Final Compliance Report - Department Of Public Works: Fill & Download for Free

Judge for yourself based on things that can’t be disputed. For example:1.- Republican members of the house are claiming that the impeachment process was unfair and that democrats did not give Trump due process. But actually, what really has happened is that Democrats in the house did not conduct an impeachment at first, they conducted an INQUIRY, as in “let’s find out if there is any evidence for the accusations to decide if we bring articles of impeachment”. During this inquiry, Republican members of the house DID participate and had access to question witnesses. Nothing shady there. It is actually what has to be done to make the decision based on facts and not just simple accusations. They were conducting this in a secure location to avoid witnesses from influencing each other’s testimony and to avoid witness intimidation, which is pretty normal as well. So, the complaint of “no due process “ is not valid because it was not a trial, it was just fact finding, and the White House could have participated or conducted its own investigation, and the investigation from the House had Republican representation.2.- The Republican defense is that they did not get to call their witnesses. Well, they can’t call the whistleblower and expect him/her to be outed in public view. This is against the whistleblower protections which are necessary for people to be able to come forward when they have evidence or concerns of wrongdoing. Calling the whistleblower to testify and then complain because he/she doesn’t is just a tactic to muddy the waters and have a way to cry foul when they don’t want to admit the truth. The Republicans on the other hand could have called their own witnesses like Bolton, Mulvaney, etc. They not only didn’t, they blocked them from complying with subpoenas. It is clear they had no intention in finding out the truth, or they would have encouraged the witnesses to testify. Even Trump was invited to testify and tell his version of the story, which he chose not to do. They did however complain that they wanted to call Biden and Schiff…. And then they go ahead and complain the Democrats only had second hand witnesses…. Neither Schiff nor Biden were on the call, and they have absolutely no information on this complaint, what can they possibly add to the investigation? This is just an attempt to distract the public through smearing the investigation and Biden, which was Trump’s intention in the first place. Even if we want to believe that Biden did something wrong during Obama’s term and that Schiff was somehow involved in the whistleblower bringing forward the complaint, that still does not make it OK for Trump to hold the aid in exchange for a public smear campaign of Biden from the President of Ukraine, which has been corroborated by all of the witnesses and by Mulvaney, and even by Giuliani… again, this seems like just smoke and mirrors to convince their base of something inmaterial to the accusations.3.- Another argument from the republicans to call this inquiry and impeachment a sham is that all of the information is coming from second hand witnesses. But they are the ones blocking the first hand witnesses (Mulvaney, Bolton, etc.) Also, Sondland is NOT a second hand witness, he had direct contact with Trump. To discredit his testimony as “you just assumed” is really insulting his intelligence. Any reasonable person would have made the same assumptions, if we can’t expect our ambassadors and government officials to read between the lines we are setting a really low bar for their intelligence. Also, it is really insulting to expect the public to buy that argument.4.- When republicans say that the money was withheld legally and for good reasons because of Trump’s concerns for corruption in Ukraine, again that does not match actual facts. Sondland testified that Trump wanted Ukraine’s President to say on a public interview that he was going to investigate the Bidens, and that was enough to release the military aid, and set up an official meeting between the two presidents. This shows that Trump was more interested in a public smear campaign of Biden than in investigating corruption. Now republicans are trying to discredit Sondland’s testimony because if Trump didn’t say directly that he would release the aid and have the meeting if there was a public statement, then it is just Sondland’s wrong interpretation and Trump is innocent of wrongdoing. But the White House was working on setting the interview, they had selected a news channel, and a date. So, their argument is just so obviously false that it really takes a child or a very gullible person to believe it. Also, there are emails that show the aid was held by Trump himself hours after the “do us a favor” call. Trump asked about the status of the aid a month before the call, and only after the call he instructed the aid be withheld. This does not seem to be an honest anti-corruption concern, but that is just MHO.5.- Republicans are also saying that the Democrats have been wanting to impeach Trump since day one. This may be true for some Democrats, but it certainly isn’t true for Pelosi. She resisted bringing a formal impeachment inquiry and articles of impeachment until there was a credible whistleblower complaint that would have been a dereliction of the House’s duties not to launch an investigation to see if the complaint had any merits. She did, and it turned out that several diplomats and government officials corroborated the whistleblower complaint. Most of these diplomats and government officials were appointed by Trump. The White House tried to avoid the investigation of the complaint by not allowing witnesses with first hand knowledge to testify and by not providing the documents requested by the house. This is why one of the articles of impeachment is obstruction of congress. But now republicans are saying, as I explained above, that this is a sham because no witnesses with first hand knowledge had testified, but we know that is because they were blocked by Trump.6.- Republicans are also saying that this is the shortest impeachment in the history of our country, but the investigation has actually been longer than that of Clinton.7.- Republicans are also saying that there is no crime because the aid was finally released, without the need for any investigations or public statement. But they are not mentioning that this was done after the story went public and they realized they had no choice but to release it. Here is why this is important. If Trump was worried about corruption, why release the funds after the story went public? He could have come forward and said, “yes, I am holding the aid until there is credible assurances that there is no more corruption in Ukraine“ or something of that sort. Instead, he just released the aid to avoid the bad optics. Withholding the aid and requesting “a favor” is already wrong, it is basic bribery. It may not be defined as such in criminal law, but it does not have to be. The fact that the scheme ended up not working does not make it any less wrong. Also, it is a fact that Congress conditioned the release of the aid upon Ukraine passing the Department of Defense’s and the State Department’s due diligence tests in terms of anti-corruption efforts. Months before trump’s “perfect telephone call” and his withholding the aid both the Department of Defense and the State Department signed off on releasing the aid certifying that the Ukraine was in compliance with the anti-corruption efforts requirement.8.- Republicans are also saying that there is nothing wrong here because Ukraine‘s President said he didn’t feel pressured. This is just absurd. You are telling the guy “if you don’t play ball with us, we will not give you the support you need against Russia” and now you expect him to come and say publicly that he felt pressured by you? He knows that the consequences of going against this particular POTUS like that are not going to be good. This is just like accusing a victim of rape for not reporting the abuse. This is just how the power dynamics work in human nature. The President of Ukraine was willing to go on public television to say he would open an investigation that he knew was a political hit, just so that he can get the aid, it is safe to assume he is also willing to declare publicly that he felt no pressure.9.- Republicans are also trying to convince us that they had legitimate reasons to try to find out the Biden and Bursima corruption accusations. What they are not mentioning is that their source is a prosecutor from Ukraine named Lutsenko, who they claimed gave Ambassador Yovanovitch a “Do not Prosecute” list, who has since then admitted that he made it all up. Also, it has been reported that Parnas, the guy that Giuliani was using to investigate the Biden and Burisma “corruption “ was actually paid by a Russian oligarch, which would mean that once again the Trump campaign is being speared by Russian efforts to help him get elected, this time to pay for a defamation campaign against his main rival… something of value anyone?10.- McConnell and Graham are saying publicly that there is no chance that Trump will lose this impeachment trial in the senate, already telling the result of the trial. That is the definition of a rigged trial. McConnell also said he will not allow Mulvaney and Bolton to testify, and still will claim that there are no testimonies of first hand witnesses. Just to be clear, the senate is supposed to be an independent branch of government and it should hold the White House in check, instead it is acting as Trump’s personal lawyer.11.- Lastly, it is also a fact that Democrats know removing Trump through impeachment with a Republican controlled senate was impossible, and some Democrat members of the house also know that this may end up costing them their jobs, but they felt compelled to vote in favor of impeachment anyway. They stand to gain nothing from this, but their conscience. This is after all their job, even if the senate and the White House decides to betray theirs and the public is duped to believe the Russian propaganda, at least they will know they were not complicit in the US turning into a dictatorship. This is more than can be said of the GOP.It seems that this whole thing has one main beneficiary, Trump’s favorite dictator Mr. Putin. Weaker new Ukraine President that can’t say he counts with unwavering support on the US, is forced to negotiate with what seems to be Trump’s Master from a position of weakness and political ridicule, in the meantime Trump gets impeached, while the US democratic process is seen like a compromised sham, and the country is divided by a band of people crying foul, and what looks like a group of ostriches that refuse to get their heads out of the hole in the ground they stuck it in since 2016.So, these are the facts, they are undisputable, and everything else is just spin, and attempts to distract and confuse.Edit:A number of comments made on my answer pointing that Trump’s impeachment was unfair because he was not given “due process rights” and that the Democrats changed the rules. The truth is that Trump was given every protections afforded to Nixon and Clinton during their impeachment processes, but unlike Nixon and Clinton, this White House refuse to take them because instead they chose to stonewall it. Here is a good link to show this:https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democrats.judiciary.house.gov/files/documents/Presidential%20Protections%20Chart.pdf

I reproduce the exhaustive list from The National Center for Transgender Equality (The Discrimination Administration)TLDR: About 77 other things listed below like permitting discrimination by homeless shelters (July 23, 2020) - Please Vote!Anti-Transgender and Anti-LGBTQ ActionsJuly 23, 2020: The Department of Housing and Urban Development formally announced the rollback of a previous rule that protected transgender people from discrimination by homeless shelters and other housing services receiving federal funds.June 19, 2020: The Department of Health and Human Services announced that it finalized the extensive rollback of health care discrimination rules, to eliminate the protections for transgender people experiencing discrimination in health care settings and/or by insurance companies denying transition-related care, as well as to weaken nondiscriminatory access to health care for those with Limited English Proficiency.May 15, 2020: The Department of Education issued a letter declaring that the federal Title IX rule requires school to ban transgender students from participating in school sports, and threatening to withhold funding from Connecticut schools if they do not comply.May 8, 2020: The Department of Health and Human Services published a final rule eliminating collection of sexual orientation data on foster youth and foster and adoptive parents and guardians and rejecting proposals to collect gender identity data.May 6, 2020: The Department of Education published a final rule encouraging schools to dramatically weaken protections for student survivors of sexual violence and harassment, and eliminating a provision that encouraged religiously-affiliated schools to notify the Department and the public of their intent to discriminate on the basis of sex under a Title IX waiver.March 26, 2020: The Department of Justice filed a court brief in the District of Connecticut in opposition to a Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference policy that allows transgender athletes to play sports with their peers.February 27, 2020: The Department of Justice filed another court brief, this time in the Western District of Kentucky, expressing the view of the United States that anti-LGBTQ discrimination is not "a sufficient government interest" to overcome the objections of private businesses who want to deny "expressive" services such as photography services to LGBTQ people, and that these businesses must be permitted to opt out of complying with local nondiscrimination laws.January 16, 2020: Nine federal agencies - Departments of Agriculture, Education, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Labor, and Veterans Affairs, and the U.S. Agency on International Development - all proposed rule changes that would eliminate the rights of people receiving help from federal programs to request a referral if they have a concern or problem with a faith-based provider and to receive written notice of their rights; and that would encourage agencies to claim religious exemptions to deny help to certain people while receiving federal funds.November 5, 2019: The Department of Labor proposed to exempt the TRICARE health care program for military dependents and retirees from requirements not to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. It is not immediately apparent whether TRICARE intends to make any changes in its benefits policies. Currently, TRICARE covers hormone therapy and counseling for transgender retirees and dependents, but DOD interprets the TRICARE statute to exclude transition-related surgery regardless of medical necessity.=November 1, 2019: The Department of Health and Human Services announced it would not enforce, and planned to repeal, regulations prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity, sexual orientation, and religion in all HHS grant programs. These include programs to address the HIV, opioid, and youth homelessness epidemics, as well as hundreds of billions of dollars in other health and human service programs.November 1, 2019: The Department of Education published final regulations permitting religious schools to ignore nondiscrimination standards set by accrediting agencies.September 19, 2019: The Department of Health and Human Services cancelled a plan to explicitly prohibit hospitals from discriminating against LGBTQ patients as a requirement of Medicare and Medicaid funds.August 16, 2019: The Department of Justice filed a brief in the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that federal law “does not prohibit discrimination against transgender persons based on their transgender status.”August 14, 2019: The Department of Labor announced a proposed rule that would radically expand the ability of federal contractors to exempt themselves from equal employment opportunity requirements, allowing for-profit and non-profit employers to impose “religious criteria” on employees that could include barring LGBTQ employees.July 15, 2019: The Departments of Justice and Homeland Security announced an interim final rule that would block the vast majority of asylum-seekers from entering the United States, with deadly consequences for those fleeing anti-LGBTQ violence.July 8, 2019: The Department of State established a “Commission on Unalienable Rights” aimed at narrowing our country’s human rights advocacy to fit with the “natural law” and “natural rights” views of social conservatives, stating it would seek to “be vigilant that human rights discourse not be corrupted or hijacked or used for dubious or malignant purposes.” (Shortly thereafter, the State Department official tasked with coordinating the new commission was fired for “abusive” management including homophobic remarks.)July 3, 2019: The Department of Housing and Urban Development removed requirements that applicants for homelessness funding maintain anti-discrimination policies and demonstrate efforts to serve LGBT people and their families, who are more likely to be homeless.May 24, 2019: The Department of Health and Human Services published a proposed rule that would remove all recognition that federal law prohibits transgender patients from discrimination in health care. Courts across the nation have ruled otherwise.May 22, 2019: The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced a plan to gut regulations prohibiting discrimination against transgender people in HUD-funded homeless shelters.May 14, 2019: President Trump announced his opposition to the Equality Act (H.R. 5), the federal legislation that would confirm and strengthen civil rights protections for LGBTQ Americans and others.May 2, 2019: The Department of Health and Human Services published a final rule encouraging hospital officials, staff, and insurance companies to deny care to patients, including transgender patients, based on religious or moral beliefs. This vague and broad rule was immediately challenged in court.April 19, 2019: The Department of Health and Human Service announced a proposed rule to abandon data collection on sexual orientation of foster youth and foster and adoptive parents and guardians.April 12, 2019: The Department of Defense put President Trump’s ban on transgender service members into effect, putting service members at risk of discharge if they come out or are found out to be transgender.March 13, 2019: The Department of Defense laid out its plans for implementing its ban on transgender troops, giving an official implementation date of April 12.January 23, 2019: The Department of Health & Human Services' Office of Civil Rights granted an exemption to adoption and foster care agencies in South Carolina, allowing religiously-affiliated services to discriminate against current and aspiring LGBTQ caregivers.November 23, 2018: The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) erased critical guidance that helped federal agency managers understand how to support transgender federal workers and respect their rights, replacing clear and specific guidance reflecting applicable law and regulations with vaguely worded guidance hostile to transgender workers. While this guidance change did not change the rights of transgender federal workers under applicable law, regulations, Executive Orders, and case law, it is likely to cause confusion and promote discrimination within the nation's largest employer.November 19, 2018: The Department of State appealed a court order directing it to issue a passport with a gender-neutral designation to a non-binary, intersex applicant.October 25, 2018: U.S. representatives at the United Nations worked to remove references to transgender people in UN human rights documents.October 24, 2018: The Department of Justice submitted a brief to the Supreme Court aruging that it is legal to discriminate against transgender employee, contradicting court rulings that say protections under Title VII in the workplace don’t extend to transgender workers.October 21, 2018: The New York Times reported that the Department of Health and Human Services proposed in a memo to change the legal definition of sex under Title IX, which would would leave transgender people vulnerable to discrimination.August 10, 2018: The Department of Labor released a new directive for Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) staff encouraging them to grant broad religious exemptions to federal contractors with religious-based objections to complying with nondiscrimination laws. It also deleted material from an OFCCP FAQ on LGBT nondiscrimination protections that previously clarified the limited scope of allowable religious exemptions.June 11, 2018: Attorney General Jeff Sessions ruled that the federal government would no longer recognized gang violence or domestic violence as grounds for asylum, adopting a legal interpretation that could lead to rejecting most LGBT asylum-seekers.May 11, 2018: The Bureau of Prisons in the Department of Justice adopted an illegal policy of almost entirely housing transgender people in federal prison facilities that match their sex assigned at birth, rolling back existing protections.April 11, 2018: The Department of Justice proposed to strip data collection on sexual orientation and gender identity of teens from the National Crime Victimization Survey.March 23, 2018: The Trump Administration announced an implementation plan for its discriminatory ban on transgender military service members.March 20, 2018: The Department of Education reiterated that the Trump administration would refuse to allow transgender students to use bathrooms and locker rooms based on their gender identity, countering multiple court rulings reaffirming that transgender students are protected under Title IX.March 5, 2018: The Department Housing and Urban Development Secretary announced a change to its official mission statement by removing its commitment of inclusive and discrimination-free communities from the statement.February 18, 2018: The Department of Education announced it will summarily dismiss complaints from transgender students involving exclusion from school facilities and other claims based solely on gender identity discrimination.January 26, 2018: The Department of Health and Human Services proposed a rule that encourages medical providers to use religious grounds to deny treatment to transgender people, people who need reproductive care, and others.January 18, 2018: The Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Civil Rights opened a "Conscience and Religious Freedom Division" that will promote discrimination by health care providers who can cite religious or moral reasons for denying care.December 29, 2017: President Trump fired the White House Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS. The transgender community is disproportionately affected by HIV.December 20, 2017: President Trump nominated Gordon P. Giampietro to serve as a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Giampietro called marriage equality “an assault on nature.” Giampietro's nomination was eventually withdrawn.December 14, 2017: Staff at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were instructed not to use the words “transgender,” “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “fetus,” “evidence-based,” and “science-based” in official documents.October 6, 2017: The Justice Department released a sweeping "license to discriminate" allowing federal agencies, government contractors, government grantees, and even private businesses to engage in illegal discrimination, as long as they can cite religious reasons for doing so.October 5, 2017: The Justice Department released a memo instructing Department of Justice attorneys to take the legal position that federal law does not protect transgender workers from discrimination.October 2, 2017: President Trump nominated Kyle Duncan to serve as a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Duncan has dedicated his career to limiting the rights of transgender people, and even defended the anti-trans parties in the North Carolina’s infamous HB2 debacle and the school district that discriminated against Gavin Grimm.September 7, 2017: The Justice Department filed a legal brief on behalf of the United States in the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing for a constitutional right for businesses to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and, implicitly, gender identity.September 7, 2017: President Trump nominated Gregory G. Katsas to serve as a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Katsas played a central role in helping Trump ban qualified transgender people serving in the miiltary.September 7, 2017: President Trump nominated Matthew J. Kacsmaryk to serve as a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Kacsmaryk opposes LGBTQ protections in housing, employment, & and health care, and called transgender people a “delusion.”September 7, 2017: President Trump nominated Jeff Mateer to become a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Mateer called transgender children part of “Satan’s plan” and openly supported debunked and dangerous “conversion therapy.” Mateer’s nomination was eventually withdrawn.August 25, 2017: President Trump released a memo directing Defense Department to move forward with developing a plan to discharge transgender military service members and to maintain a ban on recruitment.July 26, 2017: President Trump announced, via Twitter, that "the United States Government will not accept or allow Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military."July 26, 2017: The Justice Department filed a legal brief on behalf of the United States in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, arguing that the 1964 Civil Rights Act does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or, implicitly, gender identity.July 13, 2017: President Trump nominated Mark Norris to the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. Norris has worked to make it easier to discriminate against LGBTQ people, and even worked to discriminate specifically against transgender kids.June 14, 2017: The Department of Education withdrew its finding that an Ohio school district discriminated against a transgender girl. The Department gave no explanation for withdrawing the finding, which a federal judge upheld.May 2, 2017: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced a plan to roll back regulations interpreting the Affordable Care Act’s nondiscrimination provisions to protect transgender people.April 14, 2017: The Justice Department abandoned its historic lawsuit challenging North Carolina’s anti-transgender law. It did so after North Carolina replaced HB2 with a different anti-transgender law known as “HB 2.0.”April 4, 2017: The Departments of Justice and Labor cancelled quarterly conference calls with LGBT organizations; on these calls, which had happened for years, government attorneys shared information on employment laws and cases.March 31, 2017: The Justice Department announced it would review (and likely seek to scale back) numerous civil rights settlement agreements with police departments. These settlements were put in places where police departments were determined to be engaging in discriminatory and abusive policing, including racial and other profiling. Many of these agreements include critical protections for LGBT people.March 2017: The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) removed links to four key resource documents from its website, which informed emergency shelters on best practices for serving transgender people facing homelessness and complying with HUD regulations.March 28, 2017: The Census Bureau retracted a proposal to collect demographic information on LGBT people in the 2020 Census.March 24, 2017: The Justice Department cancelled a long-planned National Institute of Corrections broadcast on “Transgender Persons in Custody: The Legal Landscape.”March 13, 2017: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced that its national survey of older adults, and the services they need, would no longer collect information on LGBT participants. HHS initially falsely claimed in its Federal Register announcement that it was making “no changes” to the survey.March 13, 2017: The State Department announced the official U.S. delegation to the UN’s 61st annual Commission on the Status of Women conference would include two outspoken anti-LGBT organizations, including a representative of the Center for Family and Human Rights (C-FAM): an organization designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.March 10, 2017: The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced it would withdraw two important agency-proposed policies designed to protect LGBT people experiencing homelessness. One proposed policy would have required HUD-funded emergency shelters to put up a poster or "notice" to residents of their right to be free from anti-LGBT discrimination under HUD regulations.The other announced a survey to evaluate the impact of the LGBTQ Youth Homelessness Prevention Initiative, implemented by HUD and other agencies over the last three years. This multi-year project should be evaluated, and with this withdrawal, we may never learn what worked best in the project to help homeless LGBTQ youth.March 8, 2017: Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) removed demographic questions about LGBT people that Centers for Independent Living must fill out each year in their Annual Program Performance Report. This report helps HHS evaluate programs that serve people with disabilities.March 2, 2017: The Department of Justice abandoned its request for a preliminary injunction against North Carolina’s anti-transgender House Bill 2, which prevented North Carolina from enforcing HB 2. This was an early sign that the Administration was giving up defending trans people (later, on April 14, it withdrew the lawsuit completely).March 1, 2017: The Department of Justice took the highly unusual step of declining to appeal a nationwide preliminary court order temporarily halting enforcement of the Affordable Care Act’s nondiscrimination protections for transgender people. The injunction prevents HHS from taking any action to enforce transgender people's rights from health care discrimination.February 22, 2017: The Departments of Justice and Education withdrew landmark 2016 guidance explaining how schools must protect transgender students under the federal Title IX law.January 31, 2017: President Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Gorsuch has a history of anti-transgender rulings.January 20, 2017: On President Trump’s inauguration day, the adminstration scrubbed all mentions of LGBTQ people from the websites of the White House, Department of State, and Department of Labor.Other Harmful Trump Administration ActionsThe Trump administration has taken many other actions to roll back civil rights and health care protections and target vulnerable communities. While not specifically directed at transgender people or gender identity protections, we list them here because it is critically important that we view our quest for transgender equality as intertwined with other social justice movements. These include attacks on reproductive rights, the Affordable Care Act, refugees and other immigrants and the enforcement of civil rights laws. Many of these actions will also disproportionately harm transgender people. These are just a few examples:Kicking Americans off Medicaid and Food Stamps: The Trump Administration has taken numerous actions to kick Americans in need off of Medicaid and SNAP coverage. On April 10, Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to push for work requirements for low-income people in America who receive federal assistance, including Medicaid and SNAP.Targeting Reproductive Rights: On October 6, 2017, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a regulation allowing employers and insurers to deny coverage for birth control, as long as they can cite religious reasons for doing so. In April, President Trump and Congress overturned a regulation that protected Planned Parenthood, one of the nation’s largest providers of care for transgender people, and other family planning clinics from funding discrimination by states.Harming Sexual Assault Survivors. On September 7, 2017, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos announced she would withdraw historic guidance on schools' and universities' responsibilities to address sexual assault and sexual harassment. On September 27, 2017, the Department replaced this guidance with flawed and dangerous “interim guidance” tipping the scales against student survivors seeking protection on campus. This is especially dangerous for transgender students, because 47% of transgender adults in the US Transgender Survey were sexual assault survivors.Cruel and Relentless Attacks on Immigrant Communities. On September 5, 2017, President Trump acted to strip hundreds of thousands of Americans and their families of security, stability, and safety by ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. On April 6, 2018, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced a “zero tolerance” policy that separated hundreds of immigrant children from their families. On April 10, a federal official announced that the Department of Justice was halting the Legal Orientation Program, which offers legal assistance to immigrants. On June 11, Attorney General Sessions ruled that domestic or gang violence are not grounds for asylum in the United States. These are just a few of many anti-immigrant actions that are especially dangerous for many LGBT immigrants who could face life-threatening violence if deported.Putting Health Care Out of Reach: On April 13, 2017, the Department of Health and Human Services rolled back numerous Affordable Care Act rules to reduce protections for people seeking and using health insurance. These actions make it harder to enroll in health care plans, allow plans to sharply raise deductibles, and weaken requirements for insurance plans to have in-network providers that serve low-income communities. These changes disproportionately affect people of color and any one with lower incomes, including transgender people. These changes make getting health care coverage harder for people who lose coverage or who depend on community clinics.Expanding Immigration Detention: The Department of Homeland Security is vastly expanding the number of immigrants held in immigration detention centers nationwide, while also eliminating protections for health and safety in detention centers. Reducing these protections for immigrants who are being detained is wrong, and it's especially dangerous for vulnerable transgender immigrants, many of whom are asylum-seekers who risk extreme abuse.Banning Muslims and Refugees: On January 27, 2017 and again on March 6, President Trump signed executive orders seeking to ban entry by refugees and travelers from certain Muslim-majority countries and drastically reduce the number of refugees allowed to seek safety in the United States. We cannot stand for a world where people in danger are denied entry because of who they are, including where they come from or whether they are Muslim or any other religion. LGBT refugees are among the many who are fleeing life-threatening persecution because of who they are or what they believe. While the bans were allowed to take effect by the Supreme Court, court cases challenging them continue.

H1-B ReformFirst, let's define "H1-B reform."Words have different meanings when they come from different positions on the political spectrum. Republicans can mean one thing, while Democrats another, with those affected by the policy (the tech and startup community) having yet more definitions of a term.With the goal of communicating clearly, let's figure out what we mean by "H1-B reform"...An article from The Hill lays out the current poles of the debate:Technology firms have consistently pushed for the government to increase the number of H-1B visas beyond the current limit of 65,000 per year, arguing the U.S. doesn't produce enough homegrown engineers and scientists to fill the number of vacancies for skilled graduates in those fields.Critics charge the H-1B program has become a source of cheap labor for U.S. firms unwilling to pay the market rate for American-born engineers and argue guest workers cost firms less than their domestic counterparts. Expanding the limit is a tough sell politically, given the current unemployment rate.Source: http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/159933-demand-drops-for-h1-b-visasExpanding on this, the Wall Street Journal adds:At the House Subcommittee on Immigration, a critic of the program, Ronil Hira, highlighted that Indian companies operating in the U.S., such as Infosys, Tata and Wipro, are among the biggest H-1B users, and that they're bringing in foreigners with ordinary skills.In an interview, Mr. Hira, a professor of public policy at Rochester Institute of Technology, said that "because of loopholes, employers can bring in cheaper foreign workers to substitute for American workers and undercut their wages."His research indicates only about a third of all H-1B visa holders are "really highly skilled or graduates of U.S. universities who would be eventually sponsored for green cards," or permanent U.S. residency, by their employers. Employers have said that the program enables them to tap top talent, whom they seek to hire permanently down the road.Supporters of the program, including high-tech firms and industry groups, say it attracts foreign talent that spawns innovation and creates jobs in the U.S. They cite former H-1B holders such as Vinod Khosla, co-founder of Sun Microsystems, and Vinod Dham, an engineer behind Intel Corp.'s Pentium chip, as proof of its value.Vivek Wadhwa, a visiting scholar at the University of California at Berkeley who studies immigrant entrepreneurs, said that an anti-immigrant climate had made it "a liability to hire H-1Bs," and that this will gradually chip away at U.S. global competitiveness, because the country has a dearth of homegrown engineers and scientists.Moreover, Mr. Wadhwa said that foreign nationals who obtain U.S. degrees were more likely than ever to return home. "Ten to 15 years ago, by default, you'd want to be in America, because you had more opportunities. Now, you can do much, much better at home," he said.Source: http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052748704810504576307342275841586-lMyQjAxMTAxMDAwODEwNDgyWj.htmlAs part of Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) in 2006, the SKIL Bill represented one segment of the political spectrum's feelings on reform:H-1B Visa: The bill increases the annual cap of 65,000 immigrants to 115,000, automatically increasing the cap by 20 percent each year the limit is reached. It also creates a new exemption to the cap for anyone who has an "advanced degree in science, technology, engineering, or math" from a foreign university.Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SKIL_BillBoth the stand-alone SKIL bill and CIR failed, though the underlying cause—H1-B visas applications reaching their cap in a single day—has faded. (see Current State of H1-B Visa Program below)The Government Accountability Office (GAO), with oversight provided by Committee Chair Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) has its own set of recommendation for H1-B reform:Matters for Congressional Consideration1. Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.Status: In process2. Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.Status: In process3. Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.Status: In process4. Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.Status: In processRecommendations for Executive Action5. Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.Agency Affected: Department of Homeland SecurityStatus: In process6. Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.Agency Affected: Department of Homeland SecurityStatus: In process7. Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.Agency Affected: Department of LaborStatus: In process8. Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.Agency Affected: Department of LaborStatus: In processSource: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-26Outside of DC, I can add some personal experience in my work with the US Startup Visa, that H1-B visas take time and money, the two parameters startup founders are most limited by. H1-B visas are seen as outside of the realm of startups because of the costs associated with them, with the application fee increased to $5000 from $1500 in 2007, which excludes associated legal fees (http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3680096/Senate-Votes-to-Hike-H1-B-Visa-Fees.htm).Someone recently mentioned that there is a near zero unemployment rate among 'top engineers' in Silicon Valley right now. (I want to say Brandon Smietana?) Naturally, that's an exaggeration, but probably not by all that much, excluding the churn of entrepreneurs between startups or in transition from one company to another. Another person told me that there is no quota for success in the startup world. The more quality people we have in the mix, the more successful companies we can create.Therefore, we can say about H1-B reform, generally:Critics of the program want to tighten loopholes to ensure that visas are going to intended workers with targeted skillsSupporters of the program want to increase the cap and probably want to decrease the visa application fees, which were increased several years ago and are probably contributing to the drop-off in applications, though this latter claim is only implied"Reduce waste and fraud" — a perpetual catchphrase used by Washington politicians calling form reformWe can add about specific groups interested or affected by the program:The startup community wants lower costs and a more streamlined process as a prerequisite for applying for H1-B, which are currently inaccessible to most early-stage startups and are uneconomic for many later-stage startups that have raised enough to technically afford the visa application processThe larger tech community (Microsoft and Google, as examples) probably has different wants and needs than the startup community, but I'm less familiar with their situation.Foreign students at US universities and colleges get kicked out upon graduation, so some are calling for an easier path for graduates to stay in the country (http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/136685-issa-bill-would-give-greencards-to-up-to-55000-science-and-tech-workers, Sponsor: Rep. Darrell Issa, Status: Zero cosponsors)Liberals and many Indian nationals decry the fact that individuals under the H1-B are sponsored by their employing company and are dependent on keeping the good will of their employer to maintain their place in line for a green card, which often gets described in exaggerated fashion as "near indentured servitude" ("There have also been reports of workers being mistreated or underpaid by their sponsoring firm and unable to change jobs lest they lose their visas.", http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/153125-pressure-mounts-for-h1-b-reform)Now we have a sense of what 'H1-B reform' might mean. Summarizing:Tighter eligibility requirements around high-techIncrease visa capDecrease application fees, complexityFraud reductionGreen Card status transferNew program for foreign graduates from US universities in high-tech fieldsCurrent State of H1-B Visa ProgramSource: http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052748704810504576307342275841586-lMyQjAxMTAxMDAwODEwNDgyWj.htmlSource: http://am22tech.com/s/22/Blogs/post/2011/05/08/Ticket-To-USA-Is-Still-Open-Only-8000-Applications-For-H1B-So-far.aspxSource: http://redbus2us.com/h1-b-visa-petitions-cap-reached-dates-by-year-from-2000-to-2010-recession-impact-and-trend-analysis-plot-from-2000-%E2%80%93-2010-for-2011-decision/We can see that the state of the H1-B program is vastly different today than from the 2008-2009 period. Reform in the modern context is also different from past efforts to reform the program.The overarching context is that many claim that there is a shortage of scientists and engineers in America, more broadly referred to as a 'STEM shortage' on Capitol Hill. Additionally, reports like Rising Above The Gathering Storm (http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11463, revisited: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12999) were very popular in the 2006 period when I was there to talk about 'global competitiveness' and other policy points related to any discussion of H1-B reform. H1-B was set up in 1990 to help alleviate this shortage.H1-B Reform: Impact on Jobs Creation and InnovationI think Nick Huber covers the details on the creation of jobs and innovation very well. My information mainly serves as context for his claims.The program itself, reform or not, seems to continue to serve its role of expanding the talent base available to US companies, though the key population targeted should be those foreign students educated here in the US rather than those educated at home, with groups like Gartner and McKinsey claiming that only 25% of Indian and 10% of Chinese domestic engineering degrees are competitive at the international level (http://www.dryvonnesum.com/pdf/China_Looming_Talent_Shortage_McKinsey_Qtrly_Oct_2005.pdf).H1-B reform that moves towards, as Brad Feld says, 'stapling a green card to the high-tech diploma of a foreign student,' would be a good thing for innovation in this country. Based on comments like this one from Milo Medin, Google’s vice president for access services, “If we’re serious about competition, the last thing we want to do is encourage people to come from all over the world at the best universities and then send them back," there may be some consensus forming around H1-B reform meaning a better process for US-educated foreign students to stay in the country and contribute economically post-graduation (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53381.html).Additionally, since H1-B is an immigration path that can potentially lead to a green card, similar to the US Startup Visa, immigrants like Vinod Khosla, who started as H1-B holders, have created large numbers of jobs through either starting or funding companies.Finally, in the case of a team or product that is missing a key skill, an H1-B holder could be the difference between success or failure for a product or company, tying the fate of the other jobs to the ability of US companies to attract the necessary talent.Final Thoughts and CaveatsI'll add that we of Quora are almost entirely talking about high-end H1-B positions and engineering jobs in general. The GAO notes that this is a decreasing slice of the H1-B pie, which is increasingly left to India-based staffing firms (http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/138059-gao-disproportionate-share-of-h1-b-visas-going-to-india-based-staffing-firms, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-26). The implication is that India-based firms are placing workers here to gain skills to eventually completely offshore the location, which would be considered in transition.H1-B works best for the top-level individuals who are literally irreplaceable, but complaints develop for the mid- and lower-level individuals who act more as cogs within larger corporations. When a worker of approximately equivalent skill can be hired for some lower amount, a company would be acting against its economic interests to ignore the potential for H1-B in driving down wage and salary costs.Additional ReadingCRS: http://migration.ucdavis.edu/wcpsew/files/CRS_5=23=07pdf.pdf (there is almost certainly a more recent update of this report, but I can't find it)