The Possibility of Defunding the Police

August 2020 | Oskar Perez, Staff Writer/Editor

On May 25, 2020, the world witnessed the murder of George Floyd by a police officer. The world wanted justice, but the police did nothing. Soon, people took to the streets all across the country demanding justice for Floyd. However, when the government finally decided to act, their actions felt underwhelming. The people deserved more. Floyd deserved more. Now the narrative has changed, and people want a change in how policing is structured altogether. This change ushers the possibility of defunding the police, which aims to move funds away from the police and into the community.[1] There are many arguments about whether defunding the police can prove to be beneficial; however, the main concern is who would take on the responsibility – the state or the Federal government – toward reforming the police. To defund the police, citizens cannot rely on the Federal government to set a national standard. Instead, they should advocate for the needs of their communities to local and state government officials, since the source of funding mostly comes from communities. Likewise, it would be unconstitutional for the Federal government to set a national standard on policing.

The majority of police funding is sourced from state and local governments with the Federal government contributing a very small amount for policing. However, there is variation between state to state and county to county due to the services each government provides and the needs of the community. For instance, in 2017 Clark County, Nevada spent 15 percent of its budget on police while Las Vegas spent less than 2 percent. But in Cook County, Illinois only 2 percent of its budget was spent on police while Chicago city spent 20 percent of its budget.[2] Since the majority of police funding is apportioned by states and local governments, this is significant enough to make them responsible for police defunding -- not the Federal government. Only the state and local government will know what to budget. As Richard C. Auxier from Urban Institute explains, “what a government spends on police (or any other service) depends in large part on a complex set of demographic, economic, and fiscal conditions in those jurisdictions.”[3] Auxier explains how one state might spend more on policing since the cost of living varies from state to state. For instance, the state of New York might pay their officers more compared in Kentucky, since the cost of living is higher in New York. 

To defund the police, activists and policymakers need to understand where the money goes and if the budget should be allocated elsewhere to benefit the community. This is essentially the first step to defund the police, “reducing police spending can free up millions of dollars for other services,”[4] ones that help communities to grow and thrive. These community investments would reduce police officers acting out of their job description and training since these services would include job training, counseling, and violence-prevention programs. Investment in such services would bring in skilled professionals who are trained to support people who have a mental health episode.[5] At the end of the day, it would be up to the state and local governments to allocate the correct amount of funds to police departments and to services that nourish communities. Activists and policymakers need to understand where funds can be used beneficially if they wish to defund the police. 

Ultimately, it would be unconstitutional for the Federal government to set a national standard on policing. The 10th amendment states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” further holding state and local governments accountable for police defunding. For example, the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act attempted to establish new Federal oversight and set standards for education; however, right away the act proved to be flawed.[6] Not only was the Federal oversight unconstitutional, but the flaws within the act were apparent when the standards did not consider the differences between student populations. This same reasoning can be applied to police standards if there were Federal oversight on policing; the act would fail to consider the differences between police populations. Again, only state and local governments would be able to understand what communities need and where funding will prove to be beneficial. 

There are critics against the notion that state and local governments are responsible for defunding or abolishing the police. For instance, Congress can distribute funds as grants to state and local governments for their implementation of policy, which is how the Federal government can regulate and standardize law enforcement.[7] This counters the responsibility of state and local government on police defunding since the Federal government can also have a responsibility for defunding the police through existing funding programs. The Federal government can appropriate funds to police departments who participate in data collection. For example, grants require specific data from law enforcement agencies to qualify. The data collection will give the Federal government analysis of police use of force, which could incentivize police departments to adopt national standards since law enforcement agencies would want to comply with the data to receive funding. This could ensure law enforcement agencies adopt practices and standards that prevent the abuse of power and ensure compliance with civil rights requirements.[8] Federal funding could shift the burden away from state and local governments when budgeting and it could indirectly control police standards by incentivizing police departments to adopt practices and national standards, which is still constitutional. Even though this strategy to set a national standard is constitutional, it still proves to be flawed. Again, there is a complex difference of demographic, economic, and fiscal conditions from state to state and county to county; therefore, a national standard will benefit certain communities, but it might hinder others. 

This paper is not an argument of why the police should be defunded, but on who should defund the police. Since it would be unconstitutional for the Federal government to set a national standard on policing and the source of funding mostly comes from communities, defunding the police should be done through the state and local governments. The state and local governments hold the power to defund the police with the Constitution, funding, and community differences. But citizens also have a responsibility. Instead of criticizing the Federal government for a lack of action, citizens could lobby their state and local government for change, and help local officials understand what would benefit their community. Most importantly, citizens should realize how the future is in their hands to change the current landscape of police brutality in the United States, and that it is possible to defund the police.

---

Sources

1. Annie Lowrey. Defund the Police (Boston: The Atlantic, 2020).

2. Richard C. Auxier. What Police Spending Data Can (and Cannot) Explain amid Calls to Defund the Police (Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, 2020).

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid.

5. Paige Fernandez. Defunding the Police Will Actually Make Us Safer (New York: American Civil Liberties Union, 2020).

6.  Brendan Pelsue. When it Comes to Education, the Federal Government is in Charge of ... Um, What? (Cambridge: Harvard Ed News, 2017).

7. Ibid.

8. Charles Ramsey and Laurie Robinson. Final Report of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing (Washington, D.C: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2015).

Vanessa Guillen - Break the Chain of Silence by Removing the Chain of Command

August 2020 | Natalie Hsaio, Staff Writer/Editor

Garnering national attention, Specialist Vanessa Guillen’s disappearance have sparked conversation about the military’s protocol for handling cases of sexual assault and harassment. From trending hashtags to national marches and petitions demanding a change in policy, the feedback is clear: there must be change. To better explore and understand the effect of the situation, we will first go over the basic facts of Guillen’s disappearance, look into how sexual assault/harassment is handled in the military, and explore the possible new changes for reform.

In a statement from the United States Army Criminal Investigation Command, Specialist Guillen “was last seen on the morning of April 22 in the parking lot of her Regimental Engineer Squadron Headquarters, 3rd Cavalry Regiment on Fort Hood, Texas, and had not been heard from since that date.”[1] On July 6th, 2020, it was confirmed that the remains of Specialist Guillen were identified near the Leon River in Belton, Texas.[2] Her family reported that Vanessa had been confiding in her family and friends about being sexually harassed.[3] However, Vanessa did not formally make a report; which raises some questions. Why did she choose to not file a report? If there was a formal report filed, would it have prevented the tragic situation from happening? The loss and tragedy of Vanessa Guillen have called into question the protocol of reporting cases of sexual assault/harassment in the military. 

Vanessa is not alone. Her story is not an anomaly. In the annual report from the Department of Defense (DOD), an estimate of 20,500 service members have experienced some sort of sexual contact or assault in 2018, an increase from 14,900 members in 2016.[4] In the same report, 43% of women who filed a report said that the whole experience of filing a report was negative. As a response to aid victims to find support, the DOD has implemented two different reporting structures: restricted and unrestricted reporting. With unrestricted reporting, there is the ability to provide legal and medical support to the victim. An official investigation of the crime will take place once the victim makes a report through the chain of the command system, and a healthcare provider will conduct a Sexual Assault Forensic Examination (SAFE). Restricted reporting, on the other hand, allows victims of sexual assault/harassment to report to a commander who then helps the victim receive medical assistant, treatment, and counseling without the involvement of the law. With restricted reporting, the assailant will not be punished, and the victim may come into contact with the assailant once again.[5]

Even with different reporting options, many still do not make reports. The chain of command system works by having an individual report to their commander in the hierarchy, who is then in charge of handling the report and situation.[6] The chain of command system is described as “a personnel organization system that connects all military personnel together according to a specific level of achievement, or rank. The chain of command is an organizational structure through which orders are passed from the top down.”[7] A recent report from the 2019 U.S. Army Reserve Annual Report on Sexual Assault stated that, “the sustained high rate in the number of reports may be a positive indicator of victim confidence in their chain of command, victim advocacy and response services, Army criminal investigation offices, and appropriate accountability for offenders.”[8] Although there has been an increase in reports, and the report does suggest that the Chain of Command system is functional, it is still not enough. Although there is an increase in faith in the Chain of Command system, the system itself is corrupt. The power that the commander has is crucial. With the commander being in charge of handling an investigation and case, this could often leave the victim feeling powerless and scared to take action. Sarah Plummer, a victim of sexual assault from the Marine Corps, states, “having someone within your direct chain of command handling the case, it just doesn`t make sense. It`s like your brother raping you and having your dad decide the case.”[9] 

The fear of retaliation and the lack of trust in the military system prevents reporting. Like Vanessa Guillen, many others are uncomfortable with coming forward and taking justice for themselves because of this system. It is not the victim’s fault, but rather, a problem with the barriers set in place when reporting. Thankfully, there are strides being made to help amend this flawed system. Congresswoman Jackie Speier introduced two amendments in late July addressing the changes to be made taken into account by the disappearance and murder of Vanessa Guillen. Speier plans to remove “sexual harassment and assault prosecutions from the chain of command and making sexual harassment punishable as a specific offense within the Uniform Code of Military Justice,” by requiring the DOD to “establish a confidential reporting process for sexual harassment, with those reports being included in the DOD’s Catch a Serial Offender program; and require the U.S. Government Accountability Office to report on the military’s procedures to respond to missing servicemembers.”[10] The removal of the chain of command will allow individuals to have a safer experience while reporting a traumatic event. 

The battle for justice is being fought but is not yet won. With the media’s attention, the culture of abuse within the military is being exposed to the forefront. New amendments, movements, and marches have been proposed and revealed. With trending hashtags like #Iamvanessaguillen, many women and men alike in the military system have been given a voice to share their stories. But despite these hopeful steps into the future, there is still much to be done. The message echoed by people across the nation is demanding for answers and change. The chain of command reporting structure steals away the voice and power of our servicemen/women. Amendments have been introduced, politicians have been speaking out, and the message is loud and clear: we must break the chain of silence.

---

Sources

1. “Pfc. Vanessa Guillen Investigation Update,” Fort Hood Press Center (United States Army Criminal Investigation Command, July 1, 2020).

2. “Remains Positively Identified as Spc Vanessa Guillen,” Fort Hood Press Center (Fort Hood Press Center, July 6, 2020).

3. Johnny Diaz and Maria Cramer, “What We Know About the Disappearance of Vanessa Guillen,” The New York Times (The New York Times, July 2, 2020).

4. “Department of Defense Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military,” Department of Defense Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military § (2018).

5. “Reporting Options,” sexualassault.army.mil (SHARP), accessed July 25, 2020.

6.  U.S Department of Veterans Affairs. Chain of Command & Authority, n.d.

7. Danielle Christenson, “BSU Honors Program Theses and Projects,” BSU Honors Program Theses and Projects (2014), p. 13.

8. “Active Component and U.S. Army Reserve Annual Report on Sexual Assault” (Department of Defense, 2019).

9. Sarah Plummer, “Military Justice Improvement Act: Quotes You Should Read: Kirsten Gillibrand: U.S. Senator for New York,” Kirsten Gillibrand | U.S. Senator for New York, accessed July 25, 2020.

10. “Chair Speier's Amendments to Address Military Sexual Assault and Harassment and Missing Persons Cases in Honor of SPC Vanessa Guillén Pass in FY21 NDAA,” Protect Our Defenders, July 22, 2020.

DACA: Paving the Way for Comprehensive Immigration Reform

August 2020 | Vanessa Aponte, Associate Editor

Amid mass protesting for the rights of one marginalized group, there was a huge legal victory for another. On June 18, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program in a 5-4 decision.[1] This decision blocked the Trump administration’s attempt to rescind the program, meaning that the hundreds of thousands of DACA recipients across the country are now safe from deportation. However, this ruling did not support DACA so much as it chastised the Trump administration’s rescission of the program. Since the Court did not rule about the merits of DACA, President Trump will likely attempt to rescind it again, leaving DACA recipients in legal limbo. The whole ordeal has DACA advocates calling for comprehensive immigration reform that provides a pathway to citizenship not just for Dreamers, but for all undocumented immigrants. 

DACA is an immigration policy that indefinitely delays the deportation of immigrants who are unlawfully present in the United States because they were brought into the country as children. President Obama created DACA in 2012 to provide temporary relief to these immigrants as long as they meet certain qualifications.[2] The program delays their deportation for a period of two years, giving them a “lawfully present” status and allowing them to obtain a work permit and a driver’s license. While DACA protection only lasts for two years, it can be renewed by the applicant every time it ends if they still meet the criteria. Since its creation, DACA has shielded about 800,000 immigrants who entered the country as children, protecting them from deportation and giving them the opportunity to build a life for themselves in America.

Throughout President Trump’s campaign, he repeatedly expressed his goal to rescind DACA. He fulfilled that promise in September of 2017, but this decision was met with various lawsuits that brought DACA all the way to the Supreme Court. Regarding the rescission, Trump claimed that the program was unconstitutional. The reason for this assertion was because after creating DACA, President Obama also attempted to implement a similar program called “DAPA” to protect parents of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents from deportation in the same manner that DACA recipients are protected. This case went to the Supreme Court as well, and the ruling decided that the Obama administration’s creation of DAPA violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which “governs the process by which federal agencies develop and issue regulations.”[3] Because of this case, the Trump administration insisted that DACA shared the same legal flaws that DAPA did: that it did not adhere to the APA when it was enacted. While President Trump and his administration cite concerns of legality, DACA advocates assert that the rescission decision was made with discriminatory intent. Throughout his campaign and presidency, Trump has repeatedly insulted Mexican immigrants, calling them “criminals,” “animals,” and “rapists.”[4] This kind of rhetoric raises concerns about whether rescinding DACA had anything to do with its legality or lack thereof, or if the motivation behind such incendiary comments were inherently racist in nature. 

Despite the arguments over DACA’s alleged unconstitutionality and Trump’s potential discriminatory intentions, the Supreme Court ruling weighed in on neither. Rather, they focused on “whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action,” which the Court claims it did not.[5] When DACA was rescinded, there was not enough sufficient reasoning as to why the program was now considered unlawful. The overall lack of explanation rendered the rescission “arbitrary and capricious” and, ironically, in violation of the APA.[6] As far as potential racial bias, Chief Justice Roberts disregarded those claims, stating that Trump’s comments against Mexican immigrants are not relevant since he was not a primary actor in the DACA rescission. However, in Justice Sotomayor’s concurring opinion, she agreed with the majority except for the dismissal of Trump’s racially motivated bias behind the DACA rescission. She thought that the plurality prematurely dismissed the plaintiffs’ challenge under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment, as she felt their complaints had merit. Regardless, the plurality disregarded Trump’s remarks as insignificant, and the Court ruled against the procedural aspect of the rescission, not against the intent. 

Although this is a victory for Dreamers all across the country, it may be short-lived. DACA recipients are safe for now, but President Trump is already rolling back DACA protections despite this recent Court decision. It seems likely that if he is re-elected, Trump will get the opportunity to repeal the program in a manner that follows the APA, so no one can challenge him on procedural grounds. Because of this looming possibility, immigration advocates know that this fight is far from over. DACA recipients and all other immigrants will not be completely safe until there is a pathway to permanent citizenship. Creating that pathway will require bipartisan congressional support on comprehensive immigration reform, which can replace the temporary shield with permanent protection. The House of Representatives has already passed the DREAM and Promise Act of 2019, which would provide a path for immigrants with temporary status to obtain citizenship. However, the Senate has not put it to a vote, and the White House issued a veto threat against the proposed DREAM Act.[7]

The partisan politics are playing with people’s lives, ignoring the detriments of deporting DACA recipients. The exclusion of DACA recipients from the labor force could “result in the loss of $215 billion in economic activity and an associated $60 billion in federal tax revenue over the next ten years. Meanwhile, States and local governments could lose $1.25 billion in tax revenue each year.”[8] In addition, an estimated 125,200 DACA recipients are essential workers in healthcare, retail, manufacturing, etc., with an additional 76,600 working in restaurants and other food services.[9] Locally, over 12,000 Nevada immigrants are DACA recipients, and they make up over a quarter of the whole labor force and about two-fifths of the hotel and food services industry.[10] It is abundantly clear that these immigrants are valuable members of their communities, their states, and their country, especially during these uncertain times. Dreamers are an integral part of Nevada and make beneficial contributions to their local communities, something that would not be possible without DACA. 

This program protects so many people who have worked hard, who have established their lives here, who have made America their home. Immigrants are the backbone of this country, and they deserve some empathy. Stripping away the protections that allow them to work, study, and live in peace, especially given their contributions to the pandemic response efforts, would be unbelievably cruel. Although the Supreme Court did not weigh in on the merits of DACA, there is no amount of explanation that could justify upending the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. Truthfully, the only way that this administration or any other could reasonably justify rescinding DACA would be if they implemented a pathway to permanent citizenship for undocumented immigrants in its place.

---

Sources

1. Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 18-587 (U.S. 2020).

2. Secretary Janet Napolitano to David V. Aguilar, Director Alejandro Mayorkas, Director John Morton, Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children, June 2012, p. 1.

3. “Summary of the Administrative Procedure Act.” EPA. United States Environmental Protection Agency, n.d.

4. Alan Gomez and Gregory Korte, “Trump Ramps up Rhetoric on Undocumented Immigrants: 'These Aren't People. These Are Animals.'” USA Today, May 2018.

5. Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 18-587, p. 29 (U.S. 2020).

6. Ibid., p. 26.

7. Camilo Montoya-Galvez, “House Passes Latest DREAM Act, Hoping to Place Millions of Immigrants on Path to Citizenship,” CBS News, June 2019.

8. Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 18-587, p. 25, (U.S. 2020).

9. Daniela Alulema, “DACA Recipients are Essential Workers and Part of the Front-line Responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic, as Supreme Court Decision Looms,” The Center for Migration Studies, March 2020.

10. “Immigrants in Nevada,” American Immigration Council, July 2020, p.1-2.