Independent News

This post was originally published on this site

Patreon

This post was originally published on this site

In a powerful statement that the core of a union is its workers, not its leaders, striking workers at John Deere rejected a proposed contract deal in a Tuesday vote, opting instead to continue their strike. But the company says that was its final offer and it will not resume bargaining.

Around 10,000 workers at plants in Iowa, Illinois, and Kansas have been on strike since October 14 after rejecting the first deal their union leadership brought. The second proposal was voted down by a 55% to 45% margin, a dramatically closer vote than the 90% who rejected the first contract offer. The second proposal included larger pay raises, improved the pension plan and preserved it for future employees, increased lump-sum payments to retiring workers, introduced two weeks of paid parental leave, and increased the contract ratification bonus. 

With John Deere making record profits, though, and likely to benefit from any infrastructure bill Congress passes, workers could reasonably feel that the company could offer more.

“In 1997, Deere reported a net income of $817 million. In 2021, they are projected to make $5.7 billion,” Local 79 education chair Dave Parkin told members at the ratification meeting for the first proposed contract, Jonah Furman reported. “While Deere profit has grown almost 700 percent since 1997, our buying power has shrunk by 35 percent.”

The second contract proposal included a larger raise, but not a raise that came anywhere close to keeping pace with the company’s increased profits.

The workers’ determination to roll back a two-tier system introduced in 1997, with earlier hires getting better pay and benefits, was the key issue in the strike from the beginning. The first proposed offer introduced what workers called a third tier, while the second proposed deal took some steps toward equalizing the pre- and post-1997 workers. But it didn’t get all the way there—crucially, post-97 workers would still not get retiree health benefits—and the workers are willing to keep fighting on that point.

With the company unwilling to return to bargaining, it seems quite likely the strike may continue into 2022.

This post was originally published on this site

Appointments for grade-school kids to be vaccinated against COVID-19 are starting to become available, and the media continues to send the message that this is something to fear. 

Significant side effects from the Pfizer vaccine (the only vaccine that has gotten emergency use authorization for children) are much rarer than significant health impacts from COVID-19 itself, even in children. But after close to a year of the right-wing media, social media conspiracy theorists, and too many Republican politicians spreading fear and outright lies about the safety of the vaccines, a significant number of parents are opposed to or hesitant about vaccinating their kids. And of course they are all we hear about.

Less than 5% of people are willing to leave their jobs rather than be vaccinated? The media is on it, giving that very small fraction of people blanket coverage. Meanwhile, around one-third of parents can’t wait to get their kids vaccinated? Crickets.

Here’s a headline from the Boston Globe: “‘In your heart, it does tug at you.’ Parents weighing COVID-19 vaccines for kids 5-11 must first battle their own anxiety.”

Here’s the reality of living in the Boston area: The earliest vaccination appointments for 5- to 11-year-olds got snapped up as quickly as they were listed. Within less than 48 hours of the CDC giving the go-ahead for that age group, you’d have been very lucky to be able to find an appointment within an hour of Boston and within the next 10 days.

The parent quoted in that Globe headline saying “In your heart, it does tug at you” has decided to get her kids vaccinated, the article went on to report. “I will trust in the science,” she said. “But it does make me nervous.”

The next parent quoted in the article said, “We are not rushing to be the first in line for [a vaccine for] a virus that our kids are not greatly impacted by, nor are they at risk of severe disease.” She does not actually know that her children are not at risk of severe disease, of course—only, at best, that they are not at high risk of severe disease—but that’s her line.

Alllll the way down at the bottom of the article, we learn this. In Chelsea, Massachusetts, a majority-Latino, heavily immigrant, low-income community that was an epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic in spring 2020, a community group—one that has done stellar work in getting adults vaccinated—got a little ahead of the ball and announced it would have vaccines for kids available on the morning of Tuesday, Nov. 2. Before the vaccine clinic was set to open, there was a line of dozens of parents waiting with their kids.

”We found the majority wanted to vaccinate their kids for multiple reasons, because they lost someone, or they don’t believe their children are wearing masks in schools correctly … or their neighbors got sick and their loved ones passed away,” La Colaborativa’s Dinanyili Paulino said. “COVID devastated this small city. They don’t want to go through that again.”

Many Boston-area parents, including the ones whose communities has been hit the hardest, desperately want to get their kids vaccinated. But they’re not the ones the state’s largest newspaper is putting in its headlines. Or in its first 26 paragraphs. In fact, the article directly quotes only the two parents: one hesitant but landing on yes and the other justifying her opposition by brushing off the risks of a pandemic that has killed 750,000 people in the United States. The reporter could easily have found parents willing to talk about why they couldn’t wait to get their kids vaccinated. It is not difficult to do. The Globe chose, instead, to focus on fear.

This post was originally published on this site

As diverse as the United States is, that diversity is not always reflected in our leadership. The good news is, that’s slowly changing. Representation is making its way throughout the country, with “firsts” being elected nationwide. In the past five years especially, hundreds of firsts have made headlines for winning local, state, and federal-level positions. Asian Americans in particular are making moves and history by being elected in record numbers in major cities nationwide.

Not only did Boston elect its first Asian mayor Tuesday, but so did Cincinnati—and that’s not all! Five Asian Americans were elected to the New York City Council on Tuesday. According to NBC News, this is the highest number of Asian American Pacific Islander (AAPI) representation the council has ever had; in the past, only two members of the AAPI community had served on the 51-member city council.

An added plus? They are all Democrats and include some firsts for the city, including the first Muslim woman, the first Korean Americans, and the first South Asian Americans elected to the council. New York’s City Council is finally reflecting the mega-city’s diversity. 

Researchers believe that this level of representation in local politics will have a great impact on New York’s AAPI community.

“Having Asian American council members serve on various committees, advocating on behalf of Asian seniors, of Asian businesses, is really important,” Howard Shih, research and policy director for the Asian American Federation, told NBC News. “Having their voice on the inside pushing for budget changes, for resources for community organizations, for access to discretionary funds, is really important.”

Four of the five new council members will represent their home districts in Queens, which is known for being the borough with the city’s largest and most diverse AAPI population. What’s even more exciting is none of the candidates have run for office before.

Here’s a little about each of the winners.

Julie Won, one of the first two Korean Americans elected to the New York City Council

While Won did not seriously consider a career in politics before, the novel coronavirus pandemic changed that.

Within a year of the pandemic Won not only lost her grandparents, who both died of coronavirus within 48 hours of contracting it, but saw her family struggle financially. Both her parents lost their jobs during the pandemic which motivated Won to run for city council and advocate for issues including housing, food insecurity, and bridging the digital divide—all issues she related to her personal experiences.

“During the pandemic, what we kept on seeing is that people who don’t understand Asian immigrant stories painted us as a monolith,” Won said. “If you don’t see yourself in rooms where political decisions are made, then you’re always going to be at a loss,” she told NBC News.

Linda Lee, also among the first Korean Americans elected to the New York City Council

Like some of the others, Lee had no prior experience in politics outside of working with local officials and a committee on advocating against Asian hate crimes. Her run for office came from her passion. Issues she championed include increasing funds for senior services, improving civilian oversight of the police department, and investing in workforce training to steer post-pandemic economic recovery.  

Similar to the ideology of many “firsts,” Lee noted that her identity did not matter when it came down to the issues that were important.

”I believe who we are as a community is defined by how we take care of those who paved the way for us and how we invest in improving the quality of life for future generations,” Lee told NBC News.

Sandra Ung

Born in Cambodia and raised in Taiwan, Ung immigrated to New York City at the age of 7. A lawyer, public servant, and community advocate, Ung prides herself on having devoted her life to serving the Queens community. Ung has a history of advocating for women’s rights, including survivors of domestic violence.

According to her campaign website, she previously served as special assistant to Congresswoman Grace Meng and has helped local residents navigate the complex government bureaucracy while in that role. Ung’s platform focuses on supporting small businesses and expanding in-language resources to the limited English speakers in her district.

“There’s been a greater push to raise awareness about the growth of the Asian American community and to have more Asian Americans elected,” Ung told NBC News. “It just shows the importance of continuing to engage the electorate.”

Two South Asians were elected to the city council Tuesday as firsts, including Shahana Hanif and Shekar Krishnan. Both passionate about grassroots advocacy, they told NBC News they’re committed to deploying activist tactics in office if need be, which includes protesting or getting arrested with their constituents. Both stand by their words and were recently arrested while participating in a taxi driver-led hunger strike to fight for debt relief.

Shahana Hanif

As a newly elected member of the New York City Council, Hanif is not only one of the first South Asians but also the first Muslim woman to be elected to the council.

Hanif, the only Asian representing an area outside of Queens, is of Bangladeshi descent. She decided to run for city council because she wanted to give voice to AAPI community members who were often excluded from decision-making conversations.

“I decided to run for City Council because I want to ensure the communities often excluded from the conversation have a voice at the table. With this city being home to the largest Muslim and Bangladeshi diaspora in the US, our win marks a historic moment in our City for Muslims and Bangladeshis everywhere,” Hanif said in an interview with Brown Girl Magazine. She also shared that after being diagnosed with lupus and seeing her limited English-proficient family having to navigate the health care system, she grew passionate about health care advocacy.

Her platform also focuses on making MTA and other public transit agencies more accessible to people with disabilities.

Shekar Krishnan

Krishnan is a housing attorney who is proud to bring representation to South Asians in politics, which he noted has long been neglected. 

A Queens native, Krishnan is not only focused on the taxi driver medallion crisis but on housing and public health inequities. He plans to not only increase public funding for a local hospital but invest in public housing and create bilingual education programs. 

“People often say that ‘representation matters.’ It’s true, in that it matters to those who have been underrepresented for so long to see someone elected who looks like them, who shares their culture and their skin complexion, or speaks their language. But it’s not just symbolic or visual representation that we as Asian American communities need,” Krishnan said in an interview with Brown Girl Magazine. “I’m proud I will be one of the first South Asians ever elected to the City Council in the history of New York City. I intend to fiercely represent my communities and ensure we get the resources, attention, support, and political power we deserve.”

These historic wins follow a string of hate crimes against the AAPI community. According to data compiled by the FBI, hate crimes against Asian Americans rose by 76% in 2020 when compared to data from 2019. Misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic has increased xenophobia toward the AAPI community across the country. Data from the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University-San Bernardino has found that hate crimes against Asian Americans surged in 2020 in at least 15 cities, Daily Kos reported. As the data was further reviewed, reports indicated that crimes against Asian Americans rose by 169% when comparing the first quarter of 2020 to the first quarter of 2021. 

While these wins show change is coming, the AAPI community still needs our support. Check out this guide on resources and ways to support the AAPI community and our Asian friends. 

Congratulations to these newly elected council members. We can only hope that as representation increases, the hate will decrease.

This post was originally published on this site

Only months after an order by President Joe Biden made it mandatory, the United States military has moved swiftly to get to near-universal vaccination. The Washington Post reports that roughly 97% of active-duty service members have now had at least one dose, and 87% have had both.

As widely expected by commenters with even a passing knowledge of military matters, each military branch has achieved those numbers by not taking any guff from soldiers who believe they should be able to opt-out; the Post also reports that while some medical exemptions have been granted, no religious exemptions have been. That appears to be because officials are being hard-asses about the matter, and those who would claim such an exemption “would be required to have an established history of adherence to a religion that prohibits vaccines, among other things.”

Neither Facebook paranoia nor reflexive hatred of authority counts as an established “religion,” at least not yet, and of the world’s many recognized religions only a handful are anti-vaccine on principle. The military requires numerous vaccines for entry and deployment both, and if you weren’t having a very visible cow over those, your newfound religious beliefs are probably not going to fly.

The military’s approach to vaccinating troops has been a simple one: Shut Up And Do It, a reflection of the special dangers posed by a pandemic in operations that necessarily often involve cramming a great many people into very small spaces. It’s also another demonstration that, when push comes to shove, the vaccine hesitancy being pushed incessantly in news stories focusing on small bands of sign-waving conspiracy theorists is largely vaporous.

We’ve seen that time and time again. Law enforcement outrage over being asked to vaccinate was paired with dire warnings that if America required its police to be vaccinated against a deadly disease still raging out of control throughout the nation, those officers would abandon their jobs in droves. There have been marches, and organized fury, and when the deadlines for getting vaccinated actually came and went, the number of people willing to lose their jobs over a belief they only recently decided they had turned out to be very close to zero.

Making vaccination mandatory for those who work for large and midsize companies, for those whose jobs require frequent public interactions, and for military members turns out to be a (perhaps shockingly) effective pandemic tool. And if we’re going to get to any version of “herd immunity” before the virus mutates into new, possibly worse versions, we have to get there immediately. Every other possible outcome is unthinkable.

The success of each mandate as it is put in place, whether it be in individual hospital chains or the U.S. military, bodes well for the new Occupational Safety and Health Administration rules requiring employees at companies with 100+ workers to achieve full vaccination by January 4. Those with genuine medical issues requiring exemption or employees whose Facebook paranoia has rendered them hopelessly anti-vaccination will be required to wear masks and be tested for infection weekly, and that will get old very fast for anyone who chooses that path out of apathy or undirected spite.

Republican-held states continue to file lawsuits in an attempt to block those mandates, however, because “undirected spite” is now a political movement all its own. Those suits are not likely to be successful because, again, OSHA has been given broad authority to regulate workplace safety, and COVID-19 is, at present, the leading cause of workplace death by a large margin. But we cannot discount the possibility that the newly archconservative Supreme Court will decide that “spite” is now sufficient reason to possibly kill coworkers if you decide that’s what you want to do.

We’re likely to see a continuation of the pandemic trend of rising death tolls in Republican-held states even as other states get the pandemic under better control. Though, as Florida’s several surges demonstrate, these cases spread quickly over the borders of the states producing them.

The opposition to being vaccinated is still a political belief, not a medical one. Republican leaders like Florida’s DeSantis attack vaccine requirements and urge their followers to do the same as part of the broader far-right war against anything that makes a conservative feel bad, whether it be a Toni Morrison book or a sterile needle, all alleged plots by national elites to bruise their arms or egos in some ill-defined fashion.

The good news is that it’s still a pretty thinly held political belief. While those that truly immerse themselves in anti-vaccine conspiracy theories may be (loudly) willing to lose their jobs and careers rather than abide getting vaccinated, those who oppose vaccination on grounds invented by Fox News seem to be quick to buckle when their jobs are truly on the line.

The military, for its part, doesn’t have much patience for those who believe authority figures should be opposed out of spite. The rest of America is getting tired enough of pandemic suffering to be losing patience as well, so now it’s mandate time.

This post was originally published on this site

Earlier this week, Barbados Prime Minister Mia Mottley closed her speech at the annual climate summit COP26—the 26th “conference of the parties” to the U.N.’s climate body—with some harsh words for the world leaders in attendance: “Try harder.” Mottley called out the pipe-dream promises of countries investing in technology that has yet to be developed and got to the heart of the issue for countries like Barbados and many smaller nations on the front lines of the climate crisis.

“On adaptation, adaptation finance remains only at 25%; not the 50-50 split that was promised, nor needed, given the warming that is already taking place on this Earth. Climate finance to frontline small island developing states declined by 25% in 2019,” Mottley said. “Failure to provide the critical finance and that of loss and damage is measured in my friends, in lives and livelihoods in our communities. This is immoral and it is unjust.”

Meaningfully fighting climate change means investing significantly in ways to slow the overall warming of the planet. It’s something known the world over. And people are frankly tired of seeing those in power do everything but make the necessary investment for our future. It’s what prompted activists with the Sunrise Movement to hound Senator Joe Manchin early Thursday morning as he made his way from his houseboat to his Maserati.

Caribbean Matters offers a wealth of information on Mottley and zeroes in on the prime minister quoting the Eddy Grant classic “Living on the Frontline” during her speech. Mottley’s timing couldn’t be better, as Grant is in the middle of a legal battle against Donald Trump, who used “Electric Avenue” in a 2020 campaign video. The prime minister is at once savvy and inspiring so it’s no surprise that folks are still discussing her standout speech from Monday. It’s also worth noting she’s one of few women of color speaking truth to power at COP26.

Sunrise Movement demonstrators lacked the same panache as Mottley, but their actions nonetheless highlight the collective frustration many the world over are feeling over climate change inaction. It’s hard to sit back and hope for the best as the months drag on and lawmakers refuse to prioritize the one planet we’ve got. I’d argue that going after just Joe Manchin isn’t enough, though.

Climate change is here and it’s coming for your food, your water, your shelter—all the things humans need to survive. The U.S. is the largest carbon polluter in history, and we should treat our fight against climate change as a global one. Mottley said it best at the beginning of her speech: “The pandemic has taught us that national solutions to global problems do not work.”

We cannot fault one lawmaker for the collective failure of the people representing us. That’s why it’s more important than ever to voice your support for the Build Back Better Act and urge those in Congress to do the right thing: Pass this necessary legislation and continue the fight against climate change.

This post was originally published on this site

Senate Republicans, tantalized by the campaign of Virginia GOP governor-elect Glenn Youngkin, clearly have no idea how they’re going to replicate his candidacy in battleground races next year. Youngkin had the political acumen and backbone to sideline Donald Trump, while simultaneously doubling down on Trumpism, in order to appeal to multiple audiences.

Sen. John Thune of South Dakota told Politico that Youngkin was “very deft” for a political newcomer. “It’s a good playbook. Hopefully, our candidates can sort of watch and learn.”

The problem for Republicans is the uniqueness of the Virginia election. Youngkin had no political baggage in terms of votes or a track record. He was also able to 100% capitalize on any voter dissatisfaction since Democrats enjoyed full control of both the state and federal governments. And then there’s the fact that Youngkin hasn’t spent the past five years of his life doing Trump’s dirty bidding and surrendering to his every whim.

In states Trump won in 2020, we can expect to see Republicans campaigning side-by-side with him. In Florida, for instance, Sen. Marco Rubio is already stroking Trump’s ego.

“The president’s viewed as a liability in the minds of some people around here. Not in the real world,” Rubio said in an interview on Wednesday.

Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina also attempted to stroke Trump’s ego, but instead muddled his way into a moment of clarity about Trump’s drag on the party.

“Trump played it pretty well, not to give any more air to the Trump card,” Graham observed. “Being associated with an unpopular politician [like Trump] is an oft-used strategy.”

Trump was so smart to lay low because people don’t like him!

Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah offered perhaps the soberest take on what was possible for Republicans next year.

“President Trump’s gonna do what he wants to do,” Romney noted. “He will clearly have a very substantial influence on primary campaigns.”

True. And Trump’s dominance of Senate GOP primaries will ensure that very few, if any, Youngkin-type candidates survive. As I have noted before, Herschel Walker—who allegedly made a habit of threatening to “blow” the brains out of his female partners—is on a glide path to the GOP nomination in Georgia. Pennsylvania GOP Senate candidate Sean Parnell, whose estranged wife just gave searing testimony this week about his alleged patterns of abuse, has Trump’s endorsement in the primary. In North Carolina, former Republican Gov. Pat McCrory would clearly be the more moderate establishment pick to run for the state’s open Senate seat, but Trump has already put his thumb on the scale for Rep. Ted Budd, one of the first congressional Republicans to announce he wouldn’t vote to certify Joe Biden’s 2020 win.

North Carolina’s other GOP Senator, Thom Tillis, who narrowly won reelection last year, offered the advice that Republican candidates “really need to study what happened in Virginia and model a lot of these campaigns about that.” Tillis added that “Democrats are going to do like they tried to do to Youngkin.”

The truth is, Democrats won’t have to try to do anything with the radicalized slate of GOP candidates emerging now. If Walker and Parnell win the party’s nomination, for instance, no one is going to need to mention Trump to point out that they are extreme and dangerous. Not to mention that Trump will be hitting the campaign trail for his candidates and no one will stop him—least of all Senate GOP Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.  

This post was originally published on this site

The decision by the University of Florida (UF) to muzzle three professors from testifying against a new state law restricting people from their constitutional right to vote has exploded into a political and public relations battle. 

In a case challenging Senate Bill 90, UF political science professors Daniel Smith, Michael McDonald, and Sharon Austin were notified via email that their request to serve as experts was denied. Now, according to reporting by The New York Times, five more professors have come forward about being banned from testifying.

The body that sets the accreditation for the university opened an inquiry Monday to determine whether banning the faculty was in legal conflict with the “academic freedom” and “undue political influence” standards of the school, Miami Herald reported. 

Monday the university’s president ordered a review of the decision to ban the professors from testifying.

“The University of Florida stands firmly behind its commitment to uphold our most sacred right as Americans, the right to free speech, and to faculty members’ right to academic freedom,” UF said in a statement. “Nothing is more fundamental to our existence as an institution.”

Since the start of all of this controversy, all roads have conspicuously led to Gov. Ron DeSantis, who of course denies any involvement. 

This is an internal U.F. issue and not the sort of thing that the executive branch would be involved in,” Christina Pushaw, DeSantis’ spokeswoman told the Times. “Governor DeSantis has always championed free speech, open inquiry and viewpoint diversity on college and university campuses.”

But isn’t it a little smarmy and suspicious that the red carpet appeared to roll out for one professor in Florida—the one who chose to testify in defense of the state’s oppressive and racist voting law? 

Florida International University professor Dairo Moreno spoke as an “expert witness” in League of Women Voters of Florida v. Lee, which challenges the restrictive voting law, according to The Chronicle of Higher Education. 

Florida International’s conflict of interest policy is nearly identical to the University of Florida’s, barring professors from taking jobs that could “interfere with their primary academic duties, affect the university’s integrity, or create a conflict between the private interests of the employee and the public interests of the University, the Board of Governors, and/or the State of Florida,” the Chronicle reports. 

Moreno was “hired by the Florida Legislator as an expert witness in defense of every GOP-drawn redistricting map since 1994,” according to the Tampa Bay Times. 

So despite the numerous lies and negations, DeSantis and his administration have made, the reality is when professors speak out against Florida’s GOP policies they professors are banned, and when they speak in support of the policies, they have the opportunity to testify. 

“It’s creating an environment which is putting intolerable pressure on universities and other institutions as well to comply with the political policies of this administration, for sure,” Dr. Jeffrey L. Goldhagen, a longtime professor and administrator at the university’s College of Medicine in Jacksonville, told the Times. “I don’t think there’s any questions about that.”

Goldhagen, a pediatrics expert, was muzzled during the summer when attempting to give sworn testimony disputing DeSantis’ ban on mask mandates in schools. 

“I had no option, personally or professionally,” he said. “I’ve always made decisions based on what’s best for children.”

Goldhagen’s confession has opened the floodgates. In a letter of support of the three professors, over 80 professors accused the university of “a serious violation of academic freedom and faculty speech rights,” adding: “We call on University of Florida administrators to reverse their decision, and to allow Professors Sharon Austin, Michael McDonald, and Daniel Smith to offer expert testimony in this case.”

This is just more of DeSantis’ attempt to push his state further into fascism, just as his June legislation attempted to do against the “indoctrination” of students. The law, which went into effect July 1, requires universities and colleges to “survey” students, faculty, and staff about their beliefs with regard to “intellectual diversity.”

The survey will ascertain “the extent to which competing ideas and perspectives are presented” in public schools and to learn if teachers and students “feel free to express beliefs and viewpoints on campus and in the classroom,” according to the bill.

DeSantis suggested the information gathered could be used to cut funding if the schools were found to be ”indoctrinating” students. 

In a letter to UF, attorneys Paul Donnelly and Conor Flynn wrote, “The university cannot silence the professors on matters of great public importance. These professors are citizens entitled to participate in the marketplace of ideas.”

Friday, McDonald tweeted a video of Tom Petty’s “I Won’t Back Down.” He and his colleagues “are the faculty being denied our constitutional right to free speech by the university,” he wrote.

This post was originally published on this site

President Biden on Wednesday shot down reports that his administration has been in talks for possible settlements of up to $450,000 for family separation victims who have sued the federal government over the inhumane and traumatic policy. “’$450,000 per person? Is that what you’re saying?’ Mr. Biden said when asked by Fox News reporter Peter Doocy about the payments,” The New York Times reported. “That’s not going to happen.”

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which launched lawsuits to block the policy and seek compensation for traumatized victims, swiftly responded, saying the president “may not have been fully briefed” about Justice Department actions. “But if he follows through on what he said, the president is abandoning a core campaign promise to do justice for the thousands of separated families.”

“We respectfully remind President Biden that he called these actions ‘criminal’ in a debate with then-President Trump, and campaigned on remedying and rectifying the lawlessness of the Trump administration,” ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero continued in the statement Wednesday. “We call on President Biden to right the wrongs of this national tragedy.”

CNN and The Wall Street Journal had reported officials were in talks for possible settlements for asylum-seekers subjected to the policy, which Physicians for Human Rights in a report last year said constituted torture. “Financial compensation would likely vary, and not all would get the maximum agreed-upon amount,” CNN reported. While that report said it was unclear how many would be eligible for a payment, The Wall Street Journal noted roughly 940 families had filed claims.

As noted earlier this week, those reports were predictably met with outrage from right-wing politicians, who were more pissed off over the reported damages than they ever were about the traumatic damage caused by the policy.

The president “wants you to give $1 million to illegal immigrant families who broke the law,” shrieked presidential wannabe Tom Cotton, in just one example. It should come as no surprise that this offensive “illegal immigrant” language was echoed in the question posed by Doocy, who also asked if reported settlements “might incentivize more people to come over illegally.” So, now he’s creating more outrage over a completely made-up idea than about the separation policy itself. Reminder: Seeking asylum is legal immigration. And why keep calling on this man?

“The case for compensating these migrant families is clear,” Boston Globe columnist Marcela García wrote in a recent piece. “It wasn’t just the act of forced separation, but also what some parents were reportedly told (or not) after the fact: ‘You’ll never see your child again.’” When families were finally reunited under court order, some children didn’t appear to recognize their parents, like in the case of 3-year-old Sammy. He was separated from his family for three months. “My son is traumatized,” his mother cried.

But since the financial settlement talks appear to be tied to continued litigation, it may not even be up to the president in the end—it could be up to the courts. “Ultimately, the horrific trauma inflicted on parents and children who were separated is lasting and has long-term consequences; no amount of money can erase it,” García continued in her column. “But it’s crucial to create an economic-justice precedent so that future presidents never again consider enacting this harmful and cruel policy.”