does to ensure you save more, live better, and contribute to their profits.

What Are Effective Measures to Deter Wage Theft?

The US FSLA requires employers to keep detailed records regarding workers’ identities and hours worked for all who are protected under the minimum wage law. Most states require that employers also provide each worker with documentation every paid period detailing that worker’s hours, wages, and deductions. As of 2011, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, South Dakota, Tennessee and Virginia didn’t require such documentation. A 2008 survey of wage theft from workers in Illinois, New York, and California found that 57% of low wage workers didn’t receive this required documentation and that workers who were paid in cash or on a weekly rate were more likely to experience wage theft. So making employer documentation legally mandatory is an effective measure though not so much when it comes to tip theft. As for other enforcement measures, while willful violators can fines up to $10,000 upon their first conviction to jail time resulting from repeat offenses. However, since the WHD is so underfunded and so understaffed (which isn’t an accident), very few wage theft cases are investigated and fewer employers are brought to justice.

Most of the wage theft awareness campaigns usually tend to be localized and statewide. But wage theft is so widespread that Americans need to have a nationwide conversation about this. Wage theft is a very insidious crime that’s happening everywhere. We need to demand action to deter this behavior. We need to show that wage theft is an unacceptable way of doing business.

What Steps Can Be Done to Prevent and Stop Wage Theft?

First, wage theft needs to be addressed as a national issue in the national spotlight because there are stories that are barely heard on TV unless they pertain to Trump’s business shenanigans or NFL cheerleaders. Second, raise funding for the WHD so they could hire more staff to investigate (which should be doubled) as well as better laws that put stiffer penalties on employers. Third, protect victims filing complaints with government agencies from retaliation and allow them to access the back pay they’ve been so long denied if they decide to sue.There must be ways for wage theft victims to complain and stick up to their employers so they won’t have to worry about losing their jobs or their life savings. Fourth, fix the statute of limitations on wage claims for more than two years. Fifth, mandate that employers give workers pay stubs so they could accurately calculate their hours and have a record to prove they were cheated, which most states do anyway as well has been a proven deterrent. Sixth, have the DOL engage in targeted investigations of industries and employers where wage theft is rampant in partnership with community organizations workers trust and know who the criminal employers are. Seventh, instill stiffer penalties on wage theft violators which includes creating mandatory minimums for employers repeatedly breaking the law as well as make sure that wage theft judgments are enforced so workers could collect what they’ve been denied for years. And finally, provide resources to community organizations with the Department of Labor to eliminate wage theft and win back wages.

Remember, wage theft can be prevented and stopped. The time is now to make unscrupulous employers pay. And I hope the Burger King goes directly to jail and isn’t allowed to collect $200.

What Americans Get Wrong About Undocumented Immigration

Posted by historymaniacmegan on July 28, 2016

illegal-immigration-min-3-638x368

There are very few people in the United States who have been so unfairly exploited, marginalized, vilified, and scapegoated in political smear campaigns than the undocumented immigrants. These are people who have entered the country and reside there without any legal authorization. As of 2016, there are 11.3 million undocumented immigrants living among us throughout the nation. Many of them live in poverty and are vulnerable to exploitation as well as live in fear of their status being discovered, detained, and deported. Some of them came to the US as children and to them America is the only country they know. Many are parents of children who are US citizens and run a high risk of their families being torn apart. These are people whose lives are in limbo but all are human beings who deserve to be treated with dignity as well as contribute to this country. But they suffer immensely for their undocumented immigration status, are denied rights and services most Americans enjoy, have no path to legalization and citizenship, and live every day in isolated fear that the life they’ve built for themselves and families could fall apart. A key centerpiece of Donald Trump’s campaign includes a promise to build an immense wall at the Mexican border and mass deportations. He’s also called Mexicans rapists and criminals which have alienated most Hispanic voters. The fact most undocumented immigrants are Hispanic (with the vast majority being Mexican), such remarks reflect the racism and xenophobia that reflect the anti-immigration movement today. Many also believe that these people have broken the law and should be punished accordingly and deported. But the fact is our immigration system is so outdated and broken that undocumented immigrants usually enter the country illegally because no practical legal immigration channels exist for them. These people are victims of injustice since many of them have built their lives in this country, not criminals which they don’t see themselves. Here I list what Americans get wrong about undocumented immigration, why current undocumented immigration policy is unjust and dehumanizing, and why this nation most desperately needs comprehensive immigration reform that gives undocumented immigrants a path to legalization and citizenship. Sure I might get flack from people in the comments section for my views on undocumented immigration aren’t popular. But undocumented immigrants are human beings.

4cdbb96c88284920d5f149dee2103f4da2d9795c457e78f3e6e80a48f95935d7

Of course, early American colonists didn’t ask permission from those who already lived there to enter into the country. But nobody seems to talk about that. Could it be that the residents were Native Americans and the colonists were white?

Undocumented immigration is a new problem.

Did the original colonists ask the Indians permission to settle their lands? I don’t think so. At any rate, it didn’t end well. Besides, in US history after the colonial era, undocumented immigration was most prevalent during the Gilded Age. Today 3.5% the US population are undocumented immigrants which is equivalent to how many Americans own a boat. Nevertheless, undocumented immigration is more of a problem pertaining to a system, not the individuals.

My ancestors didn’t come here illegally.

Are you sure about that? If you’re of Asian descent and your Asian ancestors came to this country between 1880 and the 1940s, then there’s a very strong chance they came to the US illegally. Mostly because US immigration policy at the time either excluded Asians from entering (save under certain circumstances) or had very small quotas on arrivals from Asian countries. Chinese immigrants used a variety of techniques to enter the country such as changing their names or showing pictures to officials of fake relatives already living there. And even if Asian immigrants managed to enter the country legally, they were still banned from becoming citizens. Basically, the only way for an Asian to have American citizenship at the time was being born there. Also, being European descent doesn’t mean your ancestors came to this country legally either. Because there were plenty who arrived to the US as ship stowaways, used false papers like citizenship documents, hid previous criminal behavior, bribed officials and captains, forged medical records, traveled as first class passengers who were only given cursory examinations.Oh, and there were plenty of Mexicans and other folks from Latin America crossing the border. Besides, it’s very clear that restrictive immigration policies in the US were often used to keep racial and ethnic minorities from entering.

Here is a chart on immigrants from the Pew Hispanic Center in 2005. Note that over half of them are either legal permanent residents or naturalized citizens.

Most immigrants today are undocumented.

75% of all immigrants in the US are legal. Out of the 25% who are undocumented, 40% of them entered legally but overstayed their temporary (non-immigrant) visas without renewal.

Most undocumented immigrants are border crossers.

Nearly a third to a half of all undocumented immigrants in the United States today have entered legally but overstayed their visas or failed to renew their green cards. Also, a lot of undocumented immigrants also came to this country by plane or boat.

There’s a group at the US-Mexican border called the Minutmen Militia who are a group off self-appointed and heavily armed border patrollers who are known to threaten and shoot anyone they suspect as an undocumented immigrant trying to get across. Though their numbers have been declining since their heyday in the mid-2000s, they are nativist extremists who deserve to be in prison.

More US border enforcement will deter undocumented immigration.

More incentives to make it easier for immigrants to renew their visas or pursue paths to permanent residents or citizenship will be more effective. Besides, the border between the US and Mexico is almost 2,000 miles long, spanning difficult terrain that includes deserts and mountains. Add to that much of the area is private property which the government will have to buy from owners if you want to build a wall there. Many don’t want to sell their land. Also, the logistics alone in building Mr. Cheetohead’s wall are either very difficult, if not impossible. Not only that, but history has shown that people find ways to cross walls. The Great Wall of China didn’t deter Mongol invaders nor did the Berlin Wall keep East Germans from fleeing the Eastern Bloc. In the US, should Mr. Angry-Oompah Loompah’s wall be built, experts predict coyotes (human smugglers who charge migrants high rates to cross the border) to dig tunnels and create breaches. This would increase smuggling prices, making such process simply more lucrative for those who merely exploit migrants. And even if that didn’t happen, people will still come to the US wanting to seek better life. Hell, many undocumented immigrants are willing to risk their lives for that, let alone breaking the law and deportation. No wall can deter that.

Undocumented immigrants don’t want to learn English.

Most immigrants usually learn English within 10 years after arrival and there is a great ESL demand for them that far exceed the supply. Many immigrants also learn some English while on the job, whether they arrived to the country legally or not. But while undocumented children usually learn English in school, most undocumented adults simply don’t have the resources.

Here’s a chart showing the how the rate of naturalizations per year is often outnumbered by the number of petitions for citizenship filed. And this chart pertains to the legal immigrants who can become citizens. As for undocumented immigrants, most of them do want to become citizens since the majority have lived in this country for 10-15 years. It’s just they can’t.

Undocumented immigrants don’t want to become American citizens.

There are plenty of immigrants who become citizens in which they have to overcome obstacles like getting here, finding a job, language barriers, naturalization fees, a lethargic immigration bureaucracy, and a written citizenship test. These people don’t take becoming American lightly. Currently, 47% of immigrants are naturalized citizens. And let’s just say attaining citizenship isn’t easy since the naturalization process involves untenable wait times, often too few spots, and requiring expensive filing fees. In other words, the US immigration system is an outdated, expensive, and convoluted one which doesn’t help the immigrants seeking citizenship as the proportion has grown significantly. And that’s only for those lucky legal residents. Besides, there are plenty undocumented immigrants who have resided in this country for years, some nearly their whole lives. 86% of undocumented immigrants have been in the country since 2005 (while a third have lived there for 15+ years). Nearly half of them are parents of minor children while 2 million came to the country as children. So if these people aren’t citizens it’s not a matter of wanting to because most of them clearly want to stay in the country. It’s just that their immigration status doesn’t allow them. Because it’s very likely that most of these people would’ve taken advantage of that opportunity by now.

Undocumented immigrants are a drain on our economy.

Most undocumented immigrants who enter the country are of prime working age and they work pretty shitty jobs. Not to mention, the only impact undocumented immigrants have on wages would be in firms that hire them as well as their documented counterparts (as well as the unscrupulous employers who hire them). There are some undocumented immigrants who even start businesses and create jobs that wouldn’t exist without them. We also forget the fact that undocumented immigrants are consumers who buy stuff in American stores that also contributes to the economy.

This billboard from Arizona tends to also spread a lot of misinformation about undocumented immigrants. Contrary to this, most undocumented immigrants pay taxes and are ineligible for most government programs. Whoever erected this Arizona billboard is a complete tool.

Undocumented immigrants don’t pay taxes but still get benefits such as education for their children.

Yes, there are undocumented immigrant children who do attend public schools as well as US citizen children with undocumented parents. However, undocumented immigrants do spend money in this country and most states have sales taxes. Also, many have property taxes as well whenever they rent or buy a house or apartment. And since many might need transportation for a job, many pay excise taxes when they stop for gas. In fact, the Social Security estimates that half to 3 quarters of undocumented immigrants pay federal, state, and local taxes, a lot of which go to benefits they’ll never receive. Besides, most undocumented immigrants work for employers who either don’t know they’re undocumented or don’t want to know. For instance, employers in 2009, reported paying $72.8 billion in wages to 7 million workers without legitimate Social Security numbers. Undocumented immigrants can send their children to school or receive medical care in the ER as well as public health immunizations. But since they lack essential documents, they aren’t eligible for welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, public housing, or food stamps. And many don’t even seek them even if their children are eligible (because you know, fear of deportation). So it’s very unlikely that they’re receiving benefits at the taxpayers’ expense (though people might have to pay for their care in the ER through their insurance since they’re a lot more likely to be uninsured and ineligible for government medical benefits. Even so, they use disproportionately less medical services and contribute less to healthcare costs). Hell, there are some programs not even lawful immigrants are eligible for until they’ve been in the country for at least 5 years. Thus, it’s more likely, that undocumented immigrants pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits which many can’t even access like $80,000 more. Hell, it’s even estimated that giving all these undocumented immigrants a clear path to citizenship, tax revenues could increase by $845 million a year once fully in place just at state and local levels. Give them higher wages and ability to file income taxes like the rest of us and their net tax contribution can go up to $2.2 billion in addition to the $11 billion they already pay.

FB National Immigration Meme-thumb-850x478-1834

And here’s a graph on how much undocumented immigrants pay in state and local taxes. these include income, property, sales, and excise. Many of these will go to programs that will never benefit them. So even though undocumented immigrants aren’t living here legally, they’re not living here for free.

Most undocumented immigrants are Latino.

This might be true when it comes to those crossing the border into Texas. However, there are plenty of immigrants who aren’t out of those who’ve overstayed their visas.And they come from all over the world, particularly Asia. Besides, Asian undocumented immigrants are on the rise.

For a time there was a movement among Republicans for getting rid of birthright citizenship as well as the insidious notion of “anchor babies,” which has no basis in reality. Because it’s been well known that just because undocumented immigrants have US citizen children, doesn’t mean they’re less likely to be deported. Because 5,100 American children are in foster care because their parents were either deported or at some immigration detention center. Deportation tears families apart.

“Anchor babies” keep their parents in the United States.

Today nearly 5 million undocumented immigrants are in families with minor children. Only 1 million of these minor children in undocumented families are undocumented themselves while 4.5. million of them are native born US citizen. This comprises of 9 million people living in mixed status families, often with one undocumented parent and at least one child born in the US. However, there have been 108,000 parents of US born citizens who were deported over the last decade. Thus, being a parent of a native born citizen doesn’t guarantee them any right to stay in the US. Besides, in order for the “anchor baby” scheme to work, the child in question must turn 21 before they can sponsor a parent for legal entry in the US using form I-130. So this would mean that undocumented immigrants would have to stay for 21 years before their “anchor baby” could keep them in the country. This assuming that they return to their home country and not personally raise their child for 10 years. And unlawful entry usually result in deportation as well as 3-10 year bars to eventually a permanent bar. So it’s not a practical solution. Most undocumented immigrants tend to be deported earlier whether their kids are American citizens or not. The fact undocumented parents of US citizens can still be deported for their immigration status is a very serious problem (if not, then outright cruel since it tears families apart). Nevertheless, despite what Mr. Hamsterhair and fellow Republicans might say, I would never advocate that the US do away with birthright citizenship because it’s a wonderful thing (as well as the rest of the Fourteenth Amendment I might add). So, yes, I do think having a child who’s a US citizen should allow their undocumented immigrant parents to stay because keeping families together is the right thing to do. It’s especially the case for infant children and their mothers or children with single parents. Unfortunately, “anchor babies” don’t prevent deportation much.

Though Republicans like to think that undocumented immigrants come to the US to have “anchor babies,” most of them come to this country for the same reasons as their legal counterparts. In this graph on undocumented Latinos, the two biggest reasons are for better jobs and opportunities and better life for family and children.

Most undocumented immigrants come to this country to have “anchor babies.”

While birthright citizenship is a wonderful thing, having an American child has no effect on a foreign parent’s immigration status whether undocumented or not. Research consistently shows that immigrants mostly come to the US for economic opportunity, build a better life for their families and kids, as well as flee violence, persecution, or poverty. Immigration trends tend to be consistent with US economic activity. Besides, if people were coming to the US to solely have children, we’d expect to see the same number of women as men. But research has shown that there are many more young men coming to the US than young women. Then there’s the fact that undocumented immigrants do not personally receive any legal benefits whatsoever for having children on American soil. In fact, they’re just as prone to deportation as any undocumented immigrants who don’t. Need proof? Ask the 5,100 American children currently in foster care because their undocumented parents had no access to adjust to a legal immigration status so they could stay in the country as well as were unlucky enough for law enforcement to find out about it. Thus, they’ve either been detained or deported.

Undocumented immigrants are criminals because they didn’t enter the country through the proper legal channels.

Under federal law, undocumented immigrants aren’t considered criminals because undocumented immigration is a civil offense and tried in civil courts. The punishment is usually deportation and ban on reentry. Criminals violate serious laws and are tried in criminal courts, which usually results in imprisonment. Besides, most undocumented immigrants tend to have very legitimate reasons for not entering the country through proper legal channels. Mostly because they were simply not available to them in the first place (because the US only distributes 5,000 visas to low-skill workers each year and there’s a 4.4 million people line for that green card lottery, many who’ve waited for years or even decades). And that obtaining legal status or citizenship is impossible for them. Add to that the fear that many fear deportation as well as what would happen to their US citizen children if they’re not around. If an undocumented immigrant chose to enter the country illegally, it was mainly because illegal entry was their only viable option while the legal alternatives simply didn’t exist.

There are more undocumented immigrants in the US than ever before.

There were more undocumented immigrants in the US during the Gilded Age mainly due to a large foreign born population as well as racist immigration quotas that severely restricted certain groups from entering, particularly East Asians.

Those who are against immigration reform, often say that undocumented immigrants bring crime or are criminals. Studies have shown that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than their native born children and other citizens, regardless of legal status. Because the realistic possibility of getting deported or obtaining citizenship brings a very high incentive to obey the law.

Undocumented immigrants bring crime.

They are more likely to become victims of crimes that never get prosecuted since their undocumented status makes them especially vulnerable. After all, they’re 70% less likely to call police to report themselves as victims because they’re unwilling to risk deportation. And they’re right to fear that since 240,000 undocumented immigrants with zero prior convictions have been deported under the Obama administration compared to 200,000 who did. Still, most crime statistics over the last 70 years would point out that immigrants have lower incarceration rates than native born Americans even for the most minor offenses. Legal immigrants know that even committing the most minor offenses might can count against them when they’re going through the naturalization process. The criminality rate among immigrant families increases with each generation born in the US. So instead of bringing criminality to this country, they tend to grow into it as they become more American. Not to mention, it says a lot that 3 out of 4 people caught bringing drugs across the border are US citizens. As immigration has risen, crime rates have declined even in the poorest neighborhoods. Undocumented immigrants are usually sent through the deportation process if they’re arrested. Thus, they have a very high incentive not to break the law.

Undocumented immigrants take good jobs away from Americans.

Most undocumented immigrants usually take jobs Americans don’t want like in the low-income service industry. This thanks to better education and an aging population that most native-born Americans prefer to take jobs in management, professional, sales, and office occupations. And many undocumented immigrants take certain service and menial labor jobs because they don’t have the skills or education or there are no better jobs available (I’m talking general trends but some do become managers). Nevertheless, undocumented immigrants are very prone to exploitation by unscrupulous employers and are more likely to be paid below minimum wage. They’re also prone to occupational hazards and less likely to receive benefits. Also take account they are much more likely to have their wages stolen by their employers. Still, undocumented immigrants don’t compete for the same jobs as native born Americans even in the low-income sector (like service occupations where you’ll have to be present for the customers like at a restaurant or a store). It’s also often said native born and undocumented workers tend to possess different skills that complement one another. Some may even start businesses and even create jobs that wouldn’t exist without them. We should also be aware that undocumented immigrants buy stuff in this country as consumers which also creates jobs. Besides, there are no negative effects of immigration on most native workers’ wages anyway (because negative effects on wages have more to do with greedy employers than anything).

Too many people like this idiot protester tend to believe that undocumented immigrants could’ve simply entered the US legally. Unfortunately, unless they’re willing to wait decades for authorization or get extremely lucky with the 5,000 low-skill worker green card lottery, most poor immigrants don’t have any legal options. Also, no programs exist for undocumented immigrants to obtain a legal status, let alone citizenship. If there was, then they’d certainly take advantage of it.

There’s a way to enter the country legally for anyone who wants to get in.

Most poor people who enter have few skills to stand in and gain permanent US residency. So there’s no “line” for them. This is because gaining permission to stay in the US is limited to people who are highly trained in a skill that is in short supply here and were offered a job by a US employer, escaping political persecution, joining close family already here, or got lucky in the green card lottery (that only has 5,000 slots for low skill workers). I’m sure “anchor babies” and green card marriages aren’t desirable strategies either. While the US had an open immigration system for its first 100 years, many citizens’ immigrant ancestors arrived between 1790 and 1924 wouldn’t even be allowed to enter in today under the current policy (or even under policy then but plenty got in, anyway like Asians who were mostly low-skilled workers as well). There are many rules about who can enter the country and stay legally. Also according to the State Department, that imaginary “immigration line” is already 4.4 million people long and depending on the type of visa sought, the wait can be for years to decades long. In some countries such as the Philippines and Mexico, people have been waiting for 20 years for approval of a family-sponsored visa (which usually takes about 5-6 years). In many poor, violence ridden countries, or where parents are separated from their children, immigrants say the wait is unbearable, leaving many to resort to illegal border crossings. The journey can be dangerous. Not to mention, the US currently has no program whatsoever for undocumented immigrants to adjust to a legal status, let alone citizenship. Most of these people want nothing more than play by the rules and legalize their status but most of them have no legal way to enter or remain in the US. This is wrong, especially when we’re talking about undocumented parents with American born children.

To deport undocumented immigrants is not just impractical and economical, it’s also downright cruel. All that deportation will accomplish will be families torn apart, more American children in foster care and utterly traumatized, lost jobs, wasted tax money, and an overall humanitarian crisis.

Undocumented immigrants can and should be deported from the United States.

If we got rid of all the undocumented immigrants in this country, it would be a real government and social nightmare. For one, there are approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants in the US and it would be impossible to locate and deport that many people. Then there’s the fact that they have an estimated 4.5 million children born on US soil whom the government would have to put in foster homes. Hell, at least 5,100 native born kids are in foster care now because their parents have been detained or deported. Deportation will often result in family separation which will pose serious risks to children’s immediate safety, economic security, well-being, and long-term development. Other effects include housing instability, food hardship, and adverse behavioral changes. That’s not talking about the citizen children being traumatized and vulnerable by the whole experience along with entire communities (who may also have undocumented immigrants and their US citizen children living there, too). Not to mention, it’s unlikely that native born Americans would want to do the lousy back-breaking agricultural work and other menial labor for minimum wage and no benefits that undocumented immigrants do which is said to be at 50 to 60%. Then there’s the fact mass deportation would lead to remove millions of taxpayers, consumers, and entrepreneurs as well as cost jobs in the economy.

Here’s a cartoon of the Holy Family being besieged by ICE feds in the stable. Undocumented immigrant families fear deportation and family separation on a daily basis. The fact deportation rips families apart should illustrate why such a practice is morally inexcuseable.

Denying undocumented immigrants from obtaining a drivers’ license will solve the problem.

Almost all American workers need to drive great distances to get to work, and undocumented workers are no exception, especially if they work on a farm. Some even drive for a living. Most US citizens would agree that everyone driving on the highways should complete a driver’s course to qualify for a driver’s license would be better for public safety. Thus, not worth it.

Our undocumented immigration problems would be solved if employers were required to verify the Social Security Numbers for every employee.

It could but only as long as there’s a legalization program put in place at the same time which the US doesn’t have at the moment. Thus, such a policy would create chaos in multiple sectors of the US economy, especially in the agricultural industry complex. The tourist industry would suffer as well since many undocumented immigrants are employed in low skills jobs like dishwashers, janitors, chambermaids, and others.

While comprehensive immigration reform may be a highly contentious issue that brings out a lot of racism, nativism, and xenaphobia, most Americans support it. According to pew 72% of Americans want undocumented immigrants to remain in the country with some legal status.

Most Americans don’t support immigration reform.

Newsflash: most do, particularly when it comes to allowing undocumented immigrants to obtain legal status so long as they have a strong work history, don’t commit any crimes or get deported, pay taxes, learn some English, and pay fines. Because if an undocumented immigrant has lived in the US for at least 10-15 years, has a steady job, paid taxes, raised American children, observe the law, and minded their own business, then they should be able to remain in the country.

Those who believe that immigration restrictions will lead to a secure society have no idea of how law enforcement depends on its relationship with the community. And most police don’t want undocumented immigrants to fear deportation. Besides, history has shown that restrictions don’t deter undocumented immigration. However, Metropolis’s safety is a toss up.

Restrictions to undocumented immigration will lead to a secure society.

Enforcing laws make it difficult for undocumented immigrants to contact law enforcement which can have an adverse effect on overall security in society. If immigrants fear deportation, then they’re less likely to report on criminal activities, which can interfere with creating a safe community. This is why many local areas have sanctuary cities since protecting law-abiding undocumented immigrants from deportation does keep people safe. Not only that, but rigid limits on legal entry have already fueled undocumented immigration as we speak (such as East Asian immigrants during the Gilded Age).

Green card marriage fraud is another allegation Republicans make when pertaining to undocumented immigrants. However, since the US government and Homeland Security have been familiar with green card marriages being one of the easiest ways for foreigners to remain in the country, this is not a viable option. By the way, this is from a movie called Green Card from the 1980s starring Gerard Depardieu and Andie McDowell.

Undocumented immigrants tend to gain citizenship through marriage fraud.

For one, there are a lot of undocumented immigrants who are already married and thus ineligible or unwilling to commit to an American citizen for a green card. Secondly, the US has been quite successful in deterring this for quite some time which usually result in offenders being caught and convicted with heavy penalties like deportation. Homeland Security is a pro at detecting these so most undocumented immigrants won’t even try it. And even if an undocumented immigrant does have an American spouse, this may not mean they’re safe from deportation. Or not without a tedious process that could possibly take years (despite it being in an easier position to get a green card than most undocumented immigrants). Because a lot of undocumented immigrants with American spouses do face threats of deportation even if both partners are living together.

Undocumented immigrants bring diseases into the US.

Well, this was certainly true in this country’s colonial period since we know what happened to the Native Americans. However, although people claimed that undocumented immigrants have brought diseases to the US including measles, hepatitis C, HIV, tuberculosis, and even ebola, these claims aren’t supported by science or medicine. There is no evidence that immigrants have been the source of modern outbreaks in the US since 113 countries, including many in Latin America have higher vaccination rates for 1 year olds. Mexico has a 99% vaccination rate for measles while Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras have around a 93% vaccination rate. US vaccination rate is about 92%.

Terrorists are infiltrating the US by coming across the Mexican border.

There’s no evidence that terrorists are entering the US through the Mexican border. According to the Department of Homeland Security, “the suggestion that individuals that have ties to ISIL have been apprehended at the southwest border is categorically false, and not supported by any credible intelligence or facts on the ground.” In 2015, the US Department of State, Bureau of Counterterrorism added, “there are no known international terrorist organizations operating in Mexico, despite several erroneous reports to the contrary during 2014.” In fact, the vast majority of US residents linked to terror since 2002 are US citizens. Also, those 9/11 hijackers came to the US through legal means and not through crossing the Mexican border either.

While there are undocumented immigrant children in American schools, they only make a small percentage of US schoolchildren. And they only constitute a minority of kids who are children of undocumented parents.

US schools are overflowing with undocumented immigrants.

About 7% of all K-12 students in the US had at least one undocumented immigrant parent in according to Pew in 2012. Of these students 79% were born in the US, making them US citizens. So undocumented immigrant children are a very small segment of that population enrolled in American schools. Those with the largest shares of children with at least one undocumented immigrant parent are Nevada (18%), California (13%), Texas (13%), and Arizona (11%), all of which have less than 20%.

Along with saying that undocumented immigrants bring crime, many anti-immigration folks claim that sanctuary cities are criminal hellholes that protect the guilty. In reality, they’re anything but because a lot of sanctuary cities’ staunchest defenders are local and state law enforcement. This is mostly because sanctuary citizens protect undocumented immigrants from deportation as long as they don’t commit any crimes. Such practice allows police to build relationships with more immigrant residents as well as improve their ability to fight crime. Unfortunately, sanctuary cities aren’t very popular among the general public.

Sanctuary cities are criminal hellholes.

Now sanctuary cities are places where officials have explicitly or implicitly said they won’t prosecute undocumented residents solely because of their immigration status or if they would otherwise qualify for release. Most sanctuary cities tend operate on a “don’t ask, don’t tell,” basis. Meaning that law enforcement and municipal officials can’t inquire on an individual’s immigration status and can’t share such information with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). So long as the undocumented immigrant in question minds their own business and doesn’t commit any crimes. Such policies could be in ordinances, laws, resolution, or law enforcement directive. But this doesn’t necessarily mean that these areas won’t cooperate with Homeland Security completely. Because that’s not necessarily the case. There are over 300 of such places in the US. However, what you may not know is that sanctuary city measures became law in these areas thanks to community activists and local law enforcement efforts. Why? Well, because not checking whether a person is undocumented actually makes it easier for police to do their job and helps deter crime since undocumented immigrants don’t have to worry about being deported if they report anything to the police or over a speeding ticket. Because deportation fears are the main reason why undocumented immigrants in the US are 70% less likely to report themselves as victims when something terrible happens. Such fears make it harder for law enforcement to keep their cities safe because it prevents detectives from having access to potential victims, witnesses, snitches, or neighborhood advocates. Not having that access might keep local law enforcement from catching criminals and putting them in jail, particularly since undocumented immigrants tend to be particularly vulnerable in becoming crime victims. Sanctuary city policies have allowed police build bridges with immigrant communities, earn trust from immigrant residents, and improved their ability to fight crime and protect the entire community from harm. They also spare taxpayers from the expense of arresting and holding people the feds are in no hurry to deport. The federal government isn’t a fan of sanctuary cities (since they might be illegal) and public opinion isn’t very high. Many Republicans would want to see these places punished and denied crime-fighting federal funding. But contrary to popular belief, sanctuary cities aren’t nearly the criminal hellholes anti-immigration politicians make them out to be and it’s wrong to punish them. Besides, the federal government isn’t giving sanctuary to the undocumented immigrants who clearly should have a right to stay.

If there’s a reason why we should leave sanctuary cities, it is because they provide mercy for a group of people whose very presence makes them susceptible to deportation. And these are people who have families as well as built their lives in this country. Besides, deportation tears families apart and is morally unconscionable. I’m sorry, but it’s just cruel.

Immigration reform is another form of amnesty.

If immigration reform includes a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants already living here, it will be a rigorous path. Under the Senate’s proposed Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013, they would have to wait 10 years for a chance at permanent residency and 3 more for citizenship. On top of that they’d have to pay $2,000 in fines along with hundreds of dollars in fees and taxes. Not to mention, they’d also be required to learn English, pass criminal background checks, as well as prove to have lived continuously in the US and have been regularly employed during this time. Not exactly a free ride, but it gives more undocumented immigrants a way to become citizens than the current system. Also, what the hell is wrong with amnesty anyway? (Nothing).

Arizona’s S.B. 1070 is a notorious example of anti-immigration policy at its worse. Not only does it make police officers immigration agents (which police don’t want), it also encourages racial profiling which make even Hispanics squirm regardless of legal status.

An immigration law like in Arizona will solve our immigration situation.

No, it will not. For those who don’t know, there’s this law in Arizona in which requires police to determine the immigration status of someone arrested or detained when there’s a “reasonable suspicion” they aren’t in the US legally. Its passage in 2010 sparked many angry protests across the country until local and federal courts overturned parts of it. Mostly because it encourages racial profiling on Hispanics. That law in Arizona is an overreaction that can be best compared to 1942 Japanese internment camp policy. Besides at least 30% of Arizona’s citizens are Hispanic and legal. The Arizona law is vague and only invites discrimination against them. Arizona’s police chiefs opposed the measure because most police don’t want to identify non-criminal undocumented immigrants for deportation and don’t want to be seen as immigration agents. Mostly because they believe doing so would make it harder to build for them to earn the immigrant residents’ trust as well as protect the community. Treating undocumented immigrants like criminals is not the answer.

This is a group of undocumented students demonstrating for the opportunity for a college education. These kids particularly have a hard time being able to do so because their immigration status makes them legally ineligible for the financial aid their legal counterparts take for granted. And even if they do graduate and/or go on for advanced degrees, they are legally barred from entering any profession that requires a license.

Undocumented students have the same opportunities as their documented peers.

Sorry, but this isn’t true at all. Aside from the usual socioeconomics, fears of deportation, and ineligibility for social services, undocumented students don’t have the same opportunities as their documented peers at all. While most children of undocumented immigrants don’t graduate from high school, not all of them have the same opportunities. Of course, economics certainly plays a critical role here since most undocumented immigrants are poor and it’s certainly a reason why many of their children don’t finish high school. And I’m very aware that many of these kids who do graduate may not be college material. However, the difference becomes very apparent when pertains to children of undocumented immigrants who do graduate and are college eligible. Those who were born in the US will have access to a college education as well as all the rights they’re guaranteed as citizens. Those who weren’t, will have to face legal barriers that deny them the resources and opportunities necessary that might make a college education virtually inaccessible. Undocumented students can’t legally receive any federal funded student financial aid including loans, grants, scholarships, or work-study money (because undocumented immigrants are barred from receiving any grants and loans under federal law). Only 5 states allow instate tuition for undocumented students while most private grants, scholarships, and loans require either citizenship or permanent resident status (which they can’t get). Many of them will denied a college education because they’ll simply be unable to afford it without the financial aid they need but can’t have. Even if these undocumented students do graduate from college (or receive other vocational training), they may not be able enter certain career paths because they’re barred from receiving a professional license under federal law. This means undocumented immigrants legally can’t be doctors, lawyers, accountants, pharmacists, engineers, architects, nurses, land surveyors, cosmetologists, building contractors, therapists, electricians, and others. Sometimes this can vary by state law but it’s said that 30% of American workers need licenses to do their jobs. Thus, 30% of Americans workers are in careers that undocumented immigrants can’t pursue. To deny an undocumented child an education or other benefits and opportunities is simply discriminatory. Most of these kids didn’t choose to come here and some grew up perhaps unaware of their immigration status for most of their lives. Some may not discover their status until they’re much older. One of the reasons for the DACA and Dream Act under Obama was so most undocumented immigrant students can have legal status as well as legal access to an education all through college. Now with the Supreme Court being impasse on Obama’s immigration policy, so many undocumented children might be in limbo.

Here is another group of undocumented students who are demonstrating in support of the DREAM Act. Because they don’t have the kind of opportunities as their legal counterparts and it’s a real shame. After all, these students came to the US as children and are legally barred from certain opportunities due to extenuating circumstances. This isn’t right.

Undocumented immigrants are lazy.

96% of undocumented immigrants are employed, exceeding the labor force participation rate of their legal counterparts as well as US citizens. Many work 2 or more jobs. Besides, it’s clear that employment is a driving force behind undocumented immigration with many industries such as restaurants, hotels, and agriculture reporting a reliance on them. Thus, most undocumented immigrants came to this country to provide for themselves and their families.

Undocumented immigrants don’t contribute anything to society.

Uh, since most undocumented immigrants are employed, most of them also pay taxes as well as goods and services. Some of them even end up starting their own businesses. Many even pay rent or have their own homes. So to say that undocumented immigrants don’t contribute anything to society is absurd.

Undocumented immigrants bring down wages.

Only in low-skill and low-wage jobs and this minimal. But this is mostly because they lack legal status. Undocumented workers are exploited as well as constantly threatened with the possibility of deportation. Thus, they’re often forced to put up with low pay and poor conditions as well as be most prone to wage theft (in which employers fail to pay them what’s rightfully owed). Most studies show that legalization would raise wages in these types of jobs, because workers can organize for better pay and employers cannot scare immigrants into accepting a poor deal. At least at a general legal level (because US businesses can still ban workers from joining a union like Wal Mart, unfortunately). Nevertheless, undocumented immigrants don’t bring down wages, their unscrupulous employers do.

Here is an infographic showing the economic impact of comprehensive immigration reform. By granting undocumented immigrants a path to legalization and citizenship, more jobs would be created while incomes and revenues would increase across the war.

Comprehensive immigration reform that includes a pathway to citizenship for undocumented workers would hurt the economy.

Comprehensive immigration reform including a pathway to citizenship for undocumented workers could yield at least $1.5 trillion US GDP in over 10 years. Because eliminating the undocumented underclass workers that employees use to undercut wages and drive down standards, comprehensive immigration reform will ensure that all workers have full labor rights, resulting in higher wages across the board.

princeton-new-jersey-government-pamphlet-aiding-illegal-immigrants-screengrab

This Princeton pamphlet for undocumented immigrants points out that these people have the right to remain silent, right to legal representation, and a right to make a call when they’re arrested. Their children also have a right to a free K-12 education as well.

Undocumented immigrants are without rights in the United States.

Undocumented immigrants do have rights in the US under the US Constitution and federal statutes such as equal protection under the law (even non-citizens) and can’t be denied due process under the 14^th Amendment including the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney as well as the right to be protected against unwarranted searches and seizures under the 4^th Amendment. Undocumented children also have the right to a free, public K-12 education. Undocumented immigrants also have a right to receive emergency services from publicly funded hospitals, protection from workplace discrimination, emergency and disaster relief, and others.

Employers may easily and accurately determine whether an immigrant is adequately documented.

According to US Chamber of Commerce Vice President Randel K. Johnson, “The current system has made it impossible for employers to really know who is actually authorized to work and who is not.” It is possible for employers to hire undocumented immigrants unintentionally which might happen when they present falsified documentation or when an employer fails to verify their work eligibility. Yet, since 1986, all employers have to verify identity and work eligibility for all new employees at the time they’re hired by filling out an I-9 verification form. Many employers are unaware or do it poorly or incorrectly. Completing this form requires skills and knowledge: there’s a list of acceptable documents and many exceptions, it’s difficult to know if a document is genuine, acceptable, or still valid. Moreover, employers face penalties for discriminating against well-documented immigrants even if their intention was to avoid hiring undocumented ones. In addition, the US immigration system doesn’t meet the needs of American business who must face lengthy delays before hiring foreign workers. Not only that, but there are many employers who hire undocumented workers and know it but either don’t care or use their status to exploit them.

The idea that undocumented immigrants prefer to remain in the US illegally have no idea that these people have no realistic alternative for legal entry. If any undocumented immigrants had any option to enter legally, they would take it.

Undocumented immigrants prefer to remain in the US illegally.

Undocumented immigrants who face economic hardship, life threatening situations, or persecution believe they have no reasonable alternative to becoming undocumented either because they don’t meet the strict criteria to immigrate to the US or because they can’t afford to wait 10, 15, or 20 years to obtain a visa. Some legal immigrants who become undocumented due to visa overstays even after applying for a visa extension are only due to government processing delays. Not to mention, some undocumented immigrants are brought to the US as children and at times, grow up here not knowing of their immigration status. They have absolutely no path to become legal residents without facing as much as a 10 year ban as well as deportation despite extenuating circumstances. Then there are undocumented immigrants who have spouses and children who are US citizens. Would you say these people prefer to stay undocumented and risk being taken away from their families? Nearly all undocumented immigrants would legalize their status if they had the opportunity.

This is a rough graph of undocumented immigrants living in the US. Most of them live in just 6 states and only make a small fraction of the labor force. Children of undocumented immigrants only make 7% of the school population.

Undocumented immigrants are mostly single men.

Over 40% of undocumented immigrants are women and most undocumented men are either married or in families (54%). Fewer than half of undocumented immigrants are unattached and single men. There are also 267,000 undocumented immigrants who are part of the LGBT community, too.

While many Republicans say that most undocumented immigrant children are unauthorized, most of them are US citizens. And many of them have hard lives. This little boy is a US citizen who has to worry about the possibility of his dad being deported. If you think undocumented immigrants should be deported, then explain to him why such immigration policy should deny him a father in his life. You can’t.

Most children of undocumented immigrants are unauthorized.

While undocumented children do exist, most children of undocumented immigrants are native born US citizens and members of mixed-status families. Nevertheless, these American children don’t have a great quality of life and are set up for failure. The majority of these kids don’t graduate from high school, averaging 2 fewer years than those with legal immigrant parents. Reasons for this are said to be stress, pressure to work at a younger age, poverty, and not having the economic resources needed for a higher education. They also are more likely to experience linguistic isolation, have limited English proficiency, have poor health outcomes, be uninsured, and are less likely to be enrolled in preschool. Nearly half are in households where no member over the age of 14 speaks English very well. For many of these children, their undocumented parents and relatives may be their main caretakers as well as their only means of support. If they’re aware of their parents’ immigration status, they may grow up living in fear that their someone will come in and take their parents away from them. And they live with such fears every day in their lives. 5,100 US children are now in foster care because they had nowhere else to go after ICE got a hold of their parents. While immigration reform that gives these children’s undocumented parents a path to legal status and citizenship won’t solve all their problems, it will at least give them some stability in their lives.

Caption: “Estrella Manuel, 2, holds an American flag in her mouth during a news conference in Miami Wednesday, June 17, 2009. Roughly 150 children are suing President Barack Obama to halt the deportations of their parents until Congress overhauls U.S. immigration laws. The U.S.-born children say their constitutional rights are being violated because they, too, will likely have to leave the country if their parents are forced to leave.” Unless the US passes comprehensive immigration reform that gives undocumented immigrants a path to legalization and citizenship, these children will be condemned to live on the margins of prosperity, opportunity, and hope. Some of them also run the risk of having their parents taken away from them and possibly ending up in foster care. This is wrong.

The US immigration system works and immigration laws are just.

Such notions like, “But they came here illegally!” assume the system works when the US immigration system hasn’t been reformed in decades to meet our country’s real needs as families, businesses, and workers. When you have laws that don’t match the reality, you have to change them. Besides, a lot of the immigration laws we have now don’t make any sense and our immigration system is broken since it keeps families apart, only 5,000 low-skilled visas are issued a year when there’s a 400,000 low-skilled job demand, and if they wish to enter legally, then they have to wait in line behind people that have been waiting in the legal backlog for years. Would you say a system is just by denying countless people a right to stay in a country where they lived for decades, raised their children, obeyed the laws, paid their taxes, and just minded their own business? Would you say a system is just when it denies children the right to pursue a college education or pursue careers that require a professional license only due to extenuating circumstances? Would you say a system is just when it denies children certain rights they feel entitled to have in the only country they know such as the right to stay without fearing deportation? Would you say a system is just when 11 million people in this country have no way to pursue a path to legalization, let alone citizenship? Would you say a system is just which has torn families apart as well as put 5,100 children in foster care? Would you say a system is just when it makes legal entry for millions of people almost impossible? If you say yes to any of these questions, you must be a xenophobic racist, living in the white affluent bubble of delusion, or both. Because the US immigration system simply doesn’t work.

This is a girl with a cross saying no more deportations and an American flag. Whether she’s undocumented or a native born US citizen of undocumented parents should be of no concern to you. But the fact her life would be drastically improved if undocumented immigrants had access to legalization and citizenship should. Please, we don’t need any more families being torn apart by deportation.

In Defense of Labor Unions

Posted by historymaniacmegan on July 20, 2016

image-20150324-17672-1azzmd0

Though unions have greatly shaped the United States throughout much of the 20th century but have fallen out of favor in recent years. While in the 1950s about 1 in 4 workers were unionized, today only 1 in 10 and that number is declining fast. Unions have lost a lot of their power due to things like outsourcing, right to work laws, negative economic conditions, special interests, companies prohibiting them, or other factors. Not to mention, there isn’t a very favorable attitude toward them either for they’ve been blamed for taking away jobs, hurting the economy, or inconveniencing the populace. Some say that unions have served their purpose and aren’t needed anymore. However, as we all remember Scott Walker’s attempt to strip public sector workers of their collective bargaining rights and fast food worker strikes, many Americans don’t really want to see them go away. In fact, perhaps labor unions are still as relevant as ever today and actually do help this country.

Here’s a German painting of a bunch of guys working in a foundry during the 19th century. Notice how there’s no attention being paid to workplace safety. Also, imagine doing this work 6 days a week at 16 hours a day for less than minimum wage.

1. Unions help create better jobs.

Regardless of what detractors may say, unions don’t really take away jobs since mass unemployment is one of the things unions always seek to avoid. It’s usually business management who does since they usually make the decisions whether it’s in the name of profits or power. Sure unions were probably part of the reason why many American industries moved operations overseas for cheaper labor, but not all jobs can be outsourced, especially service jobs. Even so, most jobs in today’s market aren’t unionized but many aren’t very desirable either with long hours, low wages, no room for advancement, not much safety or benefits, and are held for a rather short time. Of course, while businesses may like cheap and expendable workforces, but job seekers and workers do not. Workers don’t like such labor because it gives them little control over their lives and keeps them on the brink of economic instability. Job seekers don’t like them because it gives them more competition in an uncertain job market where obtaining a job can be more trouble than it’s worth. Recent college graduates have it the worst since many job listings have certain specifications that they may not be able to fulfill. However, this doesn’t mean that young people don’t have the skills to be productive citizens, it’s because the pool of job seekers is too big and employers are a very picky bunch and want an employee who’s already tailor made as well as with job experience. Still, though I’m not sure organized labor may make job seekers’ lives any easier, they do create better jobs and history proves it. Unions have helped make many crummy low wage, hazardous, and long hour jobs into decently paid eight-hour a day jobs with workplace safety, overtime pay, health benefits, personal leave, holidays, pensions, and workman’s comp. Jobs like these are very desirable and reduce turnovers and layoffs which may help reduce competition among job seekers since not many people are as desperate to find one. A job is only low wage not because the work is easier but because low wages are only arbitrary values set by employers. We should also understand that Costco employees work the same jobs as anyone else in the retail sector, yet they are treated much better than other retail workers. Thus, low wages often reflect not what the job entails, but the values of the employer.

In the early 20th century, the US experienced some of the deadliest industrial disasters in history. On March 25, 1911, a scrap bin fire at New York City’s Triangle Shirtwaist Factory would lead to the deaths of 146 people because the owners locked the doors to the stairwells and exits to prevent theft. This would lead to growth in unionization for garment workers as well as improved safety standards.

2. Unions help check and hold employers accountable.

While unions help improve workers’ lives, they also help check and hold employers accountable as well as serve as a middle man in workplace and labor relations. A unionized workplace gives employers incentive to treat their workers decently, helps set workplace standards, limit unfair labor practices, and does all it can to ensure that workers receive a fair deal. As a political lobby, they call for legal incentives in order to assure worker’s rights are recognized by law and that employers should observe them. Without unions, many employers would simply get away with treating workers like crap as well as run his or her business with little account to them. And for many years, workers have suffered in the name of profit. Sure there may be companies like Costco who provide their employees with a living wage and benefits, but they’re not the norm in the service industry or any non-unionized industry. Before many blue collar work places had unions like the coal mines and steel industry, it wasn’t unusual for workers to be paid shitty wages and treated like crap. And when these workers finally got the salary, hours, and benefits they wanted, it wasn’t because the management was trying to be nice to them. Then there’s the fact low income workers in non-unionized workplaces are especially prone to becoming victims of wage theft (especially undocumented immigrants), in which employers deny their workers their wages and benefits rightfully owed like minimum wage violations, overtime pay, employee miscalculation, illegal deductions, working off the clock, or not being paid at all. In the US, wage theft is very severe, widespread, and costs the country $40-$60 billion each year which is more than how much money the country loses due to robbery ($340 million), burglary ($1.4 billion), larceny ($5.3 billion), and auto theft ($3.8 billion) as of 2012. This is a crime but because these workers aren’t allowed to form unions due to company policy, a lot of wage theft goes undetected and laws against it aren’t often enforced. And even if workers do win their cases on wage theft, they usually don’t receive a dime of what they’re owed by the employers. Unions can be effective in deterring wage theft since they tend to go on strike over such incidences.

Here’s a rough list of what labor unions have done for American workers. Sure unions may represent special interests, yet their interests tend to benefit practically everyone.

3. Unions help promote the democratic process as and 1st Amendment rights.

While unions may be corrupt, they nevertheless serve as a powerful lobbying voice for a major demographic that couldn’t afford a lobbyist otherwise. For years labor unions have always provided a political voice to the common man as well as helped lobby for legislation in favor of ordinary people. In fact, worker’s rights has always been a special interest to unions, which affects most Americans. In the workplace, unions give workers a voice in major workplace decisions as well as protects workers’ 1st Amendment rights relating to their professional lives. If workers feel they’re being treated unfairly they can talk to each other, address their grievances, negotiate a compromise, or go on strike if employers still won’t listen. In many ways, unions help promote the democratic process in both government and in the business world since they stand for a worker’s right to be treated with dignity and respect. Not to mention, they also lobby for a worker’s right to self-govern which is a very American value indeed. Besides, while unions may be identified to the political left, they are probably the closest thing in the K Street lobbying world that best represents the interests of most Americans, especially after Citizens United when most lobbies and corporations don’t. This goes to even non-union members as well as those who oppose them and that’s why having non-union members pay dues in a unionized workplace makes sense. In fact, a lot of their campaigns might pertain to measures like raising the minimum wage, protecting migrant farm workers, mandated paid leave, and other policies designed to help even the lowest earning workers. They even campaigned for policies advancing civil rights for women and minorities as well as protecting the environment. And within companies, unions area powerful, sophisticated player concerned with more than just the next quarters profits at shareholders’ meetings.

Famed union organizer Walter Reuther understood the value unions had in the American economy. When asked how he’d planned to get his men to pay union dues while being shown automated production lines at Ford, Reuther replied, “How do you plan to get them to buy your cars?”

4. Unions greatly contribute to the economy equality and promote economic activity.

Since unions help create and expand the middle class, they also help decrease income inequality and generate activity in the modern consumer economy. Unionized workers earn more money than their non-union counterparts as well as likely to spend more. The middle class has always played a critical role in a nation’s economy and the US is no exception. Higher earning workers make good consumers since they have more disposable income as well as a great demand for products. And the bigger the middle class, the more consumers there are, the more money businesses make, and the better the economy. Also, higher incomes provide governments with more tax revenues.

As far as non-union workplaces go, Wal Mart has become the poster child of workplace violations as well as paying its employees poverty level wages. It’s said that Wal Mart’s low wages cost US taxpayers about $1.5 billion a year since the retail giant has a lot of workers on public assistance.

5. Unions save taxpayer money.

Of course, in 21st century America social programs are a mainstay, yet many on government assistance have also been bashed as lazy unemployed freeloaders or drug addicts (personally I’d rather have my tax dollars go to some worthless bum’s government assistance payment than corporate subsidies.) Sure there maybe a few freeloaders among welfare recipients but the public assistance pool is pretty diverse group including the disabled, children, veterans, mentally ill, elderly, chronically ill, and even the working poor. Such public assistance is greatly limited and only provides short term aid. Now the working poor are a pretty unlucky bunch who are probably more likely to end up on public assistance than anyone else in the workforce. They are also more likely to work for an employer prohibiting unionization like Wal Mart as well as have a low paying job with terrible conditions and awful labor practices. Though many conservatives don’t like public assistance programs or unionism, many fail to realize that bad labor practices can cost taxpayers millions, especially if there’s no labor union to challenge them. Low wage workers aren’t just least likely to support themselves and families, they are also more prone to on the job injuries resulting in disability or death, develop work-related health problems which may become serious if left untreated, unemployment, and other things. In many ways the working poor are either welfare cases or welfare cases waiting to happen (including those with dependents). And to some workers, government assistance may be the only option since employers may not listen to demands or maybe even fire someone for whatever reason, especially when it comes to forming a union. A company like Wal Mart is notorious for shifting it’s labor burdens on the taxpayer which isn’t fair for anyone. Since unions help clamp down on bad labor practices, they also help save taxpayer money.

Here is a diagram on the difference being part of a union makes at work. Since union workers are protected under legal contract, they aren’t liable to as many workplace abuses as their non-union counterparts. Whereas if a non-union worker is unfairly treated, there is nothing they can do.

6. Unions give workers more control of their lives.

Not only do unions help create a middle class as well as provides a voice for workers, they also allow workers better control of their lives even beyond the confines of their job. Bad labor practices can hurt families and ruin a person’s life. And it’s not unusual for a low wage earner to take more than one job which can result in more time away from home, coming in sick, sending sick kids to school, or leaving them unsupervised from hours on end. Low wage jobs don’t give workers enough to live on or even any room for social mobility. In fact, many of low wage workers live in poverty as well as have their kids suffer the same fate. In many respects, bad labor practices can have long term consequences for not only workers but workers’ families. And in many respects, unionization has helped many kids from working families go to college. Not only that, but since unions give workers leverage against their employer, workers not only can collectively bargain for higher wages as well as know how much each worker owns, but also go to their managers with safety concerns or ideas to improve efficiency and know that they’ll not only get a hearing, but also be protected from possible reprisals.

Wal Mart is notorious non-union workplace which is known to face class action lawsuits every year amounting to millions of dollars. This has given them a very infamous reputation in the field of labor relations. This is especially when the retail giant decided to open on Thanksgiving. And since it’s the leading retailer, many stores ended following suit.

7. Unions help companies and businesses.

Since unions crack down on bad labor practices, they also help their workplaces in many ways. For one, they make the workplace a much cleaner and safer environment for both workers and consumers alike. Paid sick leave can help keep a worker’s illness from infecting not only their peers but also customers. And paid sick leave for a sick child can prevent other kids from getting sick as well. Unions also help employers by not just giving them consumers but also save money on fighting lawsuits as well as gives them a better reputation. A business with good labor standards not only makes consumers more willing to buy from them, but also makes employees happier working for them, may be even proud. I mean look at Costco’s reputation is much better than Wal Mart’s for this reason. Of course, Costco doesn’t have unions either but it certainly wouldn’t be the company it is if unions never existed.

This is New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady. Some time ago, Brady was implicated in Deflategate and the NFL charged him with a 4 game suspension. Brady appealed to the NFLPA (which is the players’ union) and got that suspension removed by order from a federal court. Yes, I know this is a terrible example of unions at work. However, if people think unions are either outdated or bad, then why do unions for people like Tom Brady exist?

8. Professional athletes and movie stars have unions.

I know that many people associate unionism with teachers and blue collar workers. However, we should understand that unionism isn’t just confined to the public sector or blue collar jobs that don’t earn a lot of money. For instance, professional athletes have their own union like the NFLPA that helped New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady get out of a 4 game suspension after he implicated in the Deflategate scandal. People in show business also have unions like the Screen Actors Guild whose most famous president was Ronald Reagan at one point. Now neither group is economically in dire straits, but they have union representation nevertheless. That’s because no matter how rich you are, if you’re working for someone, sometimes policies won’t be in your favor. So if rich people feel they need unions, maybe their poorer counterparts feel the same way. Besides, even the most conservative union members wouldn’t want to get rid of theirs.

Here’s a satirical cartoon making fun of union opposition. However, it makes a good point on how business don’t like certain policies that unions advocate. Then there’s the fact that companies don’t want to pay extra costs to protect and make them happy or deal with strikes.

9. Anti-Unionism is all about big business wanting more power and control over their labor force.

In recent years, Unionism has been on the decline for 2 reasons. First, a lot of blue collar paying jobs were lost during the 1980s, many of which had union representation. Second, many people in the private sector work for big corporations that simply won’t allow them. It’s very well known that big business doesn’t like unions and calls them obstructionists. Yes, unions may have their faults and might inconvenience people. However, I always think that the reason why many workplaces in the country prohibit workers from unionizing has more to do with them wanting more power and control over their workforce than anything else. And if it’s not the workplaces, then it’s free market conservatives who think that corporations having free reign is best for the economy (when in reality, it’s not). For instance, a Volkswagen plant in Tennessee was prevented from unionizing by the state legislature, not management. Sure they want to hire and fire whoever they want. But they also want to control their employees’ hours and only want to pay them as much as it takes to keep them there. Passage of so-called “right to work” laws aimed at curbing union influence, have led to decreased wages and increased poverty rates in several US states. And it’s clear that these laws weren’t aimed to benefit workers but large corporations seeking more power and control of their labor force.

Nearly have the states in the US have “Right to Work” laws in which non-union members don’t have to pay union dues in a unionized workplace. Yet, these laws minimize union power as well as lead to devastating consequences such as lower wages, higher health uninsurance rates, higher poverty rates, and more workplace fatalities. Such factors can have devastating consequences not only for the workers, but also for their families (especially children) and communities.

10. The benefits of unions extend to workers’ families and improve society.

While unions may have their faults, we have to acknowledge the fact that they’ve helped not just the workers themselves but also their families, their descendants, and society as a whole. For instance, before many of these blue collar jobs were unionized, it wasn’t unusual for workers to begin their jobs as children after dropping out of school. In fact, it was a very common thing, especially with the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century. Just ask none other than Charles Dickens who wrote extensively on child labor and why it was a really terrible thing. Why? Because even though their parents might work 12-16 hour days, they could never earn enough money to support their family. Not to mention, a lot of these jobs were dangerous and could put a family in economic disaster because there was no compensation or safety standards. Even when public education was available, it wasn’t always compulsory and a lot of poor kids tended to drop out if their parents’ paychecks couldn’t cover the rent or in the event of a family emergency. And it was because these children were put to work at an early age, they were denied a basic education and the economic opportunities that came with it. So they ended suffering the same fate as their parents. Unions have been very instrumental in curbing child labor in blue collar industries since they gave adult workers leverage so their workplaces would provide them a fair wage, benefits, an 8-hour day, workman’s comp, and medical leave as well as observe workplace safety standards. Such measures not only made workers’ lives easier, but they also allowed children to go to school and stay there as well as focus on their schoolwork so they’d excel and perhaps get into a good college so they can have better opportunities. Now this didn’t necessarily happen overnight. But it’s a major reason why cities like Pittsburgh managed to bounce back after what happened to the steel industry in the 1980s (though I admit that some industrial areas in the Rust Belt haven’t been so lucky like Detroit. But even in those places, things could’ve been worse). Still, when you’re in such cities like Pittsburgh, you’ll find a lot of professionals like doctors, lawyers, teachers, and what not who had ancestors who were coal miners, mill workers, and factory workers. Sure they may say that some of them achieved success by hard work which certainly fits into the equation. However, if their blue collar ancestors didn’t pressure their bosses to unionize they would not be where they are today. Yet, though unions have made the world a decent, that doesn’t mean they’re no longer needed. In the US, we should be reminded time and time again that a parent’s life at work has a profound effect on a child’s progress in school, the quality of their education, life in their neighborhood, and even their health. That is still very much the reality today as it was back in the Gilded Age since a lot of service industry parents work minimum wage jobs, sometimes more than one. A child whose parents work at Sam’s Club is never going to have the same opportunities and quality life than one whose parents work at Costco, despite that both sets have the same job with the same responsibilities. However, we must understand that the Costcos in this world are a rarity and most companies have never been so accommodating to their workers. If most workers in the service industry want those Costco benefits so their kids could have better lives, then unionization might be the only thing possible for them to accomplish that.

Here’s a picture of children working at a factory back in the day mostly because their parents work starvation wages and long hours. Since unions helped curbed child labor, be glad you don’t have this. Or at least at Gilded Age capacity.

Justice Is Not for Sale: Why the Private Prison System Must Go

Posted by historymaniacmegan on March 4, 2016

As a practicing Catholic, I’m well aware that Lent is a penitential season for reflection and fasting. But I’m also one of those liberal Catholics concerned with social justice issues, especially ones that I think don’t receive enough focus than they should most of the time. One of these is the issue of privatized prisons, which I decide to do a blog post on since it’s been in my head for a long time and keeps up with the season of Lent. Besides, those affected by the privatized prison system are among the most vulnerable in our society since they neither have a political voice nor are innocent enough for people to demonstrate on their behalf. Yes, I know that a lot of our laws protect criminals but if you ever know how they’ve been treated by the system throughout history, it makes a lot of sense. Because while they may not be innocent or anywhere nice, criminals are human beings who deserve to be treated with dignity regardless of what they did. A lot of times, society hasn’t been very kind to them and many have been subjected to punishments that are a lot more harshly and less humane than several years in a barred cell. Sure everyone agrees that criminals should be made accountable for their actions but there are so many problems with how we treat criminals that this has led to a situations known as recidivism and prison overcrowding. Mass incarceration due to the War on Drugs has also played a key role. One of the ways, the US has tried to deal with such problems of rising prison costs is contracting privatized prison facilities. As of 2013, there are 133,000 state and federal prisoners housed in privately owned prisons in the US consisting of 8.4% of the country’s prison population. This includes 19.1% of federal prisoners and 6.8% of their state prison counterparts. And the number has been at a slow increase since the 1980s which has made the private prison industry a $5 billion dollar business enterprise with investors like Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Fidelity Investments, General Electric, and the Vanguard Group. The most prominent companies are the Corrections Corporation of America, the GEO Group, Inc., and Management and Training Corporation. Private prisons operate in 33 states. Not surprisingly, most are located in the southern and western states. However, I believe that the privatized prison industry is one that brings out the worst in our country that they should be banned. And it’s a shame that because the story of private prisons is one which nobody talks about but I think it’s one everyone should hear.

This is from a privatized prison in Mississippi. It’s said that while minorities tend to be over represented in the general prison population, this is even more so in for-profit facilities. And they usually tend to be young and poor. This is mostly due to the notion that such inmates are cheaper to incarcerate.

For-profit prisons harm minorities, the young, and the poor. – Poor and ethnic minorities have been disproportionately affected by the faults of criminal justice system (especially if they’re young men). In the US, it’s said that 1 in 3 African American men as well as 1 in 6 Latino men will spend time behind bars during their lifetime. Not only that, but black men are 20 more times likely to be arrested for marijuana possession and spend 20 more years in federal prisons than their white peers for the same crimes. And that’s just in the publicly run facilities. According to a UC Berkeley Ph. D. candidate named Christopher Petrella, the racial disparities in privatized prisons are even greater with people of color being housed at higher percentages. Not only that, but they also tend to be young. Petrella found that this was because private prisons usually seek out the youngest, healthiest, and cheapest prisoners. Add to the fact that many of them tend to be disproportionately poor, are usually convicted of nonviolent drug offenses and petty thievery, and more likely to experience recidivism. For them, such prisoners are the best kind of money making asset despite that they’ll be screwed up for life. After all, a young and poor person who’s convicted of petty thievery will end up committing more crimes in the future since ex-cons are often targets of discrimination as job candidates and educational institutions. Many nonviolent ex-cons and parolees are among the least deserving of such treatment. This should give us an idea that for-profit prison companies are in it to make money and not to protect society.

According to this infographic on prison violence in Mississippi, 3 of its 4 private prisons have experienced more assaults than any of its public pens. And unfortunately, the state’s private prison population is increasing.

2. For-profit prisons abuse prisoners.- Horror stories from the world of American privatized prisons are plentiful and appalling as profits are normally placed ahead of inmates’ care, health, and safety. Last year, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the East Mississippi Correctional Facility (EMCF) on behalf of the inmates. Alleged abuses include rampant rapes, prisoners placed in solitary confinement for months at a time, stabbings, beatings, and other acts of violence occurring on a regular basis (whether the guards are involved or turning a blind eye). It’s also been reported that juveniles are put in jails with adults, where they’re oftentimes sexually (or otherwise) assaulted. Chronic hunger, malnourishment, rat infestations, suicides, have also been chronicled. And EMCF is not an unusual case. It’s widely reported that private prisons have much higher rates of inmate on inmate violence than their state run counterparts. 65% more frequent to be exact. And conditions are said to be even more horrific. A 2011 ACLU report on private prisons report horrifying cases of abuse that include juveniles smelling of urine and feces, racial segregation, punishment for speaking Spanish, and refusal of medical and mental health treatment. Thus, being an inmate in a private prison can be a hellish experience because private prisons have no interest in their inmates’ well being. To them, prisoners are commodities to profit from and nothing more.

This is an infographic on immigrant detention centers, many of which operate in the private prison business. A lot of these centers treat immigrants horribly where they have to live in horrid conditions and precarious circumstances as well as without legal representation. Undocumented immigrants have committed no crime whatsoever and their illegal entry is a civil violation at best. Yet, these detention centers treat them like criminals.

3. For-profit prisons victimize immigrants.– Aside from state and federal prisons, private prison ventures have been operating centers for immigrant detainees because the federal government lacks money and inclination to build anew. John Whitehead writes, “And yes, in case you were wondering, part of the investment pitch for CCA and its cohort GEO Group include the profits to be made in building “kindler, gentler” minimum-security facilities designed for detaining illegal immigrants, especially low-risk detainees like women and children. With immigration a persistent problem in the southwestern states, especially, and more than 250 such detention centers going up across the country, there is indeed money to be made. For example, GEO’s new facility in Karnes County, Texas, boasts a “608-bed facility still smelling of fresh paint and new carpet stretch[ing] across a 29-acre swath of farmland in rural South Texas. Rather than prison cells, jumpsuits, and barbed wire fencing, detainees here will sleep in eight-bed dormitory-style quarters, wearing more cozy attire like jeans and T-shirts. The facility’s high walls enclose lush green courtyards with volleyball courts, an AstroTurfed soccer field, and basketball hoops, where detainees are free to roam throughout the day.” All of this, of course, comes at taxpayer expense.” When I was in college, I’ve seen how immigrant detainees were treated on Frontline. Not sure if the facility featured was owned by ICE or by some private prison company. Either way, it was nothing like that and sort of brought me some degree of shame for my country. But at any rate, these people were all huddled together incredibly inhumane conditions such as physical abuse, inadequate healthcare, threats to physical violence, overcrowding, and squalor. Many of these detainees can’t afford to hire a lawyer and remain trapped in a seemingly endless legal process. It’s not surprising that a lot of them can be held in these centers for months, possibly over a year. They’re also used as cheap labor to maintain the facilities. Some earn a dollar a day, some earn stuff like candy bars, and some earn nothing. And it’s said perks like healthy food, outdoor activities, and mental health care are less available in private ICE facilities than their state run counterparts. Whitehead also writes how immigrants are heavily impacted with 2.5 million people being through the immigration detention system since 2003. At least half of them had been in private facilities that hold 34,000 on a daily basis as mandated by Congress. Today private prisons control 62% of the incarcerated immigrant population in the US.

This is photo is from a private juvenile center in Florida, which has privatized their juvenile prison system. As the most recent data indicates 40% of all juveniles are in private facilities where they’re being abused, neglected, and living in unsanitary conditions. All this is making their situations all the more tragic.

4. For-profit prisons harm children.- According to federal data in 2011, nearly 40% of juvenile delinquents are committed to private facilities. In Florida, private contractors have recently took control of all the state’s 3,300 youth prison beds which has produced some of the worst re-offending rates in the nation. Today, more than 40% of the state’s incarcerated youth wind up arrested and convicted of another crime within a year after their release. On the other hand, only 25% of youth offenders end up the same way in New York which has no private juvenile facilities to speak of. And privatization of Florida’s Department of Juvenile Justice continues to fail the state’s most troubled kids despite numerous allegations of abuse, neglect, violence, and unsanitary conditions. So much so that it has attracted attention from the US Department of Justice. One of the largest companies in juvenile sentencing is Youth Services International that had more than 40,000 boys and girls in 16 states go through its facilities whether they be prisons, boot camps, or detention center in over the last 20 years. Children held at YSI facilities across the country have frequently faced beatings, neglect, sexual abuse, and unsanitary food. And YSI isn’t an unusual case. Incarcerating adults in the name of profit is one thing, but doing the same to children is just beyond the pale. Many juvenile delinquents come from terrible circumstances like poverty or abuse. A lot of them are mentally ill and have substance abuse problems. Now juvenile detention centers aren’t supposed to be like Disney World. But they shouldn’t be hell houses either where kids have no adequate access to services to prepare for release like education resources, mental health counseling, or substance abuse treatment. But that’s exactly what’s happening at private juvenile facilities across the country and the reports about the conditions are shocking. It’s tragic that such conditions lead to many of these kids leading horrible lives and being trapped in a system that they can never get out of. Many kids in private juvenile detention centers will be screwed up for life as well as set up for a lifetime of incarceration as adults.

Though more abuse occurs in private prisons than their public counterparts, companies are more likely to turn a blind eye since they’re more focused on making money. And as a result, complaints are ignored while incidents aren’t even reported.

5. For-profit prisons profit from abuse, silencing, and mistreatment.– While many conservatives believe that prisoners have it easy in prison with great food, workout equipment, entertainment, and a lot of time on their hands, nothing could be further from the truth. Even the least notorious prisons are rife with inequality, dangers, and misery. And it’s not uncommon for a young first time offender to be placed right next to a career criminal. Nevertheless, public prisons don’t benefit from abuse and mistreatment of prisoners and neither does the general public. As prison corporations are lauded for their tough on crime measures, incidences of abuse, neglect, and violence are often unreported and unnoticed while communities suffer. Inmates grievances often go unread and unanswered while red flags are kept within. And thanks to Minneci v. Pollard (2012), the Supreme Court ruled that Eighth Amendment “cruel and unusual” cases can’t be brought against private prison employees, which ensues. Private prisons simply don’t care about the general welfare of their inmates than the profits they’re getting from them. And as long as private prisons profit from their inmates’ misery and squalor, they will keep their inmates’ grievances from seeing the light of day. Such actions deny any potential for outside oversight.

While JPay isn’t exactly in the private prison business, they do profit off of inmates and their loved ones with their banking service. They’ve exploited these people mercilessly with exorbitant fees. And it doesn’t help that many of them are already financially struggling and suffering.

6. For-profit prison companies exploit prison families. – It is well known that private prison companies and their affiliates do everything they can to make a buck off people in prison and their families. Prison phone companies are said to charge high rates for prisoners to talk to family and friends. If they or their loved ones can’t afford the fees, they run a higher risk of social isolation, which will not help their rehabilitation. Studies have shown that social connections are critical to a prisoner’s rehabilitation process once they’re released. Not to mention, there are 2.7 million kids who have an incarcerated parent and many of them suffer immeasurably when such unaffordable rates rob them of parental contact. And it’s bad enough that these kids come from at-risk backgrounds of poverty and have an elevated risk for drug abuse, school failure, unemployment, and mental health problems. Many of these children are likely to end up just like their parents. For children whose mothers are in jail, many of them will end up in foster care and never see them again since they have no one else who’d take care of them. That’s not forgetting the financial strains for-profit prisons and their affiliates put on families. For instance, for-profit prison banker JPay is known to prey on inmates’ families with some forgoing medical care, skipping utility bills, and limiting contact with imprisoned relatives just to make payments. Many of these prison families tend to be poor and such costs make it much more difficult for them to escape poverty as long as their loved one is in the system. And it doesn’t help that JPay is the only way to for nearly 40% of prison families to send money to a loved one which costs $6.95 for fast processing. Else, it might take forever if loved ones go with the “free option.” Private vendors can also charge prisoners and their families sky high prices essentials like clothes and hygiene products. It’s terrible enough for families should have their loved one incarcerated. But it’s devastating that they have to suffer for their loved one’s crime like this through no fault of their own.

In 2010, 3 inmates broke out of the Arizona State Prison in Kingman, Arizona, kidnapped and killed 2 tourists, and burned their bodies in a camper. It was later found that this prison operated by the Management and Training Corporation had inadequate patrols and prison movement, excessive false alarms, inadequate staff training., and inconsistencies with visitor screening procedures. You can see why private prisons don’t want to take in violent offenders.

7. Privatized prisons do a terrible job keeping violent offenders behind bars. – When it comes to a prison system’s effectiveness in protecting the public, you want one that’s fit to keep the most dangerous criminals behind bars. Given the problems our public prison system has, you still have maximum security facilities that have done a great job keeping the Unabomber and Charles Manson at bay. However, when it comes to security, private prisons tend to be medium at the max and often refuse to accept inmates that cost the most to house. Many of the crooks that actually pose a danger to society would fall into this category. A 2005 study found that Arizona’s public facilities were 7 times more likely to house violent criminals and 3 times more likely to house those convicted of more serious crimes. And when it comes to handling these dangerous criminals that are usually reclassified as a low security risk, private prisons have proved inept which has led to terrible consequences both in the jails and out. After all, the high frequency of unchecked violence that goes in there proves that some of these violent criminals are in there. Also, violent offenders have a tendency to be transferred to a public facility. Then there’s the question of security and keeping these crooks in. In 2010, 3 inmates escaped from a private prison in Kingman, Arizona, kidnapped two tourists, killed them both, and burned their bodies in the camper. It was later found that the prison these inmates broke out of had inadequate patrols and prison movement (the perimeter was unmonitored for 15 minutes at the start of every shift and had only one guard at the premises during the time of escape), excessive false alarms (89 during a 16 hour study period), inadequate training (1/3 of security staff had less than 3 months on the job and there was no officer training program), and inconsistencies with visitor screening procedure. To put it this way, such a system made this a very easy prison to escape and not one you’d want to put murderers in.

This is an infographic snip showing how private prisons profit which consists of occupancy quotas, cutting corners on costs, choosing cheap inmates, and keeping them in horrible conditions. Sure private prisons say that they’re more cost efficient than their public counterparts, but at what cost?

8. Privatized prisons aren’t cost efficient.- Private prison companies often sell the idea that they’re a cost-effective option for cash strapped states. However, there are 24 different studies on cost-effectiveness revealed that it’s either inconclusive or non-existent. Some research has even concluded that for-profit prisons might cost more than their public counterparts. It was also determined that some cost estimates might be misleading because privatize facilities often refuse to accept inmates that cost the most to house such as the disabled, the elderly, the HIV-positive, the mentally ill, those convicted of serious and violent crimes, and others. And a 2001 study concluded that many prison companies artificially inflate cost savings by sending the less expensive inmates to their facilities. Furthermore, privatized prisons are more likely to dole out twice the amount of infractions against inmates that lengthened their sentences by average 2 to 3 months, which can amount to as much as $3,000 increased cost per prisoner. Not only that, but inmates housed in private prisons were more likely to wind up back in the system after being released. And we all know recidivism contributes to prison overcrowding and isn’t fiscally responsible by any stretch of the imagination. Not to mention, these companies are paid by the state and at the taxpayer expense. If a state failed to reach an occupancy rate, it has to pay the company a reimbursement. Add to that the cost of poor quality that’s shifted to police dealing with escapees, court systems coping with prison lawsuits, and public hospitals treating inmates.

Private prisons like to sell the idea that they help save taxpayer money and benefit local economies. However, several studies have found just the opposite. Here is an infographic detailing the case of Harding, Montana where the promise of a private prison never panned out and wasted the town millions.

9. Privatized prisons are a waste of taxpayer money and don’t benefit local economies.– While privatization is claimed to lead to tax savings for the public, it actually costs us more. Sure some of you might complain about your tax dollars going to public programs like welfare and other social services, but each public dollar paid through one social service will spend itself 4-8 times more elsewhere in the public sector. But once public money goes into private hands, it is gone for good. This is especially true when privatization corporations are given handsome tax breaks and “incentives” in the form of what liberals like me call, “corporate welfare” meaning we’re even less likely to see that money again even if these companies present a lower figure to do the same job. We should also remember that those who privatize are generally wealthy who tend to receive your hard earned tax dollars funneled into rich guys’ coffers for their own personal gain. Today such “corporate welfare” is justified through the notion that the “free market” is the same as democracy, an idea that assumes that if everything was privatized and ruled by the law of the dollar, then democracy will be ensured. This may be true for the rich but it’s not for everyone else. And such ideas about “the free market” are what’s screwing this country, especially since Citizens United. Nevertheless, private prisons are said to rely on government perks like subsidies as well as tax abatements and reductions. But of course, many states sign up private prison contracts since they offer a promise for jobs. However, we should note that they don’t hire a lot of staff and despite claims that state budgets can be bolstered by private prisons, studies have found just the opposite.

While the private prison industry is certainly profitable, the concept of locking up criminals for profit is inherently unethical since it reduces them as commodities. Sure criminals aren’t innocent people but they’re also human beings. And no human being should have their freedom taken away from them in the name of profit.

10. Profiting from the imprisonment of human beings is morally wrong and constitutes as predatory practices. –As a venture, the private prison industry is a case in which a few people exploit our society’s larger problems for their own gain at a cost we all bare and get little in return. As John Whitehead writes, “No matter what the politicians or corporate heads might say, prison privatization is neither fiscally responsible nor in keeping with principles of justice. It simply encourages incarceration for the sake of profits, while causing millions of Americans, most of them minor, nonviolent criminals, to be handed over to corporations for lengthy prison sentences which do nothing to protect society or prevent recidivism. This perverse notion of how prisons should be run, that they should be full at all times, and full of minor criminals, is evil.” With the growing influence of the private prison industry, the US is, in effect, commoditizing human bodies for an industry in militant pursuit of profit. And it’s an industry that creates a system that trades money for human freedom, often at the expense of the nation’s most vulnerable populations: children, immigrants, and the poor. For such an enterprise to exist our country is morally indefensible and a national disgrace.

This is the infographic where the Freedom of Information Act is applicable to prisons. Notice how the public and private maps are of different colors. That’s because that private prisons tend to operate with little government oversight. This not acceptable.

11. Privatized prisons aren’t held accountable to the same degree their government owned counterparts. – Our taxpayer funded public prisons may be inherently flawed in many ways. But at least these prisons are operated and overseen by the state and federal governments for the benefit of the public good. Because of this, public prisons are encouraged to provide the best quality of service taxpayer money can buy. Because if public prisons fail, then everyone suffers. Privatized prisons just want to make money with their profit depending on the money they get from the state and spending as little as possible on the prisoners and the prisons. Not only that, but also housing as many inmates as possible, kept as long as possible, and housed as cheaply as possible. Meanwhile, private prison company executives receive multi-million dollar paychecks as well as profits for shareholders who will never suffer any negative consequences. And it doesn’t help that they’re receiving government subsidies and tax perks funded by the general public who suffers. Not to mention, since many states rely private prison companies to self-report, they have figured ways to make themselves look clean in the eyes of the state regardless what’s really happening at their facilities. Sure private prisons might operate under corporate oversight but as with most corporations, these companies will never voluntarily shape up unless there’s more government intervention. And so far, there has been little government oversight.

While it’s very apparent that social problems and flaws in the criminal justice system lead to mass incarceration, private prisons profit from them and have no incentive to fix them. In fact, a lot of their lobbying efforts have been a major stumbling block in criminal justice reform. And it’s costing our tax dollars in the process.

12. Privatized prisons profit from existing problems in the criminal justice system and society and give no incentive to solve them. -While public prisons do carry a heavy taxpayer burden as well as are facing problems such as overcrowding and high recidivism, at least public investment and government oversight gives incentives to solve such problems in the penal system. After all, a government owned prison system that’s funded by taxpayers helps promote measures aimed at reforming prisoners and reducing crime. And that’s how it should be. However, the private prison industry is only held accountable to their investors, shareholders, and benefactors who’s only concern are profits. And the private prison industry profits by making sure that more people are put in jail. When making a pitch to potential investors, CCA is quick to point out that private prisons comprise of a unique, recession-resistant investment opportunity, with more than 90% of the market up for grabs, little competition, high recidivism, and the potential for future growth in the prison population. As CCA reported in 2014, “The demand for our facilities and services could be adversely affected by the relaxation of enforcement efforts, leniency in conviction or parole standards and sentencing practices or through the decriminalization of certain activities that are currently proscribed by our criminal laws. For instance, any changes with respect to drugs and controlled substances or illegal immigration could affect the number of persons arrested, convicted, and sentenced, thereby potentially reducing demand for correctional facilities to house them. … Legislation has been proposed in numerous jurisdictions that could lower minimum sentences for some non-violent crimes and make more inmates eligible for early release based on good behavior.” It’s no surprise that the private prison industry has no interest in reforming prisoners or reducing crime like ending ex-con job discrimination, decriminalizing marijuana, reducing the system’s racist impact on minorities, and any other policies that cut into their profits. As long as these problems persist, the private prison industry will be all too willing to exploit this country’s systematic social problems in the name of profit. What our criminal justice system needs is reform, not incentive for expansion.

Private Prison Giants and Their Activities

This infographic shows the kind of issues the private prison companies have lobbied for over the years. You might notice that none of them pertain to prisoner rehabilitation. That’s because they’re not interested in reforming prisoners because it hurts their profits. And it should be no surprise to any of us that private prisons have high recidivism rates. Their business model was constructed that way.

13. Privatized prisons have no incentive to rehabilitate prisoners.– Because public prisons are funded by taxpayers and run by governments, they always have an incentive to rehabilitate prisoners before release so they won’t wind up in jail again. And while such systems are significantly flawed and not always effective, at least public investment encourages public prisons to have more responsibility in inmate welfare, rehabilitation, and public safety. But for private prison companies, their primary responsibility is generating profits for shareholders through incarcerating as many people as possible, as long as possible, and as cheaply as possible. Under such a system, it’s very difficult or outright impossible for the private prison industry to be genuinely concerned for the welfare of inmates, let alone their rehabilitation. After all, to them, reforming a prisoner is just making them less likely to function as a future source of profit. Not to mention, private prison companies have little incentive to release an inmate early, regardless how well they’ve behaved since it would reduce their cash flow. As for providing treatment, why bother if it means losing a customer?

Walnut-Grove-Correctional-Facility-Prison

In 2010, rival gangs rioted at the Walnut Grove Youth Correctional Facility which resulted in 6 hospitalizations, including one with permanent brain damage. Since the MTC owned prison had a staff to prison ratio of 1/120, they just sat there and waited until the fight ended. In 2014, there were 2 riots that sent 18 and 4 inmates to the hospital respectively.

14. Privatized prisons have are poorly staffed with poorly trained and paid employees.– Evidence suggests that for-profit prisons are chronically understaffed, inadequately trained, and underpaid. And when you combine this with such prisons rapidly expanding, things are bound to get ugly which could put the prisoners’ and the employees’ safety in jeopardy. This is one of the reasons why privatized prisons have increased incidences of violence and escapes. A lot of times private prisons are so poorly run that they simply can’t find enough officers and other employees. Turnover rates are significantly higher. It’s not surprising since assaults on guards by inmates are 49% more frequent than in state run prisons. And it’s said that private prison employees are paid an average of 21% less than their state employed counterparts according to a 2010 report by the US Department of Labor. However, some private prisons just don’t want to spend “extra” money in order to hire enough officers and staff members to adequately run them even as these places are rapidly expanding to house more inmates. Many also spend less money on training for correctional officers as well. The Walnut Grove Youth Correctional Facility in Mississippi had a staff to prisoner ration of 1/120. When this prison experienced a riot in 2010, 6 inmates were rushed to the hospital, including one with permanent brain damage. During the riot, the staff just sat there and waited until the melee ended because there were 60 times more prisoners than staff. A lack of well trained and paid staff can also lead to corruption as there have been reports guards resorting to smuggling contraband for inmates. This could mean anything from T-shirts to cigarettes and knives or other weapons.

It’s very common for private prison companies to have contracts to guarantee prison occupancy rates and/or force taxpayers to pay empty beds. 90% is the most frequent occupancy requirement. Along with promoting harsher sentencing measures, private prisons are a huge contributor to mass incarceration.

15. Privatized prisons contribute to mass incarceration.-In 2012, CCA sent a letter to 48 states offering to buy their public prisons with promises that they have at least 1,000 beds and 90% occupancy for the next 20 years. In fact, nearly 2/3 of private prison contracts mandate that state and local governments maintain a certain occupancy rate usually 90% and require taxpayers to pay for empty beds. In Arizona, 3 private prisons are operating with a 100% occupancy guarantee. Such requirements by private prison companies are a common practice. Today crime rates are falling and the rate of incoming undocumented immigrants have leveled off. But today the US puts more people in prison than anywhere else on earth which is fueling a major crises. Such occupancy requirements by private prison companies only encourage this and have since the 1980s, especially since private prison inmate usually remain in jail longer. The fact these private prisons are profiting from the War on Drugs, undocumented immigration, as well as poor people being in desperate situations, ensures that mass incarceration is here to stay. And it also guarantees that the criminal justice system and public prisons will be swamped with more inmates than it would know what to do with.

The private prison lobby has enormous influence in federal and state governments across the country as well as contributed millions to political candidates of both parties. In turn, these prison companies have advocated “tough on crime” measures like “Truth and Sentencing” and “Three Strikes” laws as well as anti-immigration and pro privatization policies.

16. Private prison industry lobbying have a corrupting influence on the policy. – Private prisons are a highly profitable business due to government payments and prison laborers forced to work for pennies on behalf of corporations like Boeing and McDonald’s. And like any corporation, these corrections companies have powerful lobbies in Washington contributing millions to political candidates. They also lobbied for policies advocating free-market privatization as well as “tough on crime” laws like “Truth in Sentencing” and “Three Strikes Law.” CCA has helped financed Proposition 6 in California in 2008 which would’ve placed additional penalties for drug crimes. And GEO Group lobbied for Jessica’s Law in 2006 which pertains to the treatment of sex offenders. As a lobby, private prison companies influence legislation for tougher, longer sentences. They’ve also supported Arizona’s highly controversial anti-illegal immigration law. Both GEO and CCA have engaged in initiatives to create new crimes, particularly nonviolent offenses like failure to pay fines for misdemeanor offenses in Missouri (that go to private collection agencies) or being unable to afford bail. And they have responded to criminal justice reform and leniency to nonviolent criminals with vociferous opposition. Nevertheless, while private prisons benefit through such policies, their public counterparts and everyone else doesn’t. It turns out Florida US Senator Marco Rubio is one of the private prison industry’s biggest beneficiaries and political champions. He is closely connected with The GEO Group and has hired a former trustee as an economic consultant and a former lobbyist as his chief of staff from that company. GEO was also a top 10 contributor to Rubio’s Reclaim America PAC with his chief of staff being a senior advisor. There’s no question that Rubio opposes immigration or criminal justice reform since GEO has given him $40,000 in campaign contributions, making him its top recipient in the Senate. And opposition to criminal justice reform should render any candidate woefully inadequate to lead a nation suffering from a prison system that essentially perpetuates the oppression of its most vulnerable citizens. Yet, today the private prison industry is the biggest lobby that’s getting little scrutiny. That should change.

150812-cash-for-kids-jsw-334p_013828aebe25325b5353bdef714f14f1.nbcnews-ux-2880-1000

This is a picture of Sandy Fonzo of Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania confronting former Luzerne County judge Mark Ciavarella. Her son committed suicide when caught in the infamous”kids for cash” scandal where 2 judges were paid $2.8 million by Mid-Atlantic Youth Services Corporation to send over 2,000 children to it’s 2 facilities on unusually long sentences for rather petty crimes. While the judges were eventually sentence to long prison terms, hundreds of young lives were ruined in the process. And tragically, it’s said that there’s considerable evidence that private prisons have a very corrupting influence in the criminal justice system.

17. Private prisons have a corrupting influence in the criminal justice system. – While the US criminal justice system is corrupt, prison privatization simply encourages incarceration for the sake of profits which doesn’t keep with the principles of justice in any way, shape, or form. One scandal that has illustrated this is the “kids for cash” atrocity in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. From 2003-2008, the Mid Atlantic Youth Services Corporation (a firm specializing in juvenile offenders), paid off 2 judges to jail youths and send them to their 2 private prison facilities. The 2 judges made over $2.6 million in the scam to by sending more than 2,000 kids to prison on unusually long sentences for incredibly petty crimes like stealing DVDs from Wal Mart, mocking a principal on Myspace, packing ibuprofen and trespassing in vacant buildings. Over 50% of the kids who appeared before Judge Mark Ciavarella lacked legal representation and 60% of those kids were removed from their homes. Luckily the 2 judges were sentenced to 17.5 and 28 years in federal custody but not without ruining thousands of young lives in the process. And there is evidence that private prisons tend to bribe judges at a regular basis. This kind of corruption might mean your DUI could turn into a maximum sentence if you can’t afford to hire the right lawyer. Since Florida privatized the entirety of its $183 million juvenile justice system, its Department of Juvenile Justice has been reported as effectively complicit in allowing problems to fester in its jails and is a failed system of oversight and accountability. State probes of mistreatment typically end with inconclusive evidence with only a quarter of cases ever being substantiated. And there is little incentive to crack down on contractors. Reform is also not likely to happen because so many Florida politicians have received money from juvenile prison companies that Governor Rick Scott challenged the “unsupported suggestion” that problems in Florida’s juvenile justice programs were systemic. Today Florida is failing its juvenile delinquents because it seems it doesn’t want to assume any responsibility for these troubled kids. The influence of private prisons can lead to a US criminal justice system based upon increasing the wealth and power of the corporate state, which isn’t fair when certain convictions guarantee payout. Our justice system should exist for the benefit of the public good, not for the financial benefit of a few corporations who house inmates for their bread and butter. And the fact many local and state judges are elected just makes it even worse.

Recidivism is a huge problem in the prison system, especially when it leads to overcrowding. However, private prison companies see it as an asset to profit from. So they invest very little to almost nothing into a prisoner’s rehabilitation. Because why try to lose a customer?

18. Privatized prisons contribute to increased recidivism. – Despite claims that private prisons have lower recidivism rates, prisoners housed in private facilities are 40-60% more likely to return than their state run counterparts. It’s not surprising since private prisons have no incentive to rehabilitate the prisoners they house which makes them more susceptible to another prison sentence after they’re released. Across the country, recidivism is a major problem since it traps people in a vicious cycle of poverty, exploitation, and repeated offenses. Recidivism is a good reason to ban the box since convictions can prevent nonviolent ex-cons from getting a job that could keep them out of prison for good. Not to mention, recidivism leads to prison overcrowding. But for private prison companies, banning the box is bad business since their goal is to incarcerate more people in the name of profit. Other ways that private prisons encourage recidivism include limiting an inmate’s contact with family, offering a lack of educational options, and deficient rehabilitation programs. The fact that many of them charge inmates money for services like food and medical care also makes it difficult for them to get back on their feet after release.

Today there are 10,500 state prisoners are transferred to private prisons outside their home state, possibly as far as 450-3,000 miles. Though seen as a solution to prison overcrowding, this practice is detrimental to the criminal justice system because it impedes a prisoner’s rehabilitation and destroys families and communities.

19. Privatized prisons lead to prisoners being incarcerated outside their own jurisdictions.– If someone commits a crime, they will be tried, convicted and sentenced there. And it’s generally expected that the punishment will play out close to home. However, with the rise of privatized prisons, some states have been seeking solutions to prison overcrowding by having some of their inmates shipped to out of state locations across the country. Today there are more than 10,500 state prisoners in for-profit prisons outside their own states, approximately 450-3,000 miles from their home state. And it’s mostly without the prisoners’ consent. One example is Vermont since it has only 7 in-state correctional facilities, it has contracted with private prison companies for years, sending prisoners to out of state locations. Today there are currently hundreds of individuals being held from New York, Arizona, Michigan, and Kentucky. California, Hawaii, and Idaho that also house their inmates out of state as well. However, while this practice of transferring inmates out of their jurisdictions is detrimental to the criminal justice system because it separates inmates from their loved ones and social connections with the outside world. Furthermore, transporting prisoners to a remote location puts them in unfamiliar surroundings despite that inmates do much better in rehabilitation when they’re incarcerated near their own home and families. Not to mention, travel for family and friends is often prohibitively expensive. It also costs money and communities as well as destroys families. There are also concerns about the difficulty of oversight.

This is a satirical flyer pertaining to for-profit prisons. However, while the private prison industry is profitable, it’s an unethical business that carries very high social costs. But it’s one that’s seldom talked about which is just so tragic.

20. Privatized prisons carry higher social costs. – Incarceration doesn’t really make us safer when we jail nonviolent criminals. Nevertheless, dealing with crime brings a lot of social costs that we need to talk about because they’re almost never discussed. There are the social costs such as broken families and communities of both victims and perpetrators. There are the hidden financial costs like paying for foster care for prisoners’ children (particularly if they’re single women) as well as what we’ll pay again when a prisoner emerges more desperate, addicted, uneducated, and disenfranchised than they went in. Then there’s the political costs of a society that seeks vengeance through prisons and punishment that will cost us twice the price of ensuring true equality, opportunity, and social health at the roots of our society. Private prisons will only increase such costs.

In conclusion, the existence of for-profit prisons only benefits the companies who own them through profiting on mass incarceration. Despite being wildly profitable, it is a business of total moral bankruptcy that hurts inmates and their families, scams communities, corrupts legal systems, and wastes taxpayer money. It is an industry that does nothing to protect the public or save money in any way. Thus, the private prison industry shouldn’t have a right to exist because its existence is a national shame.

Not in My Name: Why I Oppose Capital Punishment

Posted by historymaniacmegan on September 28, 2015

For much of our history capital punishment has been seen as method to execute criminals (especially in Texas). However, as flawed as our justice system is, many support the death penalty for certain criminals since many of them committed such heinous crimes (or were accused of them), then they must pay. Some argue that it provides closure for the families of murder victims in a way that justice has been served. Some say it deters crime since most people fear capital punishment anyway as well as keep the costs of prison down. However, while the death penalty has been one of the oldest forms of legal punishment in history I have always harbored significant doubts on its morality as well as its effectiveness against deterring crime (yet it’s still legal in Pennsylvania as well as the US). Sure plenty of people fear death and would go out of their way to avoid the ultimate penalty, but are death sentences really worth it? It has already been abolished or ceased practice in 139 countries and in most democratic nations it is applied in only the rarest of cases. And recently, many US states have either abolished the death penalty or taken steps to do so even in red states like West Virginia or Alaska. Yet, many people of both parties remain convinced that capital punishment is a viable form of justice on some certain level. And while the EU has staged an embargo on the drug used for legal injections, some states have tried to find cheaper and more efficient alternatives like a firing squad. Here is a list on why I oppose the death penalty.

1. Support in death penalty is culturally based. Believe it or not, most people who support the death penalty do so because they were raised with the idea as a viable form of punishment. Since capital punishment has been around in nearly every civilization for thousands of years, but just because it’s always been around doesn’t necessarily make it right. However, old ideas don’t always die when you want them to and there are people who still believe that cold-blooded killers deserve to die and our culture gleefully promotes this concept since this is what usually happens to bad guys. To these people seeing a convicted criminal executed is proof that the system works regardless of other implications so much so that they would say anything to justify why capital punishment should remain.Thus, belief in capital punishment has much more to do with one’s culture than systematic effectiveness overall.

2. The death penalty fails to recognize a guilty person’s potential to change and denies an opportunity for them to rejoin society. While society has always looked down on criminals, death row inmates are especially prone of being judged irredeemable because the crimes they committed lead to a death sentence. Sure there are plenty of death row inmates who aren’t sorry for their crimes but many do have the capacity to change and/or amount to some benefit to society. Let’s face it, humans are complicated and unpredictable creatures. Not to mention, contrary to popular belief, criminal convictions don’t define someone as a bad person incapable of rejoining society. It just means they’re guilty (though to be fair, death row inmates aren’t nice people to begin with). For instance, take Robert Stroud (of Birdman of Alcatraz fame) who reared and sold birds during his solitary confinement in Leavenworth Prison as well as became a self-taught ornithologist and author. Yet, before his birding days, Stroud was sentenced to death at one time in his life for stabbing a prison guard, though the sentence was eventually commuted to life imprisonment which not only led him to keeping birds but also finding a cure for a family of avian diseases. It would be hard to imagine what farmers and ornithologist would’ve missed if this man was executed between 1916 and 1920. Yet, unlike the favorable Burt Lancaster portrayal (who changed from a violent anti-social thug to intellectual and soft-spoken pacifist), the real life Stroud was a diagnosed psychopath widely disliked and distrusted by the jailers and inmates who knew him as extremely difficult and demented as well as a vicious killer. Nevertheless, his story illustrates even bad guys like him can do some very good things if given the chance and that a person’s crimes shouldn’t define one as a human being. Saying that certain criminals deserve death is determining them irredeemable, which in many ways denies their humanity.

This cartoon shows a quick look at the death penalty in California, a state known for its horrible prison situation. Since 1978, to execute someone in this state costs $4 billion with the legal process taking 25 years. And it only managed to execute 13 people. Perhaps prison overcrowding isn’t so bad at least when it comes to taxpayer dollars spent per prisoner.

3. Executions cost more than a lifetime in prison. While the prison system may have their own problems, they keep some of the worst criminals off the streets who are now serving a life sentence without parole. Of course many proponents argue that capital punishment helps relieve the costs of caring for condemned criminals. Cases resulting in life in prison usually cost approximately $500,000 on average from arrest to incarceration and once it’s delivered, the case is usually closed for now. Cases involving the death penalty by contrast, can cost to as much as $1-3 million, sometimes even $7 million in taxpayer money and they usually involve a lengthy and complex appeals process sometimes lasting a decade on average all because someone’s life is on the line. Thus, death penalty cases involve more lawyers, more witnesses, more experts, longer jury selection process, more pre-trial motions, an entirely separate trial for sentencing, and countless other expenses that could rack up costly expenses before a single appeal is filed. Add to that the fact most death penalty trials are found to be significantly flawed and must be re-done, sometimes more than once. Even in most cases in which the death penalty is sought, it’s almost never imposed. And when it is imposed, it’s rarely carried out. Still, the costs of all this regardless of outcome is paid by the taxpayers. These proceedings divert resources which could be better used for more positive endeavors like helping homicide survivors, education and social programs, scholarships for orphans, libraries, hiring more police officers, and other things. Not only that, but money may be the main reason why more states have decided to abandon capital punishment in the first place. As much as caring for condemned criminals costs taxpayers, it’s much cheaper than trying to execute them.

In recent years, wrongful convictions have become more apparent in the American legal system in recent years. Recent years have seen more exonerations by DNA evidence. And this has gone up for death row inmates as well. Thus, it’s apparent that capital punishment kills innocent people. As to how many, it will never be known.

4. You can’t remedy a wrongful execution. In the criminal justice system, there is always a potential for error whether it be the acquittal of a known murderer or the conviction of someone completely innocent. Of course, if there’s a miscarriage of justice, the system should be able to correct it in due time. Sure some murderers may be free to kill another day but that doesn’t mean they’d necessarily be lucky the next time. And innocent people serving time in prison can always be exonerated via DNA evidence. However, whenever the system sentences someone to death, one of the reasons why the death penalty legal process is so long and complicated is just to ensure that innocent people aren’t wrongfully executed. Yet, even with these protections, there’s still a risk of carrying out a wrongful execution which can’t be taken back. In the US, since the 1973 around 143 death row inmates have been exonerated and most simply because of the weak cases against them and nine times more frequently than others convicted of murder. Some haven’t been so lucky and it’s very difficult to determine how many innocent people were executed there’s often insufficient motivation once an execution occurs. Still, whenever someone is accused of a serious crime, there are plenty of factors that can result in wrongful conviction like inadequate legal representation, government misconduct, eyewitness error and perjured testimony, junk science, racism, snitch testimony, false confessions, suppression and/or misinterpretation of evidence, and social pressure to solve a case. Our criminal justice system is far from perfect and can’t be right 100% of the time. Yet, in capital cases, a wrongful conviction can be deadly and you can’t take back a human life.

This is a chart depicting the causes of wrongful convictions. A lot of this involves government misconduct. But this can also include erroneous eyewitness testimony, false confessions, bad legal representation, informants, and others. And each case can have multiple causes.

5. Most death row inmates were convicted while being defended by court-appointed attorneys who are often the worst paid, most-inexperienced, and least-skillful lawyers. The quality of legal representation provided plays a determining factor whether a defendant will face execution. Since most defendants in capital cases are too poor to afford a lawyer, the job defending the accused will usually fall to public defenders. Yet, these court appointed attorneys are often overworked, underpaid, or lack the experience to take on death penalty cases that they are inadequate providing a good defense. There are some instances where defense attorneys have arrived to court drunk, slept through the proceedings or failed to do any work in preparation for the sentencing phase. Also, whenever a capital case is set aside by a federal court, it mostly because the defense attorney’s incompetence that the accused’s constitutional right to effective counsel was violated. And it’s not uncommon for the defense attorney to be disbarred or disciplined for unethical or criminal behavior. Alabama has been notorious for providing especially shoddy counsel to defendants in capital cases. It has the distinction as the only state with no statewide public defender system though its death row inmates are overwhelmingly poor. In the US, we expect everyone to have a right to a fair trial, especially if a person’s life is at stake. Yet, if defendants in capital cases are given inadequate legal representation, how can they receive a fair trial?

6. Capital punishment doesn’t deter crime. Many proponents would argue that capital punishment by saying that it’s the ultimate warning against all crimes and sets an example to other would be criminals. Yet, while many people fear a death sentence, fear is hardly a good teaching tool and capital punishment’s effectiveness in deterring crime is questionable. In fact, there is no reliable evidence whether the death penalty has any effect on homicide rates at all as most criminologists believe. Some may argue that using the death penalty may brutalize society and lead to more murders and most proponents no longer consider deterrence as a serious justification for its continued use. The threat of execution may dissuade some from committing premeditated murder and so does getting caught. Not to mention, many murders are committed in moments of passion, anger, or by criminal substance abusers or acting impulsively. Those who commit first degree murder, either don’t expect to get caught or don’t weigh the consequences. Sometimes the legal consequences don’t even matter since some criminals may see life in prison as a fate worse than death anyway. Not to mention, consider the fact capital punishment has existed for thousands of years, yet people still commit murder regardless of the ultimate penalty.

Racial disparities are endemic in our criminal justice system. In capital cases, while a significant portion involve a black or Hispanic defendant, the overwhelming majority involve white victims. Looking at these disparities, I can’t blame the people at Black Lives Matter for stating their case.

7. Race and socioeconomics of both defendant and victim play determining roles on who lives and who dies. Discrimination by socioeconomics and race have always been a problem in the criminal justice system and it is no different in capital cases. In our criminal justice system, it’s not unusual for poor black and Hispanic defendants to receive harsh sentences, especially if the victim was a white person. Death sentences are issued and/or sought by a prosecutor were more likely involve a black or Hispanic defendant killing a white person than white defendant killing a person of color. This is the case especially in the South given its legacy for racial discrimination as well as its tendency to apply the death penalty more than any other part of the country. And most of the time the defendant is poor so they won’t have an adequate defense. Not to mention, out of all the 143 death row inmates exonerated for innocence, most of them were either black or Hispanic as well. The racial and socioeconomic disparity regarding the death penalty can’t be ignored because it seems to be a statement that the lives of impoverished minorities are less important than whites and that killing a white person can mean the harshest of penalties. In short, most of those executed consists of those with the fewest resources to defend themselves as well as the color of their skin. We shouldn’t have that.

The lottery determining who gets the death penalty in America vastly depends on location. Defendants who live in Texas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Arizona are the most likely to get executed in the country. Texas is notorious for carrying out the death penalty that I’m surprised it executed only 15 people in 2012.

8. Jurisdiction politics play major roles in capital cases than the facts of the crime itself and is applied at random. Another major factor in capital cases pertains to the makeup of juries which can also determine whether the defendant will receive a death sentence. A juror’s race, religion, and attitude toward the death penalty can influence how they cast the first vote during the jury’s penalty phase. White Southern Baptist males are more likely to support the death penalty than any other group and thus are more likely to cast first for death as well as be selected for these juries. Jury selection in these cases could be rife with discrimination which tend to ensue juries to be disproportionately prone to handing down guilty verdicts and death sentences. Many are said to have decided a defendant’s guilt and sentence before the trial even began and have a tendency to not understand their own duties such as considering mitigating evidence. Juries in capital trials are even said to deliberate less thoroughly and less accurate than juries that better represent the whole population. Also, give into account that most executions take place in the South and that significantly more death sentences are sought than carried out creates a lethal lottery in the criminal justice system. So it’s possible that a convenience store armed robber can receive death while a methodical serial killer gets prison.

9. Capital punishment doesn’t relieve suffering from the victims’ loved ones. While proponents claim that capital punishment brings closure to victims’ loved ones, they tend to overlook the long and complex legal process as well as the heightened media coverage. These factors can make the death penalty process for victims’ families for many years (average capital cases usually take about a decade sometimes even longer), often requiring them to relive the pain and suffering with the endless reopening of old wounds. Media coverage on death penalty cases will usually focus on the legal consequences instead of the human ones where it belongs and attention is more often centered on the accused. Not to mention, hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on the death penalty each year which could be better spent on violence-prevention efforts, victims’ services, or solving unsolved cases. A life sentence without parole can provide certain punishment without putting murderers in the headlines, which may allow grieving families some time to heal since their loved one’s case doesn’t have to be revisited again.

Now this Timothy McVeigh graphic was taken from a satirical newspaper called The Onion. But it demonstrates how guys like the Oklahoma City bomber got tons of publicity in the days leading up to his execution. Now McVeigh was a terrorist who killed about 168 people and injured over 680. Had this guy gotten life in prison, we would’ve not heard about him again until his death in obscurity from natural causes. And you’ll only hear about it in the obituary section. This was the death he deserved.

10. The death penalty gives some of the worst offenders undeserving publicity. Capital cases bring more media coverage and public interest than those pertaining to any other sentence. It’s not uncommon for death row inmates to receive reams of publicity as their date of execution nears which gives them a chance to expound their ideas and become media celebrities. The media attention placed on death row inmates not only can give families more grief but also may encourage others to commit violent acts, especially unstable people attracted to media immortality. Since death row inmates have their days numbered, they don’t really learn from their crimes and may not even regret them. On the other hand, violent offenders who receive life in prison without parole will face a lifetime of obscurity and regret, which may make the path to violence far less glamorous for many. Perhaps maybe be sentenced to hard labor to pay reparations for the victims’ families. If there is anyone who doesn’t deserve media coverage, it’s a murderer. While a death row inmate’s execution gets front page news, a notorious killer sentenced with life in prison won’t be remembered until his or her name appears in the obituary section.

For a long time in history, people watched public executions as a form of entertainment. Today executions are usually covered by the press leaving details of the prisoner’s last moments. Nevertheless, executions teach that killing is always a viable solution even though it isn’t.

11. Executions have a corrupting effect on the public. Public executions have been seen as a form of entertainment throughout much of history since many people didn’t really have access to all the mass media outlets we have today like books, TV, or internet. Yet, given the amount of media attention placed on death row inmates, there is probably no doubt that executions attract some degree of excitement in the public. TV crews don’t hesitate to give details of the prisoner given a stay of execution during the appeals process in the execution chamber. And then there are the last visits from family, the last meal, the last walk, and the last words. Many times this could turn into one big dramatic soap opera with people wanting to see a criminal die. Of course, The Hunger Games may argue that the public likes to see almost anyone die, which kind gives insight about capital punishment’s fucked up entertainment value. And there were even people entertained by the brutality in that series while missing the point the trilogy tried to make. Yet, sometimes such spectacles of executions may teach the public that killing is a viable solution even though it isn’t.

12. The death penalty is incompatible with human rights and human dignity. The notion of the state taking another’s life without questioning the mitigating circumstances is perhaps one of the main reasons why capital punishment faces plenty of opposition from religious groups, especially during recent times. When it comes to right to life, many people believe this also extends to the lives of convicted criminals and that capital punishment essentially dehumanizes people and society. If life is considered an inherent human right, then capital punishment must be a human rights abuse, especially since its also attached to a bunch of other forms of injustice. Many believe such abuses to be unacceptable, especially if such actions are illegal among the general public. Some may claim that it’s impossible for anyone to determine who deserves to die or be spared. It also violates a person’s right not to be tortured or be subject to any form of cruel and unusual punishment since there is no humane way to kill. Many religious groups oppose capital punishment for these reasons. Yet, since the US continues retaining the death penalty which denies a person’s right to life, then it can deny other rights that go along with it. And it doesn’t help that most countries that still have the death penalty are notorious human rights abusers like Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, and China.

13. The death penalty promotes revenge. When someone is murdered, it is only natural for people to want something done to his or her killer. A lot of times many grieving families do wish that the murderer be put to death and while the emotional impulse for “an eye for an eye” is strong, it’s not always right, even if it does appear often in movies. Revenge should never be a sufficient justification for capital punishment in a mature society, especially one that should show much more respect for life even that of murderer. Encouraging revenge through execution only continues the chain of violence as well as increases the risks of angering the condemned’s families, especially if they were later found to be innocent. Besides, even with capital punishment, our society has never endorsed “an eye for an eye” since we don’t torture torturers or even rape rapists since those actions are inhumane anyway. For victims’ families, reconciliation and forgiveness are better alternatives.

14. Capital punishment forces families of executed criminals to suffer in unimaginable ways. Families of criminals never have it easy in any society and tend to suffer not only for the crime but also by the system that tries them. In any murder case, there will always be at least two families who suffer on opposite sides. While the victim’s family has to deal with losing a loved one, the murderer’s family has to deal with a lot of emotional turmoil as well since no one wants to see a loved one convicted. In a capital case, this is especially true since the killer’s life is at stake and no matter how terrible a murderer is, he or she still has people who care about them and would certainly miss them. Yet, unlike families of murder victims, families of executed criminals have to live with their loved one’s crimes even if he or she doesn’t. And many of them will have to mourn for their executed loved one in isolation while receiving little sympathy for their plight. They run the risks of being vilified and shunned by the community simply because of their association. Sometimes they may even lose jobs, be threatened, or have their homes vandalized. Some ran the risks of experiencing PTSD when seeing a loved one’s execution. Not to mention, many children of executed criminals may not understand what happened or be able to handle it. And many of these families aren’t well off. Proponents may say that criminals cause their own families to suffer but while that may be true, their lives may be so much easier if their convicted loved one didn’t have to die.

The notion that the death penalty involves killing murderers to show that killing is wrong is a glaring hypocrisy. Besides, all an eye for an eye amounts to is just revenge. And revenge is something we don’t need.

15. Capital punishment sends a message in a most hypocritical way possible. When we’re young, we’re told that killing is wrong, yet Americans live in a country which still condemns killers to death to teach that no one has the right to kill. Though killing may sometimes be necessary when it can’t be avoided, it’s seldom justified. Yet, if a nation executes people for murder, then perhaps the country is no better than the crooks it condemns. Maybe even more so if those executed are innocent people. Yet, giving some of the circumstances of death row inmates and victims in the US, it can also be used to show that some lives are worth more than others, which is a very terrible lesson to teach. It’s hypocritical enough if it’s Ted Bundy getting executed but what does it say about this country if it tries to teach that killing is wrong by issuing a death sentence to people of color too poor to defend themselves? Some may argue that an entity saying who lives or dies is equivalent to playing God.

Barbara Graham was a prostitute, drug addict, and a thief. However, her murder case involving the killing of Mabel Monohan shows how complicated a murder case could be. There are conflicting accounts by two of her associates in the crime. So it’s hard to say whether she did it but she was convicted and executed of the crime anyway. Probably should’ve been sentenced to life.

16. Life in prison is a much better solution in difficult cases. Even when a defendant in a capital case is guilty and sentence to death, you can’t really determine whether capital punishment is ever justly applied. While some proponents may think capital punishment should only apply to those convicted of the worst crimes, many get executed on serious crimes that are hardly seen as remarkable. Death row inmates are almost always too poor to defend themselves while socially marginalized people of color are especially vulnerable to receiving a death sentence and they usually are represented by court appointed attorneys who hardly put up an adequate defense. And sometimes local politics can play a major role on who gets to be on the penalty phase jury. Not to mention, there’s a good chance that many prisoners on death row may have an undiagnosed mental illness or experienced some form of trauma during their lives, have experienced substance abuse, and may have killed out of anger or impulsively. Murder cases can be very complicated and capital cases can take years to sort out whether the murderer should be executed. However, in cases with the penalties being life in prison, the defendant just needs to be convicted and the decision can be reversed if needed. Besides, sentencing criminals to prison usually falls to the judge, not jury so local politics play little influence in it. Also, most guilty lifers usually fade into prison life obscurity shortly after they leave the courtroom. When it comes to difficult case, life in prison provides a more swift and certain punishment while capital punishment provides neither.

17. Capital punishment hurts other prisoners, too. While proponents may say that capital punishment is a good bargaining chip for murderers to serve life without parole since everyone fears a death sentence. Yet, there is no correlation whether the death penalty does just that. What a death sentence threat can do, however, is increase the likelihood of some defendants more willing to accept a given plea bargaining offer or even taking responsibility for a crime they didn’t commit. After all, many defendants don’t have adequate legal representation anyways and a threat of execution may give them more reason to give up their constitutional right to a trial to save their lives. Scaring defendants into confessing things isn’t a reliable form of interrogation and can even ruin people’s lives. Sometimes execution threats can result in more cases going to trial, which I have already discussed what could happen there. Still, using the death penalty as a plea bargaining chip may increase the risk of wrongful convictions and may do little to deter wrongful executions.

Yes, this is a funny cartoon from Bizarro, a favorite comic of mine. However, being an executioner isn’t a nice job since they tend to suffer from PTSD from having to kill. So there’s no reason why any correction worker should risk their mental health over revenge.

18. No civilian’s job description should include killing another person. Despite how they appear in movies, the occupation or executioner was often an undesirable job that it was performed by people who’d otherwise be executed. These people were often unskilled in their work as well as suffered from a lot of mental anguish over it. And it wasn’t uncommon for many to commit suicide. Of course, we don’t have executioners anymore in the Western World since many countries have abolished capital punishment or in America’s case, aren’t carried out very often. But when they are, executions now are performed by corrections officers and medical doctors. And these people don’t have benefit of having heard all the evidence presented to them at the trial, which might make some doubt the defendant’s guilt. Like the executioners of old, they’re involved with executions and frequently suffer from PTSD from having to kill. Prisoners pose no threat to our society once in custody. So there’s no reason why correction workers should risk their mental health simply to pursue vengeance.

Supporters who think the death penalty as a cheaper alternative to life in prison often forget the complex appeals process involved in arranging an execution. In California, this usually takes 25 years. That time could be better spent in the court system.

19. Capital cases involve endless appeals processes and required additional procedures that clog our court system. Now the US criminal justice system is already overloaded with more cases than it can deal with. And despite what you see on TV or movies, legal procedures aren’t short affairs. It can take years for a case to go to court and there have to be so many legal procedures to take place before a trial could begin. Most lawyers usually try to avoid trials. The criminal justice system is no exception, which is why most criminal defendants take plea bargains. In death penalty cases, trials aren’t optional. If the defendant is convicted and sentenced to death, there are countless appeals processes and other legal procedures that cost not just taxpayer money, but also time and space. And the US court system tends to go to great lengths to see the death sentence carried out. Thus, all the appeals, motions, hearings, briefs, etc. monopolize much of the time of judges, attorneys, and other court employees as well as use up courtrooms and facilities. Nationally on average it’s said that the process takes 8-10 years. Such time and space could be used for other unresolved matters. Meanwhile, you have people in jail for years simply waiting for their day in court. And most defendants are encouraged to take a plea bargain simply because the US court system is tremendously backed up. Getting rid of the death penalty may help move things along.

20. High profile death penalty cases attract top talent lawyers for little or no cost due its publicity and their personal beliefs against capital punishment, increasing the chances of a technicality or a manipulated jury will release a guilty person. While most death penalty cases usually involve terrible legal representation, ones that attract an excessive amount of publicity tend to attract top lawyers who desperately want attention and can manipulate the system through any means necessary in order to get someone off without punishment. And besides, defending someone accused of a horrendous crime garners much more sympathy than representing a crooked Wall Street executive. This is especially true if the defendant is a young white woman who’s fairly attractive like Barbara Graham or Casey Anthony. There are entire organizations that sprung up to fight death penalty cases and often provide funding to legal defenses. And many lawyers have made stomping out capital punishment a lifetime crusade.

Dr. Hawley Harvey Crippen was a homeopathic physician and outright quack who was charged with brutally murdering his wife Cora at their London home in 1910. He was tried, convicted, and executed. At the time everyone saw him as guilty. However, it’s apparent that the body parts found in his basement were planted by Scotland Yard who were under tremendous pressure to solve a heinous crime. Besides, recent DNA evidence has revealed that the body parts found not only weren’t Cora’s but also belonged to a dude.

21. High profile death penalty cases put enormous pressure on the prosecution and police that they encourage misconduct. Since death penalty cases attract media coverage, law enforcement and prosecutors are under pressure to show that justice in their mind has been done. And they tend to do all they can to ensure a conviction, sentence, and execution. And pressure tends to lead to some degree of misconduct which can result in a wrongful conviction. Hell, even in non-death penalty cases there’s still a lot of pressure and fuck ups. Failure to catch Jack the Ripper put British police and Scotland Yard under intense public pressure to solve the case of Cora Crippen’s disappearance in 1910 in which friends suspected that her husband, homeopathic physician and outright quack, Dr. Hawley Harvey Crippen had something to do with it. I mean he and his wife didn’t get along before she disappear without a trace and was openly living with his girlfriend shortly after (who was wearing Cora’s clothes and jewelry) as well as selling some of his wife’s stuff. And when they found a set of grisly remains under the Crippens’ basement floor (suggesting she was brutally murdered), the guy was arrested on a transatlantic cruise ship while trying to flee to Canada with his girlfriend (both disguised as a father and son). He was tried, convicted, and executed. At the time the Crippen ordeal seemed like an open and shut case while everyone thought him as obviously guilty as hell (ditto the fact it received an obscene amount of media coverage in 1910). However, despite how he was about as convicted by public opinion like Casey Anthony but utterly lacked her great fortune, Crippen was almost certainly innocent of killing his wife (well, as far as we know. Then again, we have absolutely no idea what happened to her after her disappearance). We know this for these reasons:

Modern DNA test results show that the remains found in his basement not only weren’t Cora’s but also belonged to a man. (This based on mitochondrial DNA tests from the torso against that of Cora’s great-nieces and one DNA test method that’s highly sensitive to the Y chromosome {which was done several times}. However, the DNA stuff has been contested).
Cora Crippen disappeared in January of that year while Dr. Crippen was arrested in July, which was around the time the remains were found. Thus, this would mean the remains would’ve been sitting in the Crippens’ basement for almost 6 months. During this time Scotland Yard had searched the Crippens’ home a total of 5 times.
The remains were found under the Crippens’ basement floor in an area that was under the dining room. As someone who’s seen dead critters decompose on the side of the road, I’m well aware that decaying flesh gives off an odor that is strong and foul. And even the stench of a dead possum can be smelled from several feet away. If Dr. Crippen killed his wife and disposed her remains in his basement, then the police should’ve been able to find Cora’s body parts on their first search. Not on their fifth within a 6 month period. Large areas in the house should’ve carried a stench that there was a dead body in there.
The remains were said to be placed in quicklime to be destroyed. While dry lime can disintegrate stuff in no time, the dirt underneath the Crippens’ basement floor was wet. And when lime meets water, it becomes slaked lime which is a preservative. The cops should’ve found more body parts.
The remains included no head, limbs, and skeleton. In fact, they mostly consisted of soft tissue such as skin, hair, organs, and muscle. Anyone who’s worked with dead bodies can tell you that soft tissue usually decomposes before bones. So why the police were able to find soft tissue in Crippen’s basement and not bones? Even Raymond Chandler thought it was unbelievable that this guy can dispose his wife’s limbs, head, and skeleton successfully but bury the torso under the cellar floor of his home. And the way the authorities try to justify how Crippen disposed the other body parts pertain to methods you see on Breaking Bad or Dexter.
Police reports state that the victim had been poisoned and then mutilated and dismembered. Most poisoners usually try to cover up their murders by doing all they could to make it look like an accident. Such sick acts like mutilation are extremely rare among poisoners and are things we associate with serial killers like Jack the Ripper. In fact, this is the only poisoning case involving dismemberment most poison experts are aware of. Besides, such acts seem such an unnecessary step for someone who wants to quickly dispose a body.
The so-called scar tissue found that was interpreted as consistent with one Cora was known to have due to the hair follicles, which convinced the jury that the remains found at the Crippen house were hers. Scars don’t have hair follicles, a fact so obvious in 1910 that Dr. Crippen’s defense pointed it out.
The circumstances surrounding how the remains were discovered gives me the impression that someone put them at the scene with the intention to be found and to make Crippen seem like very sick individual. Remains suggesting a horrifically grisly murder would be guaranteed to make headlines. And the case didn’t go public until after the remains were found. The fact Scotland Yard was under tremendous pressure to arrest someone for a heinous crime gives me reason to think that the remains were planted during the final search.

It’s obvious that Crippen was a victim of police misconduct of planting evidence, which not only got him convicted of murder but also got him hanged. I’m not sure how much the death penalty influenced this case in 1910 since it was applied far more often, but a high profile case like Crippen’s does fall prey to errors by the prosecution whether it be police brutality, planting evidence, mistaking the evidence, politics, racial profiling, or what not.

No, this isn’t a bed from Christian Grey’s sex dungeon. This is a bed they use to restrain a prisoner for lethal injection, the most popular method and “humane” execution method in America. This involves strapping a person to this thing, knocking them out, and injecting a bunch of poisons in them. Sounds like a humane way to execute someone? Didn’t think so.

22. There is no such thing as a humane execution. For a long time in history, executions happened all the time and nobody gave a shit whether the methods were humane or not, at least until recent times. In fact, in the olden days, executions were supposed to be agonizing, slow, and cause much suffering as possible. Think of Jesus’s crucifixion and how he suffered a horrifying and tortuous death on a cross. Yes, it’s brutal but that was how most people before recently, thought how executions should be. And they were done in public to scare people straight as well as provide entertainment for the community. The idea that punishment shouldn’t be cruel and unusual is a recent invention. But nowadays, we tend to struggle with not having cruel and unusual punishment when it comes to the death penalty since it involves killing someone. Since the idea that capital punishment hast to be “humane” there have been execution methods consisting of hanging, electrocution, gas chambers, firing squad, lethal injection, and what not. Now we’re well aware that the gas chambers were used by the Nazis to kill Jews in their concentration camps. Still, when you see some of these methods on TV or movies, they don’t seem anywhere near humane. I mean does being shot by firing squad seem like a quick and painless way to die? Not how I see it. Or what about having a ton of volts pumped into your head? Me neither. Or what about being injected with poison? Didn’t think so. Besides, it’s said that most lethal injections tend to be botched at a higher rate than most 19th century methods.

Another popular execution method in the US is the electric chair where a prisoner is strapped to a chair like this and is electrocuted. Let’s just say if the electric chair doesn’t seem humane on The Green Mile, then it’s probably not in real life.

23. The death penalty expresses the absolute power of the state; abolition of this penalty is a much-needed limit on governmental power. Governments may not be perfect and the criminal justice system may make mistakes as well as commit their share of injustices. In some ways giving governments the power to kill somebody is too much. And it doesn’t help that many governments have and still do abuse this. Many of these governments are dictatorships that have executed people for dissent and who knows what else. But not even liberal democracies are exempt from this either. The US criminal justice system struggles with issues pertaining to incompetence, perjury, police brutality, and wrongful convictions. Do you want a government like that to decide whether a person lives or dies? The US constitution doesn’t forbid the death penalty nor does it mandate its use either. Congress is free to abolish it at the federal level and so would the states.

Although most Americans still support the death penalty, support has considerably declined in recent years while opposition has grown. At the government level, more states have voted to abolish it due to costs. Not only that, but most violent criminals are usually sentenced to life in prison anyway.

24. The death penalty has recently fallen out of favor, even in the United States. For a long time in history, the capital punishment was usually the only punishment for violent crimes. But as our societies evolved and realized that we could just imprison violent criminals instead of killing them, the death penalty has been applied less and less (except in dictatorships). Not only that, but as many as 139 countries have abolished it throughout the world. In the US, a death penalty case happens so seldom that one is bound to grab headlines, which adds to many violent criminals gaining undeserved publicity. Not to mention, while most Americans still support capital punishment, opposition has increased and as of 2015, 18 states have now abolished it. 6 of them have abolished it within the last decade. Out of the states that do, some haven’t had anybody executed in years. Hell, I can’t remember the last time Pennsylvania had anyone executed. Besides, most death row inmates usually die of natural causes before their execution date.

25. The severity of the crime plays no role in determining whether a defendant gets executed. Many supporters argue that the death penalty is supposed to be only applied to the worst crimes and the most vile offenders. However, most death sentences are determined on location, politics, socioeconomics, race, jury make up, quality of legal counsel, and whether or not the prosecutor decides to pursue it. Yes, I’m aware that death row inmates are generally not nice people. However, we should be aware that some of the most heinous murders don’t result in death sentences while some less heinous crimes are punished by death with co-defendants charged with the same and consistently receiving disparate sentences. Some of the worst of the worst like serial killers, gang kingpins and the like, are often spared the death penalty since prosecutors rely on their cooperation to help law enforcement close related cases. Nevertheless, such structures and biases in our society can make it impossible to limit the death penalty to some of the most heinous crimes by the most hardened criminals.

Yes, it’s long past due to end the death penalty. And I have to agree that capital punishment doesn’t help crime, doesn’t prevent prison overcrowding, is expensive, and can never be humane. Let’s just say the United States would be better off if we got rid of it. And no, I don’t give a shit about what the people in Texas think about it.

Worst Arguments for Not Enacting Gun Control

Posted by historymaniacmegan on September 18, 2015

Disclaimer: The following might contain a lot of highly controversial political views about an issue that many Americans have strong opinions about. It runs a high risk of inciting outrage, anger, trolling, and hostile retaliation. Viewer discretion is advised.

As a Catholic liberal, I’ve been a long advocate for gun control. I’ve was nine years old during Columbine which was one of many mass shootings in the United States I’ve seen on the news. Not to mention, the fact so many people have been killed, injured, or scarred for life due to gun violence has cost taxpayers at least $100 billion annually as well as become a major public health concern. So I’m fully aware that certain gun control measures are badly needed and a lot of Americans would agree with me. And it’s not just liberals since we have to remember that the late James Brady was an official for the Reagan administration. Yes, the late great conservative Ronald Reagan whose fiscal conservative policies led him to raise taxes, had something to do with the Iran Contra scandal, as well as had an openly gay son whom he freely accepted. But despite the urgent need for gun control I should not have to remind anyone about, GOP and NRA interests have made sure that their Second Amendment rights are protected at all costs. Even if it leads to a lot of innocent lives being slaughtered, high health costs, full emergency rooms, and an overworked criminal justice system. Not only that, but many states have passed gun laws that Americans don’t need, but also make this problem worse. Yes, I know that gun control is a highly contentious issue. But come on, do I really give a shit about gun rights? Now I’m fine with people owning guns as long as they’re law abiding citizens who don’t have personal issues that might endanger others. But do I think anyone has the right to own an AK-47 with a 30 round magazine? Absolutely not. Why? Because I can’t think of any reason why a civilian might need it save maybe in an event of an alien or zombie invasion. Here I list many of the arguments gun rights advocates make when it comes to doing nothing to necessary gun control.

“Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” – This is the most common argument gun rights people make in regards to gun violence. It basically says that people are responsible for their own actions and what they do with guns doesn’t mean that we have to enact any gun control. Yes, people kill people. However, guns are weapons specifically made to kill people with firearms technology designing weapons to kill as many people as possible. Thus, when it comes to killing people, guns are usually the weapon of choice. And most criminals will use other weapons when they can’t get a gun. Firearms were intended to kill people from the very beginning. To make a gun that doesn’t kill would be like removing a gun’s reason to exist. Yes, people kill people. But guns kill since it’s their point. Besides, when a gun is used incorrectly, someone or something doesn’t get shot. Let’s just say that we can’t talk about gun violence without acknowledging what guns are actually used for.

This is a diagram stating how gun laws would be if they were regulated like cars. Not that in the US it’s harder to get a driver’s license than it is to buy a gun depending on your jurisdiction.

2. “________ kill people, too. You want to outlaw that?” – Gun rights activists love to point out how so many other things tend to kill people as well. Cars and alcohol are usually the most prominent examples. I’m well aware that cars kill more people than guns each year. However, in the US, it’s said to be more difficult to obtain a driver’s license than a firearm. Besides, we have a lot of regulations on cars like seat belts, speed limits, license and insurance requirements, and bans on drunk driving. If you cause an accident resulting in fatalities, you might do time for manslaughter. If you’re caught driving drunk, you might spend time in jail or lose your license. Besides, most people use cars for transportation, not to kill people. We also have regulations on alcohol and tobacco. Not only that, but there are plenty of things that could kill people but also fulfill other purposes like chainsaws and knives for instance. Guns, on the other hand, exist for one function which is to kill. And firearms technology has advanced in order to kill more efficiently, particularly people. I mean why was the AK-47 even invented in the first place? As for outlawing them, it’s highly unlikely that would even happen. Oh, by the way, the US has more gun stores than grocery stores, which is incredibly disturbing if you ask me.

3. “Guns save lives.” – Now there are plenty of stories pertaining to defensive gun uses. However, most of these usually exist in the mind of Hollywood screenwriters hired to write an R-rated action movie. A study in 1993 determined that there were 2.5 million defensive gun uses every year. This involved calling 4,977 people across the country, asking them a few gun questions and adjusting the number to fit the population of the whole nation. Now the 2.5 million number is highly cited and highly disputed. However, this number doesn’t translate to “lives saved thanks to guns.” In fact, they refer to guns being involved in the presumed person or thing’s protection. This can apply to life-threatening situations pertaining to people who were in actual danger as well as to people like George Zimmerman. So to say whether guns save lives is a mixed bag. Sometimes gun use might kill a criminal or stop a crime. Other times, gun use will fuck up everything. Nevertheless, there’s nothing defensive about gun use since it’s meant to attack and always will. Defense is protection such as a security system, mace, or a bullet proof vest. But whether guns save lives, it’s fairly hard to say at least when it involves civilian gun owners.

4. “Well, the Second Amendment says……” – Gun rights activists love to cite the Second Amendment which actually says, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Now there’s a lot of debate about what it actually means. Some people think it pertains to individual gun ownership. Others think it refers to people in a militia. Still, either way, asking the Founding Fathers their opinion of contemporary American gun culture would be like asking Pope Francis on what he thinks about NFL football (then again he probably knows it’s not “football” as he knows it but not much else). To the Founding Fathers, the only guns available were single shot muskets which had a more complex loading process and weren’t very accurate. I mean the American Revolution gave rise to the term “minuteman” meaning a Continental soldier who was ready to fire at a minute’s notice. Then you have the saying “don’t fire until you see the whites of their eyes,” meaning “don’t shoot until they’re close enough for a sure hit.” Weapons that fire multiple times without reloading didn’t come until the mid-19th century with the American Civil War. Besides, we all know that some of the Founding Fathers also thought slavery was an economic necessity and they weren’t right about that. So maybe relying on them for gun issues isn’t the best idea.

While gun rights activists continually say that “an armed society is a polite society,” we should all learn from the impact of “Stand Your Ground” laws that this isn’t the case at all. I mean look what happened to Trayvon Martin. He was just a teenager minding his own business but gets shot anyway. So much for a polite society.

5. “An armed society is a polite society.” – Gun rights activists like to use this argument which states that people with guns encourage others not to mess with them. Sort of like a “scared straight” approach in which a lethal threat or fear of untimely death can be used to keep people in line, deterring prospective criminals. And through such, an armed society will ensure lasting peace and security within a community. However, this notion ignores a lot of things about human nature, especially when it pertains to gun violence. For one, you never know what can set somebody off to view you with suspicion as a possible threat to their lives despite all evidence to the contrary. In other words, the trigger could be just about anything. Second, some people are easier to piss off than others and for very trivial reasons. Yes, an armed society might scare people from insulting or offending gun owners. However, you can easily insult or offend somebody even if you have no intention to. Third, people have been killed for very stupid reasons, especially in states under “Stand Your Ground” laws. Trayvon Martin was just an unarmed teenager minding his own business when George Zimmerman picked a fight with before shooting him dead. A retired cop shot a unarmed man in a movie theater for allegedly throwing popcorn in his face. Another guy shot a bunch of unarmed teenagers for playing their music too loud near a gas station (and after they turned down the music as he requested). Fourth, armed societies don’t protect or respect the rights of non-gun owners as well as vulnerable populations that might be viewed with suspicion. And these “Stand Your Ground” laws demonstrate this, especially since Florida’s mostly benefits white gun owners charged with shooting racial minority victims. Finally, sometimes the consequences don’t discourage people from committing crimes. In fact, some criminals might be fully aware of implications but choose to break the law anyway. For instance, an armed society wouldn’t deter anyone in the drug gangs on The Wire, because they practically live in one as a business environment. They know they’re criminals and commit their crimes fully knowing what’ll happen to them if they piss off their superiors or their enemies. And it could pertain to almost anything. Such notions give me serious doubts on whether an armed society is a polite one after all. To me, living in an armed society is more of a “walking on eggshells society” in which you have to be in public every day of your life afraid of committing the slightest offense that might give a stranger a reason to shoot you. This is not the kind of society I want to live in because scaring people straight by threatening their lives is no recipe for lasting peace and security and more of constant tense and tenuous standoff between warring parties. I’d prefer to live in a gun-free zone any day.

6. “Guns aren’t the problem. Our poor mental health system is the problem.” – Yes, our mental health system needs reform. But many gun rights activists think that reforming our mental health system might make all out mass shooting problems go away. However, they overlook two major things. First, like the general population, most mentally ill people are harmless. Second, while some mass shooters might have a mental illness, most do not. Third, they fail to take into account other factors play into the gun violence issue besides a poor mental health system like poverty, drugs, and gang activity in bad neighborhoods. In many ways, guns give people a sense of power and in the wrong hands it’s a deadly combination. Thus, even if the US mental health system is reformed and improved, there are other factors pertaining to gun violence that we have to deal with. Even if better mental health systems do prevent mass shootings, gun violence will still be a problem. Besides, as gun violence is concerned, mass shootings are only the tip of the iceberg since it’s a multifaceted problem with multifaceted solutions. And part of the solution is tighter enforcement and tighter regulation.

Opponents of gun control love to point out how Chicago has a very bad problem with violence despite its tight gun laws. However, little do they know that Chicago’s gun problems have more to do with its laws being at city level, lack of stronger national gun laws, and geography. Besides, it was later found out that most firearms involved in Chicago gun crimes were legally bought in Indiana.

7. “But gun control won’t stop criminals from getting guns and committing crimes.” – Yes, but that’s like saying that enacting laws isn’t worth it because they won’t stop people from committing crimes. But such laws against crimes help ensure people’s safety or they wouldn’t be on the books in the first place. Nor would we have punishments for breaking them either. So yes, they’re worth it. Then there’s the matter with how gun rights activists point out how Chicago has more violent crimes than Houston. Now since Chicago has tight gun laws and Houston doesn’t, then gun control isn’t very effective. However, they don’t note how US gun laws aren’t uniform between or within states and are rather inadequate at the national level. Take Chicago’s problems with gun violence for instance. Now while the city itself might have tight gun laws, the rest of Illinois does not and neither does Indiana. It was later found that many of Chicago’s guns come from surrounding areas like Indiana. Why? Because lack of a uniform gun laws allows firearms to travel from loose law areas to tight law areas. Weak national gun laws make it inadequate to crack down on illegal firearms circulation with most gun violence occurring with such weapons. Such weak national laws undermine attempts at gun control everywhere. Thus, any form of gun control Chicago implements will be ineffective not because of the laws themselves, but because Chicago has no legal authority to regulate firearm circulation outside its limits.

8. “Guns aren’t the problem. Exposure to violent entertainment is the problem.” – I’m well aware that violence in entertainment is endemic in our culture whether it be movies, TV, video games, and other media. However, while violence in the media might make viewers somewhat less sensitive to what goes on in real life, most of the time it doesn’t lead people into committing violent crimes. Yes, the US has a lot of violence in the media which appeals to a wide range of people. But most industrialized countries also consume a lot of violent media as well. Yes, I know that they watch and play the same violent stuff Americans do. But they also produce a lot of violent stuff of their own. Japan is known to produce a lot of violent movies and video games. Audition and Battle Royale are Japanese movies famous for their gore. But they have a lot movies featuring samurai and Godzilla. Oh, and they’re home to Nintendo and Sony, by the way. Great Britain produces a lot of murder mysteries and crime shows. Of course, you’d expect that in a country which produced Arthur Conan Doyle and Agatha Christie. But many recent British crime shows have death counts of 1-4 victims per episode. A British show called Midsomer Murders has a higher body count than The Wire. Sweden brought us series like The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and Wallander both of which are disturbingly dark, violent, and gory. And then there is the Spanish Pan’s Labyrinth which has some cold blooded torture scenes that would make Jack Bauer wet his pants. Now if violent entertainment led to violent crime, these four countries would be in very deep shit. However, none of them have the level of gun violence prevalent in the United States. So the argument that exposure to violent entertainment encourages violent behavior is weak. Well, Britain may have a higher violent crime rate than the US but its gun crime rate is low. But even so, Britain still experiences far less murders than its crime shows depict, particularly the ridiculously violent Midsomer Murders.

This is a handy infographic explaining the nature of gun violence. And yes, it goes to great lengths to say that it’s definitely about the guns. Yes, it’s a cultural thing but we can’t really dismiss guns from the equation.

9. “Other weapons are just as bad.” – Yes, I get that guns aren’t the only weapons that kill people. I’m aware that people die of stab wounds, strangling, bludgeoning, poisoning, or what not. And I know that terrorists could make their own bombs. However, these methods usually take a certain amount of effort to kill somebody. Stabbing, strangling, bludgeoning, and other physical means usually take a certain amount of physical effort and sometimes knowledge of the anatomy. And many of them aren’t always lethal, especially if victims seek proper medical treatment as soon as possible. Poisoning somebody tends to take some degree of planning and preparation as well as has a great potential to backfire in many ways. Murders via poisoning are almost always considered premeditated, especially when the poison can be traced to the source. As for making a bomb, well, you have to pose some degree of knowledge in explosives and chemistry as well as produce it without attracting suspicion. And let’s just say building a bomb without attracting suspicion is a very difficult thing to do if you live within civilization. Besides, even making a bomb would lead to a quick arrest and a long jail sentence. When it comes to killing somebody with a gun, all you have to do is aim and pull the trigger. And even if shooting doesn’t always kill, it will at least send the victim to the emergency room with wounds that might not be easily treatable. The fact guns are deadly weapons even idiots can operate explains why so many people get killed by them.

10. “The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” – Just because such concept works in Hollywood doesn’t mean it’ll work in real life. But after the Sandy Hook shooting, there was a call by gun rights activists for armed guards in schools as well as possibly arming the teachers. However, they didn’t consider the fact that Columbine High School had an armed guard in 1999 and Virginia Tech has its own campus police force. And we know that neither case had these good guys stopping the shooter. And during the mass shooting in Tucson, Arizona, an armed man nearly shot the unarmed individual who disarmed Jared Loughner when he was reloading. Not to mention, shouting “fire” in a crowded theater is a classic example of endangering others and it’s possible that more people would’ve been killed in that movie theater in Aurora if more people had guns. We should understand that the gun lobby has a vigilante mentality and their supporters usually view the “good guy with a gun” as themselves. But despite what you see in the media, vigilantes might take the law in their own hands on how they interpret it (which might depend on their own agenda). And they may claim to justify their actions as a fulfillment to the community’s wishes. But this doesn’t make vigilantes good people you’d want around during a mass shooting. In fact, it’s understandable why law enforcement loathes vigilantism and why it’s illegal under most circumstances.

11. “Gun control hurts law abiding gun owners.” – Of course, you hear this argument all the time from the pro-gun lobby. However, most gun control measures hardly ever apply to law abiding citizens. And even so, the worst thing law abiding gun owners would be subjected to under tougher gun laws would consist of a background checks and other bureaucratic inconveniences. But other than that, as long as gun owners obey the law and don’t pose a danger to others, it’s very unlikely that gun control will hurt their rights. Under gun control, the people most likely to have their guns taken away are criminals. Besides, gun violence hurts victims, their families, and survivors every day of their lives. Don’t their lives matter, too?

In recent years, the belief that widespread gun ownership as a defense against a tyrannical government has been an alluring idea among Americans. However, this has led to some right wing loons to form citizen militias to defend themselves against government intrusion. As if they’d even have a chance if they’d really have a chance of staging a successful uprising (not).

12. “But we need guns to protect ourselves against a tyrannical government.” – Government corruption is nothing new that even the Founding Fathers understood it that they came up with checks and balances. Competition between branches in the bureaucracy has assured that no one person or group became powerful. Now the US government has a total of 456 reported federal agencies, all with their own bureaucracy. Despite what small government minded Republicans might say, the size of the government is actually a check rather than a sign of it. And as government grows, so do the regulations and bureaucracy. More bureaucracy means more people. More people means more competition. And competition within government means security. We also have to account that the American political culture is deeply rooted in a 200 year tradition with democracy. And Americans tend to be extremely wary of government infringing on individual liberty which is traced back to the American Revolution. So as far as the US is concerned, there is absolutely no way in our system for one person or party to consolidate power. Now the paranoia that the government’s going to take people’s guns away and the president becoming a tyrant is said to be reminiscent of the Republican Party’s Southern Strategy. In other words, it’s simply right-wing propaganda meant to instill fear. Such paranoia has increased since Barack Obama’s election even though Obama isn’t the first president to support gun control measures (despite having the strongest excuse to do so) and is only different from his predecessors in one superficial way (being black).

The open carry movement is one where people openly carry guns into public places as a way of “exercising their rights.” Of course, they also manage to scare the hell of reasonable people. Yes, they’re probably loons.

13. “Carrying a gun makes you safe.” – Well, it’s possible that carrying a gun might make you feel safe, but that doesn’t mean other people will. Unless you wear a badge or in a uniform, then carrying a gun in public will make people suspect that you’re a dangerous criminal, an outright loon, or both. If you’re a young man who’s black, Latino, or of Middle Eastern/South Asian descent, then carrying a gun in public will make people suspect the former and possibly call the cops on you due to widespread racial profiling in the US. Seriously, if it was Trayvon Martin shooting George Zimmerman, “Stand Your Ground” would’ve not have gotten him out of a prison sentence. Many gun rights activists think carrying a gun around will make them able to defend themselves and others (a vigilante complex if you will). However, there is no credible evidence that the carrying loaded weapons decreases crime. And studies supporting this notion have been frequently debunked by a range of academic researchers. But that doesn’t stop states from implementing “Stand Your Ground” laws in recent years, which state that civilians can shoot without a duty to retreat, even in public places. Those in the gun lobby states that such laws are needed to decrease crime. But these laws are mostly based on the gun lobby’s vigilante mentality. Researchers at Texas A&M say otherwise.

Contrary to what the gun lobby says, self-defense is rare during crimes. And it’s especially less common for a person to defend oneself with a gun. Not only that, but this chart from the Bureau of Statistics and the National Crime Victimization Society reveal that most property crime victims weren’t even present at the time.

14. “Having a gun at home makes you safe.” – Studies show that a gun in the home is more likely to be used to commit suicide or to threaten and/or kill an intimate than to defend against an attacker. There’s also a chance for accidents which most gun owners are familiar with. Not to mention, leaving a loaded gun out in the open is one of the most irresponsible things a gun owner can do. It’s a recipe for disaster. This is especially true in a home with small children. There’s a reason why you find stuff on gun safety. But you hear a lot from the gun lobby stating how having a gun might help protect you and your family during a home invasion. However, what they get wrong is that home invasions are rare and usually occur when the either residents aren’t home or sleeping. Because they’re mostly robberies. Now a home invasion might be a traumatic experience but the chances of one resulting in homicide are rare. Why? Because burglars want to avoid contact during home break-ins and try to steal stuff as quickly and quietly as possible. Make any noise to wake up the family or the neighborhood and they’re screwed. Still, most people are usually killed or attacked by somebody they know which is why most home homicides usually pertain to family disputes or domestic violence.

In the United States, women are more likely to be killed by someone they know, particularly a current or ex-significant other. A woman runs an even greater risk of being killed if she’s in an abusive relationship with an intimate partner, especially if there’s a gun in the house. Therefore, most of the time having a gun for self-defense will not help her.

15. “Guns make women safe.” – I know there are plenty of gun rights activists who say this since women aren’t as physically strong as men. However, a woman’s safety has less to do with whether or not she has a gun in the house than the quality of her relationships. This is especially true when it pertains to intimate partners such as husbands, boyfriends, fiances, and what not. Besides, when gun rights supporters say this, they’re usually referring to women being attacked and/or killed by strangers. But most violent crimes involving women usually pertain to people they know whether they be victims or perpetrators, especially intimate partners. And they’re almost always linked to domestic abuse. Now it’s one thing for a woman to have gun to protect herself on the street against a possible violent stranger. But if you’re a woman living with an abusive partner, owning a gun won’t help your case because that person will try to control you through any means necessary. Besides, when you’re living with someone, it’s much more difficult to keep certain things to yourself, especially if you’re in an intimate relationship with them. Guns are among these things. Your abuser will find that gun and will somehow gain access to it. And there’s a strong chance that they might use it to kill you. After all, in 2010, women were 6 times more likely to be shot by their husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than by male strangers. And if a woman’s domestic abuser has access to a gun, she’s more than 5 times likely to be killed by them. It should surprise nobody that there have been calls for implementing gun laws restricting firearms access to spousal abusers. Not to mention, even if a woman successfully shoots her abuser in an effort to defend herself, this doesn’t mean that she’s out of the woods yet. We have to be remember that there are plenty of women in prison for killing their abusers, too, especially if they’re poor women of color. So if you have a little girl, you should probably spend less time teaching her how to shoot and perhaps teach her how to spot a potential domestic abuser and how to get out of it before it gets more serious. Because she’ll be more safe if she’s willing to dump a guy who’s been nasty to the waiter.

This is a diagram on how gun trafficking works in the United States. Because 40% of all gun transfers don’t require background check, this allows criminals to legally purchase weapons through hiring people with clean records to buy the guns for them, one-on-one pass offs, gun shows, and black market transactions. Not to mention, it’s not unusual for some criminals to buy guns in areas with looser gun restrictions as well.

16. “We don’t need more gun laws. We just need to enforce the ones we have.” – Yes, we do need to enforce the laws we already have and even law enforcement agrees. But even law enforcement believes that stronger enforcement without stronger gun laws isn’t enough. Remember that most mass shooting victims were killed with legally purchased weapons such as military style assault weapons with high capacity magazines. Many existing gun laws at the federal level are riddled with loopholes and gaps. And federal enforcement action has been constantly hampered thanks to gun lobby efforts that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives is now under-funded and without permanent leadership. Not to mention, 40% of all legal gun transfers don’t require background checks.

17. “Gun control won’t stop gun violence.” – I’m very well aware of that. However, while there have been more mass shootings than there used to be, they’re still relatively rare and very unlikely to happen in most American neighborhoods. Nevertheless, while gun control measures may not be 100% effective, that doesn’t mean they don’t work. Take gun-free zones, for instance. Yes, I know they’ve been sites of plenty mass shootings, but they don’t happen every day. But gun-free zones are everywhere and have rather wide appeal not just among public and civil establishments as well as churches, but also among businesses. Why? Because most people generally don’t like being around guns in public since they don’t feel safe around civilians carrying firearms (law enforcement is a different story at least in the US since they are supposed to know what they’re doing). Guns in public make people very uncomfortable, sometimes to the point of calling the police. Why? Because most people are fully aware that guns are dangerous and can kill people. A stranger with a deadly weapon is often feared, especially civilians whose natures may be unpredictable. And all the mass shootings, armed robberies, and other armed incidents on the news kind of reinforce that fear. So instead of trying to determine which civilians can openly carry a gun, it’s much easier to ban all civilians from carrying guns on the public premises. And even when guns aren’t banned, the gun-free zone mentality still manifests in our social mores. So any open carry activist “exercising their rights” will be viewed as threat no matter whether the establishment permits guns or not. While they might not work all the time, gun-free zones are very effective policy since it prevents an unsafe situation involving lots of people with loaded guns. Besides, unarmed civilians have survived mass shootings and other incidents involving gun violence. The point is that despite gun-free zones being scenes of mass shootings, the practice of banning guns in public places isn’t going away because it’s a policy that’s effective, popular, and smart.

This is a chart from a Catholic magazine from Philadelphia. But though it doesn’t have the same poll results I wrote down, it does show that a sizable chunk of the American public support some gun control. Not to mention most Americans don’t want guns in school, church, or in government buildings.

18. “Americans don’t want meaningful gun reform.” – Here in America, you’d be surprised how many issues people viciously fight about that they secretly agree on. Now gun control is a highly contentious issue in American politics as well as polarized among party lines (mostly because the NRA bankrolls a lot of Republican politicians. Not to mention, that the gun lobby tends to run propaganda with an appeal to fear). However, the Joyce Foundation has noted that various public opinion polls show that Americans overwhelmingly support specific gun policy solutions. 92% of Americans support requiring universal background checks on all potential gun buyers while 63% support banning assault weapons. 74% of NRA members also support universal background checks as well.

19. “Guns are essential for self-defense.” – Reports on mass shootings and other violent crimes have led many to believe that fighting crime requires to fight fire with fire. However, according to the Violence Policy Center (based on data by the FBI and the Bureau of Statistics), there were only 258 justifiable homicides involving civilian gun use in 2012. Compare this to 8,342 criminal homicides and 22,000 suicides and accidental shootings. In 2011, nearly 10 times more people were shot and killed during arguments than by civilians trying to stop a crime. Sorry, but the numbers don’t lie. I also hear from many that a mass shooting would’ve been prevented if somebody had a gun on them. However, they forget that whenever you’re in a mass shooting situation, armed civilian confrontation with the shooter is generally not recommended. Rather it’s best advised that you call the cops and let them confront the perpetrator. In the meantime, you’re better off either trying to escape, hiding, or playing dead until the cops show up. Trying to confront the shooter is a quick way to get shot (as well as should only be done as a last resort). And if you use a gun, you might risk endangering others in the process.

Many people think that trained armed guards would be able to prevent mass shootings since many take place in gun-free zones. However, they tend to forget about the mass shooting at Fort Hood. Still, gun-free zones may not prevent another tragedy, but I’ll take my chances with them than in an armed society.

20. “Switzerland and Israel seem to do okay without gun control.” – Gun rights advocates like to think that Switzerland and Israel to prove that gun control doesn’t make much difference. However, while both countries have a tradition of military service, they also limit firearm ownership and require a permit renewal 1-4 times annually. That may not be as restrictive as other countries, but it’s still gun control. So saying they do okay without gun control resoundingly false.

21. “Other countries are different.” – Yes, US history may differ from those of other countries. And yes, the US might contain American cultural exceptionalism, pioneer spirit, and a history of racial tension. However, having a violent national history is actually the norm among most nation states. Seriously, you’d be hard pressed to find a country that hasn’t experienced some degree of conflict or civil unrest in its past. And there are plenty of countries that have existed in the world longer than the US. Far longer, in fact. Let’s just say world history has no shortage of violent incidents and that people would kill each other on just about anything. And just because many industrialized nations have strict gun laws, doesn’t mean violent crime is non-existent. It just that their violent criminals are less likely to use guns, which results in less people getting killed.

Many people who think American gun violence has to do with illegal immigration are dead wrong. In fact, most of the guns used by Mexican drug cartels were American made. So it’s American guns being trafficked into Mexico.

22. “US borders are too open.” – For God’s sake, undocumented immigrants aren’t the problem in the gun debate. Besides, it’s hard to imagine it would be easy for criminals to obtain weapons that had to be smuggled through ports, airports, or across the Mexican border. Besides, most illegal gun trafficking in the US is within the country itself that most American criminals wouldn’t see the need for importing guns from Mexico. Why would a Chicago gangster go through the trouble of smuggling guns through the Mexican border when he could easily buy one legally in Indiana? It’s just within driving distance and inspections by US Customs are virtually nonexistent. It’s also significantly cheaper. Besides, a lot violence in the world is conducted by American weapons. Seriously, think of all the guns the US has sold to the Middle East and look what happened there. So it wouldn’t make much sense for any American criminals would smuggle guns into the US, especially since Texas lies along most of the Rio Grande. If anything, it would more likely be Latin American drug cartels smuggling weapon across the Mexican border from Texas, which contributes to another problem entirely. Well, at least as far as the US is concerned.

23. “School shootings are a national epidemic.” – I’m aware that a lot of famous mass shootings have taken place in schools like Columbine, Virginia Tech, and Sandy Hook being the most famous. And I’m well aware that the gun lobby has called for school teachers to carry guns, which I think is insane. However, according to FBI crime statistics, the odds of a school shooting in your neck of the woods are statistically rare. More homicides occur in homes, especially if they involve multiple victims. Not to mention, more mass shootings happen in restaurants than in schools. But nobody’s asking the wait staff to carry guns. In fact, it’s said that children are almost 100 times more likely to be murdered outside of school than at school (with odds being 1 in a million). So child gun homicides are more likely attributed to severe family dysfunction (like abuse) than having a classmate who’s a homicidal nutjob. This makes massive school spending on building security seem like a waste in taxpayer money.

This is a good cartoon from Facebook highlighting the ways people can fall victims of gun violence. Many gun rights activists tend to believe that more guns lead to less crime. However, there’s a positive correlation between gun crimes and gun ownership rates.

24. “More guns equal less crime.” – This is a very common argument by gun rights activists, which was given rise by a controversial book by John Lott Jr. called More Guns, Less Crime. It has been debunked by peer review since its publication and Lott has also come under scrutiny for ethics violations regarding his research. Other studies arguing about high rates of gun usage in self defense have also come under scrutiny. The Harvard Injury Control Research Center has determined a positive correlation between gun ownership and violence (especially in impoverished neighborhoods). Since the 1970s both have been in decline though there’s been an uptick in recent years. Nevertheless, since the US has one of the highest gun ownership rates, it’s no surprise that 15 of the 25 worst mass shootings in the last 50 years have happened here. Not only that, but the American South is the most violent region in the country as well as has the highest prevalence of gun carrying. Furthermore, The Johns Hopkins Center For Gun Policy and Research have found that expanding concealed carry laws increase aggravated assaults. So contrary to what the gun lobby says, more guns lead to more crime.

25. “Dictators take away guns from their people and look what they do.” – Gun rights activists love to talk about how dictators like Hitler and Stalin took guns away from their own people before they began committing genocide. However, the notion of Hitler and Stalin taking people’s guns away is historically inaccurate. And if Hitler took any guns from people, they were from groups he wanted to exterminate anyway like Jews and Gypsies. As with everyone else, he actually expanded private gun ownership. But you hear many pro-gun activists say that if the Jews and the Gypsies were armed, there would be no Holocaust. But there is no historical basis of this. If anything, arming them might’ve “hastened their demise” according to SUNY political science chair Robert Spitzer. So how did Hitler gain control and remained in power? Well, we have to concede that prior to World War II, Hitler was extremely popular among the German people and throughout the world. I mean he had to be popular enough to be appointed chancellor by President von Hindenburg in 1932, shortly before the Nazi propaganda machine gained full steam. Of course, he also had Brownshirts beating people up but that’s beside the point. Suggesting that the only thing keeping Hitler in charge was the control of guns exonerates many who truly supported him and helped him gain power in the first place. It’s also very bad history that teaches us a terrible lesson. Same goes for the Bolsheviks in Soviet Russia and the idea that an armed populace would’ve stopped them or Stalin is nothing but a fantasy. Ask any White Russian who knows. Stalin was also extremely popular in his country as well. Nevertheless, we should understand that dictators don’t gain control through taking people’s guns away. They do it through propaganda and ruthlessly suppressing dissent in order to secure lifelong popularity. Besides, there are plenty of Third World dictatorships that break into civil war with both sides carrying AK-47s.

Many gun rights activists may say that legal gun owners don’t commit crimes. However, many criminals buy their weapons at gun shows because they don’t require background checks. So what does that tell you?

26. “Legal gun owners don’t commit crimes.” – Yes, most gun crimes are committed with illegal guns but that’s because in the US, a legally bought gun in Indiana can easily become illegal when sold on the Chicago black market. And federal gun laws are so weak that such acts can go off without a hitch. But even then, the number of legal guns increases and so does the likelihood of a gun falling into the wrong hands. Besides, Mother Jones found that most mass shootings involved legally purchased guns. Also, 40% of legal gun transfers don’t require background checks which makes it easy for criminals legally obtain weapons through hiring people with clean records to buy the guns for them, passing them off one-by-one, gun shows, and black market transactions. Sometimes they can even legally purchase weapons in places with less gun restrictions. Not to mention, there’s a movement to prevent domestic abusers from accessing firearms. And domestic violence is not just a crime, but can also lead to murder, especially if guns are in the picture. So what does that tell you?

27. “Assault weapons aren’t frequently used in crimes.” – Yes, assault weapons aren’t used a lot in crimes since most gun violence is perpetuated by handguns. But whenever an assault weapon is used in an attack, there are 54% more deaths. It’s no surprise that most of the deadliest mass shootings in the US have involved assault weapons like an AR-15. Many tend to use high capacity magazines which allow for higher casualties. Since the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban expired, mass shootings have been on the rise, particularly since 2007.

So if the Second Amendment is absolute, that means I can have my very own fighter jet, right? I mean the gun lobby says Americans have a right to bear arms which shall never be infringed. But they never say anything about my right to own a fighter jet.

28. “The Second Amendment is absolute.” – Really? Well, let me put it to you, constitutional rights aren’t always absolute either. Take the Second Amendment for instance, which gun rights activists say that it gives people a right to own a gun under any circumstance which must be protected. However, “the right to bear arms” can also pertain to owning a weapon. So if Second Amendment rights were absolute, then I should be able to own a tank, a bazooka, a bomber plane, a fighter jet, a hand grenade, a howitzer, an anti-aircraft gun, and all those cool military weapons that I’m sure are illegal for civilian ownership or use. And I’m sure that the Founding Fathers never intended the Second Amendment to give civilians the right to own a cannon either. Strange that gun rights activists don’t campaign for that because authorizing such weapons for civilians would be downright insane (as you can see how the military put an anti-aircraft gun in a civilian’s back yard in 1941). Still, the fact that even law abiding American citizens can’t privately own these weapons for civilian use should demonstrate that gun control is constitutional. Hell, even Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said so himself in Heller v. DC: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

This is a billboard in Illinois that highlights the convoluted ideas of American cultural heritage. One of these is an assault rifle which is a weapon of choice among mass shooters. This is appalling.

29. “Guns are a part of America’s heritage. Gun control is not.” – You tend to see American history in movies as quite violent. But the as gun possession is as old as the country, then so is gun control. During the time of the Founding Fathers, state and federal governments conducted several arms censuses (like officials going door to door to ask now many guns you had and whether they worked). Besides, contrary to what the western movies depict, establishments in the Old West did practice some degree of gun control. For instance, guns were often banned in saloons for very good reason. Not to mention, Tombstone had far stricter gun control during the gunfight at the O.K. Corral than it does today (deterring the number of Old West saloon shootouts which is a very common feature in westerns). Also the US implemented gun control policies to crack down on mob violence during the 1920s, particularly when it came to confiscating Tommy Guns. Thus, to not implement gun control because it’s not part of the American heritage is absurd.

30. “Background checks don’t work.” – Actually background checks do. Since its inception the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) has blocked more than 1.9 million permit applications and gun sales to felons, the seriously mentally ill, drug abusers, and other dangerous people prohibited by federal law from possessing firearms. However, because 40% of gun transfers occur without background checks, more comprehensive gun background checks are needed to curb gun violence and trafficking. Besides, people disobey speed limits all the time. Does that mean we shouldn’t have them?

31. “Gun laws don’t work.” – Actually aside from background checks, other gun control measures work as well. The 1994-2004 Assault Weapons Ban, while riddled with loopholes allowing gun manufacturers to evade, led to a decrease in gun seizures with high capacity magazines by Virginia law enforcement. Seizures spiked after it expired. And mass shootings have been on the rise since assault weapons equipped with high capacity magazines have become the weapons of choice in mass shootings. So despite its faults, the Assault Weapons Ban worked. Not only that, but state laws designed to regulate gun dealers, including regular compliance inspections have been effective in reducing gun trafficking within their jurisdiction.

32. “Gun ownership is on the rise.” – Gun ownership is actually in decline in the US and has been since the 1970s. A vast majority of Americans don’t own firearms. However, those who own guns, own more of them.

33. “It’s more dangerous now than it used to be.” – Of course, crimes stories have a high tendency to get on the news which might make one think that there’s more crime out there than there used to be. And the prevalence of mass shootings has also reinforced that notion. However, since the 1970s, American crime has steadily declined. Gun violence has declined as well. But this doesn’t mean it’s not less of a problem or a public health concern since it kills 30,000 per year.

This is a pro-gun picture depicting how gun-free zones don’t prevent mass shootings and how police don’t stop massacres. However, if you’re in a mass shooting situation, it’s generally recommended you don’t try to confront the shooter with firearms. It’s best advised that you leave the defensive shooting to the police in these circumstances.

34. “Police don’t show up on time and don’t stop massacres.” – A lot of gun rights activists tend to have a dim view of society and claim that every second counts so it’s better to act now. After all, the shooter could kill, escape taking something, or what not. However, while it takes time for police to get to the scene of a crime when called, this doesn’t mean self-defense is the best option. For instance, for civilians, using a gun to confront a mass shooter is generally seen as a very stupid idea. Besides, when it comes to subduing criminals, the police are professionals who’ve been rigorously trained to stop active shooters. Stopping a mass shooter requires extraordinary skills honed under acute duress which most law enforcement officials have. Most civilian gun owners don’t possess such skills, which most gun rights activists like to ignore and think anyone with a gun can stop a mass shooting. However, that’s really not the case since police can stop massacres and do. It’s the civilians who can’t. So if you’re in a mass shooting situation, it’s better to leave the shooting to law enforcement.

35. “To prevent violence we must be able to predict it.” – Now this argument is tied with the idea we can prevent mass shootings if we provide adequate mental health services to high risk individuals. Sorry, but mentally ill people are no more at risk for violent behavior than anyone else. Besides, prevention by prediction isn’t 100% effective because predictions aren’t always accurate. Seriously, just watch your local weather forecast on the news. Chances are the weatherman has been wrong at least some of the time. Same can be said about gun violence, which many people see as a public health issue. Public health programs have dramatically reduced problems like smoking-related deaths and car accidents. Approaching gun violence the same way should be a no brainer. In fact, numerous studies report that school-based counseling and violence prevention programs are very effective at teaching students how to resolve conflict and problems without escalating to violence. Community mental health services oriented toward prevention are also helpful, especially when it pertains to helping larger populations of people in distress.

These are stats on American gun violence I obtained from an infographic. Despite that gun crimes have gone down, only 10% of non-fatal wounds involved guns. And gun suicides are at an all time high.

36. “The NRA represents freedom.” – Sorry, but living in an armed society isn’t my idea of freedom. The big problem with discussing American gun culture these days is that ideology tends to cloud the facts. The NRA spends large amounts of money to skew the debate by telling everyone that the government is coming for your guns (bullshit). And it doesn’t help that the NRA doesn’t represent the interests of most gun owners these days, even their own members. I mean the NRA is famous for opposing all gun legislation while the most of the people it’s supposed to represent support tighter gun laws. And it has supported gun control measures in the past. So why is that? Well, it turns out that the NRA these days represents gun manufacturers on its board of directors’ nominating committee.

37. “Gun control can’t prevent suicides.” – Nearly 2 out of 3 gun deaths are suicides which is a harrowing statistic for most but this helps gun rights activists argue that mental illness is the problem, not guns. However, while restricting gun access can’t stop people from choosing to kill themselves, keeping guns away from mentally ill people can be rather effective. In fact, it’s said that firearms suicide rates are closely correlated with gun ownership as well as gun crimes. So gun control might not prevent suicides, but it might help prevent suicides with guns.

38. “Shooting and hunting are important American cultural activities.” – Yes, I know people use guns for hunting and target practice at gun ranges. However, people don’t use AK-47s and AR-15s to hunt deer and can just as easily shoot a box full of holes with a handgun. Why? Because using a military style assault weapons to hunt is just stupid. Gun control measures don’t necessarily mean outright gun bans altogether. Nor does it mean an end to sports shooting either.

39. “Gun violence is a city problem.” – Gun violence takes many forms. Gun homicides on the streets might account for a lot of city homicides. But there are plenty of gun violence incidents in rural areas as well like gun injuries, suicides, and homicides stemming from family disputes and domestic violence. There’s also a higher rate of gun ownership in rural areas, by the way.

This chart illustrate how much gun violence costs American taxpayers every year. We should also count the fact that many gun victims are poor. Yeah, I really think Second Amendment rights are getting kind of expensive.

40. “Gun control is expensive.” – It’s no surprise that many gun rights activists tend to equate gun control with big government and high spending. However, loose gun laws aren’t as cheap as you make them out to be since they tend to cost billions of taxpayer money each year on medical and legal costs. And it doesn’t help that most gun violence victims and perpetrators tend to live below the poverty line as well as are either uninsured or on public assistance. From how I view it, gun control as a means to prevent violence is probably much cheaper.

Many pro-gun activists say that so many mass shootings happen in gun-free zones because it makes victims defenseless. But the real story is that public venues most likely tend to be gun-free zones. Besides, the Fort Hood shooting has told us that mass shooters don’t give a shit about a public facility’s gun policy anyway.

41. “Local restrictions attract mass shooters.” – You hear this a lot from gun rights activists since many famous mass shootings have taken place in gun-free zones and leaving victims defenseless. However, as I said before, gun-free zones are very effective policy regardless of whether they attract mass shootings or not. Besides, we should be aware that most gun-free zones are public venues used by a lot of people, which attract violence and crime. Because buildings open to the public normally do that explaining why we have gun-free zones in the first place as a safety measure. It’s just an obvious fact. Not only that, but the fact 43 people were shot during the Fort Hood shooting shows that mass shooters don’t give a shit about firearms policy. Seriously, Fort Hood’s status as a military base makes it far from a gun-free zone. I mean the place would have guns everywhere and people trained to use them, including armed guards. But that didn’t prevent 13 people from being killed in the shooting. Mass shooters’ choices of location usually involve other motives, especially if there’s a chance they’ll know any potential victims. For instance, the Fort Hood shooter was a disturbed army psychiatrist who worked there. The shooters at Columbine, Virginia Tech, and Sandy Hook were students there at some point in their lives. We should also account for the fact that most mass shootings involve legally purchased weapons. Besides, despite how pro-gun activists complain about gun-free zones, confronting a mass shooter with a loaded gun is actually a very stupid idea, anyway. Not to mention, just because a place with loose gun laws doesn’t experience a lot of gun violence doesn’t mean it’s not contributing to the problem. After all, look how loose gun laws in Indiana are contributing to gun violence in Chicago.

42. “Now isn’t the time to talk about guns.” – You tend to hear this in the event of almost every mass shooting or major tragedy involving guns. Yes, I know discussing politics isn’t appropriate after a major tragedy. But mass shootings have been on the rise since 2007 and most experts agree that gun violence is a major public health issue that kills 30,000 a year. Furthermore, gun control measures tend to have a lot of support from law enforcement as well as health care workers who specialize in emergency medical care. Besides, we must remember that Aurora and Newtown happened during the same year. A year before that, a US House Representative was shot in the head in Tuscon. So if now’s not the time to talk about gun control, when is?

43. “Criminals won’t consent to background checks.” – Yes, criminals hate background checks because they limit their ability to buy a gun. However, many of them go through them anyway and get blocked just the same. Nevertheless, if a criminal doesn’t want to consent to a background check then they won’t be allowed to buy guns legally. Thus, by closing legal avenues for them to buy guns, they’ll be forced to risk buying illegal weapons, which police can arrest them for. And if a criminal can’t legally buy a gun in one area, they’ll buy it in another with less gun restrictions.

This is former Democratic US Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and her husband astronaut Mark Kelly. In 2011, Giffords was shot in the head by Jared Loughner in her district of Tucson, Arizona. She had to resign her seat to recover from her injuries. She and her husband are now advocates for gun control, not surprisingly.

44. “But politicians send their children to school with armed guards.” – Fox News likes to point out this one to make many politicians who support gun control look like hypocrites. However, we should note that politicians are public officials and their name recognition makes them assassination targets along with their families. Threats against politicians and their children can disrupt public policy and are a very real threat. This is why we have the Secret Service protecting the President of the United States at all times. Besides, the US has had 4 presidents assassinated. We’ve also had a US congresswoman shot in the head in Tucson not too long ago. There’s nothing hypocritical or elitist about having gun-free zones while our leaders have armed guard protection. I mean not everyone can have their own Secret Service protection, so gun-free zones are the next best thing.

45. “Regulations in gun sales are ineffective because there are so many guns out there.” – The reason why there are so many guns out there is because the US has lax gun regulations at the national level. Besides, despite the number of guns in our society, there’s no reason to make the problem worse than it already is. Guns are so plentiful today that criminals don’t keep their guns long since guns used in crimes can be evidently linked to shootings. So criminals just dispose and replace them with clean weapons. Most criminals don’t have a hard time obtaining clean guns if they know where they can buy one. Regulating gun sales at the national level will eventually lead to criminals having to either hold on to their dirty weapons and risk arrest or spend a ton of money to buy a new gun.

Perhaps these lines from Bob Dylan’s “Blowin’ in the Wind” say it best. However, despite what many might say, we need gun control at a national level now. If we don’t act, then more lives will be lost or ruined.

For More:

The Brady has a handy website on state gun laws called Crimm Advisor. Helps explain the illegal gun trafficking situation within the country and why national action is needed. Crimadvisor

Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence: Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence – Gun Law Information Experts

	John A. Fenner on Signs of a Sociopath (with Don…
	judy thompson on The Magnificent Judgment at…
	The Very Naughtiest… on NSFW Elf on the Shelf (a. k. a…
	మానిఫెస్ట్ డెస్టినీ:… on The Indigenous Peoples of Nort…
	The Wonderful World… on The Wonderful World of Flower…

The Lone Girl in a Crowd

The thoughts and perceptions of an aspiring writer on life and the world around her

Tag Archives: Law