motherjones--2020-10-27--Can a Democracy on the Brink of Authoritarianism Recover?

Donald Trump ’ s presidency has been a boon for at least one particular pocket of political science : the study of democracies and autocratic regimes .
Since Trump strode into the White House and started trampling norms , there have been a flood of articles and numerous best-selling books on the fall of democracy and the rise of authoritarianism .
History is indeed replete with vivid examples of the decline of democracies—and with the transition of repressive states into democracies .
At one end of the spectrum , there is the Weimar Republic descending into Nazi Germany ; at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But there is one slice of the democracy-authoritarianism dynamic that has not been examined as extensively as the clear instances of full transformation , and that subset could be particularly relevant for the United States at the present moment : democracies that slipped toward authoritarianism but recovered before it was too late .
With Trump questioning election results , attacking the free press , calling for the arrest of political opponents , violating anti-corruption safeguards , implementing nepotism , advocating measures that limit voting , seeking more control of the civil service @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the federal government ( even the White House grounds ) as his own private duchy , and embracing and idealizing autocrats around the world , he has prompted justified concerns about the strength of democracy within the United States .
Freedom House , a nonprofit human rights watchdog that monitors democracy globally , raised questions in its 2020 annual report about American democracy : “ In recent years its democratic institutions have suffered erosion , as reflected in partisan manipulation of the electoral process , bias and dysfunction in the criminal justice system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asylum seekers , and growing disparities in wealth , economic opportunity , and political influence.
” Can this erosion be reversed ?
The road of democratic decline is not always an inevitable path that ends with a strongman regime .
There have been U-turns .
Some democratic nations have started falling into authoritarianism and then changed course .
Two years ago , Tom Ginsburg and Aziz Huq , University of Chicago professors , looked at this question .
In an article for the Journal of Democracy , they described occasions when democracies suffered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the quality of democratic institutions and then experience [ d ] a rebound.
” These “ near misses , ” they noted , “ have received little or no attention in the new wave of scholarship on why democracies die ( or survive ) .
” Their article focused on three historical episodes not well-known within the United States .
The first they recounted was Finland in 1930 , when the right-wing mass Lapua movement that partly modeled itself on Mussolini ’ s movement gained influence and was welcomed by the conservative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then banned communist newspapers .
This fascistic movement—which was kidnapping political opponents—fueled the election of a former prime minister , who won a close race marred by the threat of violence .
“ Finland appeared to be on the cusp of the sort of democratic erosion that was to engulf Germany and Austria soon thereafter , ” Ginsburg and Huq wrote .
“ Yet Finish democracy prevailed.
” Key military officials did not join the Lapua movement , and judges issued tough verdicts in response to its use of violence .
Moreover , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lines to oppose the Lapua movement , and some conservative politicians kept their distance from it .
Come March 1937 , a center-left coalition was in secure control of the government .
Another near-miss : In Colombia , during the 2000s , President Alvaro Uribe tried to consolidate power for himself .
He pushed for government reforms that would afford him more control and influence over the legislature and the courts .
His regime waged a campaign of harassment against journalists .
Ultimately , the Constitutional Court blocked his attempt to gain a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s hand-picked successor , his defense minister , broke with him and restored the institutional status quo .
In Sri Lanka , Ginsburg and Huq pointed out , democracy was imperiled by the rise of Mahinda Rajapaksa , who won the presidency in 2005 .
As they put it , his “ rule was marked by nepotism , corruption , and a degradation of rule-of-law institutions such as courts , prosecutors , and the police.
” He appointed his three brothers to Cabinet posts and developed a cult of personality .
Journalists were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ constitution so he could run for a third term in 2015 .
“ Sri Lanka seemed on the brink of seeing its democracy totally degraded , ” Ginsburg and Huq observed .
But a former minister of health in Rajapaksa ’ s government entered the presidential race to challenge him and quickly built a coalition that triumphed .
Rajapaksa considered annulling the vote but the army and police said no , as did the attorney general .
Democracy was not upended .
( Yet last year , one of Rajapaksa ’ s brothers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , according to Freedom House , “ raised concerns that democratic governance and human rights conditions would again deteriorate.
” Those worries were justified .
This month , he enacted legislation to increase his power and weaken the parliament , prompting the opposition to warn that he was steering Sri Lanka toward autocracy . )
In each of these close calls , Ginsburg and Huq wrote , elite players were instrumental in thwarting a move toward authoritarianism : “ Paradoxically , the experiences of democratic near misses that we have explored underscore the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , military commanders , and election administrators—in decisively repudiating authoritarian leaders bent on democratic erosion.
” Do these examples indicate that Americans are at the mercy of the powerful and the influential when it comes to preserving democracy and combatting a Trumpian slide toward authoritarianism ?
Larry Diamond , a Stanford professor who co-edits the Journal of Democracy , says , “ I am cautious about reasoning by comparison because the circumstances of a long-institutionalized and wealthy democracy like the United States are very different from India , for example .
The plain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that there has never been a democracy nearly as long-established and liberal as the United States experiencing such a deep and potentially existential crisis of democracy.
” In March , Diamond and Aurel Croissant , a professor at Heidelberg University , wrote a piece on “ democratic backsliding ” in Asia .
They contended that the current wave of “ democratic recessions ” around the world stands out from democratic reversals of the past : Today , democratic downturns tend to “ unfold gradually ” and don ’ t “ necessarily lead to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not by military coups , revolutions , or foreign intervention but by “ those elected to lead a democracy , ” and the assault on “ political rights and civil liberties is typically related to social polarization and the mobilization of identity politics.
” ( Sound familiar ? )
Croissant and Diamond noted that there have been at least 14 episodes of democratic decline in 10 Asian democracies since the early 2000s .
In half of these , “ democratic forces managed to contain the process before democracy broke down.
” ( This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the examples of South Korea ( corrupt conservative presidents in the 2010s ) and Taiwan ( various threats to democracy , including the ruling coalition refusing to concede defeat in the 2004 presidential election ) , Croissant and Diamond explain that institutions of “ horizontal accountability ” ( state actors , such as the legislatures and courts ) were “ least effective ” and that “ vertical accountability ” ( elections and popular action ) “ were more promising options of democratic resistance.
” But , they added , “ Asian experiences suggest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ democratic crisis are mechanisms of ‘ diagonal accountability ' ” —meaning the media and civil society .
“ In Taiwan and Hong Kong , democracy movements driven by civic activists have played pivotal roles in forestalling backsliding or protesting against government ’ s ever-tightening control political space.
” What does all this mean for Americans ?
Trump ’ s assault on democratic values and methods—which has been accepted , if not embraced , by the Republican Party and tens of millions of his supporters—is not necessarily a sign the United States is on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other countries are any guide , the locomotive can be slowed and even turned around .
Other nations have reached the brink and stepped back .
But doing so is not easy .
Ginsburg and Huq point out , “ There is no single ‘ magic institution ’ that can be adopted to prevent democratic backsliding or to arrest it once it has begun…Sustained antidemocratic mobilization is hard to defeat.
” In some instances , a small group of officials have safeguarded a democracy by openly resisting the machinations of a would-be autocrat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people power has fueled democracy-defending defiance .
And a seeming victory may not last long .
( See Sri Lanka . )
Looking for a historical comparison to apply to the present-day United States , Diamond turns to Watergate .
But he acknowledges there are “ big differences ” : Nixon was “ not as thoroughly contemptuous of democracy and democratic norms as Trump , ” he possessed a “ sliver of shame and of awareness of the democratic norms he was violating , ” and “ the Republican Party finally abandoned Nixon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too far.
” Now , almost five decades later , the president ’ s party—once again , the GOP—shows little sign of abandoning Trump and his war on democracy .
( Perhaps that might change , if Trump is crushed in the election . )
“ This is what is so profoundly troubling to me , ” Diamond says .
“ It ’ s not just Trump .
You look at the widespread efforts at voter suppression , the cynical efforts [ of Republicans ] to create one set of rules for themselves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much broader abandonment of democratic norms than we saw during Watergate , when it was mainly confined to Nixon and his clique…The country faces a much more difficult and painstaking task of democratic recovery this time around.
” That mission , he asserts , includes ending voter suppression , stopping felon disenfranchisement , undoing gerrymandering , reforming or ending the Electoral College , fixing broken election rules and shoddy voting systems , and much more : “ Our democratic system is much more badly damaged and outmoded than it was after Watergate , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so fortunate as to see the autocrat in the White House defeated and leave power , the agenda for fixing our democracy is going to be much longer and more arduous.
” There ’ s another thing .
In assessing the experiences in Asia , Croissant and Diamond observe that for democratic resilience and resistance to triumph , “ a sufficient number of citizens must still prefer a democratic form of government and have some degree of trust in democratic institutions.
” Throughout his presidential campaigns and presidency , Trump has banked on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can overpower popular concerns about his trashing of democratic values and practices .
He won that bet in 2016 , and in the years since he has done much to undermine the rules of the republic .
That makes the 2020 election a referendum not only on Trump but on the vitality of American democracy .
The harm Trump has done is not irreversible , but the lessons from other nations show that countering this erosion will entail smart and strategic efforts on the part of those with power and of those citizens @ @ @ @ @

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Donald Trump’s presidency has been a boon for at least one particular pocket of political science: the study of democracies and autocratic regimes. Since Trump strode into the White House and started trampling norms, there have been a flood of articles and numerous best-selling books on the fall of democracy and the rise of authoritarianism. History is indeed replete with vivid examples of the decline of democracies—and with the transition of repressive states into democracies. At one end of the spectrum, there is the Weimar Republic descending into Nazi Germany; at the other, South Africa shedding apartheid. But there is one slice of the democracy-authoritarianism dynamic that has not been examined as extensively as the clear instances of full transformation, and that subset could be particularly relevant for the United States at the present moment: democracies that slipped toward authoritarianism but recovered before it was too late.
With Trump questioning election results, attacking the free press, calling for the arrest of political opponents, violating anti-corruption safeguards, implementing nepotism, advocating measures that limit voting, seeking more control of the civil service, claiming unbridled executive power, treating the federal government (even the White House grounds) as his own private duchy, and embracing and idealizing autocrats around the world, he has prompted justified concerns about the strength of democracy within the United States. Freedom House, a nonprofit human rights watchdog that monitors democracy globally, raised questions in its 2020 annual report about American democracy: “In recent years its democratic institutions have suffered erosion, as reflected in partisan manipulation of the electoral process, bias and dysfunction in the criminal justice system, flawed new policies on immigration and asylum seekers, and growing disparities in wealth, economic opportunity, and political influence.”
Can this erosion be reversed? The road of democratic decline is not always an inevitable path that ends with a strongman regime. There have been U-turns. Some democratic nations have started falling into authoritarianism and then changed course. Two years ago, Tom Ginsburg and Aziz Huq, University of Chicago professors, looked at this question. In an article for the Journal of Democracy, they described occasions when democracies suffered “substantial yet ‘non-fatal’ deterioration in the quality of democratic institutions and then experience[d] a rebound.” These “near misses,” they noted, “have received little or no attention in the new wave of scholarship on why democracies die (or survive).”
Their article focused on three historical episodes not well-known within the United States. The first they recounted was Finland in 1930, when the right-wing mass Lapua movement that partly modeled itself on Mussolini’s movement gained influence and was welcomed by the conservative president and the ruling party, which then banned communist newspapers. This fascistic movement—which was kidnapping political opponents—fueled the election of a former prime minister, who won a close race marred by the threat of violence. “Finland appeared to be on the cusp of the sort of democratic erosion that was to engulf Germany and Austria soon thereafter,” Ginsburg and Huq wrote. “Yet Finish democracy prevailed.” Key military officials did not join the Lapua movement, and judges issued tough verdicts in response to its use of violence. Moreover, other political parties banded together across ideological lines to oppose the Lapua movement, and some conservative politicians kept their distance from it. Come March 1937, a center-left coalition was in secure control of the government.
Another near-miss: In Colombia, during the 2000s, President Alvaro Uribe tried to consolidate power for himself. He pushed for government reforms that would afford him more control and influence over the legislature and the courts. His regime waged a campaign of harassment against journalists. Ultimately, the Constitutional Court blocked his attempt to gain a third term as president. Uribe’s hand-picked successor, his defense minister, broke with him and restored the institutional status quo.
In Sri Lanka, Ginsburg and Huq pointed out, democracy was imperiled by the rise of Mahinda Rajapaksa, who won the presidency in 2005. As they put it, his “rule was marked by nepotism, corruption, and a degradation of rule-of-law institutions such as courts, prosecutors, and the police.” He appointed his three brothers to Cabinet posts and developed a cult of personality. Journalists were imprisoned and murdered. He amended the constitution so he could run for a third term in 2015. “Sri Lanka seemed on the brink of seeing its democracy totally degraded,” Ginsburg and Huq observed. But a former minister of health in Rajapaksa’s government entered the presidential race to challenge him and quickly built a coalition that triumphed. Rajapaksa considered annulling the vote but the army and police said no, as did the attorney general. Democracy was not upended. (Yet last year, one of Rajapaksa’s brothers was elected president, and his victory, according to Freedom House, “raised concerns that democratic governance and human rights conditions would again deteriorate.” Those worries were justified. This month, he enacted legislation to increase his power and weaken the parliament, prompting the opposition to warn that he was steering Sri Lanka toward autocracy.)
In each of these close calls, Ginsburg and Huq wrote, elite players were instrumental in thwarting a move toward authoritarianism: “Paradoxically, the experiences of democratic near misses that we have explored underscore the role of political elites and nonelected institutions—courts, military commanders, and election administrators—in decisively repudiating authoritarian leaders bent on democratic erosion.”
Do these examples indicate that Americans are at the mercy of the powerful and the influential when it comes to preserving democracy and combatting a Trumpian slide toward authoritarianism? Larry Diamond, a Stanford professor who co-edits the Journal of Democracy, says, “I am cautious about reasoning by comparison because the circumstances of a long-institutionalized and wealthy democracy like the United States are very different from India, for example. The plain and sobering fact of the matter is that there has never been a democracy nearly as long-established and liberal as the United States experiencing such a deep and potentially existential crisis of democracy.”
In March, Diamond and Aurel Croissant, a professor at Heidelberg University, wrote a piece on “democratic backsliding” in Asia. They contended that the current wave of “democratic recessions” around the world stands out from democratic reversals of the past: Today, democratic downturns tend to “unfold gradually” and don’t “necessarily lead to full-fledged autocracy.” They often are caused not by military coups, revolutions, or foreign intervention but by “those elected to lead a democracy,” and the assault on “political rights and civil liberties is typically related to social polarization and the mobilization of identity politics.” (Sound familiar?)
Croissant and Diamond noted that there have been at least 14 episodes of democratic decline in 10 Asian democracies since the early 2000s. In half of these, “democratic forces managed to contain the process before democracy broke down.” (This included Sri Lanka.) Pointing to the examples of South Korea (corrupt conservative presidents in the 2010s) and Taiwan (various threats to democracy, including the ruling coalition refusing to concede defeat in the 2004 presidential election), Croissant and Diamond explain that institutions of “horizontal accountability” (state actors, such as the legislatures and courts) were “least effective” and that “vertical accountability” (elections and popular action) “were more promising options of democratic resistance.” But, they added, “Asian experiences suggest that what matters most in times of democratic crisis are mechanisms of ‘diagonal accountability'”—meaning the media and civil society. “In Taiwan and Hong Kong, democracy movements driven by civic activists have played pivotal roles in forestalling backsliding or protesting against government’s ever-tightening control political space.”
What does all this mean for Americans? Trump’s assault on democratic values and methods—which has been accepted, if not embraced, by the Republican Party and tens of millions of his supporters—is not necessarily a sign the United States is on a fast track to authoritarianism. If other countries are any guide, the locomotive can be slowed and even turned around. Other nations have reached the brink and stepped back. But doing so is not easy. Ginsburg and Huq point out, “There is no single ‘magic institution’ that can be adopted to prevent democratic backsliding or to arrest it once it has begun…Sustained antidemocratic mobilization is hard to defeat.” In some instances, a small group of officials have safeguarded a democracy by openly resisting the machinations of a would-be autocrat and his henchmen. Other times, people power has fueled democracy-defending defiance. And a seeming victory may not last long. (See Sri Lanka.)
Looking for a historical comparison to apply to the present-day United States, Diamond turns to Watergate. But he acknowledges there are “big differences”: Nixon was “not as thoroughly contemptuous of democracy and democratic norms as Trump,” he possessed a “sliver of shame and of awareness of the democratic norms he was violating,” and “the Republican Party finally abandoned Nixon when the evidence showed he had gone too far.” Now, almost five decades later, the president’s party—once again, the GOP—shows little sign of abandoning Trump and his war on democracy. (Perhaps that might change, if Trump is crushed in the election.)
“This is what is so profoundly troubling to me,” Diamond says. “It’s not just Trump. You look at the widespread efforts at voter suppression, the cynical efforts [of Republicans] to create one set of rules for themselves and another for the opposition…and you see much broader abandonment of democratic norms than we saw during Watergate, when it was mainly confined to Nixon and his clique…The country faces a much more difficult and painstaking task of democratic recovery this time around.” That mission, he asserts, includes ending voter suppression, stopping felon disenfranchisement, undoing gerrymandering, reforming or ending the Electoral College, fixing broken election rules and shoddy voting systems, and much more: “Our democratic system is much more badly damaged and outmoded than it was after Watergate, and yet, even if we are so fortunate as to see the autocrat in the White House defeated and leave power, the agenda for fixing our democracy is going to be much longer and more arduous.”
There’s another thing. In assessing the experiences in Asia, Croissant and Diamond observe that for democratic resilience and resistance to triumph, “a sufficient number of citizens must still prefer a democratic form of government and have some degree of trust in democratic institutions.” Throughout his presidential campaigns and presidency, Trump has banked on the calculation that his cult of personality can overpower popular concerns about his trashing of democratic values and practices. He won that bet in 2016, and in the years since he has done much to undermine the rules of the republic. That makes the 2020 election a referendum not only on Trump but on the vitality of American democracy. The harm Trump has done is not irreversible, but the lessons from other nations show that countering this erosion will entail smart and strategic efforts on the part of those with power and of those citizens who give a damn.


motherjones--2020-10-27--An Explosive Government Report Exposed Family Separations and Other Immigration Horrors—in 1931

It doesn ’ t take longer than the table of contents to realize how much has stayed the same .
“ Separation of families.
” “ Invasion of personal rights.
” “ Illegal searches and seizures.
” “ Despotic powers of the administrative agency.
” These section headings come from a 1931 US government report on the state of America ’ s deportation machine .
In 1929 , President Herbert Hoover tasked former attorney general George Wickersham with producing a series of reports on law enforcement in the United States .
Reuben Oppenheimer , a Baltimore lawyer , was put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ found was so appalling that it made the front page of the New York Times .
The denials that followed were familiar , too .
William Doak , who oversaw deportations as secretary of labor , said the next day that the abuses happened before his tenure .
A day later , John Trevor , the head of an anti-immigrant “ patriotic ” group , warned that he ’ d heard Oppenheimer was associated with the American Civil Liberties Union .
Trevor added that the report ’ s recommendation to provide immigrants with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the help of the “ shysters who now disgrace the American bar.
” The Wickersham Commission ’ s largely forgotten report reveals that the immigration debate that ’ s torn the country apart under President Trump had the same contours a century ago : One side sees inhumanity in the detention and removal of people who came to the United States in search of a better life ; the other sees the means necessary to keep out people they don ’ t want .
It ’ s a reminder that long before Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a matter of course .
If Trump leaves office in a few months , there will be intense pressure from liberals to quickly repeal his immigration policies .
The Wickersham report makes the case for doing much more .
Oppenheimer was investigating immigration enforcement as a young Harvard-trained lawyer .
Like Wickersham , who worked as a law partner at New York City ’ s oldest firm before becoming attorney general , he was an establishment reformer , not a radical .
Both men believed some deportations were necessary , though the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the time , the United States had been removing fewer than 10,000 people in an average year , versus the record of more than 400,000 set in 2012 .
Still , Oppenheimer concluded that those deportations led to an “ almost inconceivable amount of suffering and hardship , of separations of husbands from their wives and of fathers from their children , of exile from a country where the deportee has been a desirable citizen and has formed all his attachments.
” He added , “ These results occur for the most part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crime but where he has been guilty of a technical violation of the immigrations laws.
” As an example , Oppenheimer mentioned a Mexican man with eight US-born children who wound up on the other side of the Rio Grande after a fishing trip .
He was apprehended after returning and barred from the United States permanently after being deported .
( A 10-year ban is more common today , although there ’ s usually no way to return in practice . )
Farther from the border , immigrant inspectors , the equivalent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Enforcement agents , made little effort to hide the fact that they valued deportations above due process .
One inspector readily admitted to Oppenheimer that he was going to falsify an affidavit so he could deport a man he called a “ bum.
” It ’ s reminiscent of a scene in the recently released Netflix documentary series Immigration Nation , in which an ICE officer illegally picks a lock on camera .
Then and now , lawbreaking was so routine that immigration agents didn ’ t think to hide it .
Once @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jails without the right to counsel .
As today , most couldn ’ t afford attorneys , so they represented themselves in proceedings rigged against them .
“ In all probability a great many unrepresented persons have been deported whom lawyers could have saved , ” Oppenheimer wrote .
An attorney and media attention didn ’ t guarantee protection , either .
Oppenheimer told the story of Guido Serio , who fled Italy after being attacked by fascists .
Serio told an immigrant inspector that he ’ d be killed in Benito Mussolini @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him deported because he was a communist .
A federal judge recommended he be sent to the Soviet Union , which had offered to take him in .
Instead , federal immigration officials deported him to Italy on the dubious grounds that it was best for his “ welfare and protection.
” In doing so , Oppenheimer wrote , they had decided to make “ deportation a death penalty.
” ( Doak , the labor secretary , had defended the move , telling the Nation that there were some people who “ think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shipping him.
” ) The abuses were systemic problems , not the fault of rogue agents .
“ It is inevitable , ” Oppenheimer wrote , “ that despotic power given should be despotically used.
” He concluded that it was an “ insufferable reflection upon our humanity ” that so much power was provided with so “ little opportunity for even administrative mercy.
” Doak held up publication of the report for months .
( He reportedly had to be persuaded not to criticize Oppenheimer ’ s Jewish surname in his official @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Doak claimed without evidence that the problems had already been fixed before making clear that his main priority was deporting more people .
That effort was apparently going well : He had told the Nation that Ellis Island was “ crowded to capacity ” with people slated for deportation .
Trevor , the head of the American Coalition of Patriotic Societies , suggested that Oppenheimer was a communist sympathizer based on his ties to the ACLU .
At a congressional hearing in 1939 , a representative of the Immigration Restriction League dismissed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ findings of a “ Baltimore immigration lawyer by the name of Reuben Oppenheimer ” who was assisted by a New York immigration lawyer .
( Like Oppenheimer , the New York lawyer , Bernard Flexner , also happened to be Jewish . )
In reality , communists hated the report .
The Daily Worker , a communist newspaper , reported that left-wing groups deemed it largely “ useless ” to most immigrants .
J. Louis Engdahl , a communist leader , declared that it avoided “ the basic question , complete liquidation of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recognize the right to political asylum .
From the left ’ s perspective , the “ pussy-footing ” report condemning the “ modern Torquemadas of the Immigration Bureau ” provided immigration enforcement with a path to legitimacy .
For them , there was only one solution : “ Smash the deportation drive.
” Like reformers after him , Oppenheimer believed “ vigorous enforcement ” of immigration laws could coexist with protection of individual rights .
To achieve that , he suggested more discretion for officials enforcing immigration laws , better access to attorneys @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the independent immigration court system that immigrant advocates are still fighting for today .
Despite everything he saw , Oppenheimer called for hiring more Border Patrol agents , as well as inspectors who would work with local authorities to find immigrants with criminal records .
It ’ s essentially a 1930s version of the strategy Barack Obama pursued while setting deportation records before changing course under pressure from immigrant communities .
Biden has no plans to end deportations altogether if he ’ s elected , but the Wickersham report does give reason to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his predecessors .
Oppenheimer wrote that public opposition often deterred abuse in other areas .
But when it came to immigration , there just wasn ’ t that much public outcry .
“ [ T ] he defects and abuses of the present system must in part be laid at the door of public opinion , ” he concluded .
After decades of activism and four years of Trump , there is no longer nearly as much indifference .
Even today ’ s moderates can discern in our immigration system what yesterday ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s how the Daily Worker described the status quo in 1931 : “ Workers are seized and torn away from their families , held incommunicado for weeks and months , grilled and terrorized by immigration inquisitors , frequently transported over long distances to deportation points under conditions unfit for humans , then thrown into filthy pens crowded to bursting , and finally deported to countries where militant workers face certain death and imprisonment.
” Substitute “ asylum seekers ” for “ militant workers ” and you ’ ve got the system we have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mainstream news outlets .
Tinkering—a few more lawyers here , better-trained immigration officers there—wasn ’ t enough in 1931 and isn ’ t enough now .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
It doesn’t take longer than the table of contents to realize how much has stayed the same. “Separation of families.” “Invasion of personal rights.” “Illegal searches and seizures.” “Despotic powers of the administrative agency.” These section headings come from a 1931 US government report on the state of America’s deportation machine.
In 1929, President Herbert Hoover tasked former attorney general George Wickersham with producing a series of reports on law enforcement in the United States. Reuben Oppenheimer, a Baltimore lawyer, was put in charge of immigration. What he found was so appalling that it made the front page of the New York Times.
The denials that followed were familiar, too. William Doak, who oversaw deportations as secretary of labor, said the next day that the abuses happened before his tenure. A day later, John Trevor, the head of an anti-immigrant “patriotic” group, warned that he’d heard Oppenheimer was associated with the American Civil Liberties Union. Trevor added that the report’s recommendation to provide immigrants with attorneys would let them avoid deportation with the help of the “shysters who now disgrace the American bar.”
The Wickersham Commission’s largely forgotten report reveals that the immigration debate that’s torn the country apart under President Trump had the same contours a century ago: One side sees inhumanity in the detention and removal of people who came to the United States in search of a better life; the other sees the means necessary to keep out people they don’t want. It’s a reminder that long before Trump, America was violating immigrants’ rights as a matter of course.
If Trump leaves office in a few months, there will be intense pressure from liberals to quickly repeal his immigration policies. The Wickersham report makes the case for doing much more.
Oppenheimer was investigating immigration enforcement as a young Harvard-trained lawyer. Like Wickersham, who worked as a law partner at New York City’s oldest firm before becoming attorney general, he was an establishment reformer, not a radical. Both men believed some deportations were necessary, though the scale was different from today: At the time, the United States had been removing fewer than 10,000 people in an average year, versus the record of more than 400,000 set in 2012.
Still, Oppenheimer concluded that those deportations led to an “almost inconceivable amount of suffering and hardship, of separations of husbands from their wives and of fathers from their children, of exile from a country where the deportee has been a desirable citizen and has formed all his attachments.” He added, “These results occur for the most part not where the deportee has committed a crime but where he has been guilty of a technical violation of the immigrations laws.”
As an example, Oppenheimer mentioned a Mexican man with eight US-born children who wound up on the other side of the Rio Grande after a fishing trip. He was apprehended after returning and barred from the United States permanently after being deported. (A 10-year ban is more common today, although there’s usually no way to return in practice.)
Farther from the border, immigrant inspectors, the equivalent to today’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, made little effort to hide the fact that they valued deportations above due process. One inspector readily admitted to Oppenheimer that he was going to falsify an affidavit so he could deport a man he called a “bum.” It’s reminiscent of a scene in the recently released Netflix documentary series Immigration Nation, in which an ICE officer illegally picks a lock on camera. Then and now, lawbreaking was so routine that immigration agents didn’t think to hide it.
Once in custody, immigrants were detained in jails without the right to counsel. As today, most couldn’t afford attorneys, so they represented themselves in proceedings rigged against them. “In all probability a great many unrepresented persons have been deported whom lawyers could have saved,” Oppenheimer wrote.
An attorney and media attention didn’t guarantee protection, either. Oppenheimer told the story of Guido Serio, who fled Italy after being attacked by fascists. Serio told an immigrant inspector that he’d be killed in Benito Mussolini’s Italy. The government ordered him deported because he was a communist.
A federal judge recommended he be sent to the Soviet Union, which had offered to take him in. Instead, federal immigration officials deported him to Italy on the dubious grounds that it was best for his “welfare and protection.” In doing so, Oppenheimer wrote, they had decided to make “deportation a death penalty.” (Doak, the labor secretary, had defended the move, telling the Nation that there were some people who “think we ought to shoot him here before shipping him.”)
The abuses were systemic problems, not the fault of rogue agents. “It is inevitable,” Oppenheimer wrote, “that despotic power given should be despotically used.” He concluded that it was an “insufferable reflection upon our humanity” that so much power was provided with so “little opportunity for even administrative mercy.”
Doak held up publication of the report for months. (He reportedly had to be persuaded not to criticize Oppenheimer’s Jewish surname in his official response.) Once it was out, Doak claimed without evidence that the problems had already been fixed before making clear that his main priority was deporting more people. That effort was apparently going well: He had told the Nation that Ellis Island was “crowded to capacity” with people slated for deportation.
Trevor, the head of the American Coalition of Patriotic Societies, suggested that Oppenheimer was a communist sympathizer based on his ties to the ACLU. At a congressional hearing in 1939, a representative of the Immigration Restriction League dismissed the report as “merely” the findings of a “Baltimore immigration lawyer by the name of Reuben Oppenheimer” who was assisted by a New York immigration lawyer. (Like Oppenheimer, the New York lawyer, Bernard Flexner, also happened to be Jewish.)
In reality, communists hated the report. The Daily Worker, a communist newspaper, reported that left-wing groups deemed it largely “useless” to most immigrants. J. Louis Engdahl, a communist leader, declared that it avoided “the basic question, complete liquidation of the deportation evil” and failed to recognize the right to political asylum. From the left’s perspective, the “pussy-footing” report condemning the “modern Torquemadas of the Immigration Bureau” provided immigration enforcement with a path to legitimacy. For them, there was only one solution: “Smash the deportation drive.”
Like reformers after him, Oppenheimer believed “vigorous enforcement” of immigration laws could coexist with protection of individual rights. To achieve that, he suggested more discretion for officials enforcing immigration laws, better access to attorneys among immigrants, and the creation of the independent immigration court system that immigrant advocates are still fighting for today.
Despite everything he saw, Oppenheimer called for hiring more Border Patrol agents, as well as inspectors who would work with local authorities to find immigrants with criminal records. It’s essentially a 1930s version of the strategy Barack Obama pursued while setting deportation records before changing course under pressure from immigrant communities.
Biden has no plans to end deportations altogether if he’s elected, but the Wickersham report does give reason to think he can be pushed further than his predecessors. Oppenheimer wrote that public opposition often deterred abuse in other areas. But when it came to immigration, there just wasn’t that much public outcry. “[T]he defects and abuses of the present system must in part be laid at the door of public opinion,” he concluded.
After decades of activism and four years of Trump, there is no longer nearly as much indifference. Even today’s moderates can discern in our immigration system what yesterday’s radicals were describing. Here’s how the Daily Worker described the status quo in 1931: “Workers are seized and torn away from their families, held incommunicado for weeks and months, grilled and terrorized by immigration inquisitors, frequently transported over long distances to deportation points under conditions unfit for humans, then thrown into filthy pens crowded to bursting, and finally deported to countries where militant workers face certain death and imprisonment.”
Substitute “asylum seekers” for “militant workers” and you’ve got the system we have today, as characterized even by staid mainstream news outlets. Tinkering—a few more lawyers here, better-trained immigration officers there—wasn’t enough in 1931 and isn’t enough now.


motherjones--2020-10-27--The US Government Has Paid Trump’s Businesses at Least $2.5 Million—Including $3 for Water

Like any president , Donald Trump travels with an enormous entourage that needs to eat , drink , and sleep somewhere .
But unlike any other president before , when Trump travels away from the White House for any extended period of time , it is almost always to one of his own resorts .
Not only does this cost taxpayers a small fortune—much of that money goes right into Trump ’ s pocket .
And , as Trump has become the center of gravity for today ’ s Republican Party , millions of dollars more has flowed into his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ establishments .
According to a new report from the Washington Post , with his first term not even over , Trump has used his role as US president to direct at least $ 8.1 million in revenue to his personal businesses—with taxpayers footing the bill for some and political allies forking over the rest .
That makes the US government , which has dropped at least $ 2.5 million at Trump properties since 2017 , one of the president ’ s largest customers .
Overall , earnings that can be directly tied to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dwarf what he earns in annual revenue at many of his individual properties .
From the Post : According to the Post , Trump ’ s penchant for hosting foreign leaders at his properties , and in particular at his Florida resort Mar-a-Lago , has been a financial boon .
When Trump met with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe at Mar-a-Lago early in 2017 , the president ’ s resort charged taxpayers for rooms for staff—including Secret Service agents and aides like Steve Bannon—as well as for food and drink .
At least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on roses alone .
Nothing , according to the Post , was too small for Trump to bill to taxpayers—including $ 3 for water .
Elsewhere , the Secret Service has been forced to pay $ 17,000 per month every summer to rent a cottage at the president ’ s New Jersey golf course—whether he visits or not , just to make sure the agency has a presence if he decides to show up .
The enormous caveat on the Post ’ s story is that this is far from a comprehensive total—the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ groups in court to prevent more complete records from being released .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Like any president, Donald Trump travels with an enormous entourage that needs to eat, drink, and sleep somewhere. But unlike any other president before, when Trump travels away from the White House for any extended period of time, it is almost always to one of his own resorts. Not only does this cost taxpayers a small fortune—much of that money goes right into Trump’s pocket. And, as Trump has become the center of gravity for today’s Republican Party, millions of dollars more has flowed into his pockets from political supporters who patronize his establishments.
According to a new report from the Washington Post, with his first term not even over, Trump has used his role as US president to direct at least $8.1 million in revenue to his personal businesses—with taxpayers footing the bill for some and political allies forking over the rest. That makes the US government, which has dropped at least $2.5 million at Trump properties since 2017, one of the president’s largest customers. Overall, earnings that can be directly tied to Trump’s tenure in public office dwarf what he earns in annual revenue at many of his individual properties. From the Post:
But documents show that visits by Trump, his family and his supporters have turned the government and the Republican Party into regular customers for the family business. In the case of the government, Trump’s visits turned it into a captive customer, newly revealed documents show. What the government needed from Trump’s properties, it had to buy from Trump’s company. So the more he went, the more he got. Since 2017, Trump’s company has charged taxpayers for hotel rooms, ballrooms, cottages, rental houses, golf carts, votive candles, floating candles, candelabras, furniture moving, resort fees, decorative palm trees, strip steak, chocolate cake, breakfast buffets, $88 bottles of wine and $1,000 worth of liquor for White House aides. And water.
According to the Post, Trump’s penchant for hosting foreign leaders at his properties, and in particular at his Florida resort Mar-a-Lago, has been a financial boon. When Trump met with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe at Mar-a-Lago early in 2017, the president’s resort charged taxpayers for rooms for staff—including Secret Service agents and aides like Steve Bannon—as well as for food and drink. At least $6,000 in taxpayer funds were spent on roses alone. Nothing, according to the Post, was too small for Trump to bill to taxpayers—including $3 for water.
Elsewhere, the Secret Service has been forced to pay $17,000 per month every summer to rent a cottage at the president’s New Jersey golf course—whether he visits or not, just to make sure the agency has a presence if he decides to show up.
The enormous caveat on the Post’s story is that this is far from a comprehensive total—the administration has fought the newspaper and watchdog groups in court to prevent more complete records from being released.


motherjones--2020-10-27--Pope Francis Endorsing Civil Unions Was a Huge Deal. These LGBTQ Catholics Know Exactly Why.

When Pope Francis shocked Catholics last week by endorsing civil unions for same-sex couples , it didn ’ t take long for Aaron Bianco to hear about it .
A Catholic professor of theology at the University of San Diego , he also happens to be openly gay and married .
Several students immediately texted him when news of Francis ’ comments reached the United States .
“ They were so happy , ” he told me .
“ All they wanted to discuss ” in class last week were the pope ’ s comments .
Bianco was happy too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ familiar with the vengeful homophobic wing of the Church , he knows that progress often comes at a price .
Four years ago , he helped minister to the queer community at a parish in San Diego .
When his work began attracting publicity , he became a target for right-wing Catholic agitators , who spent months sending hate mail and death threats .
“ Someone tried to burn the church doors down , ” he said .
“ My husband eventually said , ‘ This job is not worth it . '
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ his local bishop .
Queer Catholics in similar positions at parishes and schools would never have left their jobs were it not for the pressure .
The Vatican may no longer speak as harshly of gay people as it did in 1986 when a Church document stated homosexual activity was indicative of a “ disordered sexual inclination , ” but civil unions and marriage have long been the third rail for even the more progressive bishops .
Teachers at Catholic schools in Florida , Ohio , and Indiana have been fired for being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Trump administration , Catholic dioceses all over the country have gone to court to defend the firings .
In one instance , a Jesuit school in Indianapolis was forbidden from calling itself “ Catholic ” because administrators wouldn ’ t fire a gay teacher .
Last year , the Trump ’ s Justice Department submitted a statement in court supporting the Indianapolis archbishop ’ s decision , saying it was permitted under the First Amendment .
Francis , who supported civil unions when he was archbishop of Buenos Aires , is sounding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Church ’ s leader .
“ Homosexual people have the right to be in a family .
They are children of God , ” he told an interviewer as part of a documentary film released in Rome last week .
“ You can ’ t kick someone out of a family , nor make their life miserable for this .
What we have to have is a civil union law ; that way they are legally covered.
” After the news broke , I reached out to Margie Winters , a service learning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Philadelphia .
She told me she felt “ a lot of cautious optimism ” after hearing about the pope ’ s remarks , adding , “ The experience that I had in 2015 , obviously , colors my experiences now.
” That was the year a school parent at Waldron Mercy Academy , a private Catholic school located in one of Philadelphia ’ s wealthiest suburbs , complained about her being married to a woman .
Winters had worked at the school for nearly a decade and had long been open to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She just wasn ’ t out to the broader school community .
“ It was kind of the time of ‘ don ’ t ask , ‘ don ’ t tell , ' ” she says .
Winters was called into a meeting with the principal and fired as the school ’ s director of religious education .
Despite outrage on her behalf from other teachers and parents—23,000 people signed a petition asking for her to be reinstated—Waldron leadership refused to reverse its decision , telling parents in a letter that “ many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ current Church teachings , but to continue as a Catholic school , Waldron Mercy must comply with those teachings.
” Former Archbishop of Philadelphia Charles Chaput , who was replaced by Francis in January , even called the decision to fire Winters one that showed “ character and common sense.
” Five years later , Winters says she was “ really excited ” to hear Francis ’ endorsement of civil unions but frustrated that his comments seemed still to prioritize heterosexual marriages , while reducing her own to second-class status .
“ It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ becoming more positive , but I think it ’ s only a step , ” she says .
“ It ’ s still an exclusion as well.
” Few Catholics are as familiar with the difficulty of getting the Church to liberalize its position on marriage equality as Sister Jeannine Gramick , the co-founder of New Ways Ministry , a pro-LGBTQ Catholic organization based outside of Washington , DC .
She has spent decades ministering to gay Catholics , including Winters , despite a 1999 Vatican order prohibiting her and New Ways Ministry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from any pastoral work involving homosexual persons.
” ( “ I came to understand through prayer and spiritual direction that I could not in good conscience follow their order , ” she told me . )
Among the various implications of Francis ’ remarks are that , even absent an actual policy shift , his words could lead school administrators to be more protective of LGBTQ staffers , Gramick said .
“ My experience is that most schools don ’ t want to fire their gay teachers , even if they ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but they ’ re afraid of the bishop , ” she said .
“ Now , with the Pope ’ s statement about supporting civil unions , that will give the administrators more courage to not pressure those applicants who are LGBT to be silent.
” For any substantive change to follow this statement , more bishops will need to heed the pope ’ s example .
That ’ s not such a sure thing in the United States , where “ you have bishops who are violently opposed to same-sex civil unions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a Jesuit priest and author of Building a Bridge , describing the effort to create a “ relationship of respect , compassion , and sensitivity ” between the LGBTQ community and the church .
“ Some don ’ t seem moved by anything the pope says , ” he told me .
One particularly conservative bishop , Thomas J. Tobin of Rhode Island , responded to Francis by announcing , “ The Church can not support the acceptance of objectively immoral relationships.
” What Tobin failed to realize is the American church—if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , not its leaders—already does widely support marriage equality .
In 2004 , only 38 percent of American Catholics supported gay marriage ; by 2018 , nearly 73 percent of them did .
Conservative Catholic leaders like Tobin no longer represent a majority , but they still enjoy outsize influence because the Trump administration continues to court their support .
Four years ago , “ Trump reached the presidency in large part because he won traditionally Democratic Pennsylvania , Michigan , and Wisconsin , all states in which Catholics outnumber evangelicals by significant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This time around , Secretary of State Mike Pompeo felt comfortable publicly blasting the Vatican in a naked appeal to anti-Francis Catholics last month .
Trump , for his part , has been shameless in exploiting the partisan divide within the church .
“ Anti-Catholic bigotry has absolutely no place in the United States of America , ” he said earlier this month .
“ It predominates in the Democratic Party.
” Bianco , the former parish administrator in San Diego , had certainly experienced bigotry , except it had been directed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of right-wing Catholics .
One website even accused him of overseeing a “ homosexualist cabal ” at the parish .
Two years removed from that job , he reflected on one moment that stuck with him , a sign of good even in the midst of almost shocking levels of vitriol and hate .
It was October 7 , 2017 , the day Bianco ’ s parish held a mass to celebrate the 20th anniversary of a letter from American Catholic bishops that marked a welcome shift in its approach to gay and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behavior , the letter affirmed God ’ s love for all people and urged Catholic parents to be accepting of their gay and lesbian children , even as it stopped short of any mention of same-sex marriage or civil unions .
While notably addressed to parents and not LGBTQ Catholics themselves , the letter was still a milestone for queer Catholics .
The anniversary of its publication brought some believers who hadn ’ t set foot in a church for years back in the pews .
The event was denounced by Bianco ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a “ pro-gay mass.
” After the service , Bianco remembers meeting an 82-year-old man .
During their conversation , he told him that this had been his first time attending mass since he was 18 .
That ’ s when he came out as gay to a priest , who responded , “ Don ’ t you ever come back into the Catholic church.
” “ When he left , he was sobbing , ” Bianco told me , “ and he said to me , ‘ Thank you for allowing @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
When Pope Francis shocked Catholics last week by endorsing civil unions for same-sex couples, it didn’t take long for Aaron Bianco to hear about it. A Catholic professor of theology at the University of San Diego, he also happens to be openly gay and married. Several students immediately texted him when news of Francis’ comments reached the United States. “They were so happy,” he told me. “All they wanted to discuss” in class last week were the pope’s comments.
Bianco was happy too. But as someone who is painfully familiar with the vengeful homophobic wing of the Church, he knows that progress often comes at a price. Four years ago, he helped minister to the queer community at a parish in San Diego. When his work began attracting publicity, he became a target for right-wing Catholic agitators, who spent months sending hate mail and death threats. “Someone tried to burn the church doors down,” he said. “My husband eventually said, ‘This job is not worth it.'” Bianco finally quit despite support from his local bishop.
Queer Catholics in similar positions at parishes and schools would never have left their jobs were it not for the pressure. The Vatican may no longer speak as harshly of gay people as it did in 1986 when a Church document stated homosexual activity was indicative of a “disordered sexual inclination,” but civil unions and marriage have long been the third rail for even the more progressive bishops. Teachers at Catholic schools in Florida, Ohio, and Indiana have been fired for being in same-sex marriages. With backing from the Trump administration, Catholic dioceses all over the country have gone to court to defend the firings. In one instance, a Jesuit school in Indianapolis was forbidden from calling itself “Catholic” because administrators wouldn’t fire a gay teacher. Last year, the Trump’s Justice Department submitted a statement in court supporting the Indianapolis archbishop’s decision, saying it was permitted under the First Amendment.
Francis, who supported civil unions when he was archbishop of Buenos Aires, is sounding a more inclusive tone now as the Church’s leader. “Homosexual people have the right to be in a family. They are children of God,” he told an interviewer as part of a documentary film released in Rome last week. “You can’t kick someone out of a family, nor make their life miserable for this. What we have to have is a civil union law; that way they are legally covered.”
“You can’t kick someone out of a family, nor make their life miserable for this. What we have to have is a civil union law; that way they are legally covered.”
After the news broke, I reached out to Margie Winters, a service learning coordinator at a secular school outside of Philadelphia. She told me she felt “a lot of cautious optimism” after hearing about the pope’s remarks, adding, “The experience that I had in 2015, obviously, colors my experiences now.”
That was the year a school parent at Waldron Mercy Academy, a private Catholic school located in one of Philadelphia’s wealthiest suburbs, complained about her being married to a woman. Winters had worked at the school for nearly a decade and had long been open to the administration and faculty about her marriage. She just wasn’t out to the broader school community. “It was kind of the time of ‘don’t ask, ‘don’t tell,'” she says. Winters was called into a meeting with the principal and fired as the school’s director of religious education.
Despite outrage on her behalf from other teachers and parents—23,000 people signed a petition asking for her to be reinstated—Waldron leadership refused to reverse its decision, telling parents in a letter that “many of us accept life choices that contradict current Church teachings, but to continue as a Catholic school, Waldron Mercy must comply with those teachings.” Former Archbishop of Philadelphia Charles Chaput, who was replaced by Francis in January, even called the decision to fire Winters one that showed “character and common sense.”
Five years later, Winters says she was “really excited” to hear Francis’ endorsement of civil unions but frustrated that his comments seemed still to prioritize heterosexual marriages, while reducing her own to second-class status. “It’s wonderful that the rhetoric is becoming more positive, but I think it’s only a step,” she says. “It’s still an exclusion as well.”
Few Catholics are as familiar with the difficulty of getting the Church to liberalize its position on marriage equality as Sister Jeannine Gramick, the co-founder of New Ways Ministry, a pro-LGBTQ Catholic organization based outside of Washington, DC. She has spent decades ministering to gay Catholics, including Winters, despite a 1999 Vatican order prohibiting her and New Ways Ministry co-founder Robert Nugent, SDS, “from any pastoral work involving homosexual persons.” (“I came to understand through prayer and spiritual direction that I could not in good conscience follow their order,” she told me.)
Among the various implications of Francis’ remarks are that, even absent an actual policy shift, his words could lead school administrators to be more protective of LGBTQ staffers, Gramick said. “My experience is that most schools don’t want to fire their gay teachers, even if they’re married or in a civil union, but they’re afraid of the bishop,” she said. “Now, with the Pope’s statement about supporting civil unions, that will give the administrators more courage to not pressure those applicants who are LGBT to be silent.”
“My experience is that most schools don’t want to fire their gay teachers, even if they’re married or in a civil union, but they’re afraid of the bishop.”
For any substantive change to follow this statement, more bishops will need to heed the pope’s example. That’s not such a sure thing in the United States, where “you have bishops who are violently opposed to same-sex civil unions,” said the Reverend James Martin, a Jesuit priest and author of Building a Bridge, describing the effort to create a “relationship of respect, compassion, and sensitivity” between the LGBTQ community and the church. “Some don’t seem moved by anything the pope says,” he told me.
One particularly conservative bishop, Thomas J. Tobin of Rhode Island, responded to Francis by announcing, “The Church cannot support the acceptance of objectively immoral relationships.” What Tobin failed to realize is the American church—if it’s defined by its people, not its leaders—already does widely support marriage equality. In 2004, only 38 percent of American Catholics supported gay marriage; by 2018, nearly 73 percent of them did.
Conservative Catholic leaders like Tobin no longer represent a majority, but they still enjoy outsize influence because the Trump administration continues to court their support. Four years ago, “Trump reached the presidency in large part because he won traditionally Democratic Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, all states in which Catholics outnumber evangelicals by significant margins,” NPR reported on Monday. This time around, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo felt comfortable publicly blasting the Vatican in a naked appeal to anti-Francis Catholics last month. Trump, for his part, has been shameless in exploiting the partisan divide within the church. “Anti-Catholic bigotry has absolutely no place in the United States of America,” he said earlier this month. “It predominates in the Democratic Party.”
Bianco, the former parish administrator in San Diego, had certainly experienced bigotry, except it had been directed at him by an extremely vocal portion of right-wing Catholics. One website even accused him of overseeing a “homosexualist cabal” at the parish. Two years removed from that job, he reflected on one moment that stuck with him, a sign of good even in the midst of almost shocking levels of vitriol and hate.
It was October 7, 2017, the day Bianco’s parish held a mass to celebrate the 20th anniversary of a letter from American Catholic bishops that marked a welcome shift in its approach to gay and lesbian Catholics. Rather than demonize homosexual behavior, the letter affirmed God’s love for all people and urged Catholic parents to be accepting of their gay and lesbian children, even as it stopped short of any mention of same-sex marriage or civil unions. While notably addressed to parents and not LGBTQ Catholics themselves, the letter was still a milestone for queer Catholics. The anniversary of its publication brought some believers who hadn’t set foot in a church for years back in the pews. The event was denounced by Bianco’s critics, who assailed it online as a “pro-gay mass.”
After the service, Bianco remembers meeting an 82-year-old man. During their conversation, he told him that this had been his first time attending mass since he was 18. That’s when he came out as gay to a priest, who responded, “Don’t you ever come back into the Catholic church.”
“When he left, he was sobbing,” Bianco told me, “and he said to me, ‘Thank you for allowing me to come home.'”


motherjones--2020-10-28--The Supreme Court Might Kill Obamacare. That Could Be a Disaster for Young Adults.

Artist and prop-maker Dara Williamson visited the gynecologist for the first time when she was 25 , after realizing that her health coverage on her mother ’ s high-quality insurance plan was set to expire on her 26th birthday .
Williamson , now 34 , says that an ultrasound that day in 2012 revealed “ two giant cysts where my ovaries should have been ” —so large that her doctor feared she could suffer ovarian torsion , in which the ovaries painfully twist around on themselves .
A team of doctors decided that she needed a laparoscopic cystectomy , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her insurance lapsed .
Williamson was able to stay on her mother ’ s plan as long as she did in part because she lived in Illinois , which had passed a law in 2008 requiring insurance companies to raise the maximum age for dependent coverage to 26 .
Two years later , a similar law would apply to young adults in every state , thanks to a provision in the Affordable Care Act , better known as Obamacare .
Now , the Supreme Court—with Amy Coney Barrett as its sixth conservative justice—is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could undo the entire ACA .
Striking down Obamacare wouldn ’ t just strip health insurance away from the 23 million Americans who purchased plans through their state marketplaces and from many of the 12 million more who enrolled in the law ’ s expanded Medicaid program ; it would also get rid of popular provisions like protections for people with preexisting conditions and the increased age limit for dependents .
In 2010 , before the ACA was enacted , young adults were more likely to be uninsured than any other age group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aged 19 to 25 lacked insurance , compared to a 16 percent uninsured rate for people of all ages , according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention .
But over the following decade—after Obamacare granted young adults the right to remain on their parents ’ health plans until they turned 26—they gained coverage at higher rates than any other age group , according to the Census Bureau .
The Department of Health and Human Services estimates that 2.3 million young adults gained insurance through their parents ’ private plans between 2010 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ACA took effect , and another 3.8 million gained insurance by purchasing plans on their states ’ health care marketplaces between 2013 and 2016 .
Other young people gained private insurance thanks to an Obamacare provision penalizing large employers who fail to provide health coverage .
The gains in coverage for young adults under the ACA bely the myth of the “ young invincible ” who refuses to get health insurance because he thinks he won ’ t need it .
Instead , the data suggest that young people faced serious obstacles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ACA .
And even young , healthy people need insurance , says Katherine Hempstead , a senior policy adviser at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation .
Such coverage can be used for potentially lifesaving preventative care like Williamson ’ s visit to the gynecologist , or for behavioral health services to treat substance abuse or mental health issues .
Aside from a 2016 interview in which he expressed support for allowing dependents to stay on their parents ’ plans until age 26 , President Donald Trump has been largely mum on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have on young adults ’ ability to obtain coverage .
Despite asking the Supreme Court to strike down Obamacare and repeatedly vowing to replace it with something better , Trump has never revealed an actual plan to accomplish that .
The day after the 2020 vice presidential debate , 19-year-old Shaterra Robinson was scrolling through Twitter when she came across a video of Sen. Kamala Harris warning about the consequences of Trump ’ s efforts to invalidate Obamacare .
“ If you have a preexisting condition—heart disease , diabetes , breast cancer—they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
“ If you are under the age of 26 on your parents ’ coverage , they ’ re coming for you.
” Robinson , a sophomore at Howard University , retweeted the video , adding , “ Trump wants to drop the age limit for being on our parent ’ s insurance from 26 all the way down to 18 .
Before you decide not to vote , think about how many Black young adults who can ’ t afford to start paying for their own insurance at 18 .
Let @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still in a pandemic !
” Robinson intended her tweet to reach only her followers , mainly college classmates and a few friends from high school .
But the message hit a nerve , unexpectedly garnering more than 200,000 likes and 93,000 retweets .
In practice , it ’ s unclear whether ending Obamacare would cause the dependent age limit on most policies to fall all the way down to 18 , Hempstead says .
Even before the ACA was enacted , 37 states , including Illinois , had extended the age that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ plan past 18 .
And because the provision is so popular among workers , Hempstead doesn ’ t envision employers immediately rushing to lower the age limits on the plans they offer .
But if the economy continues to weaken , more young adults could start losing this coverage .
“ If times are really tough , I think there would be pressure on employers to maybe start whittling that back a bit , ” Hempstead says , “ because that would be a way to save money.
” Harold Pollack , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the University of Chicago , says that if Obamacare were struck down , politicians would probably push to restore the dependent age extension .
And some companies that could afford to maintain the policy would likely do so .
“ I think that the marquee employers would keep it because it would just produce enormous employee resentment , ” he said .
“ But I think that other employers would probably drop it , especially if it were in the context of difficulties for the company.
” Hempstead stresses that even if many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their parents ’ plans until they turn 26 , the end of the ACA would bar them from accessing health care in other ways .
Not everyone ’ s parents are insured , and young adults who access care through expanded Medicaid or their state ’ s health insurance marketplace would have no other options .
Robinson ’ s intention in sending the tweet was not to delve into the nuances of what would happen if the ACA ’ s protections were eliminated , but simply to encourage her classmates to vote .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lot of hope in this country and the way it ’ s governed and the people that rule it , ” she says .
“ I just wanted my classmates to know we ’ re affected by these decisions.
” Robinson says that attending a historically Black university has made her aware of racial health disparities—for example , people identifying as Black or African American are 2.6 times as likely to contract COVID compared to white people , and 4.7 times as likely to be hospitalized , according to the CDC .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ affect Black young adults .
“ As a minority , as a marginalized group , I feel like it ’ s even harder for a lot of us , especially those who are not in college…because they don ’ t even have the option of college health insurance , ” she says .
Health care is one of the most important issues for Robinson , a first-time voter who says she registered after hearing about the possibility of the ACA being struck down .
“ I think that just how much this country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shows how incompetent the current president and his administration is , ” she says .
“ This is not a good time to want to repeal or try to do anything to insurance that so many people are relying on.
” Williamson , who has had intermittent health coverage over the last decade , sees this election as a matter of life and death .
“ We can either live in a state where we do our best to take care of each other , or we can fall back into the barbarism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us , ” she says .
“ I am very definitely voting for whoever does not take away my health care , and who at least seems to acknowledge that my life as a citizen matters .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Artist and prop-maker Dara Williamson visited the gynecologist for the first time when she was 25, after realizing that her health coverage on her mother’s high-quality insurance plan was set to expire on her 26th birthday. Williamson, now 34, says that an ultrasound that day in 2012 revealed “two giant cysts where my ovaries should have been”—so large that her doctor feared she could suffer ovarian torsion, in which the ovaries painfully twist around on themselves. A team of doctors decided that she needed a laparoscopic cystectomy, and she had the surgery just days before her insurance lapsed.
Williamson was able to stay on her mother’s plan as long as she did in part because she lived in Illinois, which had passed a law in 2008 requiring insurance companies to raise the maximum age for dependent coverage to 26. Two years later, a similar law would apply to young adults in every state, thanks to a provision in the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare.
Now, the Supreme Court—with Amy Coney Barrett as its sixth conservative justice—is set to hear a Republican-backed lawsuit that could undo the entire ACA. Striking down Obamacare wouldn’t just strip health insurance away from the 23 million Americans who purchased plans through their state marketplaces and from many of the 12 million more who enrolled in the law’s expanded Medicaid program; it would also get rid of popular provisions like protections for people with preexisting conditions and the increased age limit for dependents.
In 2010, before the ACA was enacted, young adults were more likely to be uninsured than any other age group. More than one third of people aged 19 to 25 lacked insurance, compared to a 16 percent uninsured rate for people of all ages, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But over the following decade—after Obamacare granted young adults the right to remain on their parents’ health plans until they turned 26—they gained coverage at higher rates than any other age group, according to the Census Bureau. The Department of Health and Human Services estimates that 2.3 million young adults gained insurance through their parents’ private plans between 2010 and 2013, before other parts of the ACA took effect, and another 3.8 million gained insurance by purchasing plans on their states’ health care marketplaces between 2013 and 2016. Other young people gained private insurance thanks to an Obamacare provision penalizing large employers who fail to provide health coverage.
The gains in coverage for young adults under the ACA bely the myth of the “young invincible” who refuses to get health insurance because he thinks he won’t need it. Instead, the data suggest that young people faced serious obstacles to accessing coverage that were mitigated by the ACA. And even young, healthy people need insurance, says Katherine Hempstead, a senior policy adviser at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Such coverage can be used for potentially lifesaving preventative care like Williamson’s visit to the gynecologist, or for behavioral health services to treat substance abuse or mental health issues.
Aside from a 2016 interview in which he expressed support for allowing dependents to stay on their parents’ plans until age 26, President Donald Trump has been largely mum on the potential impact that overturning the ACA might have on young adults’ ability to obtain coverage. Despite asking the Supreme Court to strike down Obamacare and repeatedly vowing to replace it with something better, Trump has never revealed an actual plan to accomplish that.
The day after the 2020 vice presidential debate, 19-year-old Shaterra Robinson was scrolling through Twitter when she came across a video of Sen. Kamala Harris warning about the consequences of Trump’s efforts to invalidate Obamacare. “If you have a preexisting condition—heart disease, diabetes, breast cancer—they’re coming for you,” Harris said. “If you are under the age of 26 on your parents’ coverage, they’re coming for you.”
Robinson, a sophomore at Howard University, retweeted the video, adding, “Trump wants to drop the age limit for being on our parent’s insurance from 26 all the way down to 18. Before you decide not to vote, think about how many Black young adults who can’t afford to start paying for their own insurance at 18. Let’s not forget we’re still in a pandemic!”
Robinson intended her tweet to reach only her followers, mainly college classmates and a few friends from high school. But the message hit a nerve, unexpectedly garnering more than 200,000 likes and 93,000 retweets.
In practice, it’s unclear whether ending Obamacare would cause the dependent age limit on most policies to fall all the way down to 18, Hempstead says. Even before the ACA was enacted, 37 states, including Illinois, had extended the age that young adults could stay on their parents’ plan past 18. And because the provision is so popular among workers, Hempstead doesn’t envision employers immediately rushing to lower the age limits on the plans they offer. But if the economy continues to weaken, more young adults could start losing this coverage. “If times are really tough, I think there would be pressure on employers to maybe start whittling that back a bit,” Hempstead says, “because that would be a way to save money.”
Harold Pollack, a health policy expert and professor at the University of Chicago, says that if Obamacare were struck down, politicians would probably push to restore the dependent age extension. And some companies that could afford to maintain the policy would likely do so. “I think that the marquee employers would keep it because it would just produce enormous employee resentment,” he said. “But I think that other employers would probably drop it, especially if it were in the context of difficulties for the company.”
Hempstead stresses that even if many young adults continued to be eligible for their parents’ plans until they turn 26, the end of the ACA would bar them from accessing health care in other ways. Not everyone’s parents are insured, and young adults who access care through expanded Medicaid or their state’s health insurance marketplace would have no other options.
Robinson’s intention in sending the tweet was not to delve into the nuances of what would happen if the ACA’s protections were eliminated, but simply to encourage her classmates to vote. “I feel like they have lost a lot of hope in this country and the way it’s governed and the people that rule it,” she says. “I just wanted my classmates to know we’re affected by these decisions.”
Robinson says that attending a historically Black university has made her aware of racial health disparities—for example, people identifying as Black or African American are 2.6 times as likely to contract COVID compared to white people, and 4.7 times as likely to be hospitalized, according to the CDC. Robinson suspects that ACA repeal would disproportionately affect Black young adults. “As a minority, as a marginalized group, I feel like it’s even harder for a lot of us, especially those who are not in college…because they don’t even have the option of college health insurance,” she says.
Health care is one of the most important issues for Robinson, a first-time voter who says she registered after hearing about the possibility of the ACA being struck down. “I think that just how much this country has lost and suffered in this pandemic shows how incompetent the current president and his administration is,” she says. “This is not a good time to want to repeal or try to do anything to insurance that so many people are relying on.”
Williamson, who has had intermittent health coverage over the last decade, sees this election as a matter of life and death. “We can either live in a state where we do our best to take care of each other, or we can fall back into the barbarism that’s been creeping up on us,” she says. “I am very definitely voting for whoever does not take away my health care, and who at least seems to acknowledge that my life as a citizen matters.”