All Purpose News and Politics Thread Part IV: The Center Cannot Hold

[worstblogever]

Oooooooooh WBE!!

Well... I'd say that and his current anti-choice fervor, where he's trying to pass a fetal heartbeat bill because "God told him to" are enough to get him the in the queue all right.

[shooshoomanjoe]

Farmers are complaining that they are struggling yet they still support trump. Difficult to feel sorry for them when they still back the man that destroyed their livelihood.

[worstblogever]

Farmers are complaining that they are struggling yet they still support trump. Difficult to feel sorry for them when they still back the man that destroyed their livelihood.

Cracks might be forming in the MidWest in terms of GOP support. House seats flipped in Kansas, and Steve King is the only GOP Congressman left in Iowa. The more he keeps doing stupid s*** with tariffs that they're smart enough to know it's f***ing them, the more they're waking up. The got played, and they're getting wise to the game. It's going to reverberate up and down the ballot in 2020 in those states, where Republicans have held veto-proof majorities and the governor's mansions since the Tea Party Wave.

Meanwhile, it's starting to look like the Mueller Report is going to bleed out Trump in a slow political death of 1,000 cuts. Which, it's only going to last that many because the GOP don't have the balls/integrity to stand up to an incompetent, racist, criminal grifter.

[Mister Mets]

That's the purpose, my dear. A desensitized society is easier to subdue into tyranny.

If there's a tyranny, it's going to be a good thing the populace is armed.

I wonder who will be judged harsher by history: Those that stood by and did nothing when fascism came to the US, those who appeased and normalized fascism, or those who demanded we treat the first two groups with respect and kindness on social media and message boards.

I'm hoping the people judged are harshest are those who were mistaken about fascism coming to the US.

What kills me is why these miserable fuckwads waste time with plausible deniability in the first place. Anyone with two working brain cells to rub together has known for years that the GOP wants to return the country to those grand old days before the Civil Rights Act when whites were at the top of the societal food chain and minorities were so far down to the point of being underground. I mean, seriously, who in the hell would right wingers and conservatives from Trump on down alienate if they came right out and publicly admitted they were racists and white supremacists? Minorities whose votes they weren't going to get anyway? Women? Hell, more than some are onboard with the bigotry themselves. Christians? Shit, they're driving this goddamn train. Republicans hiding their racism when it's already out there for all to see makes no damn sense to me.

Is this really how you see the US?

It's against the law to hire undocumented workers. If law makers really wanted to prevent illegal immigration they would go after businesses that hire illegal immigrants.

How would you go about identifying undocumented immigrants in a way that is so effective employers that fail to use it should face legal repercussions?

There are some additional considerations. Activists for undocumented immigrants aren't going to be happy for any method that makes it easy to determine status. A shadier thing the business community wants would be the ability to pay people under the table which this can be used to undercut. A legitimate concern is that verification methods can be onerous and expensive; what would be the costs in terms of time and money on verification?

You could try to do that, but whenever they've tried that in the past they couldn't come up with any kind of meaningful criteria that weren't explicitly racial. This is why the current system relies on burying applications in red tape and fees, so they can semi-credibly claim that they aren't outright discriminating, but can still favor certain groups in practice.

We could change the per-country ceilings.

I am no lawyer but these documents seem to suggest that the only reason they wanted this question in the census was to be able to disenfranchise minorities especially Hispanics.

I mean the study was done by the guy who they admitted was the one who brought it up to the administration in the first place. By his own daughter.

It clearly outlines the inherent intent to force minority representation down despite the actual population. And strengthen GOP power even against the popular vote.

It isn't surprising but it makes you just wonder why the hell doesn't the GOP try to expand to get these voters? It is so silly. There are minorities they could reach with certain things like religious ideas, if the base wasn't so objectively transparent and hypocritical in their support of trump.

And if there wasn't that core GOP base of racists that would never allow a true integration of minorities. They will always think of them as lesser and try to demonize and keep them down. Sure they will pose with the one off couple of minorities that will stand with them. So they can say I have a friend who is black! "Look at my blacks over there" "Kanye likes me". But, it is all fake

I doubt that the court is going to rule in favor of the idea that only American citizens of voting age count, which is what Hoefeller's study determined. This wouldn't technically have anything to do with subverting popular vote, because it counts voters.

I am curious about the rationale for allowing illegal immigrants to count for census purposes. They are legally speaking, trespassers.
,
There do seem to be many legal questions raised by the material. Part of the basis for the citizenship question on the census does appear to be Hoefeller trying to get material to determine the effects of a census that only counts American citizens of voting age, so this is a knock against that.

[Tendrin]

Yes, Mets. Trump and the GOP surely aren't turning us into fascist, illiberal 'democracy' at /alll/.

You go on and keep up the apologism.

A major Republican redistricting strategist played a role in the Trump administration's push to get a citizenship question on forms for the 2020 census.
Thomas Hofeller, who died last August, concluded in a 2015 report that adding the question would produce the data needed to redraw political maps that would be "advantageous to Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites," according to a court filing released Thursday.

No racism and fascism here, no sir! And hint: non-citizens have been counted since the founding of the constitution... just at the time, most of them only counted about three-eights. The rationale for the rest of it, well, it's been long established.

This is incorrect. The U.S. Constitution requires a census every 10 years of all persons living in the country for the purpose of apportioning seats in the U.S. House of Representatives (Article I, sec. 2, clause 3) among the states. The Constitution explicitly requires an “actual Enumeration” of “all persons,” imposing on the federal government the duty to count the “whole number of persons in each State.” Both Republican and Democratic administrations, through the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), have confirmed unequivocally that the Constitution requires a count of all persons living in the United States on Census Day, regardless of citizenship status.

There is only one reason to change this now and you know what that reason is.

The Trump administration plans to launch a new panel to offer "fresh thinking” on international human rights and “natural law,” a move some activists fear is aimed at narrowing protections for women and members of the LGBT community.
The new body, to be called the Commission on Unalienable Rights, will advise Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, according to a notice the State Department quietly published Thursday on the Federal Register.

We all know what 'natural law' means. Don't try to pretend otherwise.

It was cute when people like you and 30 tried to argue that Trump was a 'social liberal' because 'New York', and yet, here we have flagrant disregard for the rights of minorities, especially transgendered people, and here you are /still/ defending the fascist, criminal enterprise that is the GOP, whose members you just had to've read 'joke' about killing gays. All of us see you.

[Mister Mets]

I'm sure you are -- it makes for a nice distraction from the immorality, criminality and blatant dishonesty of the Republican party.

"Good faith" goes both ways when discussing these issues and you know as well as I do that mainstream contemporary Democrats have never attempted to legislate "open borders" in America. You can't prove your assertions with actual facts, so you rely on "inferences" which both of us know are biased, whether you are willing to admit it or not. The fact that you are the only one who even uses such terminology is telling -- it's an obvious conservative talking point, which no one outside of said circles even takes seriously.

Just because you're hung up on dog whistles like "limiting principles" doesn't mean others have to cater to your needs -- there doesn't have to be a "limiting principle" on immigration just because you think it's necessary. Democrats have said what they are "for" repeatedly -- I've even provided links -- and those words aren't "meaningless" especially when backed by actual legislation.

It's the Republican party that is known for lying, Mets (immigration, deficit spending, voter fraud, birtherism, etc) -- not the Democrats.



And you're right -- I don't have any "good faith" left to give the Republican party: I saw where that got Obama and learned from it.

Your argument that Democrats haven't explicitly tried to implement open borders is a bit selective since it order to pull it off you would need full control of the federal government, which Democrats have only had for four years.

However, Democratic lawmakers have implemented sanctuary cities policies, so they're doing what they can to make it easier for those who came to the country illegally.

There's a term for a policy of not having a limiting principle on immigration. It's open borders.

We may legitimately be arguing past one another on this because we're at different frames of reference. When I refer to open borders, I'm describing a mechanism by which pretty much anyone who wants to get into the country can get in, with potential bars on people with ties to criminal/ terrorist organizations, but you might have a different definition. You could argue that as long as there are some background checks, it's not actually open borders, even though it would not keep the vast majority of people from getting in.

I get the impression that you think open borders are actually a nice idea, and you're bothered by the center and the right for preventing it from happening, so that's a subtext in the argument. I think there should be clear limits on immigration, and I'm concerned Democrats are heading in a different direction. For you, Democrats are currently not the party of open borders because they're not able to make it official policy yet, and because the party may be divided on it. For me, Democrats are the party of choice for anyone who supports open borders and are not doing enough to establish that those people should go somewhere else if this is a major issue for them (IE- form a third party.)

One thing I've been thinking about how the acceptability of ideas exists on a spectrum.
On one extreme, you've got something that is considered so out of line that no one respectable would agree with it. This would be like the literal reintroduction of slavery.
A bit less extreme is so something deeply unpopular that few respectable figures could advocate for it, but you could understand a decent person coming to this conclusion. An example might be strident atheism, and the belief that religious faith reflects poorly on an individual. No politician will express it.
Further on the spectrum is a position that is unpopular but that a handful of respectable figures will advocate for.
Further on the spectrum is a position that a party is divided on.
Further on the spectrum is a position that a party is united on, but the country is divided on.
Eventually, you'll get to the other extreme of ideas that are so broadly agreed upon that it is anathema to disagree.

Topics do move across the spectrum as the years pass. See gay marriage, late-term abortion or the idea that convicted terrorists should be allowed to vote.

Parties and politicians may sometimes take on positions that are quite unpopular with voters. Sanders probably lost some support with his endorsement of the Boston Marathon Bomber voting. Democrats would probably be kicking Republican ass in the current abortion arguments if it weren't for their defense of late-term abortion.

Open borders is clearly not so extreme that no one respectable disagrees with it, so it's somewhere else on the spectrum.
It seems to me that it's more of an area where Democrats are divided. And that concerns me because it seems like such obviously bad policy.
Democrats could demonstrate that they're united against it by explaining the limits.

[Tendrin]

The idea that criminals shouldn't ever get to vote because the Boston Marathon Bomber when there are lots more locked up, for say, non-violent drug offenses, is kind of laughable.

[4saken1]

The idea that criminals shouldn't ever get to vote because the Boston Marathon Bomber when there are lots more locked up, for say, non-violent drug offenses, is kind of laughable.

When one sees the statistics that show that minorities are incarcerated at a much higher rate and get stiffer sentences than their white counterparts, knowing who they tend to vote for, they can begin to understand the reasons for this.

[Tendrin]

When one sees the statistics that show that minorities are incarcerated at a much higher rate and get stiffer sentences than their white counterparts, knowing who they tend to vote for, they can begin to understand the reasons for this.

Right? Totally just a pure coincidence that just happens to benefit the GOP and not at all part of America's addictrion to be racist af.

[aja_christopher]

Your argument that Democrats haven't explicitly tried to implement open borders is a bit selective since it order to pull it off you would need full control of the federal government, which Democrats have only had for four years.

And your argument that Democrats want "open borders" is completely selective and typically hypocritical in that respect -- again, there is no real push by Democrats for "open borders".

Stop projecting -- I never said I "thought" open borders are a good idea. If you have to make that many assumptions and false allegations to try to prove your point, it says a lot more about your bias than it does my "argument".

The bottom line is that you have a double-standard when it comes to the Republican party -- you want to judge Democrats by what you think they want while repeatedly dodging what Republicans have actually done to destroy our democracy.

[Mister Mets]

The idea that criminals shouldn't ever get to vote because the Boston Marathon Bomber when there are lots more locked up, for say, non-violent drug offenses, is kind of laughable.

Whether it should be easier for ex-cons or even nonviolent convicts to vote is a different argument than whether the Boston Marathon Bomber should get to vote.

And your argument that Democrats want "open borders" is completely selective and typically hypocritical in that respect.

You neglected the rest of my post. And seem to admit that your argument is selective.

Since 1981, Democrats have only had complete control of the Executive and legislative branch for four years. The party has also gotten more radical on immigration since the first two years of the Obama administration.

Yes, Mets. Trump and the GOP surely aren't turning us into fascist, illiberal 'democracy' at /alll/.

You go on and keep up the apologism.



No racism and fascism here, no sir! And hint: non-citizens have been counted since the founding of the constitution... just at the time, most of them only counted about three-eights. The rationale for the rest of it, well, it's been long established.



There is only one reason to change this now and you know what that reason is.



We all know what 'natural law' means. Don't try to pretend otherwise.

It was cute when people like you and 30 tried to argue that Trump was a 'social liberal' because 'New York', and yet, here we have flagrant disregard for the rights of minorities, especially transgendered people, and here you are /still/ defending the fascist, criminal enterprise that is the GOP, whose members you just had to've read 'joke' about killing gays. All of us see you.

What would make the US a "fascist, illiberal 'democracy' "?

What's the criteria that we can examine in a few years to determine if fascism came to the US, or if those who were worried about it were mistaken?

[Tendrin]

Whether it should be easier for ex-cons or even nonviolent convicts to vote is a different argument than whether the Boston Marathon Bomber should get to vote.

No, it's really not. The only reason to talk about the boston marathon bomber is because you want to pretend it's about that and not keeping the rest of the population of prisons from voting. It's ridiculous.

[aja_christopher]

You neglected the rest of my post. And seem to admit that your argument is selective.

I don't "seem" to do anything Mets -- I don't support open borders and trying to paint my arguments as such is just desperation on your part.

What we need is a "limiting principle" on Republican dishonesty, corruption and bigotry - those are far more problematic to our society that false allegations about supporting "open borders".

-----
"An open border is a border that enables free movement of people between jurisdictions with few or no restrictions on movement, that is to say lacking substantive border control."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_border
-----

No prominent Democrat is seriously advocating open borders -- they actually repeatedly propose strengthening the border -- but there's plenty of evidence that the Republican party is advocating a white ethnostate that doesn't believe in LGBT rights or a woman's right to choose, and where Russian interference in our election goes unchecked.



And to be clear these aren't intended to be "cheap shots" at the Republican party -- these are real concerns shared by American citizens who are the ones losing our right to be treated as equals under actual Republican policy.

[aja_christopher]

"Trump Administration Civil and Human Rights Rollbacks -- 2017"

On January 27, Trump signed an executive order – the first version of his Muslim travel ban – that discriminated against Muslims and banned refugees.

On January 31, under new Chairman Ajit Pai’s leadership, the Federal Communications Commission refused to defend critical components of its prison phone rate rules in federal court – rules that were ultimately struck down in June.

On February 3, Trump signed an executive order outlining principles for regulating the U.S. financial system and calling for a 120-day review of existing laws, like the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The order was viewed as Trump’s opening attack on consumer protection laws.

On February 3, the FCC rescinded its 2014 Joint Sales Agreement (JSA) guidance, which had led to the only increase in television diversity in recent years.

On February 3, FCC Chairman Pai revoked the Lifeline Broadband Provider (LBP) designations for nine broadband service providers, reducing the number of providers offering broadband and thus decreasing the competitive forces available to drive down prices.

On February 9, Trump signed three executive orders “to fight crime, gangs, and drugs; restore law and order; and support the dedicated men and women of law enforcement.” The orders, though vague, were viewed suspiciously by civil rights organizations.

On February 21, the Department of Homeland Security issued a memo updating immigration enforcement guidance, massively expanding the number of people subject to detention and deportation. The guidance drastically increased the use of expedited removal and essentially eliminated the priorities for deportation.

On February 22, the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division and the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights jointly rescinded Title IX guidance clarifying protections under the law for transgender students.

On February 23, Attorney General Sessions withdrew an earlier Justice Department memo that set a goal of reducing and ultimately ending the department’s use of private prisons.

On February 27, the Department of Justice dropped the federal government’s longstanding position that a Texas voter ID law under legal challenge was intentionally racially discriminatory, despite having successfully advanced that argument in multiple federal courts. The district court subsequently rejected the position of the Sessions Justice Department and concluded the law was passed with discriminatory intent.

On March 6, Trump signed a revised executive order restricting travel to the United States by citizens of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen and drastically cutting back refugee admissions.

On March 6, a week after Trump called on lawmakers to repeal the Affordable Care Act during his address to Congress, House Republicans released a proposal to replace the ACA with a law that would restructure Medicaid and defund Planned Parenthood.

On March 16, the Trump administration released a budget blueprint that proposed a $54 billion increase in military spending that would come from $54 billion in direct cuts to non-defense programs. The blueprint also proposed spending $4.1 billion through 2018 on the beginnings of construction of a wall through communities on the U.S.-Mexico border.

On March 27, Trump signed a resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act, which repealed a U.S. Department of Education accountability rule finalized last year that would clarify states’ obligations under the Every Student Succeeds Act.

On March 27, Trump signed a resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act, which repealed the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order. The order, signed by President Obama, represented a much-needed step forward in ensuring that the federal contractor community is providing safe and fair workplaces for employees by encouraging compliance with federal labor and civil rights laws, and prohibiting the use of mandatory arbitration of certain disputes.

In a March 31 memo, Sessions ordered a sweeping review of consent decrees with law enforcement agencies relating to police conduct – a crucial tool in the Justice Department’s efforts to ensure constitutional and accountable policing. The department also tried, unsuccessfully, to block a federal court in Baltimore from approving a consent decree between the city and the Baltimore Police Department to rein in discriminatory police practices that the department itself had negotiated over a multi-year period.

On April 13, Trump signed a resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act, which overturned the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ final rule updating the regulations governing the Title X family planning program – a vital source of family planning and related preventive care for low-income, uninsured, and young people across the country.

On April 26, Trump released an outline of a tax reform plan that was viewed largely as a tax giveaway for the wealthy and big corporations.

On April 26, Trump signed an executive order directing Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos to conduct a study on the federal government’s role in education.

On May 4, Trump signed an executive order that he claimed overturned the Johnson Amendment (though it did not), which precludes tax-exempt organizations, including places of worship, from engaging in any political campaign activity and would curtail the contraception mandate of the Affordable Care Act.

On May 11, Trump signed an executive order creating the so-called Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity headed by Vice President Mike Pence and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who has a history of trying to suppress the vote in Kansas.

On May 12, Sessions announced in a two-page memo that DOJ was abandoning its Smart on Crime initiative that had been hailed as a positive step forward in rehabilitating drug users and reducing the enormous costs of warehousing inmates.

On May 23, Trump released his fiscal year 2018 budget that included massive, unnecessary tax cuts for the wealthy and large corporations, which would be paid for by slashing basic living standards for the most vulnerable and by attacking critical programs like Social Security Disability Insurance, Medicaid, food assistance, and more.

On May 23, Trump’s fiscal year 2018 budget proposed eliminating the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) and transferring its functions to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). This would have impeded the work of both the OFCCP and the EEOC as each have distinct missions and expertise, and would have thereby undermined the civil rights protections that employers and workers have relied on for almost 50 years.

On June 5, Trump released an infrastructure plan that focuses on putting public assets into private hands, creating another giveaway to wealthy corporations and millionaires at the expense of working families and communities.

On June 6, Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos testified before a Senate appropriations subcommittee and made unclear statements about whether she would allow federal funds to go to schools that discriminate against LGBTQ students. She made similarly troubling statements when testifying before a House committee in late March.

On June 6, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) issued unclear new instructions on transgender student discrimination.

On June 8, OCR’s acting head sent a memo to OCR staff discouraging systemic investigations in favor of individual investigations of discrimination.

On June 14, DeVos decided to delay implementation of and to renegotiate the Borrower Defense to Repayment and Gainful Employment regulations.

On June 15, the administration rescinded President Obama’s Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) program, an initiative that – had it gone into effect – would have offered a pathway to citizenship for immigrant parents with children who are citizens or residents of the United States."

https://civilrights.org/trump-rollbacks/

[aja_christopher]

(Cont'd -- all of this is just in one year. The link below shows that 2018 and 2019 were equally problematic with regards to rollbacks on civil rights under the Republican party.)

"On June 27, Labor Secretary Acosta requested information on the Obama-era overtime rule, signaling his intent to lower the salary threshold of the overtime rule.

On June 28, the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division sent a letter to 44 states demanding extensive information on how they maintain their voter rolls. This request was made on the same day that President Trump’s so-called Commission on Election Integrity sent letters to all 50 states demanding intrusive and highly sensitive personal data about all registered voters.

On July 26, Trump declared in a series of tweets that he was barring transgender people from serving in the military. He followed through with a presidential memo on August 25, though the issue is still being challenged in the courts.

On July 26, the Department of Justice filed a legal brief arguing that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation – a decision that contravened recent court decisions and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidance.

On August 1, The New York Times reported that the “Trump administration is preparing to redirect resources of the Justice Department’s civil rights division toward investigating and suing universities over affirmative action admissions policies deemed to discriminate against white applicants.” In a move without recent precedent, this investigation and enforcement effort was planned to be run out of the Civil Rights Division’s front office by political appointees, instead of by experienced career staff in the division’s educational opportunities section.

On August 2, Trump announced his support of Republican-backed legislation that would slash legal immigration in half over a decade.

On August 7, the Justice Department filed a brief in the Supreme Court in Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute arguing that it should be easier for states to purge registered voters from their rolls – reversing not only its longstanding legal interpretation, but also the position it had taken in the lower courts in that case.

On August 28, Sessions lifted the Obama administration’s ban on the transfer of some military surplus items to domestic law enforcement – rescinding guidelines that were created in the wake of Ferguson to protect the public from law enforcement misuse of military-grade weapons.

On August 29, the administration halted an EEOC rule that required large companies to disclose what they pay employees by sex, race, and ethnicity – a rule that was intended to remedy the unequal pay that remains rampant in the American workplace.

On September 5, Sessions announced that the administration was rescinding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

On September 7, the Department of Justice filed a brief with the Supreme Court in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission arguing that businesses have a right to discriminate against LGBTQ customers.

On September 15, the Department of Justice ended the Community Oriented Policing Services’ Collaborative Reform Initiative, a Justice Department program that aimed to help build trust between police officers and the communities they serve.

On September 22, DeVos announced that the Department of Education was rescinding guidance related to Title IX and schools’ obligations regarding sexual violence and educational opportunity.

On September 24, Trump issued the third version of his Muslim travel ban which, unlike the previous versions, was of indefinite duration.

On September 27, the Trump administration and Republican leadership in Congress unveiled tax principles that would provide trillions in dollars of unnecessary tax cuts to millionaires, billionaires, and wealthy corporations.

On October 2, DeVos rescinded 72 guidance documents outlining the rights of students with disabilities, though it wasn’t until October 21 until the public learned of the rescissions.

On October 4, the Department of Justice filed a brief in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia asking the court to dismiss a lawsuit against the president’s transgender military ban.

On October 5, Sessions reversed a Justice Department policy which clarified that transgender workers are protected from discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

On October 6, the Department of Justice issued sweeping religious liberty guidance to federal agencies, which will create a license to discriminate against LGBTQ individuals and others.

On October 8, the White House released a list of hard-line immigration principles – a list of demands that included funding a border wall, deporting Central American children seeking sanctuary, and curbing grants to sanctuary cities, effectively stalling any possible bipartisan agreement on a bill to protect Dreamers.

On October 12, Trump signed an executive order to undermine health care and, later that day, announced that he would end subsidies for certain health care plans.

On October 27, the Department of Education announced it was withdrawing nearly 600 policy documents regarding K-12 and higher education.

On November 1, Trump signed a resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act, which repealed the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s rule on forced arbitration. Overturning the rule will enable big banks, payday lenders, and other financial companies to force victims of fraud, discrimination, or other unlawful conduct into a “kangaroo court” process where their claims are decided by hired arbitration firms rather than by judges and juries – harming consumers and undermining civil rights and consumer protection laws.

On November 6, the Trump administration announced it will terminate the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designation for Nicaragua.

On November 16, the Federal Communications Commission voted to gut Lifeline, the program dedicated to bringing phone and internet service within reach for people of color, low-income people, seniors, veterans, and people with disabilities, with particularly egregious consequences for tribal areas. They also voted to eliminate several rules promoting competition and diversity in the broadcast media, undermining ownership chances for women and people of color.

On November 20, the Trump administration announced it would terminate the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designation in 18 months for approximately 59,000 Haitians living in the United States.

On November 24, Trump appointed Mick Mulvaney as acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). As a member of Congress, Mulvaney supported abolishing the consumer bureau and has in the past referred to the CFPB as a “sick, sad” joke.

On December 4, the Department of Labor proposed changing its longstanding position codified in regulation that prohibited employers from pooling together tips and redistributing them to workers who don’t traditionally earn tips.

On December 12, the Department of Justice wrote to acting Census Bureau Director Ron Jarmin requesting a question about citizenship on the 2020 Census. It was an untimely and unnecessarily intrusive request that would destroy any chance for an accurate count, discard years of careful research, and increase costs significantly.

On December 21, it was reported that Sessions rescinded 25 guidance documents, including a letter sent to chief judges and court administrators to help state and local efforts to reform harmful practices of imposing fees and fines on poor people."

https://civilrights.org/trump-rollbacks/