Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
In this insightful article, Laura Tainsh, Lead Partner in the Environmental & Waste Team at Davidson Chalmers LLP, Globalaw, and Sean G. Herman, Environmental Attorney, Hanson Bridgett LLP, Globalaw, speak on what laws need to change in order for people to seriously address environmental concerns.
There has been a perceptible shift in the way that environmental issues generally are considered by the wider public over the last year, mostly as a result of the increased attention by mainstream media on issues such as plastic pollution in the marine environment. That shift has brought existing environmental law into sharp focus and may now become a force for change in the way that environmental issues are regulated, at least in the developed world. Whilst meaningful change takes time to bring about and implement, recent events have provided evidence of movement in both the political and regulatory spheres in both the UK and United States. In this article, we examine the forces behind these changes that will impact businesses operating in these jurisdictions.
Many feel that the white paper does not go far enough and leaves too many matters requiring clarification post-Brexit. This likely would include amending or creating new environmental legislation, a big task to wait until post-Brexit to address.
Brexit Remains Evergreen in the UK
From a UK perspective, the most obvious, topical and current example of both the need and the opportunity for change are the ongoing negotiations relating to Brexit which will, to some extent, determine how environmental concerns are regulated in the immediate future.
In early July, the UK Government published its highly anticipated white paper stating its negotiation position on Brexit[1]. After fairly considerable pressure from a number of those in the private, political and public sectors, the white paper includes a commitment to strong environmental protections, starting with the retention of all existing environmental standards imposed under EU law. However, many feel that the white paper does not go far enough and leaves too many matters requiring clarification post-Brexit. This likely would include amending or creating new environmental legislation, a big task to wait until post-Brexit to address. In order to ensure that various existing environmental concerns are properly addressed, all of the following points will need to be further considered and clarified in due course:
EU targets
The UK is currently breaching a number of targets set by the EU in areas such as waste, water and air quality. Whether these breaches will be resolved or effectively dismissed has not yet been clarified.
EU case law
The extent to which the UK will have regard to the remit and decisions of the European Court of Justice going forward is unclear. Environmentalists argue that these decisions are essential to the continuing development of environmental law in the UK.
Energy and Climate Change
How the UK will participate in the energy market post-Brexit has yet to be clarified. This includes whether the UK will leave the Internal Energy Market and how the UK’s technical rules for trading will compare to the EU Emissions Trading System (if indeed different). However, it is worth noting that the UK’s domestic legislative targets on climate change are more ambitious than required under EU law, meaning they are unlikely to change post-Brexit.
In both the UK and US, there is a fundamental need for legal clarity to provide the common ground needed to bring both the regulated community and environmentalists together to allow change.
Circular Economy
The EU officially published its circular economy package, with changes to directives on waste, packaging, landfill and WEEE, in June this year. Despite its impending exit from the EU, the UK has indicated that the measures required under the package will be adopted under domestic law, as there is substantial support across a number of sectors throughout the UK for closed loop and circular procedures to be utilised in relation to the management of natural resources.
Trade
In order to facilitate a continued trading relationship, the UK will need to ensure that with respect to certain goods - such as those which are heavily regulated, including chemicals, electronic equipment and agri-food products -, common environmental rules applicable in the EU are adhered to.
Notwithstanding the important interaction between the UK and the EU on environmental matters post-Brexit, the UK has expressed its commitment to upholding the obligations imposed under the many international agreements to which it is a party. That perhaps does go some way towards satisfying the wider global environmental concerns of domestic citizens, but it is arguable that more specific regulatory action, including both taxes and incentives, as appropriate, will be needed to make government bodies, business and individuals alike directly responsible for their actions.
From the US' perspective, two of the main environmental statutes, the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts, are nearly 50 years out of date.
Shifting Ground in the US
From the US' perspective, two of the main environmental statutes, the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts, are nearly 50 years out of date. Scientific progress since their enactment has widened gaps between our understanding of the environment and the statutes' original textual meaning. Until now, executive agencies have filled these gaps by relying upon regulations. However, as recent failures in water quality and greenhouse gas regulations demonstrate, this approach has shortcomings that demand Congressional action.
The Clean Water Rule
Since 1972, executive agencies have relied upon developments in hydrology to expand the scope of how they enforce the Clean Water Act. This came to a head at the Supreme Court in the 2006 case Rapanos v. United States in which a developer challenged a regulation of certain wetlands. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy argued that the Clean Water Act may be expanded to regulate waters with a proven "significant nexus" to navigable waters. However, the four conservative justices criticised this approach, forcefully arguing that the original textual meaning of the Act provided no basis for such an expansive interpretation.
The Obama Administration seized upon Justice Kennedy's "significant nexus" test and proposed the Clean Water Rule: a regulation that clarified and expanded the scope of federally regulated waters. The regulated community immediately challenged the regulation by arguing, in part, that it exceeded the Clean Water Act's textual authority. Once in office, President Trump's Administration began repealing the Clean Water Rule under the rationale that regulations must be confined to the statutory text.
The Clean Power Plan
Similarly, executive agencies have relied upon recent developments in climate science to identify and regulate pollutants like greenhouse gases. This came to a head at the Supreme Court in the 2007 case Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency. There, a majority of the Court held that these scientific developments compel the EPA to take steps under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases. Justice Kennedy joined the majority opinion, the lone conservative justice to do so. In dissent, the remaining conservative justices again argued that, regardless of the practical need to regulate greenhouse gases, the Clean Air Act's text does not provide the authority to force the EPA to do so.
Following the Massachusetts decision, the Obama Administration adopted regulations like the Clean Power Plan to address greenhouse gas emissions. Again, the regulated community challenged the regulation on the basis that it lacked textual authority and, again, the Trump Administration began repealing the Clean Power Plan under that same rationale.
Justice Kennedy's Retirement
The Trump Administration's efforts to limit the reach of federal regulations over businesses took a leap forward when Justice Kennedy recently announced his retirement from the Supreme Court. President Trump nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh as his replacement, which at the time of this article is still pending confirmation. Judge Kavanaugh is a textualist with demonstrable concern for the growth of executive agencies. Had Judge Kavanaugh been on the Supreme Court instead of Justice Kennedy, the Supreme Court would likely have decided the Rapanos and Massachusetts cases differently. Therefore, the legal bases for environmental regulations like the Clean Water Rule and Clean Power Plan appear lost.
Oscillating between diametrically opposed regulatory approaches breeds uncertainty that is neither good for the environment nor businesses, for whom uncertainty often proves to be very costly.
Proposed Solution: Amend the Environmental Statutes
It seems the US cannot rely upon major regulations to alter the prioritisation of environmental issues. President Trump's election was not only a setback for progressive environmental regulation efforts, but it has now changed the Supreme Court such that it may be decades before we next see major regulations like the Clean Water Rule and Clean Power Plan.
Instead of new regulations, Congress needs to update its ambiguous, half-century old environmental statutes to adequately address modern environmental concerns. If textualism will define judicial review in the coming decades, environmental regulations must then be better grounded in Congressionally-sanctioned statutes.
Importantly, updating environmental statutes will benefit the regulated community. Ambiguous environmental laws allow for paradigm shifts depending on who is president as demonstrated by the elections of Obama and Trump. Oscillating between diametrically opposed regulatory approaches breeds uncertainty that is neither good for the environment nor businesses, for whom uncertainty often proves to be very costly.
The Need for Clarity
In both the UK and US, there is a fundamental need for legal clarity to provide the common ground needed to bring both the regulated community and environmentalists together to allow change. The role of environmental lawyers in both jurisdictions is at pivotal point. With change of this significance on the horizon, it is vital that lawyers in this field are ahead of the game and aware of political and policy drivers as well as those which are directly based in regulation.
[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-future-relationship-between-the-united-kingdom-and-the-european-union
Laura Tainsh
Lead Partner in the Environmental & Waste Team
Davidson Chalmers LLP, Globalaw
Laura Tainsh is the Lead Partner in the Environmental & Waste Team at Davidson Chalmers LLP, a full-service commercial law firm based in Edinburgh, Scotland. Laura is a Chartered Waste Manager with the Chartered Institution of Wastes Management, the only solicitor in Scotland to have obtained this accolade.
Sean G. Herman
Environmental Attorney
Hanson Bridgett LLP, Globalaw.
Sean is an Environmental Attorney with Hanson Bridgett LLP, a full service law firm based in San Francisco, California. Sean represents private and public clients alike, including manufacturers, retailers, farmers, and governmental entities such as counties, water districts, and waste management authorities.
Immigration: It is a sensitive topic to say the least. Brexit was half an opportunity to spew negativity towards immigrants with famous quotes, as follows: ‘they are taking all of our jobs!’ and ‘I want my country back!’… like they had lost it in the first place. The more extreme xenophobic comments surfaced from an inbuilt fear that immigrants are never good news; some believe they take our jobs without integrating well into society, disrespect the country by possibly adding to crime rates, abuse the tax system and benefits…(the list of negativity goes on).
And the UK was not the only country subjected to the notion that immigrants bring turmoil packed away at the bottom of their suitcase. President Donald Trump was not shy of expressing his concern over mass immigration from the onset and throughout. Needless to say, his views resulted in some controversial movements and moments, such as the Travel Ban and the Mexican Border Crisis, with a mix of support and horror.
We can take it from both sides; where we need to ensure our home country and its economy does not deteriorate by taking in more people we can manage, we also need to remember the importance of humanity. We also need to take a step back and think of the positives of immigration.
There is constant concern about ‘letting anyone in’, including from terrorists to thugs, but this has tarnished and thrown dirt on the backs of those who genuinely want to embrace a new home, culture and country.
This month, we decided to question on how prejudice against immigration has thus impacted the business immigration movement. What will it mean for thriving businesses if negativity keeps skilled migrant workers away, due to fear or uncertainty of being accepted – will the economy crumble? How will law firms change?
Business Immigration – Yay or Nay?
The uproar of concern can push many people off in immigrating. With the majority of people coming over to the UK because of a job, looking for a job, or to study, it is evident that many have good intentions of contributing to the society they will be surrounded by[1].
But ever since Brexit, immigration has dropped[2], and with nearly 10% of the doctors[3] in the NHS being from the EU, it is undeniable their presence is needed for the UK to flourish. In 2015/16, 11% of those joining the NHS were EU nationals (counting those for whom a nationality was known; whereas in the year ending September 2017 the figure was 8.4%[4]. With rising costs and added pressure, it clear, the NHS relies on immigration to survive, and will struggle without[5].
The news on the NHS is probably nothing new to you, but the chart below also showcases how EU immigrants impact other, vital sectors in the economy.[6]
(Infographic from: CNN Money)
The UK government has been warned about the impact legal and regulatory immigration changes could have on the economy. With immigration plummeting, but vacancies being at a record high, statistics have shown a 12% drop in the number of immigrants a year after the referendum, with politicians and businesses issuing warnings to Ministers on the disastrous effect this may have on the economy[7].
How about the US?
With no doubt about it, Trump is working hard to stick to his promise of Making America Great Again. Love him or hate him, there is no denying he has made some significant impact, especially with North Korea. He states he is dealing with immigration in the way he ‘dealt with North Korea’, for the betterment of America’s economy and its people, and a new survey does reveal that 51% of Americans approve of his handling of the economy’[8].
As aforementioned, Trump’s controversial restrictions were placed to protect US workers; and even though his policies have added around 213,000 jobs to the US economy, unemployment rates have risen by 4%. So we cant help but ask, how has Trump’s policies changed businesses?
Let see how business immigration helps:
An article from Vox stated: “When the University of Chicago’s Booth School surveyed a panel of well-known academic economists, for example, 52% agreed that admitting more low-skilled immigrants to the United States would make the average US citizen better off[9].”
The panel also agreed highly skilled immigrants would be beneficial. In general, immigrants don’t tend to want the same jobs as the nationals, instead, they are usually competing with other immigrants for the same job. Evidence also suggests that when immigration increases labour supply, firms increase investment which reduces capital per worker, therefore keeping average wages from decreasing in the long term[10].
With around 5 million immigrants are working in the US[11], immigrant business founders have grown more important to the economy over time. Daniel Costa, the Director of Immigration Law and Policy Research at the Economic Policy Institute, stated: “Immigrants are overrepresented in a lot of occupations in both low and high-skilled jobs.
"You'd feel an impact and loss in many, many different occupations and industries, from construction and landscape to finance and IT," he explained[12].
Immigrants only make up 13% of the US population, but they contribute to nearly 15% of the country’s economy output, according to a 2014 report from the Economic Policy Institute[13], so a decline in immigration would certainly be felt in more ways than one.
One of Albany’s largest law firms - Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna - even claimed that they have noticed around a 40% increase in 2018 in the number of cases where the government asks for more documentation regarding legal immigration[14], which has not only impacted the legal firms specialising in immigration, but it has also impacted businesses, large and small.
This also goes to show the impact these changes have had on law firms. With immigration policies being amended, employers are having to provide more documents and evidence, as well as dealing with deportation proceedings, meaning law firms such as Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna have seen an increase in immigration matters, leading their firm to appoint more attorneys to expand their firm to deal with the growing work around immigration.
Good news for law firms, however, these administrative changes have slowed down the visa process, where some businesses, especially SMEs, have felt the impact. Some have not had time to apply for H-1B visas which has impacted their business, and the costs [of the visa] have resulted in overall lower salaries throughout their company[15].
But by changing policies and perceptions of [business] immigration has made it harder for foreign workers to stay. Earlier this year in May, the Department of Homeland Security proposed a rule to end an Obama provision that allows certain foreign entrepreneurs to be considered for parole to temporarily go to the US to develop and build their start-up businesses[16]. Immigrants are actually twice as likely to start a business than American-born citizens, and by making it harder for them to do so, can cause severe detriment to its economy.
And even though Trump has been successful in creating work, who will fill the gaps – especially when unemployment is increasing? Immigrants are usually after seasonal jobs, but with perceptions towards immigration changing and changes in visa applications, such as USCIS announcing that non-citizens that are denied their application for a “benefit” - such as an extension or change of status, a green card, or citizenship[17] - could be placed in deportation proceedings, things for the country could change.
It is without doubt that an integrated globe has bettered societies in several different ways. It is a shame that a few bad eggs ruins things make things harder for those who will make a positive impact in their new dream home. And pushing morality and humanity to the side for a second, changes in laws have seen a growing backlog of US immigration cases in court and with it becoming increasingly harder for skilled workers to enter the land of the free, we can only sit and wait to see the impact of these changes to America’s economy and business landscape and more interestingly, its legal sphere.
[1] https://fullfact.org/immigration/eu-migration-and-uk/
[2] https://fullfact.org/immigration/eu-migration-and-uk/
[3] https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7783#fullreport
[4] https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7783#fullreport
[5] https://www.politico.eu/article/nhs-chiefs-sound-alarm-about-brexit-impact-on-health-workforce-nurses-doctors-migration/
[6] https://money.cnn.com/2017/10/18/news/economy/brexit-immigration-uk-eu/index.html
[7] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-uk-immigration-workers-employment-2018-latest-updates-a8420781.html
[8] https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/has-donald-trump-really-made-america-economically-great-again-ncna886161
[9] https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/1/30/16934726/trump-immigration-values-decline
[10] http://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2016/1/27/the-effects-of-immigration-on-the-united-states-economy
[11] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/immigrants-impact-on-the-u-s-economy-in-7-charts/
[12] https://abcnews.go.com/US/immigrants-us-economy-disaster-experts/story?id=45533028
[13] https://abcnews.go.com/US/immigrants-us-economy-disaster-experts/story?id=45533028
[14] https://www.bizjournals.com/albany/news/2018/07/26/immigration-changes-under-trump-administration.html
[15] https://www.inc.com/zoe-henry/trump-changes-to-h-1b-impact-entrepreneurs-2018.html
[16] https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/humanitarian-parole/dhs-proposes-remove-international-entrepreneur-rule
[17] https://qz.com/1323136/a-uscis-immigration-policy-change-threatens-non-citizens-with-deportation-if-they-lose-status/
Immigration is an integral part of developing society. Anu Gupta speaks to us on how ‘making immigration easy’ makes America a better place to be.
What are the common reasons to why visas are rejected, and when are clients advised to file a petition against their rejection?
Employment-based visa filing is a numbers game. The majority of the H1B and L1 visas are filed by a fewer than a 100 larger firms, with the smaller companies filing less than 1000 petitions each annually. A visa for an IT professional with a Master’s degree being filed by a well-funded Fortune 100 company has an extremely small chance of being rejected. When the company is filing thousands of petitions for the same exact position, it is fairly easy to copy and paste from the first, well-drafted petition to the others without actually having to understand the underlying legal requirements. Therefore, most of these companies have economized by retaining para professionals or entry-level attorneys to file their petitions.
People don’t know but the “Immigration and Nationality Act” officially surpassed the Internal Revenue Code for length and complexity in the past few years. It is only when a President like Trump insists that each section of each statute, regulation, policy memoranda be strictly adhered to that suddenly the cut and paste petitions actually start being reviewed for legal inaccuracies. Unless the filer understands the laws well, it is hard to respond to some of the questions – which, by the way, are very valid and legitimate questions for the USCIS to ask.
At this time, a majority of my time is devoted to reviewing and responding to requests for evidence from the USCIS and filing Motions to Reopen and Appeals. Each case is different, but each case has something that can be used to get the case approved. I have had to turn very few people away. There is always something in the file, if you spend sufficient time on it, that will help you convince the USCIS that the petition has merit.
With a 95% approval on the petitions you’ve filed in the past 20 years, what would you say are three things which are key for you to consider, in order to get the best outcome for your clients?
Honesty, dedication and ethics. You have to insist that your clients are honest with you. Most cases are not lost because the case cannot be won – cases are lost when the attorney does not have sufficient time to understand the case well. The attorney has to know what the client is saying – and much more importantly – what the client has not said. Then take the time to dig deeper to flush out all the facts. You can be sure the USCIS will find out whatever your client does not want you to know, and you cannot get that case approved if the USCIS points out the hidden fact in the request for evidence (RFE) to you. At that time, your client’s credibility is already lost. If you spend the time to talk to the client in the beginning, you will know how to draft the petition and what will get it approved.
Second, the attorney must love what they do and be dedicated to winning. You have to love your clients and be fascinated by how each case is different and, at the same time, fits into the same laws. You have to want to spend whatever time is needed for into each case that you decide to take. Law should not be a business; it is a calling.
The last factor, but the most important one, is ethics. An attorney must be honest and truthful. A client once told me that he was at a consulate for a visa interview when the interviewing officer saw my name on the file and said: “I know this attorney. She does good work.” The visa was issued in less than 10 minutes. The attorney’s reputation precedes them. The same officers look at work sent in by the same group of attorneys year after year. The attorney’s reputation can sway an officer into approving a case when the facts are not all favourable.
How does ‘making immigration easy’ help the US?
We are a global economy. I don’t believe protectionism can be a long-term strategy. If everyone in the world wants to work together, and we don’t, we may just end up making ourselves irrelevant. For the past century, we are the destination nation - the Statue of Liberty being seen as a summoning beacon to the rest of the world. We have been not only a financial leader, but also the leader in thought and freedom, attracting the best and the brightest of minds, and the most hardworking of individuals from across the globe. Our immigration laws evolved over the past couple of centuries. Each immigration law that was written or changed was in reaction to an event that occurred. (For example, the Department of Homeland Security was created after 9/11). Instead of being reactionary, I believe that we should plan our futures. We do need a comprehensive overhaul of our laws to make them more aligned to what we want to be as a nation and what we want our future to be. We have always been a nation of migrations – from the Irish fleeing from the famine, to the Protestants seeking religious tolerance, to the economic migrants from Asia or the millions seeking refuge from war. We cannot change our makeup. We are a blend of all cultures and all ethnicities. It is time our laws reflect this reality.
What inspired you to specialise in immigration law? Moreover, how do you fight to oppose negative opinions towards immigration?
I was practicing general business law in Manhattan when I did my first immigrant petition and was hooked. The law itself was not tough, but there was a story there - a real person whose life changed because I could do something to help her. Since then, I’ve helped thousands of immigrants enter the US, start businesses in the US, or be allowed to work, and later on bring their families and slowly become integrated into our communities. I am constantly in awe of the strength, drive to succeed, and the honest hard work that my clients put into making America great. From the corner Chinese takeout, to the Vietnamese laundry, to the Patel motel, and the Indian programmer- this is America to me as much as eating apple pie at a Denny’s is.
There is a lot of negative attention being given to immigration at this time. I think the worst thing that happened was when the Bush administration equated “immigrant” to “criminal”. In the 80s, people still had respect for the Indian doctor and the German scientist. Statistically, as a percentage, we have more doctors and scientists who are immigrants than criminals who are immigrants. Now, day after day, headlines show mass deportations, ICE raids, and children brought to the US without their consent now being forced out of the workforce and treated like pariahs. It is all extremely distressing to most people, but it is still political—aimed at increasing the vote bank. Every day people like you and me, we don’t see colour quite so clearly. Did the Chinese takeout close down? No. Did the laundromat lose its clients? No. Meanwhile, perhaps some good might come out of all this negativity and that we might actually see reform in our immigration laws.
Why are companies often reluctant to hire immigrants? What would you advise them to ensure that their apprehensions can be dismissed?
The company will try to hire the brightest possible employee, at the cheapest possible rate, to ensure maximum profitability. Hiring immigrants at this time costs the company more – just a basic work visa for example, an H-1B, costs $2,460 in filing fees. If it is a larger employer, it may have to pay an additional $4,000. If they want the visa in 2 weeks, it is $1,225 extra on top of these fees. And this does not even include the attorney’s fee. And then there is the hassle of extra regulatory requirements imposed by the Department of Labour and the USCIS that the employer has to comply with and the “site inspections” when a federal agent happens to drop by your office unannounced to check on a visa worker – managing to freak out half the people in the office. Or worse, when the officer visits your customer’s location and manages to freak out your paying customers.
Parts of our economy are dependent on an immigrant work force for survival - the summer crew at resorts and vacation spots, the migrant farm worker during picking season, and the IT industry—to name a few. Each industry would hire locally if they could at times like these but labour shortages in these areas are extreme. My short-term suggestion would be to ensure that companies hire good attorneys who will guide them on the rules, help them plan their workforce needs, and make sure that companies invest time and money to conduct internal audits to ensure that their paperwork is complete and up to date. And most importantly, remember that life is like a wheel. Tough times change for the better. Well run businesses endure… (and administrations only last four years – at most, eight).
Anu Gupta
Founder
1-800-688-7892
Anu Gupta is the Founder and Managing Attorney of Immigration Desk, Inc., a full-service immigration law firm dedicated to making US immigration easy. The smiles on our clients faces and their heartwarming testimonials are the true measure of our success. If we can help make the process easier for you as well, it would be our pleasure. Please consult with us, by emailing Info@ImmigrationDesk.com or telephoning 800-688-7892. You can also reach us by submitting your questions through “Avvo”.
The Democratic National Committee (DNC) has filed a multimillion-dollar lawsuit against Russia, the Trump campaign and Wikileaks over an alleged 12 offences, including conspiracy, fraud and violations of the Wiretap Act.
The suit comes in response to an alleged cyberattack on the DNC by Russia. Trump is also accused of both being aware of and supporting their efforts to undermine the DNC. Such offences are considered to have contributed to an illegal interference of the 2016 presidential election.
The Washington Post reports that DNC Chairman Tom Perez said: “During the 2016 presidential campaign, Russia launched an all-out assault on our democracy, and it found a willing and active partner in Donald Trump’s campaign.”
He continued: “This constituted an act of unprecedented treachery: the campaign of a nominee for President of the United States in league with a hostile foreign power to bolster its own chance to win the presidency.”
According to CNN, the Trump campaign called the lawsuit “frivolous”, with Campaign Manager Brad Parscale stating: “This is a sham lawsuit about a bogus Russian collusion claim filed by a desperate, dysfunctional, and nearly insolvent Democratic Party.
“With the Democrats' conspiracy theories against the President's campaign evaporating as quickly as the failing DNC's fundraising, they've sunk to a new low to raise money, especially among small donors who have abandoned them.”
DNC officials hope to recover monetary damages with the lawsuit. One such official said: “We are not going to just stand by and let Russia hack the DNC. We are the victims.”
The lawsuit additionally names several Trump advisors, including Donald Trump Jr., Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort, long-time Trump confidant Roger Stone, former Campaign Adviser George Papadopoulos, Julian Assange and WikiLeaks.
Trump continues to insist that there is no collusion between his campaign and any Russian involvement.
The White House’s spokesman Raj Shah has stated that Donald Trump has repeatedly denied claims that stated he was involved in an alleged affair with adult film star Stormy Daniels, that took place in 2006. He says Trump’s story is the only one that remains consistent.
In an interview, Ms Daniels told CBS that she had received $130,000 from Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen, just before the 2016 election, to keep quiet. But Mr Shah claims the White House did not violate federal campaigning finance law by ‘hushing’ Ms Daniels.
President Trump's legal team is now seeking $20m (£14m) in damages from Ms Daniels, on the basis of her breaking a non-disclosure agreement.
This isn’t the first time Trump and his team have strongly denied a huge story like this. In fact, Trump himself said during a 2016 election rally "I like to deny things". Below are five more occasions, amongst many more, where Trump, the White House or associates deny strong accusations or wrongdoing.
In one of his most recent denials in January, according to Senator Dick Durbin, President Trump used the phrase “shithole countries” to label Central American and African nations during DACA talks with US lawmakers.
The Senator had said that Trump “in the course of his comments said things which were hate-filled, vile and racist.”
During a meeting on protection for immigrants Trump reportedly said: “Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?...Why do we need more Haitians? Take them out.”
Subsequently, Trump proceeded to deny allegations that he used any of these words, stating he “never said anything derogatory about Haitians other than Haiti is, obviously, a very poor and troubled country. Never said ‘take them out.’ Made up by Dems. I have a wonderful relationship with Haitians. Probably should record future meetings – unfortunately, no trust!”
After this he tweeted: “The language used by me at the Daca meeting was tough, but this was not the language used…What was really tough was the outlandish proposal made – a big setback for Daca!”
In July 2017, allegations were rife surrounding the President and his son’s potential collusion with Russian officials. Donald Trump Jr. is said to have been informed by email prior to a meeting with Kremlin-connected Russian lawyers, that the meeting was going to be part of Russian government efforts to aid his father to Presidency in the 2016 campaign against Hillary Clinton.
However, with ramifications of this story growing throughout the media, in the subsequent months President Trump was eager to deny almost everything, with the following tweets:
When James Clapper himself, and virtually everyone else with knowledge of the witch hunt, says there is no collusion, when does it end?
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 12, 2017
Again, the story that there was collusion between the Russians & Trump campaign was fabricated by Dems as an excuse for losing the election.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 12, 2017
They made up a phony collusion with the Russians story, found zero proof, so now they go for obstruction of justice on the phony story. Nice
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 15, 2017
After 7 months of investigations & committee hearings about my "collusion with the Russians," nobody has been able to show any proof. Sad!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 16, 2017
..under a magnifying glass, they have zero "tapes" of T people colluding. There is no collusion & no obstruction. I should be given apology!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 26, 2017
On the other hand, Donald Trump Jr.’s lawyer Alan Futerfas did not deny the existence of such email. According to NBC News, in a statement he said: “Robert Goldstone contacted Don, Jr. in an email and suggested that people had information concerning alleged wrongdoing by Democratic Party front runner, Hillary Clinton, in her dealings with Russia.”
During his 2016 Presidential campaign, Donald Trump consistently denied previous claims of his that global warming, or climate change, is a hoax. However, in a tweet in 2012 Trump stated that: “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make US manufacturing non-competitive.”
The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 6, 2012
There are also plenty of other examples, mostly tweets of times Trump refers to the reality of climate change as false.
Ice storm rolls from Texas to Tennessee - I'm in Los Angeles and it's freezing. Global warming is a total, and very expensive, hoax!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 6, 2013
NBC News just called it the great freeze - coldest weather in years. Is our country still spending money on the GLOBAL WARMING HOAX?
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 25, 2014
Snowing in Texas and Louisiana, record setting freezing temperatures throughout the country and beyond. Global warming is an expensive hoax!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 29, 2014
Give me clean, beautiful and healthy air - not the same old climate change (global warming) bullshit! I am tired of hearing this nonsense.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 29, 2014
Trump’s current position on climate change is that it exists but is “naturally occurring.” This was eventually cleared up in an interview with Trump’s campaign manager Kellyanne Conway in 2016. This, however, was indirect denial via his campaign manager, but direct denial did happen.
In her first debate against Trump, opposition Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton states: “They’ve looked at my plans and they’ve said, OK, if we can do this, and I intend to get it done, we will have 10 million more new jobs, because we will be making investments where we can grow the economy. Take clean energy. Some country is going to be the clean-energy superpower of the 21st century. Donald thinks that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese. I think it’s real.” To which trump replies: “I did not. I did not. I do not say that.”
In November 2016 Trump had a change of heart and decided to settle on a fraud dispute surrounding Trump University for $25 million. This all birthed from the fact the university had promised to reveal Trump's real estate investing "secrets" to all those who enrolled in the courses.
The settlement came about in order to avoid years and years of litigation, but originally, Trump denied he would ever settle the Trump University lawsuit: “I could have settled this case numerous times, but I don’t want to settle cases when we’re right. I don’t believe in it. And when you start settling cases, you know what happens? Everybody sues you because you get known as a settler. One thing about me, I am not known as a settler.”
Following this claim, USA TODAY traced back records for thousands of Trump's legal disputes dating back to the 1980s, only to find that Trump in fact had relished in settling disputes at least 259 times.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who initiated the lawsuit against Trump’s "his phony university", said the President agreed to settle the lawsuit for $25 million, with an additional $1 million penalty for violating state of New York education laws. Aware of Donald Trump’s passion for denying things, the legal agreement did not require Trump to acknowledge any wrongdoing.
As recently clarified by Trump’s spokeswoman Sarah Sanders, all of the 20 women accusing the President of sexual assault or harassment are ‘lying’. Some, he says, ‘were not even attractive enough for him to sexually assault’.
The long list of women who have in the past few years spoken against and accused trump of unwanted sexual behaviour include Jill Harth, Cathy Heller and Ivana Trump.
Donald Trump refers to much of the sexual allegations cases as ‘fake news’, which is the usual comment for denial on most accusations against him. In October 2016, Trump also called some of the women who have accused him “horrible, horrible liars.”
All this recent debacle with Stormy Daniels only goes to support the idea that Donald Trump’s consistent and remarkable denials are arguably void of integrity.
In fact, denying his questionable idiocy is in ‘Trump’s nature’. He said so himself:
Robert Don Gifford represents clientele in a broad range of complex civil and white collar criminal litigation, Native American law, and military law in courts of all jurisdictions. He represents companies in preparing criminal compliance guidelines and corporate criminal risk assessments, as well as individuals charged with state and federal violations.
We got in touch with him this month to discuss a variety of his specialisms. From having a vast amount of experience in Native American Law, to working as a military officer and lawyer on cases at Guantanamo Bay, Robert offers many insights into his work as a legal expert in Oklahoma.
Can you share with LM your experience in Native American law and what it entails? What difficulties did this sector pose for you and how did you overcome them?
The practice of law in the tribal courts or representing tribal governments in non-native courts is some of the most complex and broad areas of law in the United States. The practice is a broad one that includes tribes which includes: negotiations with state and federal governments, gaming law, criminal law, employment law, and nearly every other area of law that is found in any court anywhere. Navigating the jurisdictional complexities and knowing which court has the jurisdiction over a matter is what challenges the courts the most. The difficulties in working in Native American law is the general misunderstanding by many non-Native courts in failing to give “full faith and recognition” to tribal court judgements and orders. These are usually cleared up fairly easily, by providing the non-Native courts the law and authority upfront, but there are many jurisdictions that have no experience in Native American law and are often surprised when the see the complexity of the practice and the high quality of the work that is being done in tribal courts.
How does your experience as a Tribal Court Judge enable you to be ahead of the game for your practice now?
I have been serving part-time as the Chief Judge for one tribe and a justice on another tribe’s Supreme Court for many years. Many people who become judges recognize, for the first time, about what actually makes a difference in a compelling argument or case presentation. Unfortunately for those individuals, they are full-time judges and will likely never have the opportunity to take this perspective and apply it themselves as litigators in the courtroom. Being a tribal member with the Cherokee Nation with nearly fifteen years as a federal prosecutor in different federal courts and over twenty as both an Army active duty and reserve lawyer (Judge Advocate), I brought a perspective to the tribal court bench that was unique. With over one hundred trials and fifteen arguments in the federal appellate courts, I have appeared before a lot of judges and seen good and bad practices from the bench and believe that I have learned from them.
What more could be done for the Tribal Courts to better recognition and respected as a Courts system?
Every tribe in the US is recognised, in the words of Justice John Marshal, as a ‘domestic, dependent sovereign’. In my state (Oklahoma) alone we have 39 separate tribes. The next step for more recognition is for more lawyers to aggressively seek litigation within the tribal court system and challenge those decisions up on appeal. In certain litigation, those cases may move over to non-Native federal courts and could work their way to the United States Supreme Court. There is a fear among many lawyers to use the tribal court system, thus the boundaries have not been fully explored. Many lawyers are failing to recognise the advantages of using the tribal court system, and in doing so are failing to give their clients every viable option.
Do you think this has changed ever since Donald Trump’s appointment as President? What challenges do you foresee for the tribes?
The big question for many will be the speed and ease in which tribes are allowed to take their historic lands back into “trust”. Many of the tribes in the United States are looking at developing their business aspect of their sovereignty, and in doing so must fight to re-claim historical lands to be placed in trust to build casinos, hospitals, and even defence contracting industry. Once this land is taken back into trust, it becomes what is known as ‘Indian Country’ and subject to the jurisdiction of the tribal court for that tribe. If the United States government slows down or denies tribes from putting land into trust, it will slow the growth in many areas.
Moreover, do you foresee more cases involving tribes in legal disputes against non-Natives or even state/federal governments increasing?
Absolutely. In one of the tribal courts in Oklahoma, there is a multi-million-dollar lawsuit against several oil and energy companies. The lawsuits in the tribal court involved the sovereign tribe suing non-Native companies for their alleged involvement in “fracking”; it is being argued that such activity is causing earthquakes and damage to tribal facilities. There will be challenges made to jurisdiction and that litigation over the proper venue could be fought in non-Native courts.
As military officer/lawyer you worked on cases at Guantanamo Bay and as a prosecutor you worked National Security matters, what cases are you often involved in? How do you see this area of law changing with national security being a topical area regarding terrorism?
With over two decades of serving in the military (active duty and reserve component), teaching at several law schools, and being a graduate of the Army War College, I have opened up some doors that may not be there for most lawyers. I have had several military members come to me to help them address investigations from the Navy and the Army, an example is being called to represent a rape victim who was being harassed by a military officer who was being court-martialed, and have been providing legal commentary to the media regarding matters that range from Homeland Security to National Security to military law. These connections with the military have even transitioned to representing military members (and their families) in non-military courts for things that range from divorce to lawsuits.
What was the biggest change you had to adapt to from your transition as a federal prosecutor, to having a private practice?
Building that ‘book of business’. The time it has taken to let the public know that you are now a resource to them is slow and hard to develop. Advertising is not something I seek to do or am comfortable with, as I know that after time accomplishments in and out of the courtroom will lead to referrals and a reputation that draw clients. Leaving the safety-net of the government does require me to take the time to get more involved in non-legal social events and within the community. I can see where many lawyers can get burned out or just do not like the practice of law in the private sector, but for me it has been a natural transition. The change has been refreshing and exciting.
How does your experience with governmental investigations help you assist clients at your private practice?
Every individual or business is going to have to deal with government regulation. Government officials come from the same gene pool as every other human and may believe that a person or a company has engaged in intentional wrongdoing. Sometimes it is a misunderstanding, a clerical error, or a mistake. Other times it is grossly negligent or crossed the line into what is considered a crime. I would say knowing how agencies may view things is key. The relationships between an attorney and government investigators can make the difference from being indicted to paying a small civil or administrative fine. In addition, understanding that the need for an attorney to be aggressive and proactive requires energy and confidence to go into court with little time to prepare and litigate a matter that can be volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous.
How has white collar crime changed in Oklahoma overtime? What could be done to cut down on such cases?
The advancement of technology, the growth of Native American casinos, the increasing number Fortune 500 oil and gas companies in Oklahoma, and government regulation in the health care industry, has created more exposure to otherwise hardworking, law abiding citizens. Most people (or businesses) that find themselves under criminal investigation never had any intent to commit crimes, but sometimes neglect or the temptation to cut corners leads to criminal liability. More and more, the need for learned legal counsel is becoming a necessity. If more people (or businesses) simply took the time and expense to seek the privileged and private advice of an attorney on the front end of things, many criminal problems would never occur.
Can you think of one sector that is the biggest contributor to white collar crime and if so, why do you think that is?
Quite honestly, complex government regulation is probably the biggest contributor. There is so much regulation on both individuals and companies that range from complexities in tax law, immigration law, securities law, etc., that it’s nearly impossible for even a small business owner to know all of the requirements without having to hire outside help. At some point, any person in any situation will be tempted to look for an easier way to do business or make money. In doing so, they are likely breaking a law that has criminal consequences.
You are an adjunct law professor at several law schools, what would you say is the most important pieces of advice for aspiring lawyers to know?
Building a reputation of being only a good lawyer who is not only smart, experienced, but also hardworking, is just not enough. Professionalism and being reasonable wins the day, whether it is in negotiating with other lawyers, advising clients, or making an argument to a judge or jury; these two things will win the day.
Robert Don Gifford
Senior Attorney
101 Park Avenue
Suite 1400
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
www.gungolljackson.com
Prior to joining Gungoll, Jackson, Box & Devoll, P.C., Gifford worked for the U.S. Department of Justice as an Assistant United States Attorney doing both trial and appellate work, where over time he served as the Tribal Liaison, Human Trafficking Coordinator, Anti-Terrorism Coordinator, and Project Safe Neighborhoods Coordinator. During his career with the Department of Justice, Mr. Gifford has been honored for outstanding performance by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (2006 & 2015), Director of the United States Marshal's Service (2008), and the United States Department of Agriculture (2004).
Mr. Gifford began his legal career for the Cherokee Nation under Chief Wilma Mankiller, served as an Assistant District Attorney in Tulsa and as an active duty Army Lawyer as an Army Judge Advocate at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, Fort Knox, Kentucky, and in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Now a Colonel in the Army Reserves, Gifford has served in the Army for over twenty years on active duty and as a Reservist. In 2007-08, Colonel Gifford mobilized back onto active duty to the "War Courts" at Guantanamo Bay where he served as the Legal Spokesman to the world-wide media and Deputy Director of Legal Operations.
Mr. Gifford earned his Juris Doctor from the University of Oklahoma College of Law where he served as an Editor on the American Indian Law Review. Mr. Gifford graduated with honors from Southwestern College in Winfield, Kansas where he lettered four years in both football and track, and he also holds a Masters in Strategic Studies from the U.S. Army War College at Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania.
Mr. Gifford is the 2018 Chair of the Criminal Law Section of the Oklahoma Bar Association, a fellow of the Oklahoma Bar Foundation, the founder and two-time past chair of the Military & Veterans Law Section, and previously served on the Board of Governors for the 17,000 members of the Oklahoma Bar Association. The Oklahoma Bar Association's Criminal Law Section named Mr. Gifford "Professional Advocate of the Year" in 2013 and recognized him with the Justice Cardozo Award in 2016.
Over thirty years ago, three young attorneys formed Gungoll, Jackson & Collins with the goal of providing clients with legal representation that serves their diverse needs. Today, Gungoll, Jackson, Box & Devoll, P.C. is a diverse compilation of seasoned legal professionals who, with pride and integrity, represent individuals and local companies, as well as large commercial corporations in numerous areas of the law.
The attorneys and staff at this highly respected AV-rated firm work diligently to serve clients throughout the Midwest with litigation needs, whether it is a matter of negotiations, a trial, an appeal, arbitration or mediation. With access to numerous legal resources and cutting edge technological solutions, they do quality work in the timeliest manner.
Civil litigation, commercial transactions, insolvency and reorganization, real estate transactions, trusts and estates, oil and gas, environmental law, family law, employment law, criminal defence, municipal law, personal injury and appeals are among the areas encompassed by the firm's practice.
Donald Trump has excommunicated Stephen K. Bannon, his former chief strategist.
The news broke when Trump accused Bannon - who had spoken to Michael Wolff, the Author of the upcoming book ‘Fire and Fury’ - of defamation, in which he described the president as being ‘unprepared for the job’.
In response, Trump said that Bannon had ‘lost his mind’ and that he was ‘only in it for himself’.
The Alleged Wrongdoing
Among other things, the book claims that Bannon thought a meeting between Donald Trump Jr and a Russian lawyer in Trump Tower was ‘treasonous’ and ‘unpatriotic’.
Trump is also unimpressed over the fact that Bannon allegedly told Mr. Wolff in an interview that The Trump team was shocked and horrified by his election win, that the new president ‘found the White House to be vexing and even a little scary’, and that Ivanka Trump ridiculed her dad's ‘comb-over’ hairstyle and ‘often described the mechanics behind it to friends’.
On Bannon, Donald Trump Jr. tweeted: ‘Steve had the honor of working in the White House & serving the country. Unfortunately, he squandered that privilege & turned that opportunity into a nightmare of backstabbing, harassing, leaking, lying & undermining the President’.
The cease-and-desist letter is five pages long and orders Bannon to retain any letters or emails.
Who is Michael Wolff?
Former columnist for New York magazine and Vanity Fair, Michael Wolff was able to exploit the Trump administration’s lack of political background to gain an unforeseen amount of insight into the team.
However, the legitimacy of his stories has been questioned, with The Washington Post calling him a ‘provocateur and media polemicist’.
Media and news website Axios reported that Wolff recorded the interviews held for the book, featuring former White House Chief Strategist Stephen Bannon and former White House Deputy Chief of staff Katie Walsh.
With these recordings, he intends to back up the quotes he will use in ‘Fire and Fury’.
Defence from Both Sides
In Trump’s defence, Press Secretary Sarah Sanders has dismissed the book as ‘trashy tabloid fiction’ that was ‘filled with false and misleading accounts from individuals who have no access or influence with the White House’.
Conversely, in Bannon’s defence, UK Editor of Breitbart News Raheem Kassam said that Wolff’s interviews could have been taken out of context.
He also said that, as Bannon had served in the US Navy, he was justified to speak on the Russia controversy.
Mr Bannon has not yet spoken publicly about the president's comments, the book or the legal action taken against him.
In the years you have been practicing, how have you seen the international trade scene evolve?
Free-trade agreements shape significantly the international trade landscape for the last couple decades. With the majority of countries involved in bilateral and multilateral trade agreements, e.g. ASEAN Free Trade Area, NAFTA, EEA, APEC that are still functioning nowadays, tariffs are removed or reduced and services and goods become more accessible and affordable; enterprises enjoy more stable and safer environment for their investments; and the strength of international cooperation is evidenced as we see international organisations, such as WTO, have substantially contributed to international trading, leading to a remarkable and fruitful development of the global economics.
During its course, several features of international trade can be observed over the recent years. Developing countries in Asia and Latin America, including China, Mexico, India and Brazil, become important partners in global trades. There is also a rising trend in South-South trade, partially because of the changing of the international supply chains, as today a substantial share of the production processes of global supply chain is taking place in developing countries. The development of transportation in cost-saving and improving efficiency, as well as the emergence of e-commerce has created more opportunity for small and medium-sized businesses. It is not until the global economy recession since 2008 that the political support for international free trade started to weaken, shaping a different international trade landscape for today from the past scores.
How would you describe the current international trade landscape and what are the hottest talking points today?
Inequality in different personae (among countries, corporates, and social classes for example), but in fact all centring around the low-growth of world economics, has emerged into the main theme and call for the changes that may damage the international free trade nowadays.
Two illustrations can be provided: first, the fierce attack from the US President. President Trump pledges to bring corporate activities and manufacturing jobs back and to correct the unfairness the States has been suffered in various free trade agreements. He withdrew from Trans-Pacific Partnership, questioned the WTO, and called NAFTA ‘the worst trade deal in... the history of [the US].’ Second, Brexit. There are criticisms on the EU for UK’s immigrant policies, unemployment rates, and economical losses. However, leaving the EU disqualifies UK of the enjoyment of the EU's internal market, meaning potential increase in tariffs, administrative burdens, and financial costs of trades, as well as other non-tariffs barriers.
However, most countries are still determined to oppose protectionism and believe in free trade among countries. It appears to be the consensus of developing countries to support open trade based on global rules. For example, Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), consist of Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Russia, is approaching Latin America countries such as Brazil, Bolivia, Nicaragua, for trading on aircrafts and others (e.g. energy-related projects). Some important members of EU also march to defend the idea—the four-year negotiation between the EU and Japan has finally reached an Economic Partnership Agreement recently. Also, as an important trading country, China will always be open to the outside world. In fact, in the 12th G20 Summit, Chinese president Xi Jinping just gave a speech to warrant China’s support to the multilateral trading system and an open global economy.
Which do you think is the most important country of 2018 for companies to be keeping their eyes on, in relation to trading opportunities?
After years of recession, 2018 still seems to be a year full of opportunities for international trading and investment for most of countries.
As an emerging market, though questions never cease, China’s growth and development is well-evidenced. China has the largest and fast growing consumer market, especially considering its increasing mid-class consumer. It is reported that the majority of China's total consumption has historically centred on essential items such as food, beverages, clothing and footwear. But going forward, higher spending is expected on cars, luxury goods, financial services and health, as average disposable income levels rise. China has been considering to reach free trade agreements with EU, Canada and other countries. In addition, a series of domestic policy changes, including industrial guiding policies, also herald China’s commitment to welcome and encourage international trades for companies. Therefore, China is expected to stay in the line of the most lucrative markets around the globe for the next decade.
Yunfeng Xing
Partner
www.broadbright.com
Mr. Yunfeng Xing, before he joined Broad & Bright Law Firm as Partner in 2016, and his performance as special advisor in Slaughter and May in 2015, had served in the Foreign Investment Management Department of MOFCOM from 1995 to 2014. Mr. Xing was responsible for formulating the rules and policies concerning foreign investment and approval of establishment of the foreign investment companies, and he participated into the drafting and formulating of the Foreign Investment Law, the Catalogue for the Guidance of Foreign Investment Industries and the foreign acquisitions regulations. Mr. Xing also engaged in the establishment of national security review system for mergers involved foreign capital. Mr. Xing is proficient in foreign investment laws and regulations, and has a wealth of experience of anti-monopoly and outbound investment.
US senator John Kennedy asked one of Trump's district court judge nominees, Matthew Petersen, a series of questions on basic law, and he was unable to answer them. Concerns have been raised over the suitability of the five nominees for the role, including Matthew Petersen. The American Bar Association declared one of the nominees 'unqualified'.
After Stephen Paddock killed 58 people in Las Vegas and wounded more than 400, another unfortunate mass shooting in the US has yet again brought the ever-important point to moot: if there needs to be tighter gun control laws imposed in the US, and what could be done.
And even though homicide rates have massively declined since 1960, the US still sees a mass shooting more often than you would expect* where one major mass shooting occurs every two months.
Talks are amidst, with reports suggesting that senators are considering banning bump stocks (the device allowing Paddock to convert his semiautomatic rifles into an automatic fire) and halting the bill which will make it easier for Americans to buy gun silencers; but even though more than one person a day dies due to gun violence in the US[i], Trump quietly revoked Obama’s bill and blocked the Social Security Administration from reporting mentally impaired recipients to a national background-check database.
US civilians own 270 million to 310 million firearms, resulting in around 35% to 42% of US households owning at least one gun[1] [2], making them the country which has the highest rate of civilian guns and they were not cutting it close: in second place was Yemen (with 55 guns per 100 civilians, where the US have approximately 90 for every 100 civilians)[3]. Of course, this also means they have the highest rate of mass shootings. But what can be done?
Get Rid of Guns
What have other countries done to tackle mass shootings? After the 1996 mass shooting in Dunblane which killed 16 young children and a school teacher, the UK [eventually] banned all private hand guns, imposed detailed background checks on gun owners prior to the ban being lawfully imposed and the Government also compensated gun owners; since then, there has only been one mass shooting in the UK.
Post the Port Arthur Massacre, Australia also followed suit, implementing tighter restrictions by banning automatic and semiautomatic firearms, adopting new licensing requirements, and applying a 28-day waiting period for gun purchases. After significantly rising tax, more than 600,000 civilian-owned firearms were bought and destroyed. Since then, no massacres on such a scale have occurred.
Sounds like an easy solution: tighter gun laws and restrictions. An amnesty of guns, albeit a big, costly job, has proven to lessen such tragic events, and so all proponents of tighter gun laws can collectively internally scream as we bang our heads against the walls Trump wishes to build; and we scream: why can’t the US learn from all this?
It is not as simple as it sounds. Firstly, as aforementioned, the US has a lot of guns and a lot of civilians owning these guns. Not only would gaining control over firearms pose quite a challenge, but a huge uproar. Que the: “We have the right to protect ourselves” statements and the fact that the Australian amnesty cost tax-payers [all together] half a billion dollars, which would be a fraction of the cost the US’ attempt of retaining guns, and we can see why an amnesty seem less realistic for the land of the free.
The US is also unique in the sense that they have a Bill stating they have a right to be able to self-defend themselves and citizens are attached to these rights, allowing them to justify their need for guns; so, what if their rights were changed?
Can they change the second amendment?
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
We need not delve into this too deep as it has been debated time and time again. President Trump has made it evidently clear he is a true follower of the Second Amendment and whilst throughout his campaign he would shun Hillary Clinton for threatening to take away citizens’ rights for protection and freedom, we can all silently acknowledge the fact that the NRA endorsed him during his campaign, as they do with 98% of Republicans[4]. To all those that argue this is not a strong enough argument, lest we forget when Trump supported Obama’s remarks, before the hefty endorsement given by his pals at the NRA, for a reformation of the law after the tragic Sandy Hook massacre[5]; “President Obama spoke for me and every American”, Trump said, yet his speech post the Las Vegas shooting was nowhere near such remarks, because his words are now funded by the organisation behind the weaponry used.
The fact is that if opinion does not change, then neither will the Second Amendment; 74% of gun owners say that there is an ‘essential’ right to own a gun[6], while Pew Surveys reveal that gun owners are more likely to contact officials about gun policies, with 60% of these supporting laxer laws[7].
Mix these strong opinions for relaxed gun laws alongside the fact there is no real, solid opposing organisation against the NRA and we realise we are driving in circles around a one-way street. To add fire to fury, changes in gun laws previously made have cost millions of dollars and were not enforced enough to have a visible effect, posing the question to their citizens to why the US even bothered to try.
This brings us to our concluding, yet vital point: “buying back” guns is not really much of an option as it is the government that will need to confiscate millions of firearms. Now if the government is endorsed by the organisation supporting guns and previous restrictions have failed, this is likely to as well. The UK and Australia’s ‘buying back guns’ programme, almost bribing those with weaponry for the exchange of money and anonymity to avoid prosecution of having illegal firearms, only worked for two reasons: the government thoroughly enforced it and the law did not state any right for citizens to bear arms.
Changing legislation will not only take months, but it also seems like an impossible dream, and if the citizens strongly support their rights to bear arms, they won’t be handing in their weapons so easily; in fact, it could even cause an uproar resulting in civil war, with police forcing citizens to drop their weapons.
It is a tough one to get around, and whilst speculators around the globe shout: “Do something about this”, it almost feels like a puzzle which will never be solved.
*mass shooting being defined as an event where at least four people are shot
[1]http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/04/a-minority-of-americans-own-guns-but-just-how-many-is-unclear/
[2] http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/Guns.aspx
[3] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/one-mass-shooting-every-day-seven-facts-gun-violence-america/
[4] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/guns/nra-endorsements-campaign-spending/
[5] http://www.npr.org/2012/12/16/167412995/transcript-president-obama-at-sandy-hook-prayer-vigil
[6] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/03/gun-control-america-failed-las-vegas
[7] https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/13/16468902/gun-control-politics-intensity
[i] Reports show that 346 people are estimated to have been killed in American mass shootings this year
