# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
sources of water pollution>
				  <meta property=

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Around the world, one million plastic drinking bottles are purchased every minute, while 500 billion single-use plastic bags are used worldwide every year. In total, half of all plastic produced is designed to be used only once - and then thrown away.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The school's principal was wounded and later released from the hospital.

Police identified the suspected gunman who stormed YES Prep Southwest Secondary school in Houston, Texas, on Friday and wounded the principal as 25-year old Dexter Harold Kelsey.

Kelsey has been charged with aggravated assault against a public servant and deadly conduct in the 263rd State District Court, Houston Police announced Saturday.

Houston police said a call about reports of an active shooting came in at 11:45 a.m. at 4400 Anderson Road at Hiram Clarke.

Houston Police Chief Troy Finner said in a press conference Friday that officers arrived to the scene "within minutes" following the call and once inside the school came upon the suspect "armed with a rifle" and he "surrendered without incident."

Finner said Friday the suspect was a former student of the school. Police said Kelsey confessed to his role in the shooting and was subsequently charged.

"When he came to the building, the front door, the glass door, it was locked. He gained entry by shooting on the glass door and immediately fired upon one of the employees of the school," Finner said.

The employee sustained a gunshot wound to the back. Police named the victim Saturday as school principal Eric Espinosa, 36, who was treated at a hospital and later released.

Police said Espinosa was alerted about the shooting and attempted to warn teachers and students.

"During the gunfire, one of the bullets struck the principal in his lower back. As the principal continued to help students and teachers flee the school, responding police officers arrived, located the suspect and arrested him without further incident," Houston police said.

YES Prep Southwest Secondary said in a statement Friday that "no students have been injured." The school serves grades 6 through 12.

Audio from a dispatch call reveals an official said: "I'm gonna need units at 4411 Anderson Rd, just got a message that there's a man with a gun in the school."

The Houston Fire Department initially told ABC News one person was transported to Memorial Hermann Texas Medical Center Emergency Room.

First responders were on the scene to actively clear the building, Houston Fire said after reports of the shooting.

A seventh grader who was evacuated from the school told ABC Houston station KTRK, "When I was coming out, I saw blood and glass shattering everywhere."

"My teachers told me to stay back in the classroom where nobody can see you and officers came, saying, 'Put your hands up. Go outside,'" the student said.

A staging area for parents was set up at West Fuqua and Hiram Clarke and students were sent to that location.

The students had gone through active shooter training just two days earlier. Finner commended students for remaining calm during the evacuation.

Finner said there are no other potential suspects and no further threat to the students.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Suspect in Houston school shooting identified, charged

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The school's principal was wounded and later released from the hospital. Police identified the suspected gunman who stormed YES Prep Southwest Secondary school in Houston, Texas, on Friday and wounded the principal as 25-year old Dexter Harold Kelsey. Kelsey has been charged with aggravated assault against a public servant and deadly conduct in the 263rd State District Court, Houston Police announced Saturday.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Voting should be as easy and accessible as possible, and in many cases it is. But in recent years, more than 400 anti-voter bills have been introduced in 48 states. These bills erect unnecessary barriers for people to register to vote, vote by mail, or vote in person. The result is a severely compromised democracy that doesn't reflect the will of the people. Our democracy works best when all eligible voters can participate and have their voices heard.

Suppression efforts range from the seemingly unobstructive, like strict voter ID laws and cuts to early voting, to mass purges of voter rolls and systemic disenfranchisement. These measures disproportionately impact people of color, students, the elderly, and people with disabilities. And long before election cycles even begin, legislators redraw district lines that determine the weight of your vote.

Below, we've listed some of the most rampant methods of voter suppression across the country - and the advocacy and litigation efforts aimed at protecting our fundamental right to vote.

Voter Registration Restrictions

Restricting the terms and requirements of registration is one of the most common forms of voter suppression. Restrictions can include requiring documents to prove citizenship or identification, onerous obstacles for voter registration drives, or limiting the window of time in which voters can register.

Politicians often use unfounded claims of voter fraud to try to justify registration restrictions. In 2011, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach championed a law requiring Kansans to show "proof of citizenship" documents in order to register to vote, citing false claims of noncitizen voting. Most people don't carry the required documents on hand - like a passport, or a birth certificate - and as a result, the law blocked the registrations of more than 30,000 Kansans. The ACLU sued and defeated the law in 2018. In 2020, the Supreme Court and a 10th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling.

After a surge in registrations during the 2018 midterm election, Tennessee legislators imposed substantial requirements on groups that foster political participation via voter registration efforts and created criminal and civil penalties against those who fail to comply with these onerous requirements and turn in "incomplete" applications. The ACLU filed a federal lawsuit challenging the law and blocked it from going into effect in 2019.

Resources on voter registration requirements
Look up your state's voter registration requirements | States with online voter registration

Criminalization of the Ballot Box

Some states are discouraging voter participation by imposing arbitrary requirements and harsh penalties on voters and poll workers who violate these rules. In Georgia, lawmakers have made it a crime to provide food and water to voters standing in line at the polls - lines that are notoriously long in Georgia, especially for communities of color. In Texas, people have been arrested and given outrageous sentences for what amount at most to innocent mistakes made during the voting process. ACLU clients Crystal Mason and Hervis Rogers are examples of this egregious treatment.

Because of racism in law enforcement and the broader criminal legal system, criminalization of the ballot box disproportionately impacts people of color, who are more likely to be penalized. This method of voter suppression aims to instill fear in communities of color and suppress their voices in the democratic process.
More on criminalization of the ballot box

Felony Disenfranchisement

A felony conviction can come with drastic consequences, including the loss of your right to vote. Some states ban voting only during incarceration, or while on probation or parole. And other states and jurisdictions, like Maine, Vermont, and Washington, D.C., don't disenfranchise people with felony convictions at all. The fact that these laws vary so dramatically only adds to the overall confusion that voters face, which is a form of voter suppression in itself.

Due to racial bias in the criminal justice system, felony disenfranchisement laws disproportionately affect Black and Brown people, who often face harsher sentences than white people for the same offenses. Many of these laws are rooted in the Jim Crow era, when legislators tried to block Black Americans' newly won right to vote by enforcing poll taxes, literacy tests, and other barriers that were nearly impossible to meet. To this day, the states with the most extreme disenfranchisement laws also have long histories of suppressing the rights of Black people.

Felony disenfranchisement laws by state

Thirty-six states have identification requirements at the polls, including seven states with strict photo ID laws.

Cleaning up voter rolls can be a responsible part of election administration because many people move, die, or become ineligible to vote for other reasons. But sometimes, states use this process as a method of mass disenfranchisement, purging eligible voters from rolls for illegitimate reasons or based on inaccurate data, and often without adequate notice to the voters. A single purge can stop up to hundreds of thousands of people from voting. Often, voters only learn they've been erroneously purged when they show up at the polls on Election Day and it's too late to correct the error.

Election administrators properly keep voter rolls up to date by filtering out voters who have changed their address, died, or otherwise become ineligible to vote. But states often conduct such purges using inaccurate data, flawed processes, and targeting certain voters such as those with felony convictions without enforcing federally-mandated safeguards to prevent purging voters who don't even fall under the targeted group.

The ACLU has taken action against unlawful voter purges and laws that enable them. In 2019, we stopped Texas' flawed, discriminatory voter purge list that targeted naturalized citizens. This year, we blocked an Indiana law that would have allowed county elections officials to kick voters off the rolls immediately without their explicit consent or notice, or an opportunity to correct the record.

More on voter purges
Report: Purges: A Growing Threat to the Right to Vote | Congressional Testimony by Sophia Lin Lakin, Deputy Director of the ACLU's Voting Rights Project

Redistricting and Gerrymandering

Every 10 years, states redraw district lines based on population data gathered in the census. Legislators use these district lines to allocate representation in Congress and state legislatures. When redistricting is conducted properly, district lines are redrawn to reflect population changes and racial diversity. But too often, states use redistricting as a political tool to manipulate the outcome of elections. That's called gerrymandering - a widespread, undemocratic practice that's stifling the voices of millions of voters.

The Census Bureau released data from the 2020 Census in August 2021, triggering this once-in-a-decade line drawing process in most states. These new district lines will determine our political voice for the next decade.

The 2020 Census

In 2018, the Trump administration announced plans to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census, with the goal of suppressing participation of immigrant communities, stunting their growing political influence. The question would have resulted in an undercount that goes against the census' very purpose - to count everybody in this country. Accurate population data is essential in apportioning representation and public funds. The ACLU sued the administration and successfully blocked the citizenship question before the census was conducted.

The Trump Administration's Census Cover-up

Thirty-six states have identification requirements at the polls. Seven states have strict photo ID laws, under which voters must present one of a limited set of forms of government-issued photo ID in order to cast a regular ballot - no exceptions. These strict ID laws are part of an ongoing strategy to suppress the vote.

Over 21 million U.S. citizens do not have qualifying government-issued photo identification, and these individuals are disproportionately voters of color. That's because ID cards aren't always accessible for everyone. The ID itself can be costly, and even when IDs are free, applicants must incur other expenses to obtain the underlying documents that are needed to get an ID. This can be a significant burden on people in lower-income communities. Further, the travel required to obtain an ID is an obstacle for people with disabilities, the elderly, and people living in rural areas.

Voter ID Restrictions Imposed Since 2010

Who's Affected By Voter Suppression?

The short answer is all of us. Our democracy is debased when the vote is not accessible for all. But the fact is that some groups are disproportionately affected by voter suppression tactics, including people of color, young people, the elderly, and people with disabilities. The proof is in the numbers.

Across the country, 1 in 16 Black Americans cannot vote due to disenfranchisement laws.

Counties with larger minority populations have fewer polling sites and poll workers per voter.

In 2018, Latinx and Black Americans were twice as likely as whites to be unable to get off work while polls were open.

25 percent of voting-age Black Americans do not have a government-issued photo ID.

Geographic isolation is a major barrier to Native American voters due to the inaccessibility of nearby polling locations in many reservations. In South Dakota, 32 percent of Native voters cite travel distance as a factor in deciding whether to vote.

More than one-sixth (18 percent) of voters with disabilities reported difficulties voting in person in 2020.

Nearly two-thirds of polling places had at least one impediment for people with disabilities.

The right to vote is the most fundamental constitutional right for good reason: democracy cannot exist without the electoral participation of citizens. We vote because it's we, the people, who are supposed to shape our government. Not the other way around.

President Biden and states can enact measures to encourage rather than suppress voting. Automatic, online, and same-day voter registration encourage participation and reduce chances of error. Early voting helps people with travel or accessibility concerns participate. And states must enforce the protections of the Voting Rights Act.

At an individual level, the best way to fight voter suppression is to know your rights - and vote.

Tell Congress to pass the VRAA, which would reinstate critical protections against voter suppression left behind after the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act in 2013. This is even more urgent in the wake of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, which significantly undercut the protections of another vital provision of the Voting Rights Act.

Know Your Rights before you get to the polling booth. Read and share our guide on what to do if you face registration issues, need disability or language accommodations, or come across someone who's interfering with your right to vote. Share the guide on Facebook and Twitter to spread the word.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Block the Vote: How Politicians are Trying to Block Voters from the Ballot Box | News & Commentary | American Civil Liberties Union

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Voting should be as easy and accessible as possible, and in many cases it is. But in recent years, more than 400 anti-voter bills have been introduced in 48 states. These bills erect unnecessary barriers for people to register to vote, vote by mail, or vote in person.

# data[].attributes.headline
How our immigration system has failed and how to fix it

# data[].attributes.subject
How our immigration system has failed and how to fix it

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Immigration is an understandably touchy subject. It involves not only jobs and the economy, labor competition, but also culture and national identity.

It feels like immigration reform is an issue that's always been around and won't go away.

How did we get in this situation, why do we need to fix this problem, and where should immigration reform go? This explainer should help answer some of these questions.

What's the issue?

America has long welcomed immigrants to our shores. "A nation of immigrants" isn't a cliché, so much as it is a fact since before our country's founding.

Immigrants come here looking for economic opportunity, freedom, and a better life for themselves and their families. They've crossed oceans to work, learn, and live. Our country has benefitted from this influx of cultures and ethnicities, and immigrant workers have made lasting contributions to our economy.

But our immigration system hasn't kept up with the ever-changing world economy. Today, jobs go unfilled because companies can't find the workers with the skills they need. Our outdated and ineffective system now welcomes some immigrants and blocks entry to others often with little consideration of what skills they bring and what roles they would fill in the economy.

At the same time millions of hardworking people are here without authorization living in the shadows. Many of them have been here for years living quiet, peaceful lives with their families.

It's a system that's in desperate need of repair.

How did we wind up with such a broken immigration system?

For starters, Congress hasn't passed significant immigration reform legislation since 1986. Both parties have let this legal inertia go on while our economy and demographics have changed and the public clamored for solutions.

To top it off, the Obama administration compounded the problem in recent years by issuing a patchwork of executive orders that made actually fixing the problem more politically toxic.

Why do we need immigrants?

The main reason is the United States faces a troubling demographic problem.

As a result of improved health care, our country is getting older. Ten thousand Baby Boomers are turning 65 every day. Many of them are retiring and leaving the workforce.

Living longer and healthier is great news for those getting older, but we need people to replace those who retire. Despite fears that robots will take away all of our jobs, the need for workers won't be going any anytime soon.

There will be 35.3 million job openings through 2024--mostly due to retirement. Combine that with an economy that's expected to create 9.8 million additional job openings and a U.S. birthrate that is declining, it's obvious that the U.S. economy will need more workers.

Immigration is an important piece to this demographic puzzle.

Aren't immigrants a burden on our country?

Just the opposite. Immigrants make an unmistakably positive contribution on the American economy.

A report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) found that "Immigration is integral to the nation's economic growth." They generate demand for goods and services "in key sectors such as housing, which benefits residential real estate markets."

Their labor contributions "reduce the prices of some goods and services" for native-born Americans in "sectors including child care, food preparation, house cleaning and repair, and construction."

Immigrants also spawn innovation. According to the NAS report, "high-skilled immigrants raise patenting per capita, which is likely to boost productivity and per capita economic growth."

When immigrants aren't working as employees, they're being entrepreneurs, starting businesses-both large and small--that create jobs.

Take grocery stores, shops, restaurants, and other Main Street businesses Americans encounter daily. According to one study, 28% of these businesses are owned by immigrant entrepreneurs. Between 2000 and 2013, immigrants accounted for 48% of overall business ownership growth.

We see something similar when it comes to large businesses. Successful companies that we all have heard of or use have immigrant founders.

One study estimates that the Fortune 500 companies that were founded by immigrants generate $1.7 trillion in annual revenue and employ more than 3.6 million people worldwide.

By filling empty job openings, spurring innovation, and having a strong propensity for job-creating entrepreneurship, immigrants contribute a lot to our economy.

But aren't immigrants taking jobs from native-born Americans?

No, immigrants don't "steal" jobs from American workers.

The fallacious argument is based upon the assumption that there are a fixed number of jobs in our economy. Experience shows us this isn't true.

When a factory in town closes, the folks that used to live in town and work on the assembly line are not the only ones that suffer. Suppliers, vendors, and local businesses also suffer because they lose business.

On the flip side of that coin, when a new R&D facility opens up, and new people move in, jobs aren't just created designing new aircraft, mobile phones, or pharmaceuticals at that facility. Other businesses--Main Street businesses in particular--are created because of the increased economic activity brought about by the increased investment. In other words, there wouldn't magically be 11 million new jobs if someone waved a magic wand and made 11 million immigrants in the U.S. disappear. In fact, you would likely see our labor force and output decline as a result of removing the entire undocumented workforce.

Workers aren't widgets. They're people with unique skillsets. In general, immigrants who come here to work have different skills, live in different places in the U.S., have different education levels, and work in different fields than native-born workers. For instance, native-born workers work in higher-paid jobs that require better English-language skills than many immigrant workers have.

A strong piece of evidence that immigrants aren't stealing jobs is researchers haven't found a correlation between immigration and high unemployment at the regional, state, or county level.

But don't immigrant workers drive down wages?

Once again, a common argument, but it doesn't stand up to what is happening in the economy. In fact, quite the opposite.

A co-author of the NAS report on the economics of immigration said, "We found little to no negative effects on overall wages and employment of native-born workers in the longer term."

In fact, immigrant workers help boost wages, as studies on both the national and state levels have shown. This is because immigrant skills complement and improve the productivity of native-born workers, increasing their wages.

It's a win-win for both groups, and a plus for our economy.

But don't immigrants take more from government services than they generate in taxes?

It's a myth that immigrants come to the U.S. only to collect welfare. The fact is undocumented immigrants work and pay taxes. More than half have federal taxes automatically taken out of their paychecks--$13 billion in payroll taxes in 2010--and pay sales taxes like everybody else. On the local level, undocumented immigrant households paid $11.6 billion in state and local taxes in 2013.

At the same time, undocumented workers can't get federal benefits like Social Security, Medicaid, food stamps.

Researchers looking at what's happening in states like Arizona and Florida, find that, on average, immigrants pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits.

So how do we fix the system?

For starters, our elected leaders need to resist the temptation to talk past each other and focus on scoring political points against the other side. It is long past time that our leaders worked together to address very serious issues. The only truly effective, long-term solution to the many problems associated with our immigration system is Congress and the president working together to pass meaningful, commonsense legislative reforms. Partisan demagoguery and divisive executive actions will not get the job done.

What specifically should Congress do to improve our immigration laws?

First and foremost, Congress has to address national security. That's what Americans demand.

Second, we need a system that works for a modern economy with all its economic demands and demographic changes mentioned above. This includes addressing the green card backlogs in our employment-based immigration system and creating effective temporary worker programs for workers of all skill levels. Addressing these two key issues will not only allow employers to innovate and create jobs, but effective temporary worker programs for the lesser-skilled occupations are essential to preventing unauthorized migration in the future.

Further to that end, Congress must put in place a worker employment verification system that works for businesses of all sizes in all industries to curb unauthorized employment, commonly referred to as the "job magnet" that drives unauthorized migration to the U.S.

And finally there has to be a process that sets forth strict eligibility criteria for allowing the otherwise law-abiding people individuals who are not authorized to be in the U.S. an opportunity to earn a legal status.

Isn't that process "amnesty?"

For most people, requirements like paying fines, taxes, and spending a considerable amount of time in some sort of probationary status before you can even apply for a green card isn't letting anyone off the hook. It's a tough and fair solution that continues our traditional respect for law and order because this is necessary to eliminate an unfortunate and prominent feature of our current immigration system: A population of 11 million people who are not authorized to be in the country.

This issue simply cannot define our immigration system moving forward, and while it may not be the optimal solution for some, it's certainly more realistic and humane (and significantly less costly) than rounding up and deporting every undocumented worker and their families.

It's also a solution that 84% of Americans favor.

Okay, so what's the bottom line?

For years, we've seen the effects of our broken immigration system. We can't wait any longer to fix it. The president and Congress must work together to solve these very real and very urgent problems.

With meaningful immigration reforms, we can promote both national security and economic growth and solve problems that the American public has long asked for their leaders to address.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How America's Immigration System Failed and Why We Need to Fix It

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Immigration is an understandably touchy subject. It involves not only jobs and the economy, labor competition, but also culture and national identity. It feels like immigration reform is an issue that's always been around and won't go away. How did we get in this situation, why do we need to fix this problem, and where should immigration reform go?

# data[].attributes.headline
Are voters biased against women candidates?

# data[].attributes.subject
Are voters biased against women candidates?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
With a record number of women in the fight for the White House, it's time to re-examine what role - if any - gender biases may play in the 2020 election.

It's been a groundbreaking year for women in US politics: 1,834 women won office at the state and federal level during the mid-term elections last November and 2,112 are serving in state legislative offices .

The year 2018 saw the largest increase in female representation in state governments following a decade of stagnation, according to the Center for American Women in Politics (CAWP) at Rutgers University.

Six women launched campaigns for the highest office in the land.

Women have vied for the Oval Office in the past - Hillary Clinton and Carly Fiorina in 2016, Shirley Chisholm, the first black woman to run, in 1972, back to Victoria Woodhull in 1872, to name a few - but 2018 has seen more candidates than ever before.

Each presidential hopeful must prove they are the best fit for the job, regardless of gender. But some argue the women are up against something more: unconscious biases that have long coloured our understanding of who a leader can be.

Women must battle expectations about their gender

"We all constantly form stereotypes based on what we observe - and we're not thinking about forming them, so they lie a bit below the surface... that's the implicit part," says professor Alice Eagly, a gender psychology professor at Northwestern University, Illinois.

Bias comes into play when we make assumptions about people based on those unconscious stereotypes. Other stereotypes - like racial biases - also play a role in informing our opinions. Gender, however, comes with especially defined stereotypes.

"How many observations of men and women do you get in one day? Many thousands! We automatically take in that information to decide what are the [gender] characteristics," Prof Eagly says.

How can we stop unconscious bias?

When women experts are not taken seriously

Is everyone racist?

When looking at women running for office, political science scholar Kelly Dittmar of CAWP says the problems centre around role expectations.

"We have certain expectations of gender roles, how women should act, what traits they have, and then we have expectations of what leaders look like, what are their traits, areas of expertise," Prof Dittmar explains.

"And for women, the congruity between the gender expectations and the candidacy expectations have been in conflict for much of our history."
Prof Eagly dubbed this phenomenon role incongruity theory in a 2002 paper.

The theory proposes that when women take on leadership roles that go against gender role norms, they are perceived less favourably than men as leaders, and their actions too are criticised.

All of which could make it more difficult for women to achieve success in leadership positions - or even obtain them in the first place, according to Prof Eagly's research.

The electability question

Electability: it's a term that's been whipped out time and time again with candidates who don't quite fit the mould. Regardless of platform or experience, electability can be elusive.

"Women just have to work doubly as hard as the male candidates to attract and retain voters," says Kim Churches, CEO of the American Association of University Women, a non-profit organisation that works to empower women by analysing gender disparities and advocating for public policy changes.

"What women deal with is the double bind. You're doomed if you're too soft and you're doomed if you're too tough," Ms Churches says.

But political science professor Kathleen Dolan of the University of Wisconsin Milwaukee takes a different view.

Prof Dolan surveyed over 3,000 people before and after the 2010 and 2014 mid-term elections, asking about their politics, views on candidates, and questions to measure their gender stereotyping. Half of those surveyed experienced elections where men ran against women.

"There's less evidence that people hold what we think of as classic gender stereotypes," Prof Dolan says of the political landscape post-2010. And among people who did hold gender stereotypes, Prof Dolan found those beliefs "made almost no impact on their choice when they were faced with a woman or a man candidate".

Prof Dolan says her research found that political party affiliation, incumbency and experience were better indicators of an election winner.

Who will take on Trump in 2020?

Choose your candidate and filter by category

While she emphasises that the political world is not perfect for women, Prof Dolan says: "People do not vote against candidates because they're women; people do not also necessarily vote for candidates because they're women."

However, gender may still play a role in determining how a candidate campaigns. Prof Dittmar believes women have to prove their ability in a way men do not.

"Look at Elizabeth Warren, who's got a plan for everything - yes that's just Elizabeth Warren, but that's also the demand we put on women candidates," she says.

"If women come forward without concrete plans, we know from research that their competency is going to be questioned in a way that's different from men. There's an assumption of competency and qualifications for men, especially white men, that isn't there for women. So that changes how they approach the campaign."

The 'Hillary standard' - and the standard for everyone else

In 2016, criticisms of shrillness, bossiness, and coldness dogged Hillary Clinton. (Donald Trump said she lacked stamina and strength during one of their debates, which Prof Dittmar accurately predicted as a coded way to highlight gender stereotypes.)

And any political baggage seemed to weigh heavier. The former secretary of state once told 60 Minutes she often felt that "there's the Hillary standard and then there's the standard for everybody else".

While some noted this sounded like a way to brush aside her controversies, others wrote that as a woman, Mrs Clinton was held to a higher standard. At the time, former US diplomat Madeleine May Kunin wrote an op-ed for the Boston Globe titled: If you're female and running for president, you better be perfect.

The research suggests a similar idea, Prof Dittmar says.

"The penalties for women who have an ethical violation - or perceived ethical violation - or any missteps seem to be harsher. There's a lower tolerance for women making mistakes in politics and that's consistent with some previous research."

For Prof Dolan, what she has seen appears to be mostly "episodic".

"They are largely individual incidents [that] we can point to and we can say, 'this woman candidate was treated badly for some reason and we know it's sex'," Prof Dolan says. "That may or may not be true in any individual case."

AAUW's Ms Churches recommends re-evaluating any decisions on likeability - political or otherwise - with an open mind.

"If you just don't like her, would you say the same if she were male? Try and flip it in your head. 'Is this my own bias about who I think a woman should be versus a man?'"

Women debating women could change perceptions

"The good news is more humans say they're willing to vote for a woman for president - in theory," says Ms Churches. "In practice, it's trickier because of implicit biases among other barriers."

But this election cycle has already given voters the chance to see a diverse group of women on the presidential stage, debating each other, which both Prof Dittmar and Prof Dolan say helps differentiate women as more than monolithic.

"We assume men will have different positions but for a long time, and even today, there's a strong assumption that women share the same belief systems and priorities," Prof Dittmar says.

"So, to me, that's what stood out [from the last debate]. We've made progress because we have women debating."

A century of trailblazers in US politics

How women are changing the face of Congress

Five things we learned from mid-terms

And Prof Dolan says she has not seen the kind of "gendered interplay" that was a feature of the Trump-Clinton debates so far.

"The range of women has maybe in some ways muted the idea of treating a woman as a woman because there are so many," she says. "[It] gives people a good opportunity to see women leadership take different forms."

In her conversations with consultants and candidates over the last year, Prof Dittmar says there were pre-debate concerns about gender differences. Mostly, male candidates were "cognizant of not being viewed as bullying or dismissive of women".

Are things changing?

Prof Dolan points out that while there has been progress women remain underrepresented.

"Until we figure out ways to get more women to run, it's only going to be incremental change in their representation. From my perspective, that's the biggest challenge - getting more women candidates in front of voters."

And truly increasing representation will be key when it comes to biases.

"What we observe has to change," Prof Eagly explains. In one study she conducted, she found that the notion of men as the more assertive sex failed to change from 1946 to 2018 because women were still largely missing from competitive roles.

"We don't just change our ideas because someone tells us we have stereotypes - because we aren't aware of them," she says. "We have to have the evidence. An important form of evidence would be a female president, because we'd see that person all the time."

On a small level, Ms Churches is already seeing some of those changes.

"My 11-year-old thinks it's normal that women are running for president," she says proudly.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Are voters biased against women candidates?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With a record number of women in the fight for the White House, it's time to re-examine what role - if any - gender biases may play in the 2020 election. It's been a groundbreaking year for women in US politics: 1,834 women won office at the state and federal level during the mid-term elections last November and 2,112 are serving in state legislative offices .

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'Great concern' as study finds microplastics in human placentas

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Plastic is everywhere - literally everywhere. A growing body of research shows that plastic is not only filling the world's oceans and wilderness regions, it's also invading our bodies through the air we breathe, the water we drink and the food we consume. And now, a new study has shown that microplastics - tiny plastic [...]

# data[].attributes.headline
India will ban single-use plastics in the next year

# data[].attributes.subject
India will ban single-use plastics in the next year

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Milestones: 1866–1898 - Office of the Historian

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Legislators in states that have a long track record of voter suppression often implement laws and engage in activities that make it harder for certain segments of the population to vote. Here are some of the most common ways voting rights are undermined across the country.

Voter ID requirements. Election officials use false claims of rampant voter fraud to justify strict requirements like a photo ID, often aimed at suppressing the votes of people of color and younger voters. Laws requiring a physical street address discriminate against groups that are more likely to have P.O. Box addresses, such as Native Americans living on reservations.

Lack of language access. The English-language requirements of the past may be gone, but voting rights groups regularly receive reports that local jurisdictions are not translating materials or offering language assistance as required by law, proving a persistent barrier to increased voting among language minorities in the Asian American and Latino communities.

Voter roll purges. Under the guise of reviewing voter rolls to remove duplicate names, the names of deceased individuals, or those with standing felony convictions, officials have undertaken indiscriminate "purges" of voter lists in recent years, deleting millions of eligible voters' names, often with a disproportionate impact on communities of color.

Polling place closures/consolidations. A recent USA Today analysis found that election officials have closed thousands of polling places, largely affecting communities of color. For example, in Chicago's Cook County, which has the largest non-Hispanic black population in the country, election administrators closed or moved 95 polling places.

Lack of funding for elections. A lack of funding inhibits the ability of localities to manage elections that ensure everyone's vote counts equally. Some of these problems came to the fore during the 2000 presidential election in Florida, where the recount process shined a spotlight on issues ranging from flawed ballot designs to voting machines that overheated and failed.

Provisional ballot requirements. Federal law allows voters whose eligibility is in question to use a provisional ballot to be counted once the voter is confirmed eligible. However, localities set their own rules in how many provisional ballots to print and training poll workers on processing them, resulting in eligible voters being turned away or their ballots discounted.

Reduced early voting. States and localities have long used early voting to reduce Election Day crunch and open up the process to prospective voters bound by work or other commitments. Faith-based groups have also used early voting for nonpartisan get-out-the-vote efforts. Recently, officials across the nation have curtailed early voting, largely hitting communities of color.

Reduced voting hours. Like limiting early voting, reducing voting hours can make voting less convenient, and even impossible, for many voters. Low-income and working-class people often have less freedom to arrive late or leave early from work, or to take a break from their shifts in the middle of the day. Parents with inflexible childcare arrangements can be similarly impacted.

Poorly trained poll workers. Poll workers need good training to follow the right policies like properly checking IDs, giving language assistance, identifying voter intimidation, and offering provisional ballots. Yet a lack of funding, coupled with a lack of commitment to making voting welcoming and convenient, means poll workers are poorly equipped to do their jobs.

Partisan election administrators. Our country's highly decentralized election system hands the responsibility for managing elections to state and local administrators, some of them partisan officials with a clear interest in election outcomes favorable to their parties and candidates. Too often, this results in efforts to suppress the votes of groups that might be viewed as opponents.

Creation of at-large local offices to dilute minority vote. An at-large election covers voters across a city or county, in contrast to smaller district elections, which can often result in higher representation for people of color since votes are not diluted by an area-wide population. As a result, some officials create at-large districts to limit the influence of minority communities.

Interested in American voting rights?

Learn more about tools that protect eligible voters and also how philanthropy can play a role by downloading the full Carnegie Corporation report.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
11 Barriers to Voting | Voting Rights | Carnegie Corporation of New York

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Legislators in states that have a long track record of voter suppression often implement laws and engage in activities that make it harder for certain segments of the population to vote. Here are some of the most common ways voting ...

# data[].attributes.headline
The voting struggle continues 58 years later

# data[].attributes.subject
The voting struggle continues 58 years later

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Terry G. Collins is no stranger to peaceful protest. The Birmingham, Alabama native visited churches with his parents as a child where civil rights leaders talked about challenging injustices. In 1963, at 15 years old, he was subject to attacks by police dogs and was sprayed by fire hoses while participating in civil rights marches. Some of his friends were arrested.

Now 73, Collins traveled to Washington D.C. on the 58th anniversary of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, to advocate for voting rights. Saturday's March On for Voting Rights included demonstrations from Atlanta, Georgia to Salt Lake City, Utah to draw attention to recent voting legislation that many Americans believe suppresses voting, particularly for non-white and young American voters.

Collins believes that peaceful protest is the way to drive change, and if he and others had not protested in 1963 the laws enacted following those events wouldn't have passed.

"If it had not been for the marches in Birmingham in 1963, the Civil Rights Act never would have been an act," Collins says. "The 1964 and 65 civil rights and voting rights acts would never have been had it not been for the marches that occurred in Birmingham and in Selma and places like that, that demonstrated against the injustices that were ongoing as a part of the times and are still prevalent in our country."

In 2021, 18 states have enacted 30 new laws that restrict voter access. The laws establish harsher voter ID requirements and make mail-in voting and early voting more challenging, among other restrictions.

Voting rights advocates expressed support for the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, named for the congressman and civil rights leader who died last year, which was passed by the U. S. House of Representatives on August 24th. The bill would restore the full protections of the original, bipartisan Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was last reauthorized by Congress in 2006, but reconstructed by the U. S. Supreme Court in 2013. Those protesting say the Supreme Court's 2013 ruling has contributed to voter restrictions.

Participants included family members of both King and Lewis, the youngest organizer of the 1963 March on Washington, and the brothers of George Floyd whose murder by Minneapolis police in 2020 sparked global protests. Natacha Chavez, the granddaughter-in-law of civil rights activist Cesar Chavez attended the Phoenix march with her husband Alejandro, and their two children Amelia, and Alejandro.

Natacha Chavez said her family and others are continuing the battle begun by civil rights leaders.

"We want to carry on that legacy, and we see that Cesar's fight and Martin Luther King's fight aren't over," Chavez said. "And not just those two, there's plenty of others during that time period who were working together with them like John Lewis. We need to finish their work."

From Phoenix to Miami, Saturday's peaceful protests united people from different backgrounds for a common cause.

Matthew Yatsayte, 25, a Navajo and Zuni voting activist who participated in the Phoenix event, said he was inspired by the range of voices represented.

"It was diverse, but in terms of ideals," Yatsayte said. "It wasn't everyone who just thought the exact same way, but there was different organizations, different groups."

History of voting rights efforts

The battle for voting rights has been an ongoing part of American history. Following the Declaration of Independence in 1776, white male property owners over the age of 21 were the only eligible voters. By 1787, the U.S. Constitution gave states the power to set voting mandates, which excluded women, African Americans, and Native Americans. Some white men also were excluded from voting based on property ownership requirements.

More than a century later, the 15th Amendment was passed by Congress in 1869 and ratified in 1870, prohibiting the federal government or states from denying American citizens the right to vote based on "race, color, or previous condition of servitude." Nevertheless, many forms of voter suppression would continue including poll taxes, literacy tests, fraud, and intimidation. Native Americans were still denied the right to vote.

Though Black men had the right to vote despite the challenges that came with it, women, including white women, weren't allowed to vote until the passage of the 19th Amendment in 1920 , which stated, "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." Despite the 19th Amendment, many non-white women faced voter discrimination when going to the polls.

In 1924, Congress enacted the Indian Citizenship Act, which granted citizenship to all Native Americans born in the U.S. The right to vote, however, would be granted by states and many Native Americans in some states would not be allowed the right to vote until the late 1950s.

In 1965, King was paramount in the Voting Rights Act that was signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson. The act banned the use of literacy tests and provided for federal oversight of voter registration in areas where less than 50 percent of the non-white population had not registered to vote.

Laws continued to be changed to ensure that all Americans had not only the right to vote but access to cast their ballots. In 1971, the 26th Amendment lowered the voting age to 18. Four years later in 1975, the Voting Rights Act was renewed, permanently banning literacy tests nationwide. The revision also required translated voting materials in areas with large populations of citizens with limited English skills. In 1984, the federal Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act was signed requiring accessibility for people with disabilities at polling places.

Even with the broad range of adjustments to voting laws during the past century, the fight to provide accessible voting for all Americans remains present. The changes featured in the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act include: establishing a process for reviewing voting changes in jurisdictions nationwide, focused on measures that have historically been used to discriminate against voters; requiring reasonable public notice for voting changes; allowing the Attorney General authority to request federal observers be present anywhere in the country where there is a serious threat of racial discrimination in voting; and allowing federal courts to intervene when the effect of a voting measure (including voter ID laws) is to lead to racial discrimination in voting and to deny citizens their right to vote.

Phoenix resident Rivko Knox, 83, came out to support voting rights legislation. She believes it is her job to advocate for what's right. Knox, who participated in peaceful demonstrations in the 1960s and 70s, said she hasn't faced any voting obstacles personally, but the current moment reminds her of the voting challenges for non-white voters when she was in college.

"On my 21st birthday, I registered to vote. I knew there was a lot of stuff going on but for a young white woman, there was not a problem," Knox says. "I think this is in many ways the scariest period voting rights wise since the sixties."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Struggle for voting rights continues 58 years after historic March on Washington

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Terry G. Collins is no stranger to peaceful protest. The Birmingham, Alabama native visited churches with his parents as a child where civil rights leaders talked about challenging injustices. In 1963, at 15 years old, he was subject to attacks by police dogs and was sprayed by fire hoses while participating in civil rights marches.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Just four years ago, Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, and Virginia all blocked people convicted of felonies from ever voting again - even after they had fully completed their sentences for prison, parole, or probation.

Today, every one of these states - most recently, Iowa - has allowed at least some people who've finished their sentences to vote, potentially reenfranchising hundreds of thousands of Americans.

It hasn't been an easy shift. In Florida, voters approved an amendment to their state constitution in 2018 that lets people who've completed their sentences vote again, excluding those convicted of murder or felony sex offenses. But the Republican-controlled state legislature passed a law requiring ex-felons to pay all outstanding court fees before they're allowed to vote - blocking possibly hundreds of thousands of Floridians who can't afford the fees from voting.

The law is now tied up in legal battles, with a recent federal appeals court ruling in its favor.

But the trend has been toward enfranchising more people as they get out of prison or after they serve other sentences.

Some activists want to go further, with a goal of giving everyone the right to vote even if they're currently incarcerated. Only two states - Maine and Vermont - currently let people vote even from prison, regardless of their crimes.

The rest of the states impose some kinds of restrictions, including barring people from voting permanently if they committed worse crimes (like murder), or only letting them vote after they complete prison, parole, probation, or all of the above.

Supporters of loosening the restrictions further argue that voting should be a universal right - one not affected by even a felony record. They point out that these laws have a racially disproportionate impact, particularly on Black people, due to the systemic racism that runs through the criminal justice system. And in some cases, they note, that may be intentional: Some of these disenfranchisement laws have roots in the Jim Crow era, in which lawmakers around the country replaced the system of slavery with another system of legal oppression.

As Florida's experience shows, though, there's still resistance to allowing everyone to vote. Some of that is strictly political: Republicans in particular worry that allowing ex-felons to vote could boost turnout for Democrats. Others simply object to the idea of letting people vote while they're in prison or due to their felony records - seeing their loss of the right to vote as part of the punishment for their crimes.

That latter point of contention has led to debate not just between Republicans and Democrats but also within the Democratic Party. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) argued during the 2020 presidential primaries that people should be allowed to vote within prison, and more moderate candidates in the race pushed back.

A lot is potentially at stake: More than 6 million Americans in 2016 were prohibited from voting due to a felony conviction, according to the Sentencing Project. That included more than 20 percent of all potential Black voters in Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia at the time.

While the research suggests not all of those people would end up voting, many likely would, and that could disproportionately benefit Democrats - who have much more support from minority communities - in states with very close votes, including Florida.

Where the debate lands, then, could determine not just who has the right to vote in America but which political directions the country goes in the future.

Some felony disenfranchisement laws have roots in Jim Crow

Preventing people with criminal records from voting in the US goes back tothe colonial era and the concept of "civil death" - the notion that some bad actions effectively left a person dead in terms of civic engagement. But there's also a uniquely American, racist twist to this story, rooted in Jim Crow.

Felony disenfranchisement laws were part of the push after the Civil War, particularly in the South, to limit civil rights gains following the end of slavery and ratification of the 13th, 14th, and 15th constitutional amendments protecting minority rights. This resistance also included the Jim Crow laws that legally enforced racial segregation, as well as other limits on Black voting power. Undoing all of this has been a decades-long project for civil rights activists.

For example, after the South lost the Civil War, state lawmakers in Florida enacted laws - the Black Codes - to constrain Black rights. They created crimes, such as disobedience and "disrespect to the employer," that could be enforced in a way that would target and criminalize Black people in particular, according to a 2016 report by the Brennan Center for Justice, an advocacy group.

Then, when Florida was forced to write voting rights protections for men of all races into its state constitution, lawmakers added an exception that would exempt victims of the Black Codes:

Article XIV, Section 2, imposed a lifetime voting ban for people with felony convictions. Section 4 of this same suffrage article directed the legislature to "enact the necessary laws to exclude from ... the right of suffrage, all persons convicted of bribery, perjury, larceny, or of infamous crime" - the same crimes the legislature had recently recognized and expanded through the Black Code.

Since then, Florida has changed its constitution and laws, Brennan noted. The felony disenfranchisement law was reformed again after the report, in the 2018 elections and the following year. But the roots of its post-Civil War disenfranchisement laws linger.

Florida was not alone. Journalists and historians have documented similar efforts in Virginia and other Southern states. And, of course, the federal government had to enact the ( now-weakened) Voting Rights Act of 1965 to shield Black voters from state-level discrimination, as well as other civil rights laws to prohibit other forms of systemic racism.

But the criminal justice system remains one path toward disenfranchising voters, with a criminal or felony record often costing people various legal rights and protections even after they get out of jail or prison. And this system is rife with racial disparities, as Radley Balko explained for the Washington Post in his thorough breakdown of the research.

"We use our criminal justice system to label people of color 'criminals' and then engage in all the practices we supposedly left behind," Michelle Alexander argued in her influential (and at times criticized) book The New Jim Crow. "Today it is perfectly legal to discriminate against criminals in nearly all the ways that it was once legal to discriminate against African Americans."

Still, felony disenfranchisement laws have survived legal challenges. Courts, including the US Supreme Court, have generally upheld such voting restrictions under the US Constitution's 14th Amendment, which suggests the government may abridge the right to vote due to "participation in rebellion, or other crime."

Without the courts, the only real hope for these efforts is to turn influential politicians and public opinion around on the issue. This might have to trickle down to the state level, too, because there's some scholarly debate about whether Congress even has the power to end felony disenfranchisement at the federal level.

There's a push to end felony disenfranchisement

Given this racist history and the continued disproportionate disenfranchisement of Black voters through this system, activists have called for an end to these laws. Some have said that every US citizen should have the right to vote, no matter the circumstances.

In 2019, Sen. Sanders, whose home state of Vermont lets people vote from within prison, made the issue a part of his platform in the presidential primary. He argued that voting is a right that should never be taken away from anyone in a democracy. And that means people, no matter how terrible they prove to be, should keep their right to vote.

"Even if Trump's former campaign manager and personal lawyer end up in jail, they should still be able to vote - regardless of who they cast their vote for," he wrote in USA Today. He later added, "In my view, the crooks on Wall Street who caused the great recession of 2008 that hurt millions of Americans are not 'good' people. But they have the right to vote, and it should never be taken away."

This led to some Democratic opposition. Former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg led the charge, arguing, "I do believe that when you are out, when you have served your sentence, then part of being restored to society is that you are part of the political life of this nation again - and one of the things that needs to be restored is your right to vote. ... But part of the punishment when you're convicted of a crime and you're incarcerated is you lose certain rights, you lose your freedom. And I think during that period it does not make sense to have an exception for the right to vote."

More conservative politicians, particularly Republicans, have resisted even more moderate efforts to restore people's right to vote after they've completed their sentences. That's occurred in Florida, where state legislators and Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) passed a law to force ex-felons to pay back court fees, fines, and restitution, or get an exemption from a judge, before they can vote. Activists have called this a poll tax, invoking Jim Crow restrictions on voting, but the courts are still deciding the issue.

Just as there's significant debate within the Democratic Party about the issue, there are some exceptions to the Republican opposition. Iowa's Republican governor, Kim Reynolds, in August restored voting rights for people who've completed their felony sentences, with exceptions for homicide offenses. "The right to vote is the cornerstone of society and the free republic in which we live," Reynolds said in a statement. "When someone serves their sentence, they should have their right to vote restored automatically."

Part of this is a genuine philosophical question: Can someone at some point do something so terrible that they lose their right to vote? For Sanders, and many activists, the answer is no. For others, the answer is yes, though views on just how terrible the act has to be before that right is lost, and how long the right is lost for, varies from person to person.

But for Republicans, there are also clear political motivations. While the evidence on this topic is far from perfect, there's some research indicating that restoring the right to vote for those with felony records could have a political impact. Experts Marc Meredith at the University of Pennsylvania and Michael Morse at Yale wrote for Vox:

Had all ex-felons been eligible to vote in Florida in 2016, we estimate that this would have generated about 102,000 additional votes for Democrats and about 54,000 additional votes for Republicans, with about an additional 40,000 votes that could be cast on behalf of either party.

That added up to about 48,000 votes on net for Democrats. In a state where recent Senate and gubernatorial races came down to as little as 10,000 to 30,000 votes, that could swing the whole thing.

It's for similar reasons that Republicans have repeatedly resisted other efforts to expand voting rights in the US, particularly if they benefit minority voters who are more likely to vote for Democrats. Some Republicans have outright admitted to their political motivations. As William Wan reported for the Washington Post, regarding a Republican-backed law in North Carolina:

Longtime Republican consultant Carter Wrenn, a fixture in North Carolina politics, said the GOP's voter fraud argument is nothing more than an excuse.

"Of course it's political. Why else would you do it?" he said, explaining that Republicans, like any political party, want to protect their majority. While GOP lawmakers might have passed the law to suppress some voters, Wrenn said, that does not mean it was racist.

"Look, if African Americans voted overwhelmingly Republican, they would have kept early voting right where it was," Wrenn said. "It wasn't about discriminating against African Americans. They just ended up in the middle of it because they vote Democrat."

The flip side is that while Republicans have generally succeeded in passing more and more voting restrictions across the country in the past decade, the trend has moved in the other direction for criminal disenfranchisement laws.

That makes these laws one of the few areas in the US in which there's been genuine movement toward expanded voting right over the past several years.
Help keep Vox free for all
Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what's happening in the news, from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is, quite possibly, the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes. Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment: to empower you through understanding. But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources. Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers, your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work. If you have already contributed, thank you. If you haven't, please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world: Contribute today from as little as $3.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The state of ex-felons' voting rights, explained

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Just four years ago, Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, and Virginia all blocked people convicted of felonies from ever voting again - even after they had fully completed their sentences for prison, parole, or probation. Today, every one of these states - most recently, Iowa - has allowed at least some people who've finished their sentences to vote, potentially reenfranchising hundreds of thousands of Americans.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Elbridge Thomas Gerry was an American statesman and diplomat. As a Democratic-Republican he was selected as the fifth Vice President of the United States. Gerry later became the ninth Governor of Massachusetts. He is known best for being the namesake of gerrymandering, a process by which electoral districts are drawn with the aim of aiding the party in power. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbridge_Gerry
Gerryminder, developed by Jeremy M. Teigen and Jeffrey A. Gilbertson, is a redistricting simulation designed for learning about congressional elections, representation, and gerrymandering. By being in a position to manipulate district lines with a measure of "fairness," Gerryminder provides an engaging, experiential way to see redistricting. http://phobos.ramapo.edu/~jteigen/gerry.html
Gerrymandering is a 2010 documentary feature film written and directed by Jeff Reichert. The film explores the historical, ethical, moral and racial problems raised by redistricting, i.e., the drawing of boundaries of electoral districts in the United States. Gerrymandering covers the history of the redistricting practice, how it is used and abused, how it benefits the two major major political parties, Democrats and Republicans. The documentary draws on the perspectives from different individuals, reporters, pundits, and politicians, including Arnold Schwarzenegger, Howard Dean, Bob Graham, Lani Guiner, Ed Rollins, John Fund and Susan Lerner, and an array of lesser-known personalities. http://www.gerrymanderingmovie.com/
Voting is a method for a group such as a meeting or an electorate to make a decision or express an opinion-often following discussions, debates, or election campaigns. The Smithsonian Institute curated an exhibit that showcased the history of voting. See it here: http://americanhistory.si.edu/vote/
Most states have a website that shows their district maps. Here is the one for Florida. Here is the one for New York.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gerrymandering: How drawing jagged lines can impact an election - Christina Greer

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
District lines, and the groups of voters within them, may seem arbitrary, but a lot of thought (and political bickering) is put into these carefully drawn lines. From "packing" a district to "cracking" a district--learn how the shape of districts impacts political parties during election season.

# data[].attributes.headline
Opinion: I'm not afraid of Covid, I'm afraid of school shootings

# data[].attributes.subject
Opinion: I'm not afraid of Covid, I'm afraid of school shootings

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I'm eager to get back to the classroom, but my fear is overcoming my excitement.

About the author: Vedika Jawa is a high school senior from Fremont, California.

As my virtual junior year of high school came to an end this past June, my Fremont, California, district announced its plan to fully reopen schools in person for the coming academic year. My senior year will be filled with uncertainty, but there's one thing I'm sure about: I'm eager to get back to the classroom. Before COVID-19, I dreaded waking up at seven in the morning to drag myself into school every day. Now, 17 months and a million Zoom classes later, I have a newfound appreciation for learning in person, no matter how early I have to be there.

But as the first day of school approaches, I can't help being a little hesitant-and not because of the coronavirus. Before the pandemic, school shootings occurred at an alarming rate; a 2019 CNN investigation found that 180 schools had experienced a school shooting in the previous decade alone. There were fewer high-profile shootings while cities around the country were shut down, yes, but gun violence continued to plague the nation. Nearly 4,000 more Americans were killed in gun homicides or non-suicide-related shootings in 2020 than in 2019. And I'm worried that once we all start going back to class, mass shootings will return to our schools.
Read: Another school shooting, but who's counting?
I remember sitting with my family watching the news in February 2018, after a long day of school, and hearing about the tragedy at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. I remember lying in my bed that night, waiting to fall asleep, thinking, What if this happened in my school? What if this happened in my friend's school? I remember walking out of my eighth-grade science class later that week, standing in silence with the rest of my classmates to honor the lives of the 17 innocent teenagers who died that day.

As much as I long to return to school-to see all my friends again, to play basketball, and to finally meet my teachers in person-I find my fear overcoming my excitement. I worry that one day the school experiencing a mass shooting won't be in Parkland, Florida, or Newtown, Connecticut, but in my city. I used to think this was a fear that lived only in my head, but after talking with many of my peers and even seeing some of them express their fear on social media, I've come to realize that countless teenagers feel the same way.

From a strictly statistical standpoint, COVID-19 poses a greater threat to young people than school shootings do. According to the CDC, since January 2020, 354 children have died from COVID-19, and thousands more have gotten sick. In 2019, the last year when schools were fully in person, there were 25 school shootings and five students died, according to Education Week. But fear isn't driven by statistics. It's an emotion driven by control. We can control, to a significant degree, our exposure to the coronavirus. We can wear masks; we can social distance; we can get vaccinated. But there is nothing students can do to protect ourselves from a school shooting. The responsibility for this danger lies solely in the hands of our government.
Read: A world where school shootings feel inevitable
When the pandemic started, politicians and public-health officials immediately sprang into action: mandating shutdowns, preaching the benefits of mask wearing, and, when vaccines became available, urging and incentivizing constituents to get their shots. We have seen what our government is capable of doing to protect lives during this global health crisis. So the question remains: Why is coming together to take action on gun control so difficult? Why can we not act on this nationwide epidemic that has been affecting populations of all ages, not just for one or two years, but for more than a decade? The United States is one of the world's most developed countries, yet we continuously fail to address one of our most urgent and life-threatening problems. More than 50 percent of eligible young people voted in 2020, many of them because they saw Joe Biden and Kamala Harris as leaders who could make a genuine change regarding issues that were important to them. One of those issues is gun violence, including school shootings. It's time that our leaders are held accountable for the promises they made to keep us safe.

Gun violence has been an issue in this country for far too long. Parents shouldn't have to worry about sending their child to school, and children shouldn't have to worry about going to school. Zoom classes left me exhausted last year, but at least I didn't have to turn on the news and hear about another school shooting. Now that kids across the country are returning to in-person classes, we can't wait for another mass shooting to occur and then implement these solutions; they must be implemented now. As Ezra Klein wrote the day of the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School: "Talking about how to stop mass shootings in the aftermath of a string of mass shootings isn't 'too soon.' It's much too late."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
I'm Not Afraid of COVID-19. I'm Afraid of School Shootings.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I'm eager to get back to the classroom, but my fear is overcoming my excitement. About the author: Vedika Jawa is a high school senior from Fremont, California. As my virtual junior year of high school came to an end this past June, my Fremont, California, district announced its plan to fully reopen schools in person for the coming academic year.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A boy's testicles will shrink if they pick up a Barbie and a girl will undoubtedly grow chest hair if she plays with a Batman figurine. As preposterous as this sounds, this is what our society thinks when it comes to our children and acceptable playtime behavior. But who decided that pastel colors and dolls should only be enjoyed by girls, and blue and trucks by boys?

As a parent, I have Nickelodeon, The Disney Channel and a whole slew of other kids networks blasting from my TV more than I'd care to admit. One thing that is blindingly obvious during toy commercials is that you rarely ever see boys and girls playing together. Boy and girl commercials are two very separate entities, with the very rare exception of a board game or Slip and Slide commercials. How do we expect our children to broaden their creativity when the toy companies and retailers themselves are stunting their growth by dictating what toys they should play with based on gender?

Even Disney's beloved Frozen sadly falls into the category of gender bias commercials. Almost every child in the universe (boys and girls alike) have seen and fallen in love with the movie Frozen. And who can blame them? It's a wonderful movie. It grossed over 1 billion dollars in worldwide box office revenue, making it the highest grossing animated film of all time. But if you take a look at toy commercials for Frozen you'll see one obvious thing missing, the boys. Why is it ok for little boys to love the movie, but not ok for them to play with the toys? I just don't get it. It makes me really sad. We're stifling our children's creativity in fear of what? That they'll turn gay if they play with an Anna and Elsa doll. You know that's not how it works, right?

I take this whole stereotyping toys BS very personal. As the proud mother of a 7-year-old boy who sees no gender when it comes to his imagination and love for toys, Frozen dolls were on the top of his holiday wish list last year. Like millions of other children, my boy couldn't get enough of the movie and was constantly singing "Let it Go". A ballad that for many parents became as annoying as nails on a chalkboard due to the fact our kids were belting it out from sunrise to sunset. But for me, the song always made me tear up. I'd listen to the lyrics and my heart would slowly break a little inside. This was my son's anthem. "Conceal don't feel, don't let them know...Well now they know!" As lyricist Kristen Anderson-Lopez explained it,"I was really excited to write an anthem that said, 'Screw fear and shame, be yourself, be powerful'." That's my beautiful little boy in a nutshell. A boy who makes no apologies for liking pretty things. A boy whose imagination takes him on adventures we only wish we could experience in real life. A boy who's been called "Barbie" by bullies in an attempt to make him cry (and failed). A boy who stands up for himself on a daily basis at school because his peers don't understand why he likes "girl" toys. Well whoever taught these kids that these were "girl" toys? Why can't they just be TOYS!

It's time we realize that toys don't have a gender. We assign it to them.

My child's story is far from an isolated case. There are tons and tons of children out there who like toys originally created with the opposite sex in mind. The problem is that many kids are afraid and embarrassed of the repercussions if exposed. A boy who only feels secure playing with his Hello Kitty doll in the privacy of his own bedroom because he's ashamed someone might see him. A little girl who's turned her locked bathroom into Spiderman's lair because she's worried her brother will tease her if she's caught playing with the web slinger. Playtime should be a joyous time for our children. They shouldn't feel worried that making the "wrong" toy selection based on their gender might get them teased or bullied. Or are we a society so narrow-minded that we really do believe a boy should only stick to sports, super heroes and bloodshed and girls are better suited for shopping, beauty and tiaras. This is the same type of mentality that says "A woman's place is in the home".

Instructions from a 1973 Lego set has recently made news reminding us of the beauty of gender equality through play. It also shows that over the last 40 years we have sadly taken a step backwards. (Pardon the grammatical errors. This was translated from a German Lego toy set)

"The urge to create is equally strong in all children. Boys and girls. It's imagination that counts. Not skill. You build whatever comes into your head, the way you want it. A bed or a truck. A dolls house or a spaceship. A lot of boys like doll houses. They're more human than spaceships. A lot of girls prefer spaceships. They're more exciting than dolls houses. The most important thing is to put the right material in their hands and let them create whatever appeals to them." - Lego

And let's not forget Marlo Thomas' 1972 ground-breaking film Free To Be... You and Me. Teaching children (and parents) the concept of gender equality and finding acceptance within. The song and video for "William's Doll" (the story of a boy longing for a doll) is still as meaningful today as it was 40 years ago.

While companies like Toys R Us are still segregating the boys from the girls into different sections of their brick and mortar and online stores; making it virtually impossible for a child to feel comfortable shopping outside of what's expected of them, there are companies trying to make a difference.

Back in 2011, London's historic Hamleys (the world's oldest toy store) took steps towards gender equality by taking down their pink and blue signage and replacing it with floors divided into themes. A year later Harrods followed suit by creating their own 26,000 square foot gender-neutral toy department called "Toy Kingdom" which is also divided into themes, rather than sex. Hopefully this is just the very beginning of a new trend on how we view toys.

While I'm not saying every little boy should drop their race car in exchange for a princess; I long for the day when Cinderella can hop into a Hot Wheels and drive off into the sunset... and it will be no big deal.

This post was originally published on Super Goody Bag.

Follow Jill Topol's children's fashion & lifestyle blog Super Goody Bag at:
www.supergoodybag.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
While I'm not saying every little boy should drop their race car in exchange for a princess; I long for the day when Cinderella can hop into a Hot Wheels and drive off into the sunset... and it will be no big deal.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Must monsters always be male? Huge gender bias revealed in children’s books

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A thieving duck in Peppa Pig is one of the few female villains in the 100 most popular picture books. An Observer study shows that, from hares to bears, females are mostly sidekicks

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Jazz Jennings is your average teenage girl, except she happened to be born in a boy's body.

The transgender teen - who was diagnosed with gender dysphoria at age 3 and appeared on at age 6 - has since raised the visibility of trans youth through her TLC docu-series, (Wednesday, 10 p.m. ET) and her work as a youth ambassador for the Human Rights Campaign. But her new memoir, Being Jazz: My Life as a (Transgender) Teen (Crown), sees the 15-year-old getting more personal than ever. We spoke with Jazz about the book, which hits shelves Tuesday.
Q: You co-wrote a children's book, I Am Jazz, in September 2014. What made you want to do a memoir next?
A: I Am Jazz was more for children to understand what it means to be transgender, but with Being Jazz, I wanted to get the universal message across that we are all just people and we have to live our lives authentically.
Q: What are the biggest misconceptions about the trans community that you were looking to debunk?
A: One of the biggest is that people think it's a choice, but it's not. It's the way we were born.

Another misconception is that it's all about what's between your legs rather than what's between your ears. Being transgender isn't a medical transition. It's a process of learning to love yourself for who you are. And the last is this: A lot of people think I was too young to transition. I was 2 years old when I first started expressing myself but from the start, I knew I was a girl. And I think most children out there just know - whether they gravitate toward Barbies rather than trucks - they know.
Q: In an ideal world, how would we handle gender?
A: I wish everything was gender neutral. I wish we weren't separated by boundaries like pink and blue and little things like that. I wish we could choose how we express ourselves without hate.
Q: How does it feel to see public figures addressing discrimination and standing in solidarity against laws like House Bill 2?
A: The hate is real, and it's not just people hiding behind their computers. Now, it's politicians. But the fact that so many people are rallying in support of the transgender community means so much. Look at the Obama administration - they've put out a directive (on the use of bathrooms by transgender students), telling states they can't discriminate against kids on the basis of gender identity. So many people are finally understanding that this is not OK.
Q: You've been called brave for speaking on trans issues but in your book, you admit that you were privileged to have the resources and support that you had. What would be your advice to trans kids who don't have that?
A: Those are the people with true courage. I'd tell them to stay strong and keep moving forward... and know that one day things will get better. And I'd also tell them to try to find one peer, one adult, one person in your community that you can be yourself around.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Jazz Jennings talks 'Life as a (Transgender) Teen'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The 15-year-old's book hits shelves Tuesday, one day before her show's Season 2 premiere.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Ask young children what they want to be when they grow up and the chances are that scientific jobs such as astronaut and doctor will appear high on the list. But ask them to draw a scientist and they are more than twice as likely to draw a man than a woman. Children can form these kinds of biases from many sources. But perhaps we shouldn't be too surprised to see such an absence of women scientists in children's drawings when the illustrations we show them are often just as bad.

Our study of imagery in children's science books reveals that women are significantly underrepresented. In the physical sciences in particular, the pictures frequently fail to communicate women's technical skills or knowledge. The imagery in these books gives the impression that science is a subject for men, and that careers in science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) are unrewarding for women.

Developmental theories explain that children learn gender expectations to help them to respond appropriately within their social environment. This influences their understanding of who they are and encourages them to behave in a way that is conventional for their gender.

Pictures of men and women in children's science books contribute to these expectations by teaching them "rules" about the occupations suited to each gender. This encourages them to conform to prevailing gender career stereotypes. To counter this, female role models need to be visible in books to help develop girls' interest in science as they get older, and overcome negative perceptions of female scientists

Where are all the women?

Our research analysed the children's science picture books in two public libraries in England. First we counted the frequency of images of men, women, boys and girls within the 160 available books. Then we did a detailed visual analysis of two scientific professions: astronauts and doctors. In this subset of 26 books, we examined what the male and female astronauts and doctors were doing, wearing and holding in the pictures.

We found that, overall, children's science books pictured males three times more often than females, reinforcing the stereotype that science is a man's pursuit. The under-representation of females only worsened as the target age of the book increased. The women were generally depicted as passive, lower status and unskilled - or their presence was not acknowledged at all.

For example, one children's book about space exploration shows what's involved in a spacewalk. Along with pictures of astronauts in their white padded spacesuits, we are told: "Without a spacesuit an astronaut's blood would boil and his body would blow apart." The use of male pronouns suggests the person inside the spacesuits is male.

There is no mention of the 11 courageous women who have performed spacewalks, including astronaut Sunita Williams whose image is used in the montage. As Williams's face is covered by her helmet and the text only mentions men, it would be easy for children to think that women don't do spacewalks.

On the pages of another book, we do see a female astronaut, pictured floating inside a space station and smiling at the camera. The qualifications and experience required to get astronauts to this point are extensive. Places on NASA's Astronaut training programme are highly competitive with thousands of applications each year. But in the book, the woman's training, expertise and knowledge are not mentioned.

Instead, the picture caption reads: "In zero G, every day is a bad hair day." Comments like this that focus on women's looks fail to take their contributions seriously. What's more, research shows that emphasising appearance in science role models can reduce school girls' self-rated ability or make scientific jobs seem unobtainable to them.

Our study also found important differences between subject disciplines. In physics books, 87% of images were of men or boys, and in the few pictures where female astronauts were pictured, they were never shown driving shuttles, doing experiments or spacewalking. Books about biology, in contrast, did have an even balance of images of men and women - and female doctors are shown carrying out the same activities and having the same status as male doctors.

Why this matters

You might think that imagery isn't important, that the messages in pictures or illustrations are trivial. A multi-billion pound advertising industry disagrees with you. Advertising rarely provides detailed arguments for products or services but this doesn't make its messages less powerful. Instead, adverts rely on persuasion through peripheral cues, such as by exemplifying appealing lifestyles and using imagery depicting the rewards of status or respect.

In the same way, children's books advertise career choices, and their imagery communicates what it means for men and women to be associated with these occupations. Women need to be present in children's science books to demonstrate that all science subjects are fulfilling for girls.

Research shows that, even before children go to school, they have the idea that men are better at male-dominated professions. Given that girls as young as eight are often put off maths and science by teachers and parents, it is perhaps no surprise that only 20% of A-level students taking physics are female. Interviews with successful female scientists have shown that girls do seek out role models in science, but are often unable to find them.

As such, it's vital that imagery in children's books is given greater consideration. Book editors and illustrators need to make significant efforts to represent women as qualified, skillful and technically able. They need to be pictured actively engaging in scientific activities and using appropriate tools or equipment, not merely present as assistants or observers. Women also need to be represented in greater numbers so that girls can see female role models in STEM professions and see these careers as potentially rewarding.

Parents, teachers and librarians - along with authors, illustrators and publishers - should review their books for gendered messages. Question what the images are teaching children and ask what career aspirations the books might be igniting or quashing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Children's books are adding to science's gender problem

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
New research shows children's images of scientists are all too often male.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It's LGBTQ Pride Month - a time to celebrate love, but also to champion equality and LGBTQ rights.

Throughout June, cities around the world have been hosting marches in honor of LGBTQ pride. In many countries today, people are free to join these marches, marry whomever they choose, and openly show their love. But that's still not the case for LGBTQ communities in every country, and even in countries where it is safe to march, there is still a long way to go before true equality is achieved.

Without these incredible activists, the LGBTQ rights movement would not be where it is today.

In honor of Pride Month, Global Citizen is celebrating the brave activists fighting for LGBTQ rights in places where it can be dangerous to do so, and the inspiring champions for change, without whom there might never have been a Pride Month.

While certainly not an exhaustive list by any means, these are 15 LGBTQ activists you should know.

1. Marsha P. Johnson

Marsha P. Johnson is sometimes referred to as the "Rosa Parks of the LGBT movement," but Johnson is a celebrated icon in her own right. Johnson was an activist, drag performer, sex worker, and model for Andy Warhol. She was black, queer, and trans - and fearlessly advocated for her rights and the rights of the LGBTQ community at a time when doing so put her safety in jeopardy.

"As long as gay people don't have their rights all across America, there's no reason for celebration," she once said.

Johnson was a key figure of the 1960s gay rights movement in the US and, as legend has it, threw the brick that ignited the infamous Stonewall riots, which were the catalyst for the movement and have inspired many Pride marches ever since.

In 1992, Johnson's body was found in the Hudson River. Her death was ruled a suicide, but those who knew her disagreed. A recent Netflix documentary, The Death and Life of Marsha P. Johnson, celebrates Johnson's life and investigates the mysterious circumstances of her death.

2. Sylvia Rivera

Sylvia Rivera was a Latina trans activist, who, together with Marsha P. Johnson, co-founded Street Transvestite Action Revolutionaries (STAR), an organization that provided housing and other services to homeless LGBTQ youth in New York City.

Born in New York City, Sylvia turned to sex work after her mother died by suicide when Rivera was just 10 years old. Rivera lived a turbulent life, struggling with drug addiction and homelessness, but Rivera was always a vocal and, at times, forceful advocate for change. She was once arrested for attempting to climb through a window (in a dress and heels) into a room where the New York City Council was debating a gay rights bill, NBC reported.

"Sylvia's role in gay history was that she was one of the first people to highlight that our movement needed to be more inclusive of people who did not fit in the mainstream," Carrie Davis, Chief Programs and Policy Officer at New York City's LGBT Community Center, told NBC News.

3. Harvey Milk

Harvey Milk, the subject of the Oscar-winning film Milk, was the first openly gay politician to be elected in California. Milk was assassinated in 1978, but during his short tenure in office he pushed legislation to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment, housing, and public accommodations.

The bill passed with just one dissenting vote by Dan White, the city supervisor who would go on to shoot and kill Milk. In 2009, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger designated May 22, Milk's birthday, as a day of recognition for the late politician and activist.

4. Edith Windsor

In 2015, the US Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right - a landmark decision that would not have been possible without Edith Windsor.

After a 40-year engagement, Windsor married Thea Spyer in Canada in 2007. Spyer passed away just two years later, leaving everything to her wife. Because the US did not recognize their same-sex marriage, Windsor was asked to pay taxes on Spyer's estate far beyond what a heterosexual spouse would be required to pay on the estate of their deceased spouse.

Windsor took her case to court and in 2013, the Supreme Court ruled in her favor. Two years later, the court expanded on that ruling in another case that led to federal recognition of same-sex marriages.

5. Alice Nkom

Alice Nkom is a human rights lawyer and LGBTQ activist from Cameroon, where homosexuality is still criminalized. In a country where police officer entrap members of the LGBTQ community through text messages and beat those they perceive to be gay, Nkom bravely fights for rights on behalf of the LGBTQ community.

Though Nkom identifies as heterosexual, she has dedicated her work to fighting for Cameroon's LGBTQ community and founded the Association for the Defence of Homosexuality in 2003. Though she and her colleagues are sometimes in danger because of the work they do, Nkom remains undeterred.

"These threats are in fact proof that our fight must continue," Nkom told Amnesty International.

6. Laverne Cox

Laverne Cox, best known for playing Sophia Burset on Netflix's Orange Is the New Black, is a black, trans woman, the first trans person to be nominated for an Emmy, and a proud advocate for LGBTQ rights. Cox has been outspoken about access to health care for LGBTQ communities and has particularly championed the rights of trans people and people of color.

"We must lift up the stories of those most at risk, statistically trans people of color who are poor and working class," Cox wrote in a Tumblr post in 2015. "I have hoped over the past few years that the incredible love I have received from the public can translate to the lives of all trans folks."
Read more: 33 Quotes That Show Laverne Cox Just Gets It
7. Alexya Salvador

Alexya Salvador is a trailblazer. She is a trans woman in Brazil, where violence against LGBTQ people has reached an all-time high. More than 380 LGBTQ-identifying people were murdered in Brazil in 2017 and 58 died by suicide, the Guardian reported.

And she's a pastor. Salvador calls herself the " first transgender shepherd of Latin America," and, with other trans pastors from around the world, held a groundbreaking LGBTQ-friendly mass in Cuba last year.

Salvador is a mother of two, including a trans daughter, and is the first trans person to adopt a child in Brazil, according Al Día.

8. Lena Waithe

Actress, writer, and producer Lena Waithe made history in 2017 as the first black woman to win an Emmy for comedy writing. But rather than reveling in her historic win, Waithe, who identifies as queer, used her acceptance speech to deliver an inspiring message to her "LGBTQIA family."
Read more: Lena Waithe Made a Bold Statement at the Met Gala and the Internet Is Here for It
"The things that make us different, those are our superpowers," she said. Waithe often uses her spotlight moments to advocate for the LGBTQ community. Earlier this year, she wore a rainbow cape to the Met Gala, a bold statement in the face of the event's religious theme.

9. Arsham Parsi

Arsham Parsi is a gay man who first began secretly working to support members of the LGBTQ community in his native Iran. But in 2005, the queer activist was forced to flee his country, where homosexual activity remains illegal.

Today, Parsi lives in exile in Canada, where he has founded the Iranian Railroad for Queer Refugees, which supports and provides guidance to LGBTQ asylum seekers from the Middle East.

10. Michael Sam

Michael Sam became the first openly gay football player to be drafted by an NFL team in 2014. While his draft was a historic first, Sam's time in the NFL was discouraging. He was passed from team to team, and eventually found himself without a team. About a year after he was first drafted, Sam retired from the NFL citing mental health reasons.

His struggle highlighted the discrimination and homophobia still rampant in the sports world, but Sam has gone on to share his story and continues to champion change.

11-15. 'Queer Eye's' Fab Five

The all-star cast of Netflix's new Queer Eye series - a reboot of Bravo's early 2000s series Queer Eye for the Straight Guy - may be all fun when it comes to makeovers, but they're serious about making a difference in the world.
People globally face many intersecting forms of discrimination and marginalization every day, for many different reasons. Unjust social, political, and economic systems perpetuate this discrimination and keep people trapped in poverty. This June, take our Equity Month Hero Challenge to learn how we can all be champions for equity and justice every day, and earn your Equity Month Hero badge to wear proudly on your Global Citizen profile. Take the Challenge now.
The "Fab Five" - Tan France, Jonathan Van Ness, Bobby Berk, Karamo Brown, and Antoni Porowski - speak openly on Queer Eye about their personal struggles and experiences with homophobia and discrimination. And the stars hope to use their newfound fame to empower LGBTQ communities.

"Just the idea that my being who I am [on Queer Eye] has made people, both younger than me and older than me, feel more comfortable about the space that they take up ... that is something I never saw coming," Van Ness told Refinery29 in an interview. "But also, when people are so effusive about how my role in Queer Eye makes them feel, it really opened my eyes to the amount of repression we still have."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
15 LGBTQ Activists of the Past and Present You Should Know

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
15 brave activists inspiring champions for change and fighting for LGBTQ rights in places where it can be dangerous to do so.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Early Gay Rights Movement

In 1924, Henry Gerber, a German immigrant, founded in Chicago the Society for Human Rights, the first documented gay rights organization in the United States. During his U.S. Army service in World War I, Gerber was inspired to create his organization by the Scientific-Humanitarian Committee, a "homosexual emancipation" group in Germany.

Gerber's small group published a few issues of its newsletter "Friendship and Freedom," the country's first gay-interest newsletter. Police raids caused the group to disband in 1925-but 90 years later, the U.S. government designated Gerber's Chicago house a National Historic Landmark.

The Pink Triangle

The gay rights movement stagnated for the next few decades, though LGBT individuals around the world did come into the spotlight a few times.

For example, English poet and author Radclyffe Hall stirred up controversy in 1928 when she published her lesbian-themed novel, The Well of Loneliness. And during World War II, the Nazis held homosexual men in concentration camps, branding them with the infamous pink triangle badge, which was also given to sexual predators.

Additionally, in 1948, in his book Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, Alfred Kinsey proposed that male sexual orientation lies on a continuum between exclusively homosexual to exclusively heterosexual.

The Homophile Years

In 1950, Harry Hay founded the Mattachine Foundation, one of the nation's first gay rights group. The Los Angeles organization coined the term "homophile," which was considered less clinical and focused on sexual activity than "homosexual."

Though it started off small, the foundation, which sought to improve the lives of gay men through discussion groups and related activities, expanded after founding member Dale Jennings was arrested in 1952 for solicitation and then later set free due to a deadlocked jury.

At the end of the year, Jennings formed another organization called One, Inc., which welcomed women and published ONE, the country's first pro-gay magazine. Jennings was ousted from One, Inc. in 1953 in part for being a communist-he and Harry Hay were also kicked out of the Mattachine Foundation for their communism-but the magazine continued.

In 1958, One, Inc. won a lawsuit against the U.S. Post Office, which in 1954 declared the magazine "obscene" and refused to deliver it.

The Mattachine Society

Mattachine Foundation members restructured the organization to form the Mattachine Society, which had local chapters in other parts of the country and in 1955 began publishing the country's second gay publication, The Mattachine Review. That same year, four lesbian couples in San Francisco founded an organization called the Daughters of Bilitis, which soon began publishing a newsletter called The Ladder, the first lesbian publication of any kind.

These early years of the movement also faced some notable setbacks: the American Psychiatric Association listed homosexuality as a form of mental disorder in 1952.

The following year, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed an executive order that banned gay people-or, more specifically, people guilty of "sexual perversion"-from federal jobs. This ban would remain in effect for some 20 years.

Gay Rights in the 1960s

The gay rights movement saw some early progress In the 1960s. In 1961, Illinois became the first state to do away with its anti-sodomy laws, effectively decriminalizing homosexuality, and a local TV station in California aired the first documentary about homosexuality, called The Rejected.

In 1965, Dr. John Oliven, in his book Sexual Hygiene and Pathology, coined the term "transgender" to describe someone who was born in the body of the incorrect sex.

But more than 10 years earlier, transgender individuals entered the American consciousness when Christine Jorgensen came out as a trans woman, following gender confirmation surgery.

Despite this progress, LGBTQ individuals lived in a kind of urban subculture and were routinely subjected to harassment and persecution, such as in bars and restaurants. In fact, gay men and women in New York City could not be served alcohol in public due to liquor laws that considered the gathering of homosexuals to be "disorderly."

In fear of being shut down by authorities, bartenders would deny drinks to patrons suspected of being gay or kick them out altogether; others would serve them drinks but force them to sit facing away from other customers to prevent them from socializing.

In 1966, members of the Mattachine Society in New York City staged a " sip-in "-a twist on the "sit-in" protests of the 1960s-in which they visited taverns, declared themselves gay, and waited to be turned away so they could sue. They were denied service at the Greenwich Village tavern Julius, resulting in much publicity and the quick reversal of the anti-gay liquor laws.

The Stonewall Inn

A few years later, in 1969, a now-famous event catalyzed the gay rights movement: The Stonewall Riots.

The clandestine gay club Stonewall Inn was an institution in Greenwich Village because it was large, cheap, allowed dancing and welcomed drag queens and homeless youths.

But in the early hours of June 28, 1969, New York City police raided the Stonewall Inn. Fed up with years of police harassment, patrons and neighborhood residents began throwing objects at police as they loaded the arrested into police vans. The scene eventually exploded into a full-blown riot, with subsequent protests that lasted for five more days.

Christopher Street Liberation Day

Shortly after the Stonewall uprising, members of the Mattachine Society split off to form the Gay Liberation Front, a radical group that launched public demonstrations, protests and confrontations with political officials.

Similar groups followed, including the Gay Activists Alliance, Radicalesbians, and Street Transvestites Action Revolutionaries (STAR).

In 1970, at the one-year anniversary of the Stonewall Riots, New York City community members marched through local streets in commemoration of the event. Named the Christopher Street Liberation Day, the march is now considered the country's first gay pride parade. Activists also turned the once-disreputable Pink Triangle into a symbol of gay pride.

LGBTQ Political Victories

The increased visibility and activism of LGBTQ individuals in the 1970s helped the movement make progress on multiple fronts. In 1977, for instance, the New York Supreme Court ruled that transgender woman Renée Richards could play at the United States Open tennis tournament as a woman.

Additionally, several openly LGBTQ individuals secured public office positions: Kathy Kozachenko won a seat to the Ann Harbor, Michigan, City Council in 1974, becoming the first out American to be elected to public office.

Harvey Milk, who campaigned on a pro-gay rights platform, became the San Francisco city supervisor in 1978, becoming the first openly gay man elected to a political office in California.

Milk asked Gilbert Baker, an artist and gay rights activist, to create an emblem that represents the movement and would be seen as a symbol of pride. Baker designed and stitched together the first rainbow flag, which he unveiled at a pride parade in 1978.

The following year, in 1979, more than 100,000 people took part in the first National March on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights.

Outbreak of AIDS

The outbreak of AIDS in the United States dominated the struggle for gay rights in the 1980s and early 1990s. In 1981, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published a report about five previously healthy homosexual men becoming infected with a rare type of pneumonia.

By 1984, researchers had identified the cause of AIDS-the human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV-and the Food and Drug Administration licensed the first commercial blood test for HIV in 1985. Two years later, the first antiretroviral medication for HIV, azidothymidine (AZT), became available.

Gay rights proponents held the second National March on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights in 1987. The occasion marked the first national coverage of ACT UP (AIDS Coalition To Unleash Power), an advocacy group seeking to improve the lives of AIDS victims.

The World Health Organization in 1988 declared December 1 to be World AIDS Day. By the end of the decade, there were at least 100,000 reported cases of AIDS in the United States.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell

In 1992, Bill Clinton, during his campaign to become president, promised he would lift the ban against gays in the military. But after failing to garner enough support for such an open policy, President Clinton in 1993 passed the " Don't Ask, Don't Tell " (DADT) policy, which allowed gay men and women to serve in the military as long as they kept their sexuality a secret.

Gay rights advocates decried the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, as it did little to stop people from being discharged on the grounds of their sexuality.

In 2011, President Obama fulfilled a campaign promise to repeal DADT; by that time, more than 12,000 officers had been discharged from the military under DADT for refusing to hide their sexuality. Don't Ask, Don't Tell was officially repealed on September 20, 2011.

Gay Marriage and Beyond

In 1992, the District of Columbia passed a law that allowed gay and lesbian couples to register as domestic partners, granting them some of the rights of marriage (the city of San Francisco passed a similar ordinance three years prior and California would later extend those rights to the entire state in 1999).

In 1993, the highest court in Hawaii ruled that a ban on gay marriage may go against the state's constitution. State voters disagreed, however, and in 1998 passed a law banning same-sex marriage.

Federal lawmakers also disagreed, and Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which Clinton signed into law in 1996. The law prevented the government from granting federal marriage benefits to same-sex couples and allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriage certificates from other states.

Though marriage rights backtracked, gay rights advocates scored other victories. In 1994, a new anti-hate-crime law allowed judges to impose harsher sentences if a crime was motivated by a victim's sexual orientation.

The Matthew Shepard Act

In 2003, gay rights proponents had another bit of happy news: the U.S. Supreme Court, in Lawrence v. Texas, struck down the state's anti-sodomy law. The landmark ruling effectively decriminalized homosexual relations nationwide.

And in 2009, President Barack Obama signed into law a new hate crime act. Commonly known as the Matthew Shepard Act, the new law extended the reach of the 1994 hate crime law.

The act was a response to the 1998 murder of 21-year-old Matthew Shepard, who was pistol-whipped, tortured, tied to a fence, and left to die. The murder was thought to be driven by Shepard's perceived homosexuality.

In 2011, President Obama fulfilled a campaign promise to repeal DADT; by that time, more than 12,000 officers had been discharged from the military under DADT for refusing to hide their sexuality.

A couple of years later, the Supreme Court ruled against Section 3 of DOMA, which allowed the government to deny federal benefits to married same-sex couples. DOMA soon become powerless, when in 2015 the Supreme Court ruled that states cannot ban same-sex marriage, making gay marriage legal throughout the country.

Transgender Rights

One day after that landmark 2015 ruling, the Boy Scouts of America lifted its ban against openly gay leaders and employees. And in 2017, it reversed a century-old ban against transgender boys, finally catching up with the Girl Scouts of the USA, which had long been inclusive of LGBTQ leaders and children (the organization had accepted its first transgender Girl Scout in 2011).

In 2016, the U.S. military lifted its ban on transgender people serving openly, a month after Eric Fanning became secretary of the Army and the first openly gay secretary of a U.S. military branch. In March 2018, President Donald Trump announced a new transgender policy for the military that again banned most transgender people from military service. On January 25, 2021-his sixth day in office-President Biden signed an executive order overturning this ban.

Though LGBTQ Americans now have same-sex marriage rights and numerous other rights that seemed farfetched 100 years ago, the work of advocates is far from over.

Universal workplace anti-discrimination laws for LGBTQ Americans is still lacking. Gay rights proponents must also content with an increasing number of "religious liberty" state laws, which allow business to deny service to LGBTQ individuals due to religious beliefs, as well as "bathroom laws" that prevent transgender individuals from using public bathrooms that don't correspond to their sex at birth. Additionally, several states have passed legislation targeting transgender youth (and, in Texas, their parents), preventing them from competing in school-sponsored athletics that correspond with their gender identity and accessing gender-affirming medical care.

Gay Marriage Legalized

Massachusetts was the first state to legalize gay marriage, and the first legal same-sex marriage was performed on May 17, 2004-a day when seventy-seven other couples across the state also tied the knot.

Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer wed in Ontario, Canada in 2007. The State of New York recognized the residents' marriage, but the federal government did not. When Spyer died in 2009, she left her estate to Windsor; since the couple's marriage was not federally recognized, Windsor didn't quality for tax exemption as a surviving spouse. Windsor sued the government in late 2010 in United States v. Windsor. Months later, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Barack Obama administration would no longer defend DOMA.

In 2012, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that DOMA violates the Constitution's equal protection clause, and the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments for the case. The court ruled in favor of Windsor.

Gay marriage was finally ruled legal by the Supreme Court in June 2015. In Obergefell v. Hodges, the plaintiffs-led by Jim Obergefell, who sued because he was unable to put his name on his late husband's death certificate-argued that the laws violated the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy sided with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan in favor of same-sex marriage rights, ultimately making gay marriage legal across the nation on June 2015. The ruling read, in part:

"No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right."

On December 13, 2022, President Joe Biden signed the Respect for Marriage Act into law. The law requires that individual states recognize same-sex and interracial marriages that were lawfully performed in other states.

Sources

How WWI Sparked the Gay Rights Movement: Smithsonian.

First gay rights group in the US (1924): Chicago Tribune.

Chicago's Henry Gerber House Designated a National Historic Landmark: U.S. Department of the Interior.

Harry Hay, Early Proponent of Gay Rights, Dies at 90: The New York Times.

Transgender: Transgender Studies Quarterly.

American Psychological Association.

LGBT Rights Milestones Fast Facts: CNN.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The gay rights movement in the United States began in the 1920s and saw huge progress in the 2000s, with laws prohibiting homosexual activity struck down and a Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage.

# data[].attributes.headline
Houston school shooting shown in real-time on TikTok

# data[].attributes.subject
Houston school shooting shown in real-time on TikTok

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
TikToks Show Houston School Shooting Aftermath

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
At YES Prep Southwest Secondary School in Houston, someone caught a terrifying, but uniquely American, moment - children evacuating school after a shooting - on TikTok last week. The original TikToker for this video appears to have deactivated their account. The repost currently has over 5 million likes.

# data[].attributes.headline
Ted Talk: A Parkland shooting teacher speaks out

# data[].attributes.subject
Ted Talk: A Parkland shooting teacher speaks out

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Parkland teacher’s homework for us all

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Diane Wolk-Rogers teaches history at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, site of a horrific school shooting on Valentine’s Day 2018. How can we end this senseless violence? In a stirring talk, Wolk-Rogers offers three ways Americans can move forward to create more safety and responsibility around guns -- and invites people to come up with their own answers, too. Above all, she asks us to take a cue from the student activists at her school, survivors whose work for change has moved millions to action. “They shouldn’t have to do this on their own,” Wolk-Rogers says. “They’re asking you to get involved.”

# data[].attributes.headline
Mya Middleton: Guns are a problem and the government is negligent

# data[].attributes.subject
Mya Middleton: Guns are a problem and the government is negligent

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Mya Middleton: "Guns have become the voice of America & the government is becoming more negligent"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
History of Gun Control Laws
Gun control laws are just as old or older than the Second Amendment (ratified in 1791). Some examples of gun control throughout colonial America included criminalizing the transfer of guns to Catholics, enslaved people, indentured servants, and Native Americans; regulating the storage of gun powder in homes; banning loaded guns in Boston houses; and mandating participation in formal gathering of troops and door-to-door surveys about guns owned.

Guns were common in the American Colonies, first for hunting and general self-protection and later as weapons in the American Revolutionary War. Several colonies' gun laws required that heads of households (including women) own guns and that all able-bodied men enroll in the militia and carry personal firearms. Read more history...

Pro & Con Arguments

Pro 1

The Second Amendment is not an unlimited or individual right to own guns.

Further, the Second Amendment was intended to protect the right of militias to own guns, not the right of individuals to own guns. Former Justice John Paul Stevens, in his dissenting opinion for District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, wrote, "the Framer's single-minded focus in crafting the constitutional guarantee 'to keep and bear arms' was on military use of firearms, which they viewed in the context of service in state militias," hence the inclusion of the phrase "well regulated militia."

Michael Waldman, President of the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, stated there is nothing about an individual right to bear arms in the notes about the Second Amendment when it was being drafted, discussed, or ratified; the US Supreme Court declined to rule in favor of the individual right four times between 1876 and 1939; and all law articles on the Second Amendment from 1888 to 1959 stated that an individual right was not guaranteed.
Read More

Pro 2

More gun control laws would reduce gun deaths.

Approximately 50% of unintentional fatal shootings were self-inflicted; and most unintentional firearm deaths were caused by friends or family members.

Five women are murdered with guns every day in the United States. A woman's risk of being murdered increases 500% if a gun is present during a domestic dispute. During the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, 5,364 US soldiers were killed in action between Oct. 7, 2001 and Jan. 28, 2015; between 2001 and 2012 6,410 women were killed with a gun by an intimate partner in the United States.

Researchers found that a "general barrier to firearm access created through state regulation can have a significant deterrent effect on male suicide rates in the United States. Permit requirements and bans on sales to minors were the most effective of the regulations analyzed."

Gun licensing laws were associated with a 14% decrease in firearm homicides, while increases in firearm homicides were seen in places with right-to-carry and stand-your ground-laws.

More gun control leads to fewer suicides. When US gun ownership goes down, overall suicide rates drop; meanwhile, each 10 percentage-point increase in gun ownership is linked to a 26.9% increase in the youth suicide rate. In Indiana and Connecticut, after "red flag" laws to remove guns from people who may pose a threat were enacted, gun suicides decreased by 7.5% and 13.7% respectively, while suicides by other means did not decrease during the same time. A person who wants to kill him/herself is unlikely to commit suicide with poison or a knife when a gun is unavailable.

The US General Accountability Office (GAO) estimated that 31% of total accidental shooting deaths could have been prevented by installing safety devices on guns: 100% of deaths per year in which a child under 6 years old shoots and kills him/herself or another child could be prevented by automatic child-proof safety locks; and 23% of accidental shooting deaths by adolescents and adults per year could be prevented by loading indicators showing when a bullet was in the chamber ready to be fired.

Marjorie Sanfilippo, PhD, Professor of Psychology at Eckerd College who has researched children's behavior around guns, stated, "We put gates around swimming pools to keep children from drowning. We put safety caps on medications to keep children from poisoning themselves.... [B]ecause children are naturally curious and impulsive, and because we have shown time and again that we cannot 'gun-proof' them with education, we have a responsibility to keep guns out of the hands of children."
Read More

Pro 3

The presence of a gun makes a conflict more likely to become violent.

The FBI found that arguments (such as romantic triangles, brawls fueled by alcohol or drugs, and arguments over money) resulted in 1,962 gun deaths (59.9% of the total).

An editorial published in the American Journal of Public Health noted, "gun-inflicted deaths [often] ensue from impromptu arguments and fights; in the US, two-thirds of the 7,900 deaths in 1981 involving arguments and brawls were caused by guns." A study published in the same journal found that "the weapons used [in altercations]... were those closest at hand." And thus, according to another study, "[r]ather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance."

Common sense gun control laws can decrease the likelihood of a violent situation turning deadly. President Ronald Reagan and others did not think the AR-15 military rifle (also called M16s by the Air Force) should be owned by civilians and, when the AR-15 was included in the assault weapons ban of 1994 (which expired on Sep. 13, 2004), the NRA supported the legislation. A Mother Jones investigation found that high-capacity magazines were used in at least 50% of the 62 mass shootings between 1982 and 2012.When high-capacity magazines were used in mass shootings, the death rate rose 63% and the injury rate rose 156%.
Read More

Pro 4

A majority of adults, including gun owners, support common sense gun control such as background checks, bans on assault weapons, and bans on high-capacity magazines.

According to a Feb. 20, 2018 Quinnipiac Poll, 97% of American voters and 97% of gun owners support universal background checks. 67% support a nationwide ban on assault weapons, and 83% support mandatory waiting periods for gun purchases.

As much as 40% of all gun sales are undocumented private party gun sales that do not require a background check (aka the "gun show loophole").

53% of all adults surveyed approve of high-capacity magazine bans. 89% of adults with a gun in the home approve of laws to prevent the purchase of guns by the mentally ill, and 82% approve of banning gun sales to people on no-fly lists.

77% of Americans support requiring a license to purchase a gun.

Don Macalady, member of Hunters against Gun Violence, stated, "As a hunter and someone who has owned guns since I was a young boy, I believe that commonsense gun legislation makes us all safer. Background checks prevent criminals and other dangerous people from getting guns."

Many would like to see the U.S. enact more laws like other countries, citing the fact that countries with restrictive gun control laws have lower gun homicide and suicide rates than the United States. Both Switzerland and Finland require gun owners to acquire licenses and pass background checks that include mental and criminal records, among other restrictions and requirements. In 2007 Switzerland ranked number 3 in international gun ownership rates with 45.7 guns per 100 people (about 3,400,000 guns total). In 2009 Switzerland had 24 gun homicides (0.31 deaths per 100,000 people) and 253 gun suicides (3.29 deaths per 100,000 people). Finland ranked fourth in international gun ownership rates with 45.3 guns per 100 people (about 2,400,000 guns total). In 2007 Finland had 23 (0.43 deaths per 100,000 people) gun homicides and 172 gun suicides (4.19 deaths per 100,000 people).
Read More

Con 1

The Second Amendment of the US Constitution protects individual gun ownership.

The Second Amendment of the US Constitution reads, "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."

Lawrence Hunter, Chairman of Revolution PAC, stated, "The Founders understood that the right to own and bear laws is as fundamental and as essential to maintaining liberty as are the rights of free speech, a free press, freedom of religion and the other protections against government encroachments on liberty delineated in the Bill of Rights."
Read More

Con 2

Gun control laws are discriminatory and infringe on citizens' rights

Current gun control laws are frequently aimed at inner city, poor, black communities who are perceived as more dangerous than white gun owners. Charles Gallagher, Chair of Sociology at LaSalle University, stated that some gun control laws are still founded on racial fears: "Whites walking down Main Street with an AK-47 are defenders of American values; a black man doing the same thing is Public Enemy No. 1."

Background checks and micro-stamping are an invasion of privacy. Background checks require government databases that keep personal individual information on gun owners, including name, addresses, mental health history, criminal records, and more. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) worried that Senator Harry Reid's 2013 proposed background check legislation (the bill failed 54-46) would have allowed the government to keep databases of gun purchases indefinitely, creating a "worry that you're going to see searches of the databases and an expansion for purposes that were not intended when the information was collected." Micro-stamping similarly requires a database of gun owners and the codes their personal guns would stamp on cartridge cases. Senators Rand Paul (R-KY), Mike Lee (R-UT), and Ted Cruz (R-TX) wrote that they would oppose any legislation that infringes "on the American people's constitutional right to bear arms, or on their ability to exercise this right without being subjected to government surveillance."

Gun control laws infringe upon the right to self-defense and deny people a sense of safety. The police cannot protect everyone all of the time. 61% of men and 56% of women surveyed by Pew Research said that stricter gun laws would "make it more difficult for people to protect their homes and families." Nelson Lund, Professor at George Mason University School of Law, stated, "The right to self-defense and to the means of defending oneself is a basic natural right that grows out of the right to life" and "many [gun control laws] interfere with the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against violent criminals." A Pew Foundation report found that 79% of male gun owners and 80% of female gun owners said owning a gun made them feel safer and 64% of people living in a home in which someone else owns a gun felt safer. Even Senator Dianne Feinstein, a gun control advocate, carried a concealed gun when her life was threatened and her home attacked by the New World Liberation Front in the 1970s.

Gun control laws, especially those that try to ban "assault weapons," infringe upon the right to own guns for hunting and sport. In 2011, there were 13.7 million hunters 16 years old or older in the United States, High-powered semiautomatic rifles and shotguns are used to hunt and in target shooting tournaments each year. According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, "So-called 'Assault weapons' are more often than not less powerful than other hunting rifles. The term 'assault weapon' was conjured up by anti-gun legislators to scare voters into thinking these firearms are something out of a horror movie... [T]he Colt AR-15 and Springfield M1A, both labeled 'assault weapons,' are the rifles most used for marksmanship competitions in the United States. And their cartridges are standard hunting calibers, useful for game up to and including deer." According to a Feb. 2013 Pew Research report, 32% of gun owners owned guns for hunting and 7% owned guns for target or sport shooting.
Read More

Con 3

Gun control laws simply do not work.

Gun control efforts have proved ineffective. According to David Lampo, Publications Director of the Cato Institute, "there is no correlation between waiting periods and murder or robbery rates." Banning high-capacity magazines will not necessarily deter crime because even small gun magazines can be changed in seconds.The "gun show loophole" is virtually nonexistent because commercial dealers, who sell the majority of guns at shows and elsewhere, are bound by strict federal laws. According to a Mar. 10, 2016 Lancet study, most state-level gun control laws do not reduce firearm death rates, and, of 25 state laws, nine were associated with higher gun death rates.

Mexico has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world and yet, in 2012, Mexico had 11,309 gun murders (9.97 gun homicides per 100,000 people) compared to the United States that had 9,146 gun homicides (2.97 per 100,000 people). The country has only one legal gun store (the Directorate of Arms and Munitions Sales), compared to at least 63,709 legal gun stores and pawn shops in the United States as of Feb. 10, 2014. Mexico's gun store is on a secure military base and customers must present a valid ID, go through a metal detector, and turn over cellphones and cameras to guards. To actually buy a gun, customers have to show proof of honest income, provide references, pass a criminal background check, prove any military duties were completed with honor, and be fingerprinted and photographed. If allowed to purchase a gun, the customer may buy only one gun (choosing from only .38 caliber pistols or lower) and one box of bullets. Between 2006 and 2010, Mexico's one gun shop sold 6,490 guns, yet as of 2012, Mexicans own about 15,000,000 guns, or about 13.5 guns per 100 people.

The main reason gun control doesn't work is because laws will not prevent criminals from obtaining guns or breaking laws. Of 62 mass shootings in the United States between 1982 and 2012, 49 of the shooters used legally obtained guns. Collectively, 143 guns were possessed by the killers with about 75% obtained legally. A Secret Service analysis found that of 24 mass shootings in 2019 at least 10 (42%) involved illegally possessed guns.

The logical conclusion is that gun control laws do not deter crime; gun ownership deters crime. A study in Applied Economics Letters found that "assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level" and "states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murders." While gun ownership doubled in the twentieth century, the murder rate decreased. Journalist John Stossel explained, "Criminals don't obey the law... Without the fear of retaliation from victims who might be packing heat, criminals in possession of these [illegal] weapons now have a much easier job... As the saying goes, 'If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.'"

More gun control is not needed; education about guns and gun safety is needed to prevent accidental gun deaths. 95% of all US gun owners believe that children should learn about gun safety. The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute, Inc (SAAMI), stated, "Whether in the field, at the range or in the home, a responsible and knowledgeable gun owner is rarely involved in a firearms accident of any kind." According to Kyle Wintersteen, Managing Editor of Guns and Ammo, studies show that "children taught about firearms and their legitimate uses by family members have much lower rates of delinquency than children in households without guns" and "children introduced to guns associate them with freedom, security, and recreation-not violence." [82] [85] [154]
Read More

Con 4

Gun control laws give too much power to the government and may result in government tyranny and the government taking away all guns from citizens.

57% of people surveyed by Pew Research in Feb. 2013 said that gun control laws would "give too much power to the government over the people."

The NRA's Wayne LaPierre stated, "if you look at why our Founding Fathers put it [the Second Amendment] there, they had lived under the tyranny of King George and they wanted to make sure that these free people in this new country would never be subjugated again and have to live under tyranny."

Concurring, Alex Jones, radio host, stated, "The Second Amendment isn't there for duck hunting, it's there to protect us from tyrannical government and street thugs... 1776 will commence again if you try to take our firearms!"

Marco Rubio (R-FL), US Senator, speaking about gun control laws during his 2016 presidential campaign, stated, "If God forbid, ISIS visits our life, our neighborhood, our school, any part of us, the last thing standing, the last line of defense could very well be our ability to protect ourselves."
Read More

Did You Know?

1. A Pew Foundation report found that 79% of male gun owners and 80% of female gun owners said owning a gun made them feel safer, and 64% of people living in a home in which someone else owns a gun felt safer.

2. The US General Accountability Office (GAO) estimated that 100% of deaths per year in which a child under 6 years old shoots and kills him/herself or another child could be prevented by automatic child-proof safety locks.

3. The Centers for Disease Control listed firearms as the #12 cause of all deaths between 1999 and 2015, representing 1.3% of total deaths. They were also the #1 method of death by homicide (67.3% of all homicides) and by suicide (51.9% of all suicides).

4. Mexico has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world and yet, in 2012, Mexico had 11,309 gun murders (9.97 gun homicides per 100,000 people) compared to the United States that had 9,146 gun homicides (2.97 per 100,000 people).

5. Carrying a concealed handgun in public has been permitted in all 50 states since 2013, when Illinois became the last state to enact concealed carry legislation.

6. Five women a day are killed by guns in America. A woman's risk of being murdered increases 500% if a gun is present during a domestic dispute.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Proponents say the Second Amendment is not an unlimited right to own guns. Opponents say the amendment protects individual gun ownership.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
During the initial days of the United States as an independent nation, the founding fathers worked together to form a governing set of laws that would apply to all people. It would begin with the Constitution, and then proceed to the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights is a set of amendments that are treated as if they were part of the original Constitution. Each amendment is given a number under American law, and then implemented immediately once three-quarters of the state's ratify any new ideas. One of the most important amendments in the U.S. is the Second Amendment, which states the following.
"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."
The founding fathers adapted the wording of the Second Amendment from clauses that were nearly identical in some of the original state constitutions that were written during the 18th century. Recent rulings by the Supreme Court have set the precedent that all people in good standing can own a gun or guns without being part of a recognized state militia.

"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own," Jeff Cooper wrote in Art of the Rifle. "Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."

Is this perspective correct? Or should Americans work to embrace more gun control legislation that could reduce the ownership of weapons that could create mass casualties?

Here are some of the pros and cons of the Second Amendment to consider.

List of the Pros of the Second Amendment

1. Gun ownership works to reduce other types of crime in society.
Frank Lloyd Wright once said, "I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters." The fact will always be that a gun is a tool and nothing more. Can it be used to kill someone? Yes. Is it possible to inflict mass casualties with certain types of firearms? Yes. It can also be useful for hunting to provide food for one's family. Guns can protect you when someone breaks into your home. People use them to drive off predators that try to take their livestock. Owning a gun can even reduce homicide numbers, sexual assault, and aggravated assault by at least 5%.

2. The Second Amendment offers people a chance to defend themselves.
According to information published by the National Sheriffs' Association, the average amount of time for a school shooting to take place is 12.5 minutes, but it takes police officers 18 minutes to respond to the first calls that come across emergency lines. Active shooter incidents in all locations, but especially schools, have risen at an alarming rate in recent years. During the entire decade of the 1960s, there was one incident. In 2015, there were 55 active shooter incidents in American schools. As Cooper wrote, the only choice that we can make is one that allows us to protect ourselves. We can't stop bad people from getting their hands on a gun to use it for evil purposes, but we can help good people find ways to stop them with the same tool.

3. It reinforces the laws of the Constitution by its mere presence in the Bill of Rights.
Alan Dershowitz may not be a fan favorite of every conservative in the United States, but he does offer this observation about the Second Amendment. "Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a public safety hazard don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like."

Guns might be controversial in some ways because of the ease that they inflict damage, but it is also because of this tool that people in the U.S. have the freedoms that are available to them. When you start to erode one granted right, it does not take long for more of them to experience the same outcome.

4. The Second Amendment allows the average person to defend their country.
In Priority, Aaron Powell makes this observation about the Second Amendment. "When the Chinese invade our country, who do you want to depend on? The over-extended police force and the National Guard? Or the next-door neighbor who is a former Marine and has enough guns and ammunition for your entire block?"

The entire point of the Second Amendment from the perspective of the founding fathers is still valid. When you own a gun, then it is more difficult to take away what you have earned in life than if you did not own this weapon. People will think twice (or more times) about trying to take something from you, including domestic and foreign governments, if you have the capacity to defend yourself adequately.

5. It allows for a well-regulated militia to be part of U.S. culture.
The focus on the Second Amendment is often on the right of gun ownership, but it is also essential to note that there is the right for states to have a well-regulated militia because of this addition to the Bill of Rights. Even though we have numerous levels of law enforcement that work to serve and protect our communities, there may still come a time when there is a need to keep the peace in other ways. This option allows for states to develop their own defensive resources without costing taxpayers in other locations any money to do so. If you need to defend your home for any reason, all you need to do is get together, form a militia, and follow whatever state rules are in place for organization.

6. You must qualify to own a gun in the United States already.
There are already regulations in place that make it impossible for anyone to walk into a gun shop to make a purchase. Any store that sells firearms must use the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, called NICS, to see if there are any records in place that would prevent a customer from owning a gun. This system scans three different databases to ensure there are no matches. Anyone declared mentally unfit, convicted of a felony, or receives a misdemeanor sentence of 2+ years will not qualify for the purchase. Lying on the form in an attempt to purchase the gun is also considered an illegal act which could strip you of the firearm when discovered.

7. The Second Amendment offers more checks-and-balances for society.
When the founding fathers creating the structure of the American government, they wanted to make sure that no one branch of it could hold more power than the other. The system of checks-and-balances ensures that the executive, legislative, and judicial branches must work together to the benefit of society.

The Second Amendment offers this same benefit for the average person in their daily routines. It is a way to protect your individual liberties to ensure that you are not deprived of the right to pursue happiness. "The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted," said James Madison. Gun ownership is a way to ensure that the government is obliged to control itself in addition to supervising the governed.

List of the Cons of the Second Amendment

1. It does not provide for the safe usage and implementation of a gun in society.
"Saying gun control hurts our freedom is a false argument amounting to propaganda," said DaShanne Stokes. "Gun laws don't curtail freedom any more than speed limits or seat belts. You still get to drive your car and have guns. We're just trying to save lives as you do." Although the Second Amendment does allow for the private ownership of guns according to the current interpretation offered by the Supreme Court, it does not contain provisions that require the safe use of this tool. That level of implementation is left to the states, which means there is a patchwork series of laws that gun owners must follow to stay in compliance.

2. There is no guarantee that a good guy with a gun is going to be around.
DaShanne Stokes has also said that gun violence in the United States is not a Republican or Democrat problem, but an American problem - and one that requires an American solution. "When a country with less than 5% of the world's population has nearly 50% of the world's privately-owned guns and makes up nearly a third of the world's mass shootings, it's time to stop saying guns make us safer," he said.

Even though there are plenty of stories about a good guy with a gun stopping a crime that you can find, there are also more than 14,000 homicides attributed to firearms each year in the United States. That means 4.5 deaths per 100,000 population are because of guns.

3. Gun ownership comes with great risk to the owner's household.
There are plenty of good reasons to own a gun in today's American society, but there are also a few reasons why some families believe that the rights given under the Second Amendment are not something they want to use. That is because up to 95% of the suicides that occur with a firearm are potentially preventable if the gun wasn't present in the home. Households that own just one gun carry a 7 times higher risk of experiencing premature death than those without one.

Even the states which have the least amount of controls places on gun ownership see homicide rates that are more than double those of states with the most extensive restrictions. The problem with a firearm is that this tool doesn't offer many second chances.

4. There are multiple ways to deter crime other than gun ownership.
In Guns Part 2, Aaron Powell makes this observation.

1. "So, disturbed kids are taking guns to school and killing teachers and classmates. We better make sure kids can't get guns."

2. So, disturbed kids are taking guns to school and killing teachers and classmates. We better find out what's making these kids want to kill, fix that, and then they won't want to use guns to kill teachers and classmates."

Both sides of the Second Amendment debate can quote statistics which support their argument. There are stories about how gun ownership can save lives, just as there are times when it takes lives. Saying that guns are the only way to deter crime is laziness. There are multiple facets of protection that we can implement every day if we are willing to take bold steps to protect ourselves, our loved ones, and our communities. Can guns stop a crime? Sure. So can an alarm system, an airlock system in schools, metal detectors, and many more methods. We cannot have tunnel vision on just one outcome.

5. It creates the potential for a domestic arms race.
"If Jesus Christ himself were to come down off the cross and grant you one wish, would you opt for a world without guns - or the one we live in now?" asks Quentin Bufogle. "If every gun owner truly feared for their life and liberty, the answer would be obvious."

When we push toward a world of gun ownership, then we are creating a society where good and evil are both racing toward a place where each feel like it can be a dominant force. This perspective is what fueled the nuclear race during the Cold War, and it is also what causes some people to stockpile firearms. There are an estimated 89-100 guns for every 100 Americans, but only up to 29% of households actually own one. 14% of owners have between 8 to 140 guns in their possession, accounting for 50% of civilian ownership.

6. We already know that the current gun control laws don't work.
According to reporting from The New York Times, only 8 states have laws which provide an explicit mechanism so that people who are suspected of owning guns in violation of their prohibitions are required to hand them over. Some of these laws allow, but do not require, the police to seek a court order for confiscation.

Authorities in Chicago knew for over 4 years that Gary Martin was a felon with a violent history, yet did nothing to make sure that he surrendered his Smith and Wesson handgun with a laser sight. He used that weapon to kill five of his co-workers in Aurora, IL, in February 2019. It would be helpful to enforce the laws on our books to ensure that we are doing all that we can to stop the bad guys with guns.

7. The Second Amendment increases the cost of law enforcement.
Open-carry laws for gun ownership because of the Second Amendment create a phobia about this tool that increases the amount of resources that law enforcement must receive each year. 40% of Americans already say that one of their biggest fears is that they will end up being the victim of a mass shooting. Firearms are already the second-leading cause of death for American children and teens. Women are 21 times more likely to be killed with a gun in the United States than they are in other high-income countries.

Because there are so many guns on the streets, even if they are owned by a minority of the population, the resources dedicated to law enforcement activities are that much higher. Even a slight reduction in this cost could be directed toward something more useful, like free firearm education programs.

8. This amendment has seen inconsistent application in the law.
Before the recent Heller ruling set the precedent for individual ownership as a right, the judicial system interpreted the Second Amendment as applying to militias only. That meant no one had the right to travel with their gun across state lines. The common law standard was that there was a duty to retreat if someone wanted to take your things. If you lived in the city, then a loaded firearm was banned from being in your home.

Once upon a time, you even had to swear a loyalty oath as an American to have the right to own a firearm. Refusing to take that pledge meant that your right to gun ownership disappeared. It is an inaccurate statement to say that the U.S. has never had gun restrictions in place before. What we are doing is creating inconsistent case law based on current political desires.

9. There is no right to own a firearm if you cannot afford the cost.
One of the unique aspects of the Second Amendment is that it doesn't mention the cost of ownership as part of your individual rights as an American. There is nothing that would stop Congress from passing a law which required a minimum price for this item, similar to the expense one must pay to obtain a passport or a driver's license. The only thing that the Bill of Rights guarantees is that if you can afford the cost of a gun and there are no other restrictions in place for you, then this is an opportunity that you can have.

10. The Second Amendment does not exclude specific actions, behaviors, or choices.
The Second Amendment would be arguably more powerful if it created specific restrictions to ownership based on high-risk behaviors. Several demographics, including teens with a history of violence, can still purchase firearms despite their history of choices. Even people convicted of a gun crime can still buy more of them if they are not convicted of a felony and their misdemeanor sentence is less than 2 years in some states.

One Final Thought on the Second Amendment

Most people read the key pros and cons of the Second Amendment in the form of an echo chamber. They will see the areas in which they agree and use that information to support their position while dismissing everything else. Although it is true that guns have long been part of the culture in the United States, we cannot be honest with ourselves by saying that we treat this tool differently than other elements of life.

When terrorists flew airplanes into the twin towers, the Pentagon, and Flight 93 was retaken by passengers to crash so it couldn't do more damage, the legislative response from the U.S. government was immediate. The focus is on the outside threats more than it is the domestic ones. We cannot change the actions of a person with evil intent when they get their hands on a gun, but what we can do is initiate an extensive, accurate, and mandatory screening and licensing process which allows each person to access their right to own a gun if they should so choose.

You cannot legally drive without a driver's license that you earn by proving you have the skills and knowledge to be successful. You must also renew that license periodically. Some states make a similar requirement for those who wish to have a concealed carry permit. Extending that process to all gun ownership with minimal fees to process the paperwork seems like a common-sense compromise that could help to reduce the amount of violence that is present in U.S. society.

The status quo is not working. It is time to do something.

Author Bio
Natalie Regoli is a child of God, devoted wife, and mother of two boys. She has a Master's Degree in Law from The University of Texas. Natalie has been published in several national journals and has been practicing law for 18 years.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
17 Big Pros and Cons of the 2nd Amendment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
During the initial days of the United States as an independent nation, the founding fathers worked together to form a governing set of laws that would apply to all people. It would begin with the

# data[].attributes.headline
4 Countries with gun control and what the USA could learn

# data[].attributes.subject
4 Countries with gun control and what the USA could learn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Thirty people will be shot dead in America today. On average. It could be more. If it's less, then more will die tomorrow. Or the next day.

The United States's gun homicide rate is 25 times higher than other high-income countries, according to a recent study.

Americans are divided on whether the country's gun deaths could be reduced through tougher laws on gun ownership. Liberals argue that legal restrictions on gun ownership could save lives. Conservatives say that tougher gun laws would do nothing to change the behaviour of violent criminals.

Even the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting that left 20 first-graders dead was not enough to convince American lawmakers to pass new gun control laws, with many people seeing the ownership of guns as a crucial check on government tyranny. The country's highest court has ruled that outright bans on civilian ownership of handguns are unconstitutional.

After similar mass shootings, other countries have taken more dramatic steps to regulate gun ownership. A look at four countries show that tougher gun laws have been central to these efforts, but that enforcement and culture may also play important roles in preventing violence.

UK

From the moment 43-year-old Thomas Hamilton unloaded his legally held arsenal of handguns on children and staff at Dunblane primary school on 13 March 1996, gun control was on the cards.

Nothing like Dunblane - a massacre of 16 five- and six-year-olds, along with the teacher who tried to protect them - had taken place before in Britain. The shock and collective grief of the whole nation resonated from the northernmost point of Scotland to the tip of Cornwall. This was not the United States, where by 1996, classroom shootings had occurred in many places including Nashville, San Diego and South Carolina.

Gwen Mayor died with 16 of her young pupils at the school in Dunblane, Scotland. Photograph: PNR/PA

As grief turned to a national anger, public debate focused on how someone like Hamilton, a former Scout leader who had been ostracised because of his suspicious behaviour with young boys, had been allowed to own such lethal weapons.

Public petitions, most notably by the Snowdrop Campaign, founded by friends of the bereaved families, called for a total ban on the private ownership and use of handguns in the UK. Signed by 750,000 people it was symbolic of the weight of public opinion.

Nine years before Dunblane, there had been Hungerford, where Michael Ryan went on a rampage through the Berkshire town, killing 16 people in a series of random shootings before turning the gun on himself. He had been carrying a handgun and two semi automatic rifles, for which he had firearms certificates.

The aftermath of Hungerford brought to an end the right to own semi-automatic firearms in Britain; they were banned along with pump action weapons, and registration became mandatory for shotgun owners.

With Dunblane the focus turned to handguns - held by tens of thousands who took part in pistol shooting across the country. The Conservative then prime minister, John Major, passed the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 after the Cullen inquiry into the massacre. It banned all cartridge ammunition handguns, except 22 calibre single-shot weapons.

But with the landslide election of Labour and Tony Blair the same year, the law was tightened further, and the remaining .22 cartridge handguns were also banned. The decision, supported by a majority of the public, all but wiped out target shooting as a sport in the UK.

Dave Thompson, chief constable of the West Midlands, and the lead on gun crime for the National Association of Chief Constables, said: "The legislation coincided very well with a culture."

Overnight, however, about 200,000 owners of handguns, most of whom kept them for pistol shooting, found their weapon banned and their pastime wiped out. All small-bore pistols and rifles used by target shooters were included in the ban. Penalties for anyone in possession of an illegal firearm were tough - from heavy fines to prison terms of 10 years.

The hostility of those involved in the sport to what they term the draconian legislation is still strong, 20 years after Dunblane. Mike Wells, secretary of the Sportsman's Association of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, set up in 1996 to counter public pressure for a ban on handguns, said politicians had been driven by a need to show they were doing something but their actions did nothing to stop the criminal use of guns. "It never, never has any effect. The criminal underworld in England, the drug dealers ... have all got guns, but they are illegal guns," he said.

Mark Mastaglio, an expert on firearms who worked for the Forensic Science Service for 20 years, said there was no evidence that the ban on handguns after Dunblane had done anything to cut the criminal use of firearms. "It was very rare that there was ever leakage from the licensed gun owners to the criminal fraternity. Most guns used by criminal are either illegally imported or converted weapons. And that remains the case today," said Mastaglio.

Crime statistics in the years after the ban was introduced appear to support the theory that it had little impact. Gun crime rose sharply, to peak at 24,094 offences in 2003/4. After that the number of crimes in which a firearm was involved fell consistently, to 4,779 offences in 2013. In the year ending September 2015 there was a small rise of 4% to 4,994 offences.

Thompson said the legislation was only part of it: law enforcement agencies had to prove they would carry through on the tough penalties and there was also poor policing of gang areas, and poor ballistics records and analysis. Both were addressed in the early 2000s, when there was a huge decline in gun crime, he said.

But there has been only one mass shooting in the UK - in Whitehaven, Cumbria, in 2010, during which Derrick Bird killed 12 people - since Dunblane.

Mastaglio said: "Dunblane was certainly a turning point. It was a huge piece of legislation, and had a huge impact on registered gun owners in the UK. We now have one of the most stringent set of firearms legislation in the world - only Japan has tougher laws."

Japan

Japan has what may be the closest any country comes to "zero-tolerance" of gun ownership - a policy that experts say contribute its enviously low rates of gun crime. As of 2011, legal gun ownership stood at 271,000, according to police records, in a country of 127 million people.

There were six reported gun deaths in Japan in 2014, according to the National Police Agency. In 2006 just two people were killed in gun attacks; when the number rose to 22 in 2007 it prompted a bout of national soul-searching.
In his seminal 1993 paper for the Asia Pacific Law Review, whose conclusions still hold true more than 20 years later, David Kopel described Japanese gun control laws as "the most stringent in the democratic world".

The 1958 law on the possession of swords and firearms states: "No one shall possess a firearm or firearms or a sword or swords." Among the few exceptions are shotguns, but here too, the restrictions would cause outrage among American gun owners.

Before they can even lay hands on a shotgun for hunting and sport shooting, prospective owners must attend classes and pass written and practical exams. They must then undergo psychological assessments to determine they are fit to own a firearm. Police background checks are exhaustive and even extend to the gun owners' relatives.

The aim, according to Kopel, is to make possession of a shotgun so complex and drawn out that few people believe it worthwhile applying for one.

Civilian ownership of handguns is banned. The few violations reported in the media usually involve members of the country's many crime syndicates who have managed to smuggle them in from abroad.

But Japan was not always a low-crime, gun-intolerant nation. Guns quickly became the weapon of choice for feuding warlords after Portuguese traders introduced them to the country's south-west in the early 1500s. Over time, Japan improved the design and performance of firearms and began mass producing them.

The beginning of the end of widespread gun ownership came when the feudal warlord Toyotomi Hideyoshi (1537-1598) unified Japan, then disarmed the peasant population by banning civilians from owning swords and firearms in 1588.

Seized plastic handguns which were created using 3D printing technology are displayed by police in Yokohama, south of Tokyo. Photograph: Kyodo/Reuters

"The shogunate banned them because they were fearful of the consequences of having guns in hands of an angry populace," said Robert Whiting, author of Tokyo Underworld. The quid pro quo, Whiting added, was that the general population's safety would be assured provided they paid their taxes.

The notion that gun ownership should be limited to the authorities survived Japanese militarism and carried through to the postwar period. Japanese police officers did not begin carrying pistols until 1946, with the permission of the US-led occupation authorities.

Despite sporadic outbreaks of gun violence, Japan's yakuza crime syndicates are reluctant to build up caches of firearms. Threatening a rival with a gun is often seen as an "unmanly" departure from the yakuza's traditional code of honour, to which even modern-day mobsters try to adhere, according to Whiting.

Kopel says Japan's gun laws do not necessarily prevent criminals - especially the yakuza - from acquiring guns. But, he added, even gangsters "see themselves as within the social system, in a broad sense. Even when breaking the law, they still play by certain rules of society."

Australia

Eerily, Australia's moment of truth also occurred almost exactly 20 years ago, when a shooting spree in a gift shop in Port Arthur, Tasmania, resulted in 35 people dying in about half an hour. It was the worst mass shooting by one person in Australia's history. The killer, Martin Bryant, received a sentence of 35 terms of life imprisonment.

Less than two weeks later, Australia's then prime minister, John Howard, announced a sweeping package of gun reforms in a country where guns had long been considered an essential prop in the national mythology of life in the bush.

"Port Arthur we acted on," said Tim Fischer, then Howard's deputy prime minister. "The USA is not prepared to act on their tragedies."

Before Port Arthur, most states had a weak licensing system and no requirement to register guns. Howard proposed each state and territory should introduce and enforce a firearm licensing and registration system which required people to have a "genuine reason" for having a firearm, such as sport or target shooting, recreational hunting or being a farmer.

Howard also introduced a national gun buyback policy for all weapons that did not comply, which led to the buying and melting down of more than 650,000 firearms at a cost of A$350m (now £185m). One study said the buyback cut the rate of firearm suicides by 74% in the first 10 years.

There have been no mass shootings in the 20 years since Port Arthur; in the 20 years before the massacre there had been 13.

However, since the 1996 National Firearms Agreement, four states have moved to wind back the mandatory 28 days "cooling off" period between applying for and buying a gun, a trend Howard has described as disturbing.

One of those states was Tasmania.

Germany

Germany's relationship with firearms is intriguing: while there are a lot of guns in the country, they don't seem to kill a lot of people.

Germany has one of the highest weapons-per-head rates in the world. In 2014, 5.5m legal weapons were registered as being in the hands of 1.45 million private individuals. The country's police union estimates the number of illegal weapons in the country to be considerably higher, around 20m. According to GunPolicy.org, this puts Germany at 15th place out of 175 nations in terms of guns per capita.

Gun ownership is more widespread in the west of the country than in the former East Germany, where private gun ownership was illegal before the fall of the Berlin Wall. Recent reports suggest that gun ownership is rapidly increasing still: between November 2015 and February 2016 alone, 20,000 applications were filed for new gun licences.

Yet in Germany gun homicide rate is one of the lowest in Europe: a death rate of 0.05 per 1,000 people, compared with 3.34 in the US. In fact, incidents of gun crime, including both weapons being fired and used to threaten people, have declined by almost a quarter since 2010 (pdf).

Experts put this trend down to a number of tweaks to gun law in the wake of high-profile shootings.

In 2002, a 19-year-old student in the Thuringian state capital, Erfurt, shot dead 16 people at the school that had recently expelled him, using weapons he had obtained from his gun club.

Within a year, the law regulating access to guns had been changed: Germany is the only country in the world where anyone under the age of 25 who applies for their first firearms licence must undergo a psychiatric evaluation with a trained counsellor, involving personality and anger management tests.

Experienced hunters or sports shooters over the age of 25 may be called in for psychiatric tests if they display certain kinds of behaviour, such as being caught drink-driving.

A further tweak to the gun law in 2008 means that inherited guns have to be fitted with a state-of-the-art blocking mechanism, making them unusable.

A tribute to the victim of the school shooting in Winnenden, near Stuttgart, by 17-year-old Tim Kretschmer. Photograph: Alex Grimm/Getty Images

There were calls for even more stringent laws after 17-year-old Tim Kretschmer shot dead 15 at a school in Winnenden near Stuttgart in March 2009. Kretschmer had obtained his weapons from an arsenal of 15 guns kept by his father, who was a member of a shooting club.

Under the newly amended weapons act, it is now harder for individuals to own multiple weapons. A national gun register was established for the first time in 2013 - previously, records of gun ownership were kept only at regional level.

Police officers can now also visit registered gun owners' home for spot checks without warning. Guns in private possessions have to be locked away in a safe, with the security code or location of the key known only to the owner of the gun.

A number of politicians went even further in the wake of the Winnenden massacre, calling for a complete ban on the storage of firearms in private homes. Even hunters or sportsmen, they argued, should have to deposit their arms at centralised depots.

The proposal was rejected after protests from hunters, who argued that they frequently need access to weapons at short notice, such as when wildlife was involved in traffic accidents.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Four countries with gun control - and what America could learn from them

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The UK, Australia, Japan and Germany have all taken measures to reduce gun homicides. Can the US learn anything from them?

# data[].attributes.headline
Why gun violence can't be our new normal

# data[].attributes.subject
Why gun violence can't be our new normal

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Please [contact us](https://www.ted.com/contact) and let us know what happened.

# data[].attributes.headline
2021 on pace to be worst for gun violence yet

# data[].attributes.subject
2021 on pace to be worst for gun violence yet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The spike in gun violence continues, with 2021 on pace to be the worst year in decades | CNN Politics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
So far, 2021 is on pace to be the worst year for gun violence in decades, surpassing even the high levels last year.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Editor's Note: On Oct. 30, 2023, The Post published a new project tracking mass shootings nationwide.

The places change, the numbers change, but the choice of weapon remains the same. In the United States, people who want to kill a lot of other people most often do it with guns.

Related

The number of U.S. mass shootings depends on how you count

Public mass shootings account for a tiny fraction of the country's gun deaths, but they are uniquely terrifying because they occur without warning in the most mundane places. Most of the victims are chosen not for what they have done but simply for where they happen to be.

There is no universally accepted definition of a public mass shooting, and this piece defines it narrowly. It looks at the public shootings in which four or more people were killed, usually by a lone shooter. It does not include shootings tied to robberies that went awry, and it does not include domestic shootings that took place exclusively in private homes. A broader definition would yield much higher numbers.

Public mass shootings are a small slice of gun deaths

Source: Gun Violence Archive. Excludes the roughly 22,000 annual gun suicides, which are not publicly reported in real time.

This tally begins Aug. 1, 1966, when a student sniper fired down on passersby from the observation deck of a clock tower at the University of Texas. By the time police killed him, 17 other people were dead or dying. As Texas Monthly's Pamela Colloff wrote, the shooting "ushered in the notion that any group of people, anywhere - even walking around a university campus on a summer day - could be killed at random by a stranger."

Search for details of a particular shooting. The most recent is selected.

Search for an event
Canterbury Mobile Home Park shooting FedEx Ground warehouse shooting Rock Hill shooting Unified Homes shooting Essex Royal Farms shooting King Soopers supermarket shooting Three spas shooting Hyde Park shooting Englewood block party shooting Beatties Ford Road shooting Parkview Apartment Complex shooting Kum & Go shooting Molson Coors campus shooting Jersey City Kosher Supermarket shooting Football-watching party shooting Halloween party shooting Tequila KC bar shooting Midland-Odessa highways shooting Oregon District shooting Walmart shooting San Fernando Valley shooting Casa Grande Senior Mobile Estates shooting Virginia Beach municipal complex shooting Henry Pratt Co. shooting Sunny Dunes Road shooting SunTrust Bank shooting Borderline Bar & Grill shooting Tree of Life synagogue shooting T&T Trucking shooting Capital Gazette shooting Santa Fe High School shooting Waffle House shooting Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting Ed's Car Wash shooting Rancho Tehama Elementary School shooting First Baptist Church shooting Route 91 Harvest festival shooting Taos and Rio Arriba counties shooting Fiamma office shooting Marathon Savings Bank shooting Club 66 shooting Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport shooting Cascades Mall Macy's shooting Police protest march shooting Walgreens parking lot shooting Pulse nightclub shooting Franklin Avenue cookout shooting Cracker Barrel shooting Inland Regional Center shooting Tennessee Colony campsite shooting Umpqua Community College shooting Recruiting and Naval Reserve centers shooting Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church shooting Marysville-Pilchuck High School shooting Santa Barbara County shooting Cedarville Rancheria Tribal Office shooting The Washington Navy Yard shooting Todel Apartments shooting Santa Monica College shooting Pinewood Village Apartments shooting Mohawk Valley shooting Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting Accent Signage Systems shooting Sikh Temple of Wisconsin shooting Century 16 movie theater shooting Café Racer shooting Oikos University shooting Su Jung Health Sauna shooting Salon Meritage shooting IHOP shooting Forum Roller World shooting Family law practice shooting Safeway parking lot shooting City Grill shooting Hartford Beer Distributors shooting Yoyito Cafe-Restaurant shooting Hot Spot Cafe shooting Pierce County coffee shop shooting Army processing center shooting Worth Street shooting Immigration services center shooting Pinelake Health and Rehab Center shooting Skagit County shooting Atlantis Plastics shooting Black Road Auto shooting Northern Illinois University shooting City council shooting Youth With a Mission and New Life Church shooting Westroads Mall shooting Crandon duplex shooting Virginia Tech shooting Trolley Square shooting West Nickel Mines Amish School shooting The Ministry of Jesus Christ shooting Capitol Hill shooting Postal facility shooting Sash Assembly of God shooting Red Lake Indian Reservation shooting Living Church of God shooting Fulton County Courthouse shooting Damageplan concert shooting Sawyer County woods shooting ConAgra Foods plant shooting Stateline Tavern shooting Windy City Core Supply shooting Lockheed Martin plant shooting Labor Ready shooting Bertrand Products shooting Burns International Security shooting Bookcliff RV Park shooting Navistar International shooting Amko Trading shooting Edgewater Technology shooting Mount Lebanon shooting Mi-T-Fine Car Wash shooting Radisson Bay Harbor shooting Xerox Engineering Systems shooting Wedgwood Baptist Church shooting Day-trading firms shooting Albertson's supermarket shooting Columbine High School shooting New St. John Fellowship Baptist Church shooting Thurston High School shooting Westside Middle School shooting Connecticut Lottery shooting Caltrans maintenance yard shooting R.E. Phelon Co. shooting News and Sentinel shooting Fire station shooting City beach cleaning crew shooting Little Chester Shoes shooting C. Erwin Piper Technical Center shooting Walter Rossler Co. shooting Fairchild Air Force Base shooting Chuck E. Cheese shooting Long Island Rail Road shooting Unemployment office shooting Family Fitness Club shooting Luigi's restaurant shooting Washington County bar shooting Pettit & Martin office at 101 California shooting Card club shooting Schuyler County building shooting Lindhurst High School shooting Palo Verde Trailer Park shooting Postal center shooting Restaurant shooting University of Iowa shooting Luby's restaurant shooting Post office shooting GMAC office shooting Standard Gravure shooting Cleveland Elementary School shooting Montefiore School shooting Old Salisbury Road shooting Electromagnetic Systems Labs shooting Shopping centers shooting Post office shooting Anchor Glass Container Corporation shooting Other Place Lounge shooting McDonald's shooting Ianni's nightclub shooting Alaska mining town shooting Alaska back-country shooting The Investor shooting Bob Moore's Welding and Machine Service shooting Western Transfer Co. shooting Russian Jack Springs Park shooting Mountain Auto-Truck Parts Store shooting Oregon Museum Tavern shooting Coraopolis sniper shooting First Baptist Church shooting Starburst Lounge shooting Lee's Cathay Terrace shooting Erie Lackawanna Railroad shooting Uncle Albert nightclub shooting Neptune Worldwide Moving Co. shooting California State University at Fullerton shooting Ship Ashore Motel and Resort shooting Henry Cowell State Park shooting Howard Johnson's shooting Heritage Building shooting North Hills Shopping Mall shooting New York Department of Labor shooting Pennsylvania Turnpike shooting Ironwood Township shooting Hammermill Paper Co. shooting Rose-Mar College of Beauty shooting University of Texas tower shooting

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
More than 50 years of U.S. mass shootings: The victims, sites, killers and weapons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The places change, the numbers change, but the choice of weapon remains the same. In the United States, people who want to kill a lot of other people most often do it with guns.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This page will help you understand the science behind climate change, the impacts of a changing climate, and how you can help slow climate change and prepare for it. We've also created a list of resources and activities for educators and students of all ages.

The Science

Science paints a clear picture: Climate change is happening; it is caused mostly by humans; and it creates many serious and damaging effects. The primary cause of climate change is human activities - like driving cars, creating electricity, and cutting down forests - not natural changes in the climate. These human activities release gases into the atmosphere called greenhouse gases, which slowly warm the planet, creating climate change.

The climate is very complex, and there are still some things we don't know about it. But through centuries of studies and experiments, we've been able to create a strong understanding of how the system works, and how humans are changing it.

The Greenhouse Effect

Imagine a greenhouse made of glass used to grow plants, like flowers and vegetables. The greenhouse keeps the plants inside warm even when it's cold outside because it traps heat from the sun. The earth's atmosphere acts like a greenhouse: When light from the sun passes through the atmosphere, some of it is absorbed by the Earth's surface to heat it, but some heat is also trapped in our atmosphere by certain gases. These heat-trapping gases are called greenhouse gases, and they act like a blanket, keeping the earth warm. This greenhouse effect is a natural process that makes the planet comfortable to live.

But human activities are increasing the amount of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. One type of greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, has reached a level in our atmosphere that the Earth hasn't seen for more than 400,000 years! Plants, soils, and the ocean can absorb carbon dioxide, but they can't keep up with all the extra greenhouse gases that we have been releasing. And some greenhouse gases stay in the atmosphere for a long time, from hundreds to even thousands of years. All these gases are making things hotter than natural, so we need to stop producing them to avoid climate change.

Weather vs. Climate

Weather refers to the state of the atmosphere in a short period of time, like minutes or days. It includes lots of things we are familiar with, like temperature, humidity, precipitation, and wind speeds. The weather changes every day, but the climate is much more consistent because it measures the patterns of weather over long periods of time (at least several decades). Let's say you were going to visit Florida for a few days in June. You would expect it to be hot and humid, because that's what the climate of Florida is usually like in June. It might turn out to be hot during your trip, or it could rain or be cloudy. All of those are examples of possible weather during those days.

The Greenhouse Effect Explained

Where do greenhouse gases come from?

Up until about 150 years ago, humans did not produce many greenhouse gases. That changed as the human population grew, we cut down forests to make way for cities and farms, and important inventions and technology, like in-home electricity and cars, transformed the way we live.

These inventions and technologies need energy. Some types of energy called fossil fuels - like coal, oil, and natural gas - have become important sources of that energy. Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. We call the release of these gases emissions.

Today in the United States, electricity and transportation (cars, trucks, and planes) are responsible for almost 60 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. The rest comes from agriculture, industry - such as factories that make products we use - and from energy we use in our homes and businesses.
Learn more about U.S. greenhouse gas emissions here.
Greenhouse Gases

The most common types of greenhouse gases are:

Carbon Dioxide (CO ₂): Carbon dioxide is the most common greenhouse gas created by human activities. It makes up 80 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Most carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere when fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal) are burned for electricity and transportation, and because of other processes like making cement. Carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere and stored when it is absorbed by plants, soils, animals, and the ocean as part of the carbon cycle.
Learn more about how energy emissions are controlled in the United States.

Methane (CH ₄): Methane is the next most common greenhouse gas emitted by human activities. It makes up 10 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Most methane emissions come from raising livestock (like cows), but methane is also released when coal, natural gas, and oil are produced and transported, and when organic waste (like food) decays in landfills. Methane is a stronger gas than carbon dioxide, meaning it creates more warming, but it stays in the atmosphere for a shorter time.
Learn more about how industrial greenhouse gases like methane are controlled in the United States.

Nitrous Oxide (N ₂ O): Most nitrous oxide is emitted by agricultural activities, like applying fertilizer, but it also comes from industrial activities, burning fossil fuels, and other sources. It makes up 6 percent of U.S. greenhouse emissions. Nitrous oxide is even more powerful than methane and carbon dioxide at warming the atmosphere.

Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), Perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6): Try saying these gases three times fast! They're called "fluorinated gases" for short. These gases combined make up only 3 percent of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. That may sound small, but they are very important to solving climate change because they stay in the atmosphere for a very long time (sometimes for thousands of years!) and are much more powerful warmers than all other gases. These gases are made by humans and are used to cool our refrigerators, freezers, buildings and cars.

U.S. Greenhouse Gases by Gas Type and Sector, 2021

Impacts of a Changing Climate

Because of increases in greenhouse gas emissions, global temperatures are rising. Each of the past four decades has been warmer than the previous one. 2016 and 2020 were the warmest years on record, and the six warmest years have all been since 2010.
Learn more about the relationship between extreme weather and climate change.
The following charts show how emissions and temperatures have gone up since 1900, and how they could continue to change in the future. If we continue to emit more and more greenhouse gases, the temperature of the Earth will rise a lot - maybe as much as 5 degrees Celsius (9 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100. Even if we reduce our emissions right now, the temperature of the Earth will still rise slightly, but we might be able to keep the rise below 2 degrees Celsius (or about 4.8 degrees Fahrenheit). Two degrees might not sound like much, but scientists agree that even that small amount of warming can have large impacts on humans and the environment.

Past and Projected Changes in Carbon Emissions and Temperature

Rising global temperatures affect many things, like extreme weather, human health, food supply, and ecosystems. These impacts are already being felt today, and groups like the poor, elderly, and others are especially vulnerable.
Impacts of climate change include:

Heat waves. Heat waves are long periods of time with temperatures that are hotter than normal. As the Earth warms, more areas will be at risk for hotter and more common extreme heat waves. Learn more about the link between climate change and extreme heat.

Heavy precipitation and storms. Heavy precipitation - like rain or snow - is becoming more common in many locations, which can lead to flooding and other dangerous weather. As seas warm, coastal storms like hurricanes are also becoming more frequent and damaging. Learn more about the link between climate change and heavy precipitation and hurricanes.

Sea level rise. Sea levels have risen about 8 inches since 1880 because glaciers and ice sheets are melting and seas are warming. Scientists predict that, with 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming, sea levels could rise by as much as 1.8 feet this century, which would harm communities living on islands and near coasts. These rises could be even higher if glaciers in Greenland or Antarctica melt very quickly.

Threats to habitats and animals. Warming temperatures, rising seas, melting ice, and other impacts of climate change can threaten the habitat of many plants and animals. Some species are moving to new habitats, but others may struggle to adapt and become endangered or extinct.

Ocean acidification. Extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is absorbed by the oceans, making them more acidic. This can make it difficult for corals and organisms that form shells to survive, which can create problems in the food chain for other sea animals.

Wildfires. These are fires that burn large amounts of forests and brush. When they are not controlled, wildfires can destroy homes and be deadly. The number of large wildfires and the length of the season when they're most likely and threatening have been increasing in recent years. Find out how climate change will worsen wildfire conditions.

Drought. A drought is a period with little rain and not enough water. Global warming will increase the risk of drought in some places and make it harder to grow food. Learn about the links between climate change and drought.

How can you help?

Even though climate change sounds scary, we still have time to avoid some of the worst impacts. Everyone can play a part, including government, businesses, and you.

There are two main things we need to do:

The first is to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions responsible for climate change. By choosing cleaner ways to power our homes, offices, and cars, and being more efficient and less wasteful, we can produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions.

There are lot of things you can do to help, like turning off the lights when you leave a room to reduce the electricity you use, walking or biking where you can, or planting trees to absorb carbon dioxide. If you do any of these things, make sure you communicate with other people (like your family, teachers, and friends) about why you're doing them! Communication can inspire more people to change their habits and help save the climate.

Look for more ideas on what we can do together and individually.

The second is to prepare for life in a changing climate. Even if we could stop creating greenhouse gases tomorrow, the climate would still change some because of our past emissions. So we need to make sure our buildings, roads, businesses, and communities are ready for the climate changes that we can't avoid. This includes things like helping cities on the coast prepare for floods, preventing wildfires in our forests, and more.

Learn how communities and companies are preparing.

The power of YOUth

Around the world, young people are learning about climate change and taking action. In fact, young people are some of the most important voices in the climate movement because you can inspire powerful people to create a better future for you.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist or a politician to make a difference in the fight against climate change. Whatever your talents are, there's a role for you to play. Some young people, like Greta Thunberg, Vanessa Nakate, and others, are leading the Fridays for Future movement to tell their governments to create strong policies to fight climate change. Other students are inventing new technologies to cut emissions and reduce waste. And others are using their creativity to bring awareness to climate change by writing music and creating art.

You can also look for ways to get involved in your community - maybe you can help your school set up a composting program to keep food waste out of the landfill. Maybe your synagogue or mosque needs help switching to energy efficient lights. Maybe you can write a letter to your local government to encourage your community to prepare for extreme weather or wildfires. Everyone can do something to fight climate change.

Check out our Educator Resources page for activities you can do to learn more about how climate change works and how you can be a part of the solution.
C2ES thanks the Alcoa Foundation for its support, which allowed us to develop our Climate Classroom content. As a fully independent organization, C2ES is solely responsible for its positions, programs, and publications.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This page will help you understand the science behind climate change, the impacts of a changing climate, and how you can help slow climate change and prepare for it. We've also created a list of resources and activities for educators and students of all ages.

# data[].attributes.headline
What Is Climate Change? Everything You Need to Know About Global Warming

# data[].attributes.subject
What Is Climate Change? Everything You Need to Know About Global Warming

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Everything You Need to Know About Climate Change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Like what the “greenhouse effect” actually is.

# data[].attributes.headline
Climate Science, Explained in 10 Graphics

# data[].attributes.subject
Climate Science, Explained in 10 Graphics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Thousands of people are expected to attend the People's Climate Movement march in Washington, D.C. and sister cities around the world this coming weekend. They are marching because actions taken to date by governments and others are not commensurate with the scale of climate impacts - both those already borne and those projected in the years to come.

It's a good moment to reflect on the facts. What do we know about global climate change, and what impacts can we expect in the future? The following graphics speak volumes.

What is climate change?

Climate change is a long-term change in Earth's weather patterns or average climate, including temperature and precipitation. While the climate has changed in the past, we are now seeing it change at an unprecedented rate. As a result of the build-up of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere - due to our burning of fossil fuels, cutting down trees and other activities - global average temperature is now changing at a faster rate than at least over the past 1,000 years.

What's causing climate change?

When models only include natural drivers of climate change, such as natural variability and volcanic eruptions, they cannot reproduce the recent increase in temperature. Only when models include the increase in greenhouse gas emissions due to human activities can they replicate the observed changes.

How have global emissions changed?

Emissions have been climbing since the Industrial Revolution, but the rate of annual emissions increase during the first 10 years of this century was almost double the rate between 1970 and 2000.

Emissions from fossil fuels and industry have seen a staggering increase in recent years - 63 percent since 1990.

Who are the biggest emitters?

From 1850 to 2011, the five major emitters-the United States, European Union, China, Russian Federation and Japan- together contributed two-thirds of the world's CO2 emissions.

Now, China has emerged as the top emitter, and China, the EU and the United States are the world's top three emitters. Together they emit more than half of total global greenhouse gases. In contrast, the 100 smallest-emitting countries collectively add up to only 3.5 percent of global emissions. Almost three-quarters of global emissions come from only 10 countries.

How much should we limit global warming?

The Paris Agreement on climate change sets a target for countries to collectively limit global temperature rise to 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F), with a goal of sticking to 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F) in order to prevent some of the worst effects of climate change. The amount of carbon emissions we can emit while still having a likely chance of limiting warming to 2 degrees is known as the "carbon budget." As of 2011, the world had already blown through nearly two-thirds of the carbon budget and is on track to exceed it by 2033 if emissions continue unabated.

Where is the temperature headed?

In the absence of countries' recent emissions-reduction commitments, known as intended nationally determined contributions, or INDCs, we would see 4-5 degrees C of warming. Even if these INDCs are fully implemented, the average global temperature is still on track to increase 2.7-3.7 degrees C by 2100, according to a range of studies. That's far short of the global goal to limit warming to 1.5- 2 degrees C.

What have been some of the impacts of climate change to date?

The impacts of climate change are already occurring, and occurring everywhere. For example, climate change has already led to: more negative than positive impacts to crops, such as wheat and maize; coral bleaching and species range shifts; more frequent heat waves; coastal flooding; increased tree die-off in various regions; and a significant loss of ice mass in places like Greenland and Antarctica.

For example, as a result of ice melting on land, such as from glaciers and ice sheets, as well as thermal expansion of the ocean, we have seen sea level rise 3.4 millimeters per year from 1993-2015, which puts coastal communities at risk of flooding and infrastructure damage.

What impacts do we expect in the future?

The impacts we see in the future will be determined by our emissions pathway and resultant level of temperature increase. The warmer it gets, the greater the impacts - and the lower our ability to adapt.

Are there signs of progress?

Recently, we've seen signs of "decoupling." According to the IEA, energy-related carbon dioxide emissions stayed flat for three years in a row even as the global economy grew. This flattening of emissions was due to the growth of renewable power generation, fuel switching from coal to natural gas and energy efficiency gains, among other changes.

This decoupling can also be seen at the country level in 21 nations from 2000-2014. Whether these are indicative of long-term shifts remains to be seen. We will need to see a deep decline if we are to limit dangerous climate change, and even with existing emissions-reduction commitments, global emissions are not expected to decline until at least after 2030.

Are we investing in solutions?

Global investments in renewable energy have been growing in recent years to an all-time high of $285.9 billion in 2015, a 5 percent rise compared to the previous year. In 2015, renewable energy (excluding large hydro) made up the bulk (54.6 percent) of new installed generating capacity for the first time.

That being said, we need to shift away from fossil fuels much more quickly if we are to have a fighting chance of limiting warming to 1.5-2 degrees C.

Marching for Action

Let's hope that as people take to the streets, it will wake leaders up to the scale of the climate change challenge and the task ahead. Avoiding the most dangerous of climate change impacts -- which necessitates phasing out emissions in the second half of the century -- will require sustained action well beyond this weekend's activities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Climate Science, Explained in 10 Graphics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Thousands of people are expected to attend this weekend's People's Climate Movement march. It's a good moment to reflect on the facts-what we know about climate change today, and what impacts we can expect in the future.

# data[].attributes.headline
To Truly fight Climate Change, We Need to Set Our Sights Higher

# data[].attributes.subject
To Truly fight Climate Change, We Need to Set Our Sights Higher

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
To truly fight climate change, we need to set our sights higher | CNN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The leaders of the Republic of Fiji and Republic of the Marshall Islands issue a renewed call for commitment by the world's nations to efforts to combat climate change.

# data[].attributes.headline
Climate Change Explained In 5 Minutes Featuring Al Gore

# data[].attributes.subject
Climate Change Explained In 5 Minutes Featuring Al Gore

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Climate Change Explained In 5 Minutes Featuring Al Gore

# data[].attributes.headline
The world struck a major climate deal in Poland. So, what’s in it?

# data[].attributes.subject
The world struck a major climate deal in Poland. So, what’s in it?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By the time the final meeting of this year's global climate summit was gaveled into session in Katowice, Poland, it was past 9 p.m. on Saturday. Exhausted negotiators were more than 24 hours past their deadline, and workmen were already starting to disassemble the conference venue around them.

But Michał Kurtyka, the Polish official presiding over the meeting, told delegates it was worth it.

"You have worked on this package for three years," he said. "Every single step forward is a big achievement. And through this package, you have made a thousand little steps forward, together. You can feel proud."

Soon after, nearly 200 countries unanimously agreed to new rules governing international action on global warming - and kept alive an international effort to combat climate change that has often seemed on rocky ground.

The accord is a follow-up to the breakthrough 2015 Paris Agreement, in which countries committed to keeping global warming below 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels. The "rule book" adopted in Katowice sets out how countries should measure their greenhouse gas emissions, report on emissions cuts and hold each other accountable.

"The rule book puts meat on the bones of Paris, enabling it to operate," said Sue Biniaz, who was the state department's top lawyer on climate change for decades and helped draft the Paris Agreement. "It would have been hard to imagine this extensive a rule book a few short months ago."

That's in part because of the political backdrop. President Donald Trump has said he will pull the US out of the agreement as soon as he can, in 2020, and delegates worry that Brazil's new president could follow the US out the door. Meanwhile, key members of the European Union, including the UK, Germany and France are distracted by politics at home. And the US and China, who together drove the Paris Agreement, are in a standoff over trade.

Related: US a wild card as climate negotiators race to meet Friday deadline

"Who would have thought five years ago that you would have China, the US, Brazil and Europe all committing to a binding set of rules?" said Jennifer Morgan, the head of Greenpeace International.

But for Morgan and many others, the agreement in Katowice did not go far enough. Advocates pointed out that pledges made by countries so far won't cut greenhouse gas emissions enough to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement. Morgan said it was a major failure that the final agreement didn't include a strong commitment that countries would increase their ambitions as fast as the current science indicates is necessary to avoid the worst warming.

"A rule book alone is not going to get us there," Morgan said. "We have a climate emergency right now. And I expect leaders to take that seriously and go beyond their comfort zones to stand up for the most vulnerable in their own countries and around the world."

What's in it?

Under the Paris Agreement, countries must set a goal for cutting greenhouse gas emissions - and then every five years, they must report on what they've achieved, compare global progress to the overall goals of the Paris Agreement and make new pledges to reduce emissions even more.

The agreement was designed to ratchet up emissions cuts over time. But that process only works if countries can hold each other accountable, said Camilla Born, of the climate think tank E3G.

The Katowice package sets that framework, creating standards for reporting emissions. The agreement also includes transparency guidelines so that countries can verify each other's progress - guidelines that the US and China were credited with jointly negotiating.

It also solved one of the long-running points of contention in climate talks by ensuring that all countries - developed and developing countries alike - will eventually face the same reporting standards. China and developing nations had resisted a common standard for years, arguing that it was unfair to hold them to standards they might not have the capacity to meet.

"The fact that we have one set of rules is really important," Born said, adding that it lets countries essentially compare apples to apples.

The agreement also includes a process for rich countries to increase the amount of money they will pay to help poorer countries adapt to climate change. Developing countries say current commitments are still nowhere near enough, but Born said it's a start.

"They'll provide greater clarity and predictability on that finance," Born said. "What that means is developing countries can plan to deliver climate action with the certainty that money will come and help them do that."

What's not in it?

Many countries were infuriated when the US, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait blocked language "welcoming" a recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that concluded the world must limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius or face catastrophic impacts. Ultimately, the final agreement included weaker language, welcoming the "timely completion" of the report.

Speaking for a coalition of the world's least developed countries, Ethiopia's representative said the US and its allies were seeking to undermine science that indicates more ambitious action is needed.

"It is unfathomable that while women, men and children all over the world suffer at the hands of climate change, a small handful of parties refused to welcome the science that confirms the devastation we are already experiencing in our countries," he said.

The final agreement also postponed key decisions on how to set up markets for trading international carbon credits after Brazil demanded changes that other nations argued would create accounting loopholes.

"No rules are better than bad rules, and that's what we went with," said E3G's Born.

What's next?

The next big milestone will come in September 2019. That's when UN Secretary-General António Guterres plans to convene a meeting rallying countries to step up their targets under the Paris Agreement. Advocates hope countries will announce more ambitious pledges at the meeting.

In a statement read by UN climate chief Patricia Espinosa, Guterres told delegates, "Climate change is still running faster than us."

Having agreed to the rule book, Guterres wrote, countries must turn their attention to redoubling their efforts: "From now on, my five priorities will be: ambition, ambition, ambition, ambition, ambition."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The world struck a major climate deal in Poland. So, what's in it?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Negotiators created rules to help the world meet the goals of the Paris Agreement. But the UN climate chief still told the delegation, "Climate change is still running faster than us."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I first read about Bald Knob, Arkansas, in 2010, after thousands of poisoned blackbirds dropped dead from the sky in nearby Beebe. On first look, Bald Knob has an unsettling aesthetic: a sparsely populated town, a bygone agricultural zone with toppled silos, old trailers, taxidermy businesses, boarded-up shops and a Waffle House. It's a narrative cliche to present a rural place below the Mason-Dixon line this way, yet the scenery fits the bill.

I've lived in places like these, where a casual observer sees a weathered town and locals just see home. I proceed with caution anyway. I'm also unsettled by news reports of armed white nationalists marching at the capitol building in nearby Little Rock. I know this is how a lot of people experience the rural south - sorting through stereotypes and history as they go, wondering how much of the old south is present in the new.

The 12,900-acre Bald Knob Refuge, which sits about 60 miles north-east of Little Rock, is a blend of both the old and new south. It's a former rice farm that has grown rice and soybeans in order to provide much-needed habitat and fuel for migratory waterfowl like pintail ducks and snow geese since 1993.

A half-mile into the refuge, the truck ahead of me spooks an unfathomable cloud of waterfowl. Hundreds of thousandsof ducks rise from the wetlands, calling and circling. It's breathtaking to witness. Later, a huge flock of lesser snow geese passes above me. My heart pounds; it's moving to hear so many wingbeats overhead, to see the formations of a thousand white birds in the blue sky.

Another truck comes by. The man rolls down his truck window and asks, "You OK?"

"Fine," I tell him, climbing down from the roof of my rental car, and showing him my camera. "Watching birds. You?" I ask even though I can see his rifle in the back.

"Out scouting hunting spots," he says, flashing a charming smile. "You can get a better view if you take the road 'round that way." He points me toward a new route, then takes off.

The relationship between hunters and conservation has always surprised me. Yet it's often imperative to the success of major initiatives in the south, thanks to the influence of the not-for-profit organization Ducks Unlimited, which has a worldwide membership of 700,000 and has helped conserve over 13m acres of habitat. There are more than 34 million sportsmen and women in the United States.

Sportsmen and traditional environmentalists aren't always mutually exclusive, or easy co-conspirators. But, there is a critical need for information to flow between those on the ground and those in policy. In order to address the urgent realities of climate change, traditional environmentalists must continue to find ways to communicate and partner with non-traditional audiences: hunters, big agriculture, fishermen, corporations and loggers.

I wanted to talk to people in the south who already work on these frontlines, and are able to build bridges between seemingly disparate audiences.

Charlie Phillips, clammer and entrepreneur, is one of those men who's lived several lives, as a fishmonger, horse trader and shrimper.

"I'm one of those rare Republicans that believe that if you don't take care of your environment, your environment can't take care of you," he says. Phillips, the owner of Sapelo Sea Farms in Georgia, makes his living growing clams, so water quality is crucial to him, which is why he serves on boards and tries to help scientists and fishermen find common ground.

He's frank about climate change and how it's affecting his industry. He talks about the onset of "king tides", and fish stock moving north as waters warm. He was working on the back of a shrimp boat in 1968 when Hurricane Camille hit. "I saw the big ships washed up on shore," he tells me. "I've seen what big hurricanes can do. They're worse now. Things aren't what they used to be."

"Listen," he says. "Fishermen just want to be able to catch what they want to catch and be left alone."

He says working fishermen end up not trusting scientists because the scientific reports don't match up with what they witness firsthand on the water every day. Reports from scientists, he says, "feel three or four years behind what the fishermen see". He thinks it's crucial for fishermen and scientists to interact and learn more from each other. "We've gotten really good at throwing rocks at each other," he tells me. "But we need to give up on throwing rocks. It's not conducive to fixing problems."

Phillips is focused on what he cares most about: water. He's evangelical about it. "It affects everything," he says. "Wildlife, business, eco-tourism." He bought his father's restaurant, the Fish Dock, and uses the menus to educate customers about local water testing results. "I took poetic license," he tells me, laughing. "I don't use the word 'fecal', just 'water quality'."

The following day I talk with Dr Zakiya Leggett, a forester and professor at North Carolina State University whose research focuses on carbon sequestration and soil ecology. She talks about her empathy for freshmen, many of whom tell her at the beginning of her class through a pre-course survey that they don't believe in climate change. They tell her she shouldn't try to change their minds.

"We have to remember," she says, her tone compassionate, "especially if these students are coming fresh from home, that they haven't had time to form their own opinions." She adds, "Maybe I can't impress my 'opinions,' but I will give them the facts, like graphs of temperatures rising."

Leggett estimates that half of her students are coming from a rural environment. Born in Memphis, she recalls the difficult time she had adjusting when she went from the Tuskegee University to Duke University. She remembers struggling with elitism herself.

Now she mentors students through this vulnerable transition, and is able to forge connections with first-generation college students and conservative students, as well as students of color - all groups who might otherwise struggle to join conversations about the scientific realities of climate change.

Dr Todd Merendino, the manager of conservation programs in the Ducks Unlimited Texas field office, negotiates strategic partnerships with wildlife state agencies, agricultural producers, hunters, biologists, private landowners, petrochemical companies and the oil industry. A hunter and fisherman, he has a practical, outcomes-focused approach to his work.

"Our mission is waterfowl and habitats," he says. "I look for symbiotic relationships. Common ground. Common goals."

He speaks with corporations about responsible growth and convinces them that "wetlands and marshes are your insurance policy against flooding". He ticks off the nature of their conversations: flood storage capacity, coastal restoration projects, storm surge abatement, initiatives that keep the marsh healthy.

Ducks Unlimited recently completed a beneficial dredge use project near Port Arthur, Texas, which will move 2m cubic yards of dredge material to restore approximately 1,300 acres of the Salt Bayou Marsh watershed, an important migratory bird flyway recently degraded by hurricane damage. It's generally more expensive to utilize dredge material in this manner, he says, but smarter to move it to a place where it serves a purpose.

Merendino's work has large-scale outcomes, and with that objective in mind he welcomes chances to partner with corporations and big agriculture. "If the rice industry went away," he points out, "the amount of waterfowl habitat loss would be insurmountable, impossible to overcome."

After seeing the beauty and importance of the Bald Knob Refuge, the scale, necessity and complexity of this work impresses me.

It's easy to be an armchair activist in 2019, or make condescending online comments about the state of climate change activism in the south. But it's much more difficult to swim against the ideological current, or to operate between two exasperating worlds in a hands-on way, in search of real impact.

There is certainly more opportunity for cooperation and partnership, and places where more traditional environmentalists like me could find common ground with a hunter in Arkansas or a fisherman in Georgia, so that we could, quite frankly, save what we both love.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Not all environmentalists eat tofu: the hunters fighting climate change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Progressives should think twice about who their allies are. Conservatives, especially the hunters among them, can be environmentalists too

# data[].attributes.headline
"CHASING ICE" captures largest glacier calving ever filmed

# data[].attributes.subject
"CHASING ICE" captures largest glacier calving ever filmed

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
"CHASING ICE" captures largest glacier calving ever filmed - OFFICIAL VIDEO

# data[].attributes.headline
What would Jesus do? Talking with evangelicals about climate change

# data[].attributes.subject
What would Jesus do? Talking with evangelicals about climate change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What would Jesus do? Talking with evangelicals about climate change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As part of our new column about the American south and climate change, we go towards Christians who have been resistant to ideas of environmental stewardship - perhaps it’s a message they need to hear in their own terms

# data[].attributes.headline
Electricity Map: Mapping the climate impact of electricity

# data[].attributes.subject
Electricity Map: Mapping the climate impact of electricity

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Live 24/7 CO₂ emissions of electricity consumption

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Electricity Maps is a live 24/7 visualization of where your electricity comes from and how much CO2 was emitted to produce it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Hannah Ritchie and Veronika Samborska and Max Roser

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How much plastic ends up in the ocean? Where does it come from?

# data[].attributes.headline
How humans are turning the world into plastic?

# data[].attributes.subject
How humans are turning the world into plastic?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Modern life would be impossible without plastic - but we have long since lost control over our invention. Why has plastic turned into a problem and what do we know about its dangers? This video is a collaboration with UN Environment and their Clean Seas campaign, If you want to take action to turn the tide on plastics, go to cleanseas and make your pledge. We also partnered with askscience on reddit - on you can talk to experts and ask questions about about plastic pollution today!

Sources used in the video

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Plastic pollution: how humans are turning the world into plastic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Modern life would be impossible without plastic - but we have long since lost control over our invention. Why has plastic turned into a problem and what do we know about its dangers?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Be Smart | How Much Plastic is in the Ocean? | Season 5 | Episode 10 | PBS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ocean plastic pollution is a massive environmental problem.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Editor's Note (11/27/2017): This post was updated with new statistics on plastic waste generation and recycling, as well as new information on methods of reuse.
What would modern life be like without plastic? According to The World Economic Forum, plastic production has exploded over the last half-century, growing from 16.5 million tons in 1964 to 343 million tons in 2014; it is projected to double by 2036. Where does all of it go when we're done with it?

In 2014, Americans discarded about 33.6 million tons of plastic, but only 9.5 percent of it was recycled and 15 percent was combusted to create electricity or heat.

Most of the rest ends up in landfills where it may take up to 500 years to decompose, and potentially leak pollutants into the soil and water. It's estimated that there are already 165 million tons of plastic debris floating around in the oceans threatening the health and safety of marine life. And an average of 8.8 million more tons enter the oceans each year, including microplastics, tiny particles less than five millimeters long from cosmetics, fabrics or the breakdown of larger pieces, which may be ingested by marine wildlife.

Relatively little of our plastic waste is recycled because there are various types of plastic with different chemical compositions, and recycled plastics can be contaminated by the mixing of types. Plastic waste is also contaminated by materials such as paper and ink. Separating plastics from other recyclables, and different types of plastic from each other, is labor-intensive and so far there has been no easy solution.

Although the Society of Plastic Industries developed seven codes to distinguish types of plastic for recycling, in reality, only two-polyethylene terephthalate (PET, used for synthetic fibers and water bottles) and high density polyethylene (HDPE, used for jugs, bottle caps, water pipes)-are routinely recycled. But in more and more cities like New York and Chicago, low-density polyethylene (LDPE) plastic bags are now being recycled too. And increasingly, the recycling industry's use of near‐infrared spectroscopy, which can identify the chemical composition of plastics, is improving the efficiency and speed of recycling.

Plastics that can be recycled are first sorted, shredded and rid of impurities like paper. The shreds are then melted and formed into pellets, which can be made into other products.

MoistureShield in Arkansas, and Virginia-based Trex recycle polyethylene into outdoor decking material, fencing, and doors and windows. Coca Cola is increasing the amount of recycled plastic in its bottles to 50 percent.

Plastic is made from petroleum or natural gas in a chemical process that combines smaller molecules into a large chainlike molecule, often with other substances added to give it particular qualities. (Some, like phthalates and bisphenol A, can have harmful health effects.) Plastic production is estimated to use four percent of global oil production-both as the raw material and for energy in the manufacturing process. Because these polymers embody energy from fossil fuels (and actually have a higher energy value than coal and wood), leaving so much of it in landfills is not only an environmental hazard, it is a huge waste of a valuable resource that could be used to produce electricity, heat, or fuel.

The Plastics Division of the American Chemical Council asked the Earth Institute's Earth Engineering Center to explore ways of recovering the energy inherent in non-recycled plastics. The 2011 report, which was updated in 2014, determined that the amount of energy contained in the millions of tons of plastic in U.S. landfills is equivalent to 48 million tons of coal, 180 million barrels of oil, or one trillion cubic feet of natural gas. If all this plastic were converted into liquid fuel, it could produce 5.7 billion gallons of gasoline, enough to power 8.9 million cars per year. And the fact is, there are now technologies that can put all this waste to good use.

The report examined three ways of utilizing non-recycled plastic for energy production: converting it directly into liquid fuel, using separated plastics as fuel in special types of power plants, and increasing the amount of garbage burned in waste-to-energy facilities.

Plastics can be converted into crude oil or other types of products through pyrolysis, a high heat process that does not use oxygen. Agilyx, an Oregon-based company, has developed a system that heats polystyrene from foam cups, packaging materials, and Styrofoam to create a styrene monomer, a building block of the plastic industry. The final liquid product can be sold to other refiners to produce oil or to make more polystyrene.

Plastic2Oil in Niagara Falls, NY, uses unwashed, unsorted waste plastic to produce ultra-low sulfur fuels that do not require further refining. The company maintains that its process is "highly green, clean and scalable."

A number of other companies in the U.S., Africa, Asia and Europe are investing in technology that produces liquid fuel from plastic wastes.

According to the updated Earth Engineering Center report, power plants specially designed to use non-recycled plastics as fuel could theoretically produce 61.9 million MWh of electricity, enough to power 5.7 million homes.

Burning more garbage inwaste-to-energy facilities would recover the energy inherent in plastics and reduce greenhouse gas emissions since landfills emit methane (a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide) as garbage decomposes. Unlike incinerators of the past, modern waste-to-energy facilities produce electricity and heat in boilers designed for complete combustion. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has said they produce electricity "with less environmental impact than almost any other source of electricity."

If the amount of garbage sitting in U.S. landfills in 2011 was burned in waste-to-energy facilities, it could theoretically yield enough electricity to power 13.8 million households and reduce coal use by 100 million tons a year. In 2015, 71 waste-to-energy facilities and four other power plants in the United States burned 29 million tons of garbage, generating nearly 14 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity.

A 2009 United Nations Environmental Programme report on converting plastic waste into a resource described the production of gaseous fuels, using high heat to decompose plastic waste, and solid fuel derived from a mixture of waste plastic, paper, and wood. The materials are first shredded, sorted then made into pellets. A number of companies in Japan are producing both solid and gaseous fuels. The Showa Denko company, headquartered in Tokyo, uses heat gasification to recycle plastic waste into ammonia, used to manufacture many products, and CO2 for carbonization.

Liter of Light, a grassroots movement with partnerships around the world, has found another way to recycle plastic bottles. It helps energy-poor communities convert discarded soda bottles into solar bottle bulbs to illuminate homes and streets. The organization has installed over 350,000 bottle lights in more than 15 countries.

The best solutions for our plastic problem are still to reduce our use of them, and to reuse and recycle whenever possible. More policies that ban plastic bag use, require bottle deposits and expand recycling would help. But millions of tons of plastic waste still sit in landfills around the country; technologies that are able to tap this waste as a resource can offer multiple benefits, helping to clean up the environment, lessen our dependence on foreign oil, decrease our use of non-renewable virgin resources, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and generate energy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Americans discard about 33.6 million tons of plastic each year, but only 9.5 percent of it is recycled and 15 percent is combusted in waste-to-energy facilities. What happens to the rest of it?

# data[].attributes.headline
What set backs are there in pollution cleanup?

# data[].attributes.subject
What set backs are there in pollution cleanup?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The path to innovation is not always a smooth, straight line. In some cases, it's U-shaped.

In September, a 2,000-foot-long floating barrier, shaped like a U, was dispatched to the Great Pacific garbage patch between Hawaii and California, where roughly 1.8 trillion pieces of plastic have formed a floating field of debris roughly twice the size of Texas. Made of connected plastic pipes, the barrier was meant to catch and clean-up the plastic.

Invented by Boyan Slat when he was just 17, the barrier has so far done some of what it was designed to accomplish. It travels with wind and wave propulsion, like a U-shaped Pac-Man hungry for plastic. It orients itself in the wind and it catches and concentrates plastic, sort of.

But as Slat, now 24, recently discovered with the beta tester for his design, plastic occasionally drifts out of its U-shaped funnel. The other issue with the beta tester, called System 001, is that last week, a 60-feet-long end section broke off.

The first issue, Slat said, was likely due to the device's speed. In a September interview with NPR, he said the device averages about four inches per second, which his team has now concluded is too slow. The break in the barrier was due to an issue with the material used to build it.

"In principle, I think we are relatively close to getting it working," Slat said in an interview Saturday with NPR's Michel Martin. "It's just that sometimes the plastic is also escaping again. Likely what we have to do is we have to speed up the system so that it constantly moves faster than the plastic."

For the material failure, Slat said his team will probably try to locally reinforce the system to combat the problem of material fatigue.

"If you have a paper clip and you move that back and forward many times, essentially the material gets weaker," he said. "That's likely what has happened with material of the cleanup system."

Slat and the team at his nonprofit, The Ocean Cleanup, are now bringing the system back to Hawaii for repairs and upgrades. Slat told NPR in 2016 that his structure is 10 times further away from land than the world's most remote oil rig, subject to battering waves and storms.

When the material failure occurred, it wasn't due to the result of a major Pacific storm. It was just normal wear and tear, Slat said.

"We've had conditions twice as worse as we had last weekend, but the system already sort of moved back and forth about 1.5 million times since it's been out there," he said.

With an estimated cost of $24.6 million reported by Forbes, and a challenging work environment, the project is high-risk and Slat hopes, high-reward.

But experts on plastic pollution have expressed concerns about the project's effectiveness.

George Leonard, chief scientist at Ocean Conservancy, told NPR in September that only 3 to 5 percent of the total amount of ocean plastic actually winds up in systems of circulating currents. He estimates that about 8 million metric tons of plastic go into the ocean each year - roughly the equivalent of one dump truck full of plastic every minute.

Critics say efforts should be aimed at preventing plastics from going into the ocean in the first place, and that Slat's barrier project could divert resources away from that goal. Others have expressed concern about the barrier's impact on marine wildlife.

Slat said that marine wildlife is be able to safely pass underneath a 10-foot deep screen under the pipe meant to catch debris. However, Wired reported that the pipes could attract and lead animals straight into plastic-polluted waters, and may also shed nano-sized particles of plastic into the water when hit with the sun's rays.

The concern is that ultraviolet light from the sun can potentially disintegrate the plastic, but The Ocean Cleanup responded by telling Wired that the high-density polyethylene plastic used in their tubes can reflect UV radiation.

Slat's confidence in his design hasn't wavered, and said he was unfazed by the current setbacks.

"Considering the things we have been able to prove in the past few months and considering the problems that we have faced, they seem quite solvable," he said. "I'm confident that the team will be able to design appropriate solutions for this and that we'll have the system back in the patch in a few months from now."

His team hopes to make the system fully operational sometime this year. If the project succeeds, Slat's vision is to deploy a fleet of 60 more devices, projected to remove half of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch's plastic within five years.

In this vision, one he has held since his teens, support vessels would act like ocean garbage trucks; ships would carry the plastics back to land, where they would be processed, recycled, and reused - not dumped back into the ocean.
The audio for this story was produced by Dana Cronin and edited by Natalie Winston.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
An Engineering Wunderkind's Ocean Plastics Cleanup Device Hits A Setback

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Four months into its testing phase, the Ocean Cleanup's plastic-catching device isn't catching as much plastic as intended.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Plastic Oceans
There are increasing high levels of man-made pollution in many of the world's seas and little actually disappears. By 2050 there will be more plastic than fish in the world's oceans.
We live on a blue planet; the world's oceans cover three quarters of the Earth. They contain 97% of the Earth's water and are currently absorbing around a third of the CO2 being produced by our activities and so helping in part by acting a buffer for some of the impacts of climate change. (30 to 40% of the carbon dioxide from human activity released into the atmosphere dissolves into oceans, resulting in the creation of carbonic acid.) Ocean acidification is therefore a rising concern. The average pH balance is dropping and as a result the growth of calcifying organisms such as corals and shellfish is being reduced. Acidification alone, though, is not the only pollution problem faced by the world's seas, and others are escalating at an even faster rate. The impacts and implications are huge and growing.

Around 80% of marine pollution comes from land-based activities. Waste runs or is dumped into drains and rivers and hence the seas. Oil, fertilisers, sewage, plastics and toxic chemicals are all part of the mix. Oil spills are less frequent but in many countries without an established recycling system, used oil is thrown down the drain or poured directly into rivers. Nutrients in fertiliser runoff from farms and lawns produce algae, depleting dissolved oxygen and suffocating marine life, causing dead zones in places such as the Gulf of Mexico and the Baltic. In many regions, untreated sewage still flows into the seas - 80% of urban sewage discharged into the Mediterranean is untreated. A recent addition to the challenge is the role of desalination plants, cropping up in areas of water stress from the Middle East to Australia and California. As a core by-product of their water purification process, they add salt into the seas, so increasing salinity and hence acute toxicity.

While all of the pollutants are having severe negative impact, perhaps the most visible - hence one that will drive the biggest change in the next decade - is plastic. Around 275 million tons of plastic waste is generated each year around the world; between 4.8 million and 12.7 million tons is either washed or dumped deliberately into the sea. The World Bank expects the planet's municipal solid waste to double within 15 years, much of this in the form of single-use plastic items. Bottles, bags, balloons, packaging, shoes - all take decades to break down. This waste is ingested by pretty much every marine animal including fish, dolphins, seals and turtles. So far, plastic has been found to be blocking the digestive tracts of at least 267 different species.

Although this is a global problem, the epicentre of plastic pollution is clear. Today 60% of the plastic waste in the ocean comes from just 5 countries - China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam. The media already talks about the Great Pacific Garbage patch. By 2025, plastic consumption in Asia will increase by 80%, surpassing 200 million tons; some are calling for specific interventions in these 5 countries. Regionally, the EU is aiming to halve plastic bag use by 2018 but this is not an international standard. Industry experts expect that by 2050 we will be producing three times as much plastic as we do today; on a volume basis, the WEF sees that by 2050 there will be more plastic than fish in the world's oceans.

Plastic pollution is however not alone as an increasing danger to the world's seas. One politically sensitive issue now is associated with dredging and land reclamation. Whether in the South China seas, where China is creating islands built on coral reefs, or in Indonesia, where sand mining has been providing Singapore with the resource to add 130 square kilometres of artificial 'reclaimed' land in the past 40 years, mining has evidently moved from land to sea.

With all the consequences of our actions now becoming apparent, the question is what will change going forward? Has ocean pollution become such a significant issue that there will be tangible change within the next decade? Some think so. Foremost, and largely because of plastic waste, the visibility of the impact is clear in the media and policy bodies. The UN has included as its 14 th Sustainable Development Goal the ambition to "conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources." A core 2025 objective is to prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds, especially land-based activities, including marine debris and nutrient pollution.

Unfortunately, much of the world's oceans are not part of any one country's territorial waters. More than 40 per cent of the planet's surface (80 million square miles - seven times the area of the whole African continent) is ocean that belongs to everyone and no one - and hence is largely unregulated. While fishing, environmental, tourist and defence policies all unite to seek to protect and manage the sea close to a nation's shoreline, beyond a notional 12 to 200-mile limits it is largely a free-for-all. This is where the fish, dolphins and plankton are taking the hit. No one is setting the global rules and few are agreeing on a better way.

When will the balance tip? When will the negative impacts on our environment, the ecology and, most significantly from a financial perspective, a good share of our food resources start to change attitudes? Some are putting their faith in China to set new standards, but these may only apply locally. At a global level some see that a rethinking of the value of the 'blue-economy' is required. The Global Ocean Commission, for one, has called for adoption of an ambitious, long-term goal of zero plastic waste into the marine environment. This will require partnerships and behaviour changes that simply do not exist today, and the end of Europe and the US shipping its waste to Asia. If we start to see waste as a resource in the next decade, will perceptions - and maybe behaviours - shift?

Whether seeking to protect food supplies or looking to fulfil UN development goals, bringing order to the high seas is seen as critical for the future. We have already overshot the planetary limits on biodiversity and nitrogen; as the consequences become more apparent, can we avoid the same for ocean pollution?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There are increasing high levels of man-made pollution in many of the world's seas and little actually disappears. By 2050 there will be more plastic than fish in the world's oceans. We live on a blue planet; the world's oceans cover three quarters of the Earth.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The problem of plastics

Plastic is a polymeric material-that is, a material whose molecules are very large, often resembling long chains made up of a seemingly endless series of interconnected links. Natural polymers such as rubber and silk exist in abundance, but nature's "plastics" have not been implicated in environmental pollution, because they do not persist in the environment. Today, however, the average consumer comes into daily contact with all kinds of plastic materials that have been developed specifically to defeat natural decay processes-materials derived mainly from petroleum that can be molded, cast, spun, or applied as a coating. Since synthetic plastics are largely nonbiodegradable, they tend to persist in natural environments. Moreover, many lightweight single-use plastic products and packaging materials, which account for approximately 50 percent of all plastics produced, are not deposited in containers for subsequent removal to landfills, recycling centres, or incinerators. Instead, they are improperly disposed of at or near the location where they end their usefulness to the consumer. Dropped on the ground, thrown out of a car window, heaped onto an already full trash bin, or inadvertently carried off by a gust of wind, they immediately begin to pollute the environment. Indeed, landscapes littered by plastic packaging have become common in many parts of the world. (Illegal dumping of plastic and overflowing of containment structures also play a role.) Studies from around the world have not shown any particular country or demographic group to be most responsible, though population centres generate the most litter. The causes and effects of plastic pollution are truly worldwide.

According to the trade association PlasticsEurope, worldwide plastic production grew from some 1.5 million metric tons (about 1.7 million short tons) per year in 1950 to an estimated 275 million metric tons (about 303 million short tons) by 2010 and 359 million metric tons (nearly 396 million short tons) by 2018; between 4.8 million and 12.7 million metric tons (5.3 million and 14 million short tons) are discarded into the oceans annually by countries with ocean coastlines.

Compared with materials in common use in the first half of the 20th century, such as glass, paper, iron, and aluminum, plastics have a low recovery rate. That is, they are relatively inefficient to reuse as recycled scrap in the manufacturing process, because of significant processing difficulties such as a low melting point, which prevents contaminants from being driven off during heating and reprocessing. Most recycled plastics are subsidized below the cost of raw materials by various deposit schemes, or their recycling is simply mandated by government regulations. Recycling rates vary dramatically from country to country, and only northern European countries obtain rates greater than 50 percent. In any case, recycling does not really address plastic pollution, since recycled plastic is "properly" disposed of, whereas plastic pollution comes from improper disposal.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Plastic pollution | Definition, Sources, Effects, Solutions, & Facts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Plastic pollution, harmful accumulation of synthetic plastic products in the environment. Plastics are persistent large-scale pollutants, and plastic debris (such as bottles, straws, containers, and plastic wrap) and particulates have been found in many environmental niches, from Mount Everest to the bottom of the sea.

# data[].attributes.headline
How does ocean pollution affects humans?

# data[].attributes.subject
How does ocean pollution affects humans?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Ocean Pollution Affects Humans - Planet Aid, Inc.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Andrew Dilevics The environment pays a heavy price for our "fast fashion" habits. The textile industry regularly contaminates waterways with dyes and waste, and washing our synthetic clothing releases plastic microfibers into the ocean. Growing enough cotton to produce just one t-shirt requires up to 700 gallon of water!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
These 5 Marine Animals Are Dying Because of Our Plastic Trash… Here’s How We Can Help

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Plastic pollution affects at least 700 marine species and some estimates suggest that at least 100 million marine mammals are killed each year by it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Plastic pollution is one of the greatest threats to ocean health worldwide. But, there are many solutions to plastic pollution that you can participate in today. This article covers some of the basic facts about ocean plastic pollution and provides several specific plastic pollution solutions that everyone can take part in.

The Ocean Plastic Pollution Problem

With skyrocketing plastic production, low levels of recycling, and poor waste management, between 4 and 12 million metric tons of plastic enter the ocean each year-enough to cover every foot of coastline on the planet! And that amount is projected to triple in the next 20 years. Let that sink in for a moment.

In the ocean, plastic pollution impacts sea turtles, whales, seabirds, fish, coral reefs, and countless other marine species and habitats. In fact, scientists estimate that more than half of the world's sea turtles and nearly every seabird on Earth have eaten plastic in their lifetimes. Plastic pollution also mars otherwise beautiful beaches, coastlines, and snorkel and dive sites worldwide, even in remote areas such as Midway Atoll.

One of the reasons that plastic pollution is such a problem is that it doesn't go away: "plastics are forever." Instead, plastic debris simply breaks down into ever-smaller particles, known as microplastics, whose environmental impacts are still being determined.

Plastic Pollution Solutions: 7 Things You Can Do Today

Everyone can do something to help solve the plastic pollution problem, and millions of people worldwide are already taking action to reduce their plastic use. Here are seven ways you can make a difference, starting today.

1. Reduce Your Use of Single-Use Plastics

Wherever you live, the easiest and most direct way that you can get started is by reducing your own use of single-use plastics. Single-use plastics include plastic bags, water bottles, straws, cups, utensils, dry cleaning bags, take-out containers, and any other plastic items that are used once and then discarded.

The best way to do this is by a) refusing any single-use plastics that you do not need (e.g. straws, plastic bags, takeout utensils, takeout containers), and b) purchasing, and carrying with you, reusable versions of those products, including reusable grocery bags, produce bags, bottles, utensils, coffee cups, and dry cleaning garment bags. And when you refuse single-use plastic items, help businesses by letting them know that you would like them to offer alternatives.

2. Support Legislation to Curb Plastic Production and Waste

As important as it is to change our individual behaviors, such changes alone are insufficient to stop ocean plastic pollution. We also need legislation that reduces plastic production, improves waste management, and makes plastic producers responsible for the waste they generate. There are a variety of ways that you can support local, national, and international legislation that provide critical solutions to reduce plastic pollution. One such effort in the United States is the 2021 Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act, a comprehensive federal bill that aims to address the plastic pollution crisis, and there are a number of state level initiatives to introduce extended producer responsibility (EPR) legislation that makes plastic producers and distributors responsible for their products and packaging at the end of life.

At the international level, hundreds of organizations and businesses successfully worked together with United Nations member states to enact a global plastics treaty, signed by 175 member states, that will set global rules and regulations to reduce plastic pollution. And legislation that limits, taxes, or bans unnecessary single use plastic items, such as plastic bags, takeout containers, and bottles, has been successfully enacted in many places globally, and you can support the adoption of such policies in your community too. Here is a comprehensive resource and toolkit on legislative approaches to limiting plastic bags, foodware, microplastics, and more.

3. Recycle Properly

This should go without saying, but when you use single-use (and other) plastics that can be recycled, always be sure to recycle them. At present, just 9% of plastic is recycled worldwide. Recycling helps keep plastics out of the ocean and reduces the amount of "new" plastic in circulation. If you need help finding a place to recycle plastic waste near you, check Earth911's recycling directory. It's also important to check with your local recycling center about the types of plastic they accept.

4. Participate In (or Organize) a Beach or River Cleanup

Help remove plastics from the ocean and prevent them from getting there in the first place by participating in, or organizing a cleanup of your local beach or waterway. This is one of the most direct and rewarding ways to fight ocean plastic pollution. You can simply go to the beach or waterway and collect plastic waste on your own or with friends or family, or you can join a local organization's cleanup or an international event like our Global Ocean Cleanup or the International Coastal Cleanup.

Take Our 7-Day Fight Plastic Waste Challenge

Join the global movement to fight plastic waste with our 7-day challenge. With just a few minutes a day, you'll be on your way to reducing ocean plastic pollution from home.
Take the Challenge

5. Avoid Products Containing Microbeads

Tiny plastic particles, called " microbeads," have become a growing source of ocean plastic pollution in recent years. Microbeads are found in some face scrubs, toothpastes, and bodywashes, and they readily enter our oceans and waterways through our sewer systems, and affect hundreds of marine species. Avoid products containing plastic microbeads by looking for "polythelene" and "polypropylene" on the ingredient labels of your cosmetic products (find a list of products containing microbeads here).

6. Spread the Word

Stay informed on issues related to plastic pollution and help make others aware of the problem. Tell your friends and family about how they can be part of the solution, or host a viewing party for one of the many plastic pollution focused documentaries, like A Plastic Ocean, Garbage Island: An Ocean Full of Plastic, Bag It, Addicted to Plastic, Plasticized, or Garbage Island.

7. Support Organizations Addressing Plastic Pollution

There are many non-profit organizations working to reduce and eliminate ocean plastic pollution in a variety of different ways, including Oceanic Society, Plastic Pollution Coalition, 5 Gyres, Algalita, Plastic Soup Foundation, and others. These organizations rely on donations from people like you to continue their important work. Even small donations can make a big difference!

These seven ideas only scratch the surface for ways you can help address the growing problem of plastic pollution in the oceans. The important thing is that we all do something, no matter how small. For more ideas and resources, sign up to join our Blue Habits community of people worldwide committed to joyful daily actions that improve ocean health.

Reduce Plastic Pollution From Home with Our 7-Day Challenge

Join the global movement to fight plastic waste by participating in our 7-day challenge.
Take the Challenge

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
7 Ways to Reduce Ocean Plastic Pollution Today

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Plastic pollution is one of the greatest threats to ocean health worldwide. But, there are many solutions to plastic pollution that you can participate in

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A huge vortex of plastic waste and other debris twice the size of Texas is floating between California and Hawaii. It's called the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, and it's the biggest of five of these ocean garbage patches drifting in the world's seas. In 2013, an 18-year-old from the Netherlands named Boyan Slat decided to take action. He founded the Ocean Cleanup project and began designing a 2,000-foot-long floating boom (which looks like a giant pool noodle) to trap all that trash. Five years later, it has finally been put to the test in the San Francisco Bay. If successful, the group plans to tow it another 1,000 miles to the Great Pacific Garbage Patch this month. The floating barrier has a 10-foot-long underwater screen to corral debris, while allowing marine life to swim underneath. Boats then collect the trash and bring it to shore. Each year, more than 8 million tons of plastic enter the seas, putting wildlife at risk. "For 60 years, mankind has been putting plastic into the oceans," says Slat. "We're taking it back out again."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Attempting to remove the massive amount of plastic littering our seas

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Students in Taiwan made ice pops from polluted local waters to raise awareness of environmental problems.

# data[].attributes.headline
We Made Plastic. We Depend on It. Now We’re Drowning

# data[].attributes.subject
We Made Plastic. We Depend on It. Now We’re Drowning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This story is part of Planet or Plastic?-our multiyear effort to raise awareness about the global plastic waste crisis. Learn what you can do to reduce your own single-use plastics, and take your pledge.

Read this story and more in the June 2018 issue of National Geographic magazine.

If plastic had been invented when the Pilgrims sailed from Plymouth, England, to North America-and the Mayflower had been stocked with bottled water and plastic-wrapped snacks-their plastic trash would likely still be around, four centuries later.

If the Pilgrims had been like many people today and simply tossed their empty bottles and wrappers over the side, Atlantic waves and sunlight would have worn all that plastic into tiny bits. And those bits might still be floating around the world's oceans today, sponging up toxins to add to the ones already in them, waiting to be eaten by some hapless fish or oyster, and ultimately perhaps by one of us.

We should give thanks that the Pilgrims didn't have plastic, I thought recently as I rode a train to Plymouth along England's south coast. I was on my way to see a man who would help me make sense of the whole mess we've made with plastic, especially in the ocean.

Because plastic wasn't invented until the late 19th century, and production really only took off around 1950, we have a mere 9.2 billion tons of the stuff to deal with. Of that, more than 6.9 billion tons have become waste. And of that waste, a staggering 6.3 billion tons never made it to a recycling bin-a figure that stunned the scientists who crunched the numbers in 2017.

No one knows how much unrecycled plastic waste ends up in the ocean, Earth's last sink. In 2015, Jenna Jambeck, a University of Georgia engineering professor, caught everyone's attention with a rough estimate: between 5.3 million and 14 million tons each year just from coastal regions. Most of it isn't thrown off ships, she and her colleagues say, but is dumped carelessly on land or in rivers, mostly in Asia. It's then blown or washed into the sea. Imagine five plastic grocery bags stuffed with plastic trash, Jambeck says, sitting on every foot of coastline around the world-that would correspond to about 8.8 million tons, her middle-of-the-road estimate of what the ocean gets from us annually. It's unclear how long it will take for that plastic to completely biodegrade into its constituent molecules. Estimates range from 450 years to never.

Meanwhile, ocean plastic is estimated to kill millions of marine animals every year. Nearly 700 species, including endangered ones, are known to have been affected by it. Some are harmed visibly-strangled by abandoned fishing nets or discarded six-pack rings. Many more are probably harmed invisibly. Marine species of all sizes, from zooplankton to whales, now eat microplastics, the bits smaller than one-fifth of an inch across. On Hawaii's Big Island, on a beach that seemingly should have been pristine-no paved road leads to it-I walked ankle-deep through microplastics. They crunched like Rice Krispies under my feet. After that, I could understand why some people see ocean plastic as a looming catastrophe, worth mentioning in the same breath as climate change. At a global summit in Nairobi last December, the head of the United Nations Environment Programme spoke of an "ocean Armageddon."

And yet there's a key difference: Ocean plastic is not as complicated as climate change. There are no ocean trash deniers, at least so far. To do something about it, we don't have to remake our planet's entire energy system.

"This isn't a problem where we don't know what the solution is," says Ted Siegler, a Vermont resource economist who has spent more than 25 years working with developing nations on garbage. "We know how to pick up garbage. Anyone can do it. We know how to dispose of it. We know how to recycle." It's a matter of building the necessary institutions and systems, he says-ideally before the ocean turns, irretrievably and for centuries to come, into a thin soup of plastic.

In Plymouth, under the gray gloom of an English autumn, Richard Thompson waited in a yellow slicker outside Plymouth University's Coxside Marine Station, at the edge of the harbor. A lean man of 54, with a smooth pate rimmed with gray hair, Thompson was headed for an ordinary career as a marine ecologist in 1993-he was working on a Ph.D. on limpets and microalgae that grow on coastal rocks-when he participated in his first beach cleanup, on the Isle of Man. While other volunteers zoomed in on the plastic bottles and bags and nets, Thompson focused on the small stuff, the tiny particles that lay underfoot, ignored, at the high tide line. At first he wasn't even sure they were plastic. He had to consult forensic chemists to confirm it.

There was a real mystery to be solved back then, at least in academic circles: Scientists wondered why they weren't finding even more plastic in the sea. World production has increased exponentially-from 2.3 million tons in 1950, it grew to 162 million in 1993 and to 448 million by 2015-but the amount of plastic drifting on the ocean and washing up on beaches, alarming as it was, didn't seem to be rising as fast. "That begs the question: Where is it?" Thompson said. "We can't establish harm to the environment unless we know where it is."

In the years since his first beach cleanup, Thompson has helped provide the beginnings of an answer: The missing plastic is getting broken into pieces so small they're hard to see. In a 2004 paper, Thompson coined the term "microplastics" for these small bits, predicting-accurately, as it turned out-that they had "potential for large-scale accumulation" in the ocean.

When we met in Plymouth last fall, Thompson and two of his students had just completed a study that indicated it's not just waves and sunlight that break down plastic. In lab tests, they'd watched amphipods of the species Orchestia gammarellus -tiny shrimplike crustaceans that are common in European coastal waters-devour pieces of plastic bags and determined they could shred a single bag into 1.75 million microscopic fragments. The little creatures chewed through plastic especially fast, Thompson's team found, when it was coated with the microbial slime that is their normal food. They spat out or eventually excreted the plastic bits.

Microplastics have been found everywhere in the ocean that people have looked, from sediments on the deepest seafloor to ice floating in the Arctic-which, as it melts over the next decade, could release more than a trillion bits of plastic into the water, according to one estimate. On some beaches on the Big Island of Hawaii, as much as 15 percent of the sand is actually grains of microplastic. Kamilo Point Beach, the one I walked on, catches plastic from the North Pacific gyre, the trashiest of five swirling current systems that transport garbage around the ocean basins and concentrate it in great patches. At Kamilo Point the beach is piled with laundry baskets, bottles, and containers with labels in Chinese, Japanese, Korean, English, and occasionally, Russian. On Henderson Island, an uninhabited coral island in the South Pacific, researchers have found an astonishing volume of plastic from South America, Asia, New Zealand, Russia, and as far away as Scotland.

As Thompson and I talked about all this, a day boat called the Dolphin was carrying us through a light chop in the Sound, off Plymouth. Thompson reeled out a fine-mesh net called a manta trawl, usually used for studying plankton. We were close to the spot where, a few years earlier, other researchers had collected 504 fish of 10 species and given them to Thompson. Dissecting the fish, he was surprised to find microplastics in the guts of more than one-third of them. The finding made international headlines.

After we'd steamed along for a while, Thompson reeled the manta trawl back in. There was a smattering of colored plastic confetti at the bottom. Thompson himself doesn't worry much about microplastics in his fish and chips-there's little evidence yet that they pass from the gut of a fish into the flesh we actually eat. (See We Know Plastic Is Harming Marine Life. What About Us?) He worries more about the things that none of us can see-the chemicals added to plastics to give them desirable properties, such as malleability, and the even tinier nanoplastics that microplastics presumably degrade into. Those might pass into the tissues of fish and humans.

"We do know the concentrations of chemicals at the time of manufacture in some cases are very high," Thompson said. "We don't know how much additive is left in the plastic by the time it becomes bite-size to a fish.

"Nobody has found nanoparticles in the environment-they're below the level of detection for analytical equipment. People think they are out there. They have the potential to be sequestered in tissue, and that could be a game changer."

Thompson is careful not to get ahead of the science on his subject. He's far from an alarmist-but he's also convinced that plastic trash in the ocean is far more than an aesthetic problem. "I don't think we should be waiting for a key finding of whether or not fish are hazardous to eat," he said. "We have enough evidence to act."

How did we get here? When did the dark side of the miracle of plastic first show itself? It's a question that can be asked about many of the marvels of our technological world. Since helping the Allies win World War II-think of nylon parachutes or lightweight airplane parts-plastics have transformed all our lives as few other inventions have, mostly for the better. They've eased travel into space and revolutionized medicine. They lighten every car and jumbo jet today, saving fuel-and pollution. In the form of clingy, light-as-air wraps, they extend the life of fresh food. In airbags, incubators, helmets, or simply by delivering clean drinking water to poor people in those now demonized disposable bottles, plastics save lives daily.

In one of their early applications, they saved wildlife. In the mid-1800s, piano keys, billiard balls, combs, and all manner of trinkets were made of a scarce natural material: elephant ivory. With the elephant population at risk and ivory expensive and scarce, a billiards company in New York City offered a $10,000 reward to anyone who could come up with an alternative.

As Susan Freinkel tells the tale in her book, Plastic: A Toxic Love Story, an amateur inventor named John Wesley Hyatt took up the challenge. His new material, celluloid, was made of cellulose, the polymer found in all plants. Hyatt's company boasted that it would eliminate the need "to ransack the Earth in pursuit of substances which are constantly growing scarcer." Besides sparing at least some elephants, celluloid also helped change billiards from solely an aristocratic pastime to one that working people play in bars.

That's a trivial example of a profound revolution ushered in by plastic-an era of material abundance. The revolution accelerated in the early 20th century, once plastics began to be made from the same stuff that was giving us abundant, cheap energy: petroleum. Oil companies had waste gases like ethylene coming out the stacks of their refineries. Chemists discovered they could use those gases as building blocks, or monomers, to create all sorts of novel polymers-polyethylene terephthalate, for example, or PET-instead of working only with polymers that already existed in nature. A world of possibilities opened up. Anything and everything could be made of plastic, and so it was, because plastics were cheap.

They were so cheap, we began to make things we never intended to keep. In 1955 Life magazine celebrated the liberation of the American housewife from drudgery. Under the headline "Throwaway Living," a photograph showed a family flinging plates, cups, and cutlery into the air. The items would take 40 hours to clean, the text noted-"except that no housewife need bother." When did plastics start to show their dark side? You might say it was when the junk in that photo hit the ground.

Six decades later, roughly 40 percent of the now more than 448 million tons of plastic produced every year is disposable, much of it used as packaging intended to be discarded within minutes after purchase. Production has grown at such a breakneck pace that virtually half the plastic ever manufactured has been made in the past 15 years. Last year the Coca-Cola Company, perhaps the world's largest producer of plastic bottles, acknowledged for the first time just how many it makes: 128 billion a year. Nestlé, PepsiCo, and others also churn out torrents of bottles.

The growth of plastic production has far outstripped the ability of waste management to keep up: That's why the oceans are under assault. "It's not surprising that we broke the system," Jambeck says. "That kind of increase would break any system not prepared for it." In 2013 a group of scientists issued a new assessment of throwaway living. Writing in Nature magazine, they declared that disposable plastic should be classified, not as a housewife's friend, but as a hazardous material.

In recent years the surge in production has been driven largely by the expanded use of disposable plastic packaging in the growing economies of Asia-where garbage collection systems may be underdeveloped or nonexistent. In 2010, according to an estimate by Jambeck, half the world's mismanaged plastic waste was generated by just five Asian countries: China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam, and Sri Lanka.

"Let's say you recycle 100 percent in all of North America and Europe," says Ramani Narayan, a chemical engineering professor at Michigan State University who also works in his native India. "You still would not make a dent on the plastics released into the oceans. If you want to do something about this, you have to go there, to these countries, and deal with the mismanaged waste."

The Pasig River once flowed majestically through downtown Manila, capital of the Philippines, and emptied into pristine Manila Bay. It was a treasured waterway and civic point of pride. It's now listed among the top 10 rivers in the world that convey plastic waste to the sea. As many as 72,000 tons flow downstream each year, mostly during the monsoon. In 1990 the Pasig was declared biologically dead.

The Pasig River Rehabilitation Commission, established in 1999, is working to clean up the river, with some signs of success. Jose Antonio Goitia, the commission's executive director, says he is optimistic that the Pasig could be restored someday, although he acknowledges he has no easy way of doing that. "Maybe the best thing to do is ban plastic bags," he says.

The remaining challenges are clearly visible every day. The river is fed by 51 tributaries, some of them overflowing with plastic waste from squatter settlements that cantilever precariously over creek banks. A tributary near Chinatown, where rickety shanties are wedged between modern buildings, is so choked with plastic debris you can walk across it, forgoing the footbridge. Manila Bay's beaches, once recreational respites for greater Manila's 13 million residents, are littered with garbage, much of it plastic. Last fall Break Free From Plastic, a coalition including Greenpeace and other groups, cleaned a beach on Freedom Island, which is advertised as an ecotourism district; volunteers picked up 54,260 pieces of plastic, from shoes to food containers. By the time I visited a few weeks later, the beach was littered again with bottles, wrappers, and shopping bags.

The scene in Manila is typical of large, overcrowded urban centers across Asia. The Philippines is a densely populated nation of 105 million people that is still struggling with the most basic public health issues, including waterborne diseases such as typhoid and bacterial diarrhea. It's no surprise that it has trouble managing the explosion of plastic garbage. Manila has a metropolitan garbage collection system that stretches across 17 separate local governments-a source of chaos and inefficiency. In 2004 the region was already running out of land to safely dump garbage. The shortage of landfill space, and thus the crisis, continues today.

A small part of the slack is taken up by Manila's informal recycling industry, which consists of thousands of waste pickers. Armando Siena, 34, is one of them. He and his wife, Angie, 31, have lived their entire lives surrounded by trash. They were born on Smokey Mountain, an internationally notorious dump that was officially closed in the 1990s. They now live with their three children near Manila's waterfront in a one-room flat lit by a single bulb, furnished with a pair of plastic chairs, and lacking plumbing, bedding, or refrigeration. The flat is in a garbage-filled slum named Aroma, next to another slum named Happyland.

Every day Siena rides a rickety bicycle beyond Aroma's boundaries, scanning the streets for recyclable rubbish that he can stuff into his sidecar. Plastic soup containers are high-value finds, paying 20 pesos (38 cents) a kilogram. Siena sorts and sells his load to a junk shop owned by his uncle, who trucks the waste to recycling plants on the outskirts of Manila.

Waste pickers like Siena are part of the solution, some activists argue; they just need a living wage. In the Baseco waterfront slum in Manila, a tiny recycling shop operated by the Plastic Bank of Vancouver, British Columbia, pays a premium for bottles and hard plastic collected by waste pickers. It then sells that plastic at a higher price to multinationals, which market their recycled products as socially responsible.

Siegler, the Vermont economist, has worked in enough countries and run enough numbers to be skeptical of such schemes. "There is not enough value in plastics to make that work," he says. "It's cheaper to fund a solid waste management system than to subsidize collecting plastic."

The waste that clogs Manila's beaches and waterways reinforces Siegler's point. Much of it consists of sachets-tear-off packets that once held a single serving of shampoo, toothpaste, coffee, condiments, or other products. They are sold by the millions to poor people like Siena and his family, who can't afford to buy more than one serving at a time. Sachets blow around Manila like leaves falling from trees. They're not recyclable, so no waste picker will retrieve them. Crispian Lao, a member of the National Solid Waste Management Commission, says, "This segment of packaging is growing, and it has become a real challenge for solid waste management."

When Greenpeace cleaned the Freedom Island beach, it posted a tally of the brand names of the sachets its volunteers had collected. Nestlé ranked first, Unilever second. Litterbugs aren't the only ones at fault, says Greenpeace's Abigail Aguilar: "We believe that the ones producing and promoting the use of single-use plastics have a major role in the whole problem." A Unilever spokeswoman in Manila told me the company is developing a recyclable sachet.

After Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 disappeared from radar screens in March 2014 while on its way from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing, the search for it extended from Indonesia to the southern Indian Ocean. It captivated a global audience for weeks. No sign of the wreckage appeared. On several occasions, when satellite images revealed collections of objects floating on the sea surface, hopes soared that they would turn out to be aircraft parts. They weren't. It was all trash-pieces of broken shipping containers, abandoned fishing gear, and of course, plastic shopping bags.

Kathleen Dohan, a scientist and the president of Earth and Space Research in Seattle, saw opportunity in the horror: The images from space were pushing a problem into view that had long been neglected. "This is the first time the whole world is watching," she told me at the time. "It's a good time for people to understand that our oceans are garbage dumps." Dohan sensed a tipping point in public awareness-and the events since suggest she may have been right.

The most heartening thing about the plastic waste problem is the recent explosion of attention to it, and even of serious, if scattered, efforts to address it. A partial list of the good news since 2014 would include, in no particular order: Kenya joined a growing list of nations that have banned plastic bags, imposing steep fines and jail time on violators. France said it would ban plastic plates and cups by 2020. Bans on plastic microbeads in cosmetics (they're exfoliants) take effect this year in the U.S., Canada, the U.K., and four other countries. The industry is phasing them out.

Corporations are responding to public opinion. Coca-Cola, which also produces Dasani water, announced a goal to "collect and recycle the equivalent of" 100 percent of its packaging by 2030. It and other multinationals, including PepsiCo, Amcor, and Unilever, have pledged to convert to 100 percent reusable, recyclable, or compostable packaging by 2025. And Johnson & Johnson is switching from plastic back to paper stems on its cotton swabs.

Individuals are making a difference too. Ellen MacArthur, a British yachtswoman, has created a foundation to promote the vision of a "circular economy," in which all materials, including plastics, are designed to be reused or recycled, not dumped. Actor Adrian Grenier has lent his celebrity to the campaign against the plastic drinking straw. And Boyan Slat, 23, from the Netherlands, is charging ahead with his teenage vow to clean up the largest garbage patch in the North Pacific. His organization has raised more than $30 million to construct an ocean-sweeping machine that is still under development.

All of these measures help at some level-even beach cleanups, futile as they sometimes seem. A beach cleanup hooked Richard Thompson on the plastic problem a quarter century ago. But the real solution, he now thinks, is to stop plastic from entering the ocean in the first place-and then to rethink our whole approach to the amazing stuff. "We've done a lot of work making sure plastic does its job, but very little amount of work on what happens to that product at the end of its lifetime," he says. "I'm not saying plastics are the enemy, but there is a lot the industry can do to help solve the problem."

There are two fundamental ways industry can help, if it wants or is forced to. First, along with academic scientists such as Jambeck, it can design new plastics and new plastic products that are either biodegradable or more recyclable (see You Can Help Turn the Tide on Plastic. Here's How.). New materials and more recycling, along with simply avoiding unnecessary uses of the stuff, are the long-term solutions to the plastic waste problem. But the fastest way to make a big difference, Siegler says, is low tech. It's more garbage trucks and landfills.

"Everyone wants a sexy answer," he says. "The reality is, we need to just collect the trash. Most countries that I work in, you can't even get it off the street. We need garbage trucks and help institutionalizing the fact that this waste needs to be collected on a regular basis and landfilled, recycled, or burned so that it doesn't end up going all over the place."

That's the second way industry could help: It could pony up. Siegler has proposed a worldwide tax of a penny on every pound of plastic resin manufactured. The tax would raise roughly six billion dollars a year that could be used to finance garbage collection systems in developing nations. The idea never caught on. In the fall of 2017, though, a group of scientists revived the concept of a global fund. The group called for an international agreement patterned after the Paris climate accord.

At the Nairobi meeting in December, 193 nations, including the U.S., actually passed one. The United Nations Clean Seas agreement doesn't impose a tax on plastic. It's nonbinding and toothless. It's really just a declaration of a good intention-the intention to end ocean plastic pollution. In that way it's less like the Paris Agreement and more like the Rio de Janeiro treaty, in which the world pledged to combat dangerous climate change-back in 1992. Norway's environment minister, Vidar Helgesen, called this new agreement a strong first step.

Staff writer Laura Parker and photographer Randy Olson last worked together on a feature on the vanishing Ogallala aquifer, which was published in the August 2016 issue.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
We Depend on Plastic. Now We're Drowning in It.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The miracle material has made modern life possible. But more than 40 percent of it is used just once, and it's choking our waterways.

# data[].attributes.headline
First of Its Kind Map Reveals Extent of Ocean Plastic

# data[].attributes.subject
First of Its Kind Map Reveals Extent of Ocean Plastic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When marine ecologist Andres Cozar Cabañas and a team of researchers completed the first ever map of ocean trash, something didn't quite add up.

Their work, published this month in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, did find millions of pieces of plastic debris floating in five large subtropical gyres in the world's oceans. But plastic production has quadrupled since the 1980s, and wind, waves, and sun break all that plastic into tiny bits the size of rice grains. So there should have been a lot more plastic floating on the surface than the scientists found.

"Our observations show that large loads of plastic fragments, with sizes from microns to some millimeters, are unaccounted for in the surface loads," says Cozar, who teaches at the University of Cadiz in Spain, by e-mail. "But we don't know what this plastic is doing. The plastic is somewhere-in the ocean life, in the depths, or broken down into fine particles undetectable by nets."

What effect those plastic fragments will have on the deep ocean-the largest and least explored ecosystem on Earth-is anyone's guess. "Sadly," Cozar says, "the accumulation of plastic in the deep ocean would be modifying this enigmatic ecosystem before we can really know it."

But where exactly is the unaccounted-for plastic? In what amounts? And how did it get there?

"We must learn more about the pathway and ultimate fate of the 'missing' plastic," Cozar says.

Plastic, Plastic Everywhere

One reason so many questions remain unanswered is that the science of marine debris is so young. Plastic was invented in the mid-1800s and has been mass produced since the end of World War II. In contrast, ocean garbage has been studied for slightly more than a decade.

"This is new mainly because people always thought that the solution to pollution was dilution, meaning that we could turn our head, and once it is washed away-out of sight, out of mind," says Douglas Woodring, co-founder of the Ocean Recovery Alliance, a Hong Kong-based charitable group working to reduce the flow of plastic into the oceans.

The North Pacific Garbage Patch, a loose collection of drifting debris that accumulates in the northern Pacific, first drew notice when it was discovered in 1997 by adventurer Charles Moore as he sailed back to California after competing in a yachting competition.

A turning point came in 2004, when Richard Thompson, a British marine biologist at Plymouth University, concluded that most marine debris was plastic.

Research on marine debris is also complicated by the need to include a multidiscipline group of experts, ranging from oceanographers to solid-waste-management engineers.

"We are at the very early stages of understanding the accounting," says Kara Lavender Law, an oceanographer at the Sea Education Association, based in Cape Cod, Massachusetts. "If we think ten or a hundred times more plastic is entering the ocean than we can account for, then where is it? We still haven't answered that question.

"And if we don't know where it is or how it is impacting organisms," she adds, "we can't tell the person on the street how big the problem is."

Law, along with Thompson, is one of 22 scientists researching marine debris for the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis at the University of California, Santa Barbara. The group is grappling with some of these questions and plans to publish a series of papers later this year.

One of the most significant contributions made by Cozar's team, says Law, was data collected in the Southern Hemisphere: "I can't tell you how rare that is."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
First of Its Kind Map Reveals Extent of Ocean Plastic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Spanish expedition maps trash in all five ocean collection zones for the first time and makes a discovery.

# data[].attributes.headline
Beach clean-up study shows global scope of plastic pollution

# data[].attributes.subject
Beach clean-up study shows global scope of plastic pollution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Children play on the shore of Manila Bay in the Philippines, which is often marred by plastic debris.

Photograph by Randy Olson, National Geographic Creative

What items retrieved from beaches tell us about trash.

In partnership with the National Geographic Society.

Every year, tens of thousands of people worldwide volunteer for the Sisyphean chore of picking up trash from beaches. The largest effort is conducted every September by the Ocean Conservancy, which in 30 years of cleanups has collected 300 million pounds and more than 350 types of items.

New trash inevitably appears. Sometimes it takes only minutes. Nicholas Mallos, who directs the Ocean Conservancy's Trash Free Seas program, has watched that in amazement.

"I have been on beaches in Hong Kong, Saint Helena in the South Atlantic, and Indonesia where you can watch plastics and debris in the barrel of each wave crash onto the beach. Literally, the trash starts getting replaced as soon as you pick it up," he says.

So why bother?

The short answer is, it's better than the alternative. But more importantly, what volunteers find on those beaches illuminates in new ways the scale of marine plastic problems and the potential for solutions.

National Geographic has also teamed up with Wattpad to raise awareness of the global plastic issue through a creative storytelling challenge. We're asking people to share a story-real or fiction-inspired by this global issue. Learn more and share your story here: www.wattpad.com/user/NationalGeographic

"If the top item found is tires, we're talking about illegal dumping," says Kara Lavender Law, a research oceanography professor at the Sea Education Association in Woods Hole, Massachusetts. "If it's bottle caps and cigarette butts, it is probably litter."

The cost to local governments to clean beaches along 90 towns in Washington, Oregon, and California was estimated at more than $500 million in a 2012 study. But clean beaches provide economic benefit to local communities in the form of tourism dollars.

In southern California, researchers calculated that in Orange County alone that potential could translate into $46 million in just one summer. A survey of Californians taken for the same study found that 66 percent ranked the absence of debris and good water quality as "very important" to deciding whether or not to visit a beach.

Beach cleanups raise public awareness to the threat of debris more effectively than in less participatory public education programs, multiple studies show. Volunteers say the cleanups make them more mindful of how they dispose of their own disposables.

Learning from litter

They also add to the growing body of knowledge about where and how plastics travel across the seas and where they end up in the greatest abundance. Documentation of what cleanup volunteers collect and its density from location to location and what items are most and least abundant helps identify hot spots. Some of what's learned can make a difference.

"It adds another layer of granularity to identify these leakage points around the world," Mallos says.

A whale shark swims beside a plastic bag in the Gulf of Aden near Yemen. Although whale sharks are the biggest fish in the sea, they're still threatened by ingesting small bits of plastic.

Photograph by Thomas P. Peschak, Nat Geo Image Collection

On isolated Saint Helena in the South Atlantic, mid-way between Brazil and Namibia, Ocean Conservancy volunteers discovered "an exorbitant number" of plastic bottles on one beach, Mallos says. An audit of the brand names on the bottles revealed that none of them were sold on the island, but came from Asian countries thousands of miles away. Piecing the story together, the group concluded the bottle trash had not leaked from poor waste practices on the island, but rather more likely came from traveling fishing fleets working nearby waters.

The Ocean Conservancy has long audited the trash collected by item. For the first time in 2017, all of the top ten items retrieved were plastics, displacing glass bottles, aluminum cans, and rope that had been stalwarts on the list. The list includes cigarette butts (with plastic filters), food wrappers, bottles, bottle caps, and shopping bags.

"The Ocean Conservancy's top ten list has been tremendously useful because it highlights the top trash items found globally, which for the most part do not differ from country to country," says Law. "The fact that there is such consistency over time in different geographic regions helps identify the items most commonly lost to the environment, whether in litter form or accidental."

Counting plastic

Greenpeace, in partnership with a consortium of environmental groups known as Break Free From Plastic, has begun cataloguing items gathered in cleanups by brand name. The approach was tested on a beach in Manila Bay in 2017 and expanded this year to include 236 beach cleanups in 42 countries that yielded more than 187,000 pieces of plastic trash. The most recent cleanups were conducted primarily on ocean beaches, but also included riverbanks, city parks, and streets.

An audit of the items collected found that the brands most commonly retrieved belong to three multinationals: Coca Cola, PepsiCo, and Nestle.Together the three companies accounted for 14 percent of the branded items collected worldwide for the audit. Seven other multinationals were included in the audit, with smaller amounts documented. The report did not rank brands produced by local or regional companies.

Law says the results are not surprising. Coke is the world's largest producer of bottled drinks and manufactures 128 billion bottles of soft drinks and its bottled water, Dasani, a year, according to figures supplied by Coke. Nestle, which operates in 189 countries worldwide, is the world's largest food and beverage producer. PepsiCo, with six global divisions, has a worldwide reach.

Identifying global brands doesn't necessarily advance the science, Law says. "Unless you are looking at a geographically limited company that you can trace, I think it's more a matter of trying to engage the people producing the products."

Jane Patton, who authored the Greenpeace audit report, says that's exactly the point.

"What we are doing is moving the conversation upstream and identifying responsibility not with the person who consumes the Coke, but to have a conversation about who made that bottle in the first place and who is responsible for that bottle once it is consumed," she says.

"We are calling for the corporations to urgently and immediately stop over-packaging their products, to redesign products so waste can be eliminated, and to take responsibility for the waste once it ends up in the environment."

Companies take action

All three companies have pledged to reduce plastic waste by redesigning products to make them more recyclable, reducing unnecessary plastic packaging, and increasing the amount of recycled material used to manufacture their plastic products. Each company has set targets for those goals that range from 2020 to 2030.

"Nestle is committed to achieving its vision that none of its packaging, including plastics, ends up in a landfill or as litter," says Rumjhum Gupta, a company spokeswoman. "Greenpeace's report highlights the challenges we face as a society in tackling the issue of packaging and plastic waste. As the world's largest food and beverage company, we recognize the issue and we are working hard to eliminate non-recyclable plastics."

Ben Jordan, director of Coke's environmental policy, says Coke "shares the Greenpeace goal of eliminating waste from the ocean. We believe that all of our packaging material has benefits. What we have to do is manage it properly. We need better collection, more use of recycled content, complete recycling, whether a plastic bottle or aluminum can."

Coke partners with the Ocean Conservancy to sponsor the group's annual beach cleanups, and Jordan says the information documented at them can be helpful in the effort to reduce marine debris.

"If it only tells you who sells what in what markets, it's not that surprising," he says. But if we can learn something about our waste ending up in surprising places or litter being a bigger problem in one market versus another market, then absolutely, more information is better."

PepsiCo, in a statement, says it has invested in product redesign and is working to "bring the latest sustainable packaging advances to market. We don't have all the answers yet, and we will continue to collaborate with a number of leaders in this area to learn and share the latest science and practical solutions."

As marine debris worsens, the number of beach cleanups is growing as other groups organize them. They are not a solution, but there is value in doing them, Law says.

"Beach cleanups are very personal. It's very local. It's their beach," she says. "There is satisfaction to say, 'I removed ten pounds of trash from my beach.' Even if it's only ten pounds, that's ten pounds that isn't going to go into the open ocean."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Beach clean-up study shows global scope of plastic pollution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What items retrieved from beaches tell us about trash.

# data[].attributes.headline
A running list of action on plastic pollution

# data[].attributes.subject
A running list of action on plastic pollution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This article was created in partnership with the National Geographic Society.

Canada aims to ban single-use plastics by 2021

June 10, 2019

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced Monday that in addition to banning single-use plastics, his government would take other, unspecified steps to reduce plastic pollution.

Trudeau did not specify the products to be banned, but said likely candidates include plastic bags, straws, cutlery, plates and stir sticks "where supported by scientific evidence and warranted."

"You've all heard the stories and seen the photos," he said. "To be honest, as a dad it is tough trying to explain this to my kids. How do you explain dead whales washing up on beaches across the world, their stomachs jam packed with plastic bags?

"How do I tell them that against all odds, you will find plastic at the very deepest point in the Pacific Ocean?"

Canada, which has 151,019 miles of coastline-the world's longest-and a quarter of the world's fresh water, joins a growing list of nations taking steps to reduce the use of disposable plastics. More than 60 nations have taken steps to reduce single-use plastics by imposing bans or taxes, according to a United Nations report published last year. In March the European Union's parliament voted to ban the top 10 single-use plastic items found on European beaches by 2021. The EU measure also calls for 90 percent of plastic bottles to be recycled by 2025. Member states must work out the details of bans before the 2021 deadline.

India's prime minister, Narendra Modi, who was overwhelmingly reelected last month to a second five-year term, declared in 2018 that India would eliminate all single-use plastic by 2022, an ambitious plan for the world's second most populated country.

Trudeau made his announcement at the Gault Nature Reserve outside Montreal. He noted that Canada recycles less than 10 percent of its disposable plastics, and is on track to throw away $11 billion worth of disposable plastic by 2030 unless things change.

He said the federal government will work with provinces and territories to introduce standards and targets for plastics manufacturers and retailers so they become more responsible for their plastic waste. Trudeau said he also supports efforts by Canada's minister of environment to create a nationwide strategy for zero plastic waste.

"This will be a big step but we know we can do this for 2021," Trudeau said.

Peru restricts single-use plastic

Visitors will no longer be allowed to carry in single-use plastics into Peru's 76 natural and cultural protected areas, from Machu Picchu to Manu to Huascarán, or national museums. This ban is now going into affect and was announced as a Supreme Decree by Peru's Environment Minister, Fabiola Muñoz, and signed by President Martín Vizcarra, back in November.

The decree says the goal is replacing single-use plastics with "reusable, biodegradable plastic or others whose degradation does not generate contamination by micro-plastics or dangerous substances."

At world-famous Machu Picchu, tourists produce an average of 14 tons of solid waste per day, much of it plastic bottles and other single-use packaging.

In December, Peru's Congress had also passed a law to phase out single-use plastic bags across the country over the next three years. According to Peru's Environment Ministry, the country uses 947,000 tons of plastic each year, while 75 percent is thrown out and only 0.3 percent is recycled.

San Diego Bans Styrofoam Food and Drink Containers

San Diego has joined a growing number of cities to ban containers made of polystyrene, better known as Styrofoam-the Dow Chemical trademark name for extruded polystyrene. The ban includes food and drink containers, egg cartons, ice chest coolers, aquatic toys for swimming pools, and mooring buoys and navigation markers. The ocean-side city is the largest in California to ban polystyrene.

Polystyrene's popularity as a container stems from its low cost, strength, insulation, and feather-weight buoyancy. Those properties also made it a scourge of plastic waste because it easily breaks into tiny, often airborne particles that are difficult to clean up and is generally rejected by recycling centers as too much trouble to recyclable.

The San Diego City Council voted 6-to-3 on January 8 to approve the ban, despite objections from owners of small restaurants who complained that the costs of using environmentally degradable containers, such as cardboard or compostable paper, could be double. The council first approved the ban last October for a trial period. This week's vote made the ban permanent.

D.C. Plastic Straw Ban Begins

One New Year's resolution, to use less plastic, is no longer optional for restaurants and other service businesses in Washington, D.C., as of January 1. By July, businesses in the district will begin receiving fines if they continue to offer plastic straws.

A number of local businesses have already started switching to reusable, washable straws or disposable ones made from paper or hay.

The law follows Seattle's ban earlier in 2018 and aims to reduce the impact of plastic straws as litter. More than 4,000 of the disposed items were found in a recent cleanup of the Anacostia River in D.C. Straws are known to hurt wildlife and are difficult to recycle, often ending up as litter. They make up only a tiny fraction of the total marine plastic pollution problem, leading some critics to say they are a distraction, while others say they are an easy place to start.

(Learn about the travel industry's war on straws and where plastic straws came from in the first place.)

Plastic Fact Named Stat of the Year

This week, Great Britain's Royal Statistical Society announced its statistic of the year. It's 90.5%, the estimated amount of plastic waste ever made that has never been recycled. Estimated at 6,300 million metric tonnes, scientists calculated that around 12 percent of all plastic waste has been incinerated, while roughly 79 percent has found its way into landfills or become litter.

That fact comes from a study published in Science Advances, "Production, Use, and Fate of all plastics ever made," by scientists Roland Geyer, Jenna Jambeck (a National Geographic Society fellow on plastic pollution) and Kara Lavender Law.

"We all knew there was a rapid and extreme increase in plastic production from 1950 until now, but actually quantifying the cumulative number for all plastic ever made was quite shocking," Jambeck, a University of Georgia environmental engineer who specializes in studying plastic waste in the oceans, previously told National Geographic.

"I am grateful to the Royal Statistical Society for the acknowledgement of the impact of this statistic, and while sobering, I am glad that it helps to spread awareness about the plastic waste management issues I see on the ground around the globe," Jambeck said in December.

"It's very concerning that such a large proportion of plastic waste has never been recycled," Royal Statistical Society President Sir David Spiegelhalter said in a statement announcing the winning fact. "This statistic helps to show the scale of the challenge we all face."

"Single-Use" Named Word of the Year

Collins Dictionary named "single-use" their word of the year in 2018, citing a four-fold increase in usage since 2013. The term means "made to be used once only" and refers to "items whose unchecked proliferation are blamed for damaging the environment and affecting the food chain," according to a press release from the dictionary's publisher.

Single-use is most often associated with the plastic pollution crisis. Some 40 percent of all plastic produced is used for packaging, much of it used only once and thrown away.

Many efforts to curb the plastic litter crisis are taking aim at single-use plastics, with the goal of encouraging more durable, reusable items.

Aquariums band together for "No Straw November"

November is the month of not shaving facial hair, and now thanks to a new conservation campaign, the month of not using straws.

Branded as "No Straw November," the campaign is a push to eliminate single-use plastic. The effort is led by the Aquarium Conservation Partnership (ACP), comprising 22 aquariums in 17 different states. They're pushing 500 businesses to commit to only serving plastic straws upon request. Already, the ACP has worked with large businesses like United Airlines, the Chicago White Sox, and Dignity Health hospitals.

They hope to commit the additional 500 by Earth Day, April 20, 2019.

The No Straw November campaign is also lobbying cities and regional governments to pass ordinances that encourage businesses to use fewer straws. Individuals are also being asked to sign an online pledge to limit their own personal single-use plastic. The efforts are part of what ACP is labeling a joint "#FirstStep" to plastic-free waterways.

Images of marine animals wrapped in plastic or caught with items like straws in their noses have been widely shared, raising awareness of the public. Aquariums have been leaders in phasing out plastic items at their own facilities.

In an interview discussing plastic straws with National Geographic earlier this year, David Rhodes, the global business director for paper straw manufacturer Aardvark Straws, said some of Aardvark's earliest clients were zoos, aquariums, and cruise ships looking to promote an eco-friendly image to their customers.

The ACP says their efforts to reduce dependence on plastic have already eliminated the need for five million straws over the past year.

Earlier this week, the ACP, partnering with the U.N. and European Commission, announced plans to create a global coalition of 200 aquariums that will campaign against plastic.

250 groups launch massive global plastic partnership

Two hundred and fifty organizations responsible for 20 percent of the plastic packaging produced around the world have committed to reducing waste and pollution.

The initiative is called the New Plastics Economy Global Commitment, and it includes a diverse group of members including the city of Austin, clothing company H&M, Unilever, PespsiCo, L'Oreal, Nestle, and Coca-Cola.

The Global Commitment touts a number of high-profile partnerships. It's a collaboration with the United Nations and is being led by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation. Other partners include the World Wide Fund for Nature, the World Economic Forum, the Consumer Goods Forum, and 40 academic institutions.

Ultimately, it's working to promote a circular economy for plastic, a concept that entails reusing or repurposing plastic instead of letting it sit in a landfill. The shift would require building or improving collection and processing facilities, and five venture capital firms have pledged $200 million toward the initiative.

Recycling used items into new products is one of the three targets set by the commitment. Corporations joining the commitment must also phase out single-use plastic packaging and ensure it can either be reused, recycled, or composted by 2025.

"While elements of the EMF Global Commitment are moving in the right direction, the problem is that companies are given the flexibility to continue prioritizing recycling over reduction and reuse," said Ahmad Ashov from Greenpeace Indonesia in a press release. "Corporations are not required to set actual targets to reduce the total amount of single-use plastics they are churning out."

Every 18 months, the targets will be reviewed, and participating businesses must publish data on their progress each year.

Governments that join the commitment are pledging to create policies that help support a circular economy.

EU Parliament approves single-use plastic ban

The European Parliament voted 571-53 this week to approve a measure to slash single-use plastic across the continent. The bill still needs to pass additional procedural measures before it can go into effect, but observers say its chances look good and could begin enforcement as early as 2021.

Citing a need to protect the ocean from a deluge of plastic pollution, the bill calls for a European ban on plastic cutlery and plates, cotton buds, straws, drink-stirrers, and balloon sticks, as well as reductions in other types of single-use plastics like food and beverage containers.

The bill was first proposed in May (see below). Great Britain has a similar effort underway (also see below).

The list of plastic items targeted was carefully selected to include items that already have ready alternatives, supporters say. Items with less available alternatives, such as cigarette filters, are being targeted for a more gradual reduction.

Belgian MEP Frédérique Ries, who proposed the bill, called it "a victory for our oceans, for the environment and for future generations," according to the BBC.

Consumer companies invest in waste collection

To keep plastic pollution from entering waterways, manufacturers either have to stop making it or make sure it's collected at the end of its life. But in some developing nations, that waste collection infrastructure is insufficient or nonexistent.

Circulate Capital, a New York City-based investment firm started in 2018, says they have raised $90 million to invest in this issue in Southeast Asia, a move endorsed by conservation group the Ocean Conservancy. CEO of Circulate Capital Rob Kaplan says this investment will go toward improving plastic waste collection on the ground and creating markets for collected material.

PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, Procter and Gamble, Danone, Unilever, and Dow are committed to funding the $90 million investment, and Circulate Capital says a deal will be inked by early 2019. The firm says they are also working on ways for medium and small companies to invest.

"While we are working hard to ensure our packaging is designed to be circular, the reality is that it cannot be reused, recycled or composted without effective waste management systems in place," said Danone's Katharina Stenholm in a press release. She was referring to the concept of a circular economy, in which any waste materials in an industry, such as packaging, are reincorporated into new products.

The majority of the world's ocean plastic comes from 10 rivers, eight of which are in Asia, and Circulate Capital is working with scientific advisors, including National Geographic explorer Jenna Jambeck, to pinpoint where their investments can be the most effective.

Plastic bottles, for example, can be collected by small local companies and sold to manufacturers to make new products. Though discarded plastic is often of lower quality, some projects already underway have proved the model can function, and Circulate Capital hopes its investment can lead to new innovations. ( Read about an effort to recycle stranded fishing nets into carpet.)

"There's no silver bullet to stop plastic pollution," says Kaplan. "We're not going to be able to recycle our way out of the problem, and we're not going to be able to reduce our way out of the problem."

But, he hopes Circulate Capital's investments can serve as one piece of the puzzle. He estimates more than a billion dollars would be needed to really build out more efficient waste infrastructure in Southeast Asia. Circulate Capital hopes to bump their commitments to at least $100 million over the next few year as a move in that direction.

Redirecting plastic streams away from the sea

Major companies have been taking steps to eliminate the amount of plastic waste they produce, but what about plastic already in rivers or on beaches that could easily enter the ocean?

That's where NextWave, a coalition founded by companies including Dell and an environmental group called the Lonely Whale, comes in. By employing people living in coastal regions, the group collects discarded plastic within 30 miles of waterways to prevent it from making its way to the sea. So far, NextWave has focused on two types of plastic commonly found in marine environments: Nylon 6 and polypropylene.

This reclaimed plastic is then shipped to manufacturers who reuse it in lieu of producing new plastic. Plastic collection sites are chosen based on where cleanup could have the biggest impact and where the plastic could more easily be taken to an existing recycling facility. These location decisions are informed by science from chemists Jason Lochlin and Jenna Jambeck, a National Geographic explorer.

Today, computer company HP announced it would be joining the NextWave coalition. Since 2016, HP has been working with locals in Haiti to collect a total of 550,000 pounds of plastic that the company has since used to create ink cartridges. According to a press release, HP partnered with a non-profit called the First Mile Coalition, aimed at improving Haitian labor conditions, to create up to 600 jobs collecting plastic bottles.

Along with HP, Ikea has announced that it, too, will partner with NextWave. In addition, the furniture company has committed to phasing out single-use plastics from its stores by 2020, and to designing more sustainably sourced products, including more items made with recycled plastics, by 2030.

Ten companies are now members of NextWave, and they plan to source reclaimed plastics from Indonesia, Chile, the Philippines, Cameroon, and Denmark. NextWave does not yet have numbers for how much plastic they could potentially keep out of the oceans in total, but their website highlights that their partnership with Dell alone kept a total of 3 million pounds of plastic from entering the ocean over the past five years.
Correction: This story has been updated to note that HP worked with the First Mile Coalition in Haiti and to clarify the types of plastic NextWave works with.

American Airlines cuts plastic from lounges

After announcing this summer that they would ban plastic straws and stirrers on their flights (see below), American Airlines now says they will phase out single-use plastic in their lounges.

The airline has lounges in the U.S. and around the world. A representative from the company says the lounges won't serve drinks with straws, and plastic won't be used for flatware. Plastic water bottles will no longer be served, and reusable bags will be given to customers taking food to-go.

Changes to the airlines' lounges are currently going into effect, and onboard straws will be eliminated by November 1. Straws will be available for those who request one, and drink stirrers will be replaced by bamboo sticks.

Cumulatively, the company says their changes will eliminate 71,000 pounds of plastic waste annually.

Foodservice companies phase out single-use plastic

Some 13,000 schools, workplaces, and venues will be plastic bag and stirrer free by 2019, thanks to a new sustainability push by foodservice company Sodexo.

The company provides cafeteria-style meals and concessions to many such clients. Among them is National Geographic's Washington, D.C. headquarters, where compostable utensils and plant-based menus are offered.

Sodexo follows in the footsteps of other foodservice giants, Aramark and Bon Appétit Management, which announced similar sustainability measures this past summer (see below).

In addition to bags and stirrers, Sodexo plans to phase out polystyrene foam (colloquially called Styrofoam) containers by 2025. Plastic straws, a controversial item, will now only be available by request, which the company hopes will cut down on customer usage.

The move, says a representative from the company, will eliminate 245 million single use items that would have otherwise been used at its locations.

The decision is being applauded by environmental groups like Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund, who say that reducing consumption is a key step toward preventing plastic from entering landfills and marine environments. These non-profit groups are increasingly imploring food servers to cut back on the single-use plastic items they buy and sell to customers.

"As a company serving consumers in universities, workplaces, hospitals, schools, stadiums, and so many other venues, we understand both the potential impact we can make through a commitment to reduction and the real benefit that some of these products bring to people every day," Sodexo's vice president for corporate responsibility, Ted Monk, said in a press release.

President Trump Signs Bill to Clean Up Ocean Plastics

President Trump called out other nations, including China and Japan, for "making our oceans into their landfills" when he signed legislation last week to improve efforts to clean up plastic trash from the world's oceans.

"As president, I will continue to do everything I can to stop other nations from making our oceans into their landfills," Trump said at a White House signing ceremony. "That's why I'm please-very pleased, I must say-to put my signature on this important legislation."

The law, passed with bipartisan support, amends the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Marine Debris Act and funds the program through 2022. The law fosters efforts to clean up plastic trash from the world's oceans and encourages federal trade negotiators to prod "leaders of nations responsible for the majority of marine debris" to improve management of waste that ends up in the oceans.

Trump agreed with Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, one of the bill's co-sponsors, that trade talks with the Philippines should include plastic waste. "We're okay with that," he said. "I understand. A lot comes from there."

Trump also blamed other unnamed countries that "abuse the oceans" and whose trash floats to the West Coast of the United States," creating, he said, "a very unfair situation."

"It's incredible. It's incredible when you look at it," Trump said. "People don't realize it, but all the time we're being inundated by debris from other countries."

Comparatively, the beaches of the United States are among the world's cleanest. Kamilo Beach in Hawaii, which faces the Pacific gyre, where ocean trash collects, is the exception. But most of the world's plastic trash collects in coastal regions and on beaches in developing nations that lack adequate municipal waste collection systems.

Japan has had for years one of the world's highest recycling rates and earlier this year, China stopped buying the world's trash. The United States was one of the top sellers of recycled plastic to China.

The president's full remarks are here, and the text of the Save Our Seas Act is here.

Red Lobster Phasing Out Plastic Straws

The world's largest seafood restaurant company, Red Lobster, announced Monday that it will begin only offering plastic straws upon customer request starting this November in its 700 restaurants. By 2020, the company plans to only offer a more eco-friendly alternative to plastic straws.

The company says the shift should eliminate more than 150 million plastic straws per year, with the goal of reducing the marine plastic pollution problem.

"We are proud to be the first large casual dining restaurant company to make a commitment to eliminate plastic straws from our restaurants," Kim Lopdrup, CEO of Red Lobster, said in a statement. "This is a meaningful step in our long-standing commitment to protect and preserve the world's oceans and marine life. We hope our work helps raise awareness around the issue of plastic straws and encourages other businesses to make similar changes."

Red Lobster says it is looking into alternatives to plastic straws that will still meet the needs of customers with disabilities. (Learn more about plastic straw bans and how the travel industry is cutting back on plastic straws.)

California Approves Bill to Limit Straw Use in Restaurants

California has become the first state to implement a partial ban on plastic straws. Dine-in restaurants will no longer be allowed to automatically provide customers with straws. Instead, customers who need plastic straws will have to request them.

Restaurants that violate the ban will receive warnings first, and repeat offenders will be fined at a maximum of $300.

"Plastic has helped advance innovation in our society, but our infatuation with single-use convenience has led to disastrous consequences. Plastics, in all forms-straws, bottles, packaging, bags, etc.-are choking the planet," California's governor Jerry Brown said in a statement.

The new ban comes on the heels of previous plastic straw bans from companies and cities. Earlier this year, Seattle become the first large municipality to ban plastic straws in restaurants. Large corporations like United Airlines and Disney have also announced this year that they intend to phase plastic straws out of their offerings to customers. Many of these businesses and cities have said they will retain a stock of plastic straws available to customers upon request.

While some environmentalists applaud the move to reduce single-use plastic-plastic that's used once and then thrown away-bans on plastic straws have been met with some controversy.

Republican lawmakers in California opposed the ban, saying it would burden small business and do little to fight the larger plastic pollution crisis. Plastic straws make up less than one percent of the plastic found at sea.

Disability advocates also say straw bans place an unfair burden on people who have conditions that don't allow them to easily drink without straws. Some alternatives like paper fall apart and metal harm the inside of a person's mouth, they say.

Although California isn't the only region moving to limit single use plastic, the state has often tried to lead the nation in environmental legislation, particularly after what Gov. Brown says is a vacuum left by the Trump administration's decision to leave the U.N. Paris Climate Agreement.
Read the brief history of how plastic straws took over the world.

Giant Trash Collector Heads to Pacific Garbage Patch

The campaign to rid the world's oceans of plastic trash marks a turning point on Saturday as a giant, floating trash collector steams out of San Francisco on a mission to clean up the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.

Over the course of the next year, the device will undergo the ultimate tests and face some tough questions: Can technology prevail over nature? Did the engineers at The Ocean Cleanup in the Netherlands invent the first feasible method for extracting large amounts of plastic debris from the sea? Or will the wilds of the open Pacific tear it to shreds, turning the cleaner itself into plastic trash? Alternately, even if a Pacific storm does not devour the device, will it attract marine animals such as dolphins and turtles and fatally entangle them?

"I don't think it's going to work, but I hope it does," says George Leonard, the Ocean Conservancy's chief scientist. "The ocean needs all the help it can get."

United Airlines Bans Plastic Straws from Flights

United Airlines today joined others in the travel industry by banning plastic straws and cocktail picks on their flights.

The airline will instead use a biodegradable bamboo alternative, starting in November.

Alaska and American airlines moved to ban plastic straws earlier this year, and some cities, like Seattle, have outlawed their use entirely.

As one of the reasons for switching to a more sustainable form of straw, United cited this alarming fact: "Because straws don't biodegrade and are nearly impossible to recycle, it's likely that every straw ever used still exists on our planet."

"It's a small, but meaningful step to help minimize the impact plastic products have on our environment," the company said in a press release.

Carlsberg Beer Dumps Plastic Can Rings

Danish brewer Carlsberg will become the first beer producer to ditch those evil plastic multipack rings that hold beer and other cans together for holders made of recyclable glue, according to a company press release.

Carlsberg also says it will cut the amount of plastic used in its traditional can holders by 76 percent.

Here's how the glue-packs work: A drop of super-strong, temperature-tolerant glue is stuck on the side of a can, connecting it to the can next to it. If you want a beer, snap off a can. The glue will be recycled along with the can when it's recycled.

Carlsberg described the move as a "world first for the beer industry."

Disney Announces Ban on Plastic Straws

The Walt Disney Company announced a ban on single-use plastic straws and stirrers at nearly all its theme parks and resorts. The policy, which is set to be in place by mid-2019, will cut down on the upwards of 175 million straws and 13 million stirrers that are used at these locations each year.

Paper straws will be available upon request and, for guests with disabilities, the company is developing alternative options for traditional plastic straws. Disney will also eliminate polystyrene cups at its parks and cut down its reliance on single-use plastic bags. Instead of disposable bags, guests will have the option to buy reusable shopping bags.

Additionally, the company will reduce the amount of plastic in guest rooms by 80 percent. Over the next few years, Disney will transition to refillable amenities in hotels and on cruise ships. When single-use plastics cannot be reduced, Disney will continue to recycle and properly dispose of waste, the company says.

Disney has other conservation measures in place. In Orlando at Disney's Animal Kingdom, plastic straws and cup lids have been banned since the park opened in 1998.

Other theme parks, including SeaWorld, Busch Gardens, and Sesame Place, have announced initiatives to phase out straws and other single-use plastics. Earlier this month, Seattle banned plastic straws, and San Francisco is working to ban straws and other plastic items starting July 1, 2019.
In July 2018, Disney was approved to purchase 21st Century Fox, the parent company of National Geographic.

National Geographic Travel Partner Bans Single-Use Plastics

On July 25, Lindblad Expeditions, an adventure cruise company that has teamed up with National Geographic Expeditions, announced it had become 100 percent free of single-use plastics. Now, disposable plastic bottles, cups, straws, and stirrers are entirely banned from the fleet's 13 ships.

"The ocean is under major assault on so many fronts, and its protection is both a business mission and a personal passion," Lindblad Expeditions CEO Sven Lindblad says in a press release. "The health of our planet is dependent on our oceans, and it is essential that we change our behavior with regard to plastics."

Lindblad is known for its trips all over the world, particularly to places like Alaska and the Galápagos Islands. The company began working toward this plastic-free goal in 2007 when it banned single-use water bottles from its ships. Instead, it gave guests stainless steel bottles that could be refilled at filtered water stations on the ships. According to a study by the Adventure Travel Trade Association and the nonprofit Travelers Against Plastic, the average adventure travel operator uses nearly 30,000 single-use plastic bottles each year.

About 80 percent of tourism takes place near coastal areas, putting our oceans at a higher risk of plastic pollution. When packing for air travel, consider using three-ounce reusable containers for your toiletries and load them into a durable transparent washbag instead of a plastic bag. On flights, bring your own earphones and turn down "comfort bag" items wrapped in plastic. Bring your reusable water bottle with you and fill it up when you can.

For more tips, read how one of our writers attempted to explore Belize plastic-free.

Big Companies Take Aim at Plastic Straws

Retail, restaurant, and consumer-facing companies could potentially make a big impact in the fight to reduce plastic straw use. They drive much of the demand for straws from plastic manufacturers.

But these businesses are increasingly responding to consumer pressure.

Starbucks is among the most recent companies to announce they'll ditch plastic straws-in this case by the end of 2020. Instead of getting sucked up through a straw, their cold drinks will be served in containers with special plastic lids. Those lids are less likely to get stuck up a turtle's nose and should prove more recyclable than straws, but the company has still received some pushback because the lids are still made of plastic.

McDonald's is also planning to phase out plastic straws at their UK and Ireland locations, coinciding with UK and EU proposals to cut down single-use plastic.

Among the other companies that have moved to reduce how much they use plastic: Bacardi Rum plans to cut their straw usage over the next two years by a billion, food service management giants Bon Appétit Management and Aramark plan to reduce their single-use plastics by 2019 and 2022, respectively, Alaska Airlines will begin phasing out plastic straws this summer, and American Airlines will begin phasing out plastic straws this summer.

It remains to be seen if companies follow through on their goals, and it's clear that banning plastic straws is not going to solve the whole pollution problem. Supporters say reducing our use of straws is an easy first step, while detractors say it could distract from more important issues. In either case, taking aim at plastic straws has become rather fashionable this summer.

Chile's Ban on Retail Plastic Bags Stands

Chile's Constitutional Court ratified a bill that bans retail use of plastic bags across the country on July 6, ruling against an appeal that had been filed by the plastics industry. In June, Chile's Congress had unanimously approved the new ban, citing concerns of plastic pollution in the ocean and on land.

The country's Association of Industrial Plastics had sued to block the new law on constitutional grounds. But the court rejected their arguments.

Large retailers will have six months to phase out single-use plastic bags, while small businesses will have up to two years. The ban builds on a law passed under the previous president that had called for a prohibition on plastic bags along the country's 4,000-mile coastline.

In announcing the new ban, Marcela Cubillos, Chile's environment minister, told the New York Times, "We are convinced that our coast imposes an obligation to be leaders in cleaning up our oceans."

Chile's ban is the first country-wide one in the Americas. Similar bans have been passed in China, Kenya, France, and elsewhere. Many regional and local areas have bans or other restrictions, including taxes or fees aimed at discouraging the use of single-use plastic bags.

Seattle Becomes First U.S. City to Ban Plastic Straws and Utensils

In an attempt to reduce the amount of plastic waste polluting the land and water, Seattle banned the use of plastic straws and utensils in bars and restaurants starting July 1.

The roughly 5,000 eateries in the city are being encouraged to eschew providing straws or disposable utensils, or at least to switch to paper alternatives. A less green but still legal option, according to the city, is compostable plastic straws or utensils.

"Plastic pollution is surpassing crisis levels in the world's oceans, and I'm proud Seattle is leading the way and setting an example for the nation by enacting a plastic straw ban," Seattle Public Utilities General Manager Mami Hara said in a statement.

A similar ban that was proposed for Hawaii was defeated by opposition from industry. Other proposed bans are being debated in San Francisco, New York, and Washington, D.C., among other places.

Some advocates for the disabled have warned that straw bans need to take into account special needs. ( Learn more about the history of plastic straws and other efforts to remove them.)

<p>A whale shark swims beside a plastic bag in the Gulf of Aden near Yemen. Although <a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/fish/facts/whale-shark">whale sharks</a> are the biggest fish in the sea, they're still threatened by ingesting small bits of plastic.</p>

EU, UK, and India Propose Plastic Bans

In draft rules released May 28, the European Commission proposed a ban on 10 common items that it says make up about 70 percent of the litter in EU waters. This includes plastic straws, drink stirrers, plates, and more.

The rules would still need approval from member states and the European Parliament to move forward. They would likely not go into effect for several years.

The proposed law would also mandate that EU countries collect and recycle 90 percent of plastic bottles by 2025. Plastic producers would be on the hook for most of the expense of waste management and cleanup efforts.

In April, British Prime Minister Theresa May announced her intent to establish a ban in her country on sales of single-use plastics, including straws and cotton swab handles.

Calling plastic waste "one of the greatest environmental challenges facing the world," May said she would work with industry to develop alternatives. An estimated 8.5 billion plastic straws are tossed out in the U.K. every year.

On June 5, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced his intent to eliminate all single-use plastic in the country by 2022. With a fast-growing economy and population of 1.3 billion, India struggles to manage its vast waste stream, and is a significant contributor to global ocean plastic.

"Let us all join together to beat plastic pollution and make this planet a better place to live," Modi said.

Experts caution that Modi's goal is far from being realized, and would likely take significant changes and investment from industry and the public. Already, industry lobbyists have taken aim at the efforts. The state of Maharashtra, home to megacity Mumbai, eased a ban on single-use plastic just a week after it unveiled the plan this summer. The state is working on a number of exemptions, for plastic of a certain thickness, products of a certain size, medical equipment, and other uses.

National Geographic is committed to reducing plastics pollution. Learn more about our non-profit activities at natgeo.org/plastics. This story is part of Planet or Plastic?-our multiyear effort to raise awareness about the global plastic waste crisis. Learn what you can do to reduce your own single-use plastics, and take your pledge.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A running list of action on plastic pollution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The world is waking up to a crisis of ocean plastic-and we're tracking the developments and solutions as they happen.

# data[].attributes.headline
A detailed look at immigration legislation from the Colonial Period to the present

# data[].attributes.subject
A detailed look at immigration legislation from the Colonial Period to the present

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A detailed look at immigration legislation from the Colonial Period to the present

The Immigration Act of 1907 broadens the categories of people banned from immigrating to the U.S. The list excludes "imbeciles," "feeble-minded" people, those with physical or mental disabilities that prevent them from working, tuberculosis victims, children who enter the U.S. without parents, and those who committed crimes of "moral turpitude."

The "Gentleman's Agreement" between the U.S. and Japan ends the immigration of Japanese workers.

Congress passes the Expatriation Act of 1907 that says women must adopt the citizenship of their husbands. Therefore, women who marry foreigners lose their U.S. citizenship unless their husbands become citizens.

The Alien Registration Act (Smith Act) requires that all immigrants age 14 and up register with the government and be fingerprinted. The act also bans individuals considered "subversives" from immigrating.

News breaks about inhumane detention centers along the US-Mexico border; there are numerous stories of unsanitary conditions, violence, and the separation of children from their families. Protests break out across the country and around the globe, and many call for the dissolution of ICE, the immigration organization seen as most responsible for the detentions. As of summer 2020, the detention centers remain a matter of public debate.

A detailed look at immigration legislation from the Colonial Period to the present

The Immigration Act of 1907 broadens the categories of people banned from immigrating to the U.S. The list excludes "imbeciles," "feeble-minded" people, those with physical or mental disabilities that prevent them from working, tuberculosis victims, children who enter the U.S. without parents, and those who committed crimes of "moral turpitude."

The "Gentleman's Agreement" between the U.S. and Japan ends the immigration of Japanese workers.

Congress passes the Expatriation Act of 1907 that says women must adopt the citizenship of their husbands. Therefore, women who marry foreigners lose their U.S. citizenship unless their husbands become citizens.

The Alien Registration Act (Smith Act) requires that all immigrants age 14 and up register with the government and be fingerprinted. The act also bans individuals considered "subversives" from immigrating.

News breaks about inhumane detention centers along the US-Mexico border; there are numerous stories of unsanitary conditions, violence, and the separation of children from their families. Protests break out across the country and around the globe, and many call for the dissolution of ICE, the immigration organization seen as most responsible for the detentions. As of summer 2020, the detention centers remain a matter of public debate.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
History and timeline of immigration laws passed in the U.S. from the colonial period to the present

# data[].attributes.headline
U.S. Immigration Timeline from History Channel 

# data[].attributes.subject
U.S. Immigration Timeline from History Channel 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
U.S. Immigration Timeline: Definition & Reform - HISTORY

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A timeline of U.S. immigration shows how, from the 1600s to today, the United States became a nation of people from hundreds of cultures, languages and beliefs.

# data[].attributes.headline
How the United States Immigration System Works from American Immigration Council

# data[].attributes.subject
How the United States Immigration System Works from American Immigration Council

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
U.S. immigration law is based on the following principles: the reunification of families, admitting immigrants with skills that are valuable to the U.S. economy, protecting refugees, and promoting diversity. This fact sheet provides basic information about how the U.S. legal immigration system is designed and functions.

The body of law governing U.S. immigration policy is called the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The INA allows the United States to grant up to 675,000 permanent immigrant visas each year across various visa categories. On top of those 675,000 visas, the INA sets no limit on the annual admission of U.S. citizens' spouses, parents, and children under the age of 21. In addition, each year the president is required to consult with Congress and set an annual number of refugees to be admitted to the United States through the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program.

Once a person obtains an immigrant visa and comes to the United States, they become a lawful permanent resident (LPR). In some circumstances, noncitizens already inside the United States can obtain LPR status through a process known as "adjustment of status."

LPRs are eligible to apply for nearly all jobs (i.e., jobs not legitimately restricted to U.S. citizens) and can remain in the country permanently, even if they are unemployed. After residing in the United States for five years (or three years in some circumstances), LPRs are eligible to apply for U.S. citizenship. It is impossible to apply for citizenship through the normal process without first becoming an LPR.

Each year the United States also admits a variety of noncitizens on a temporary basis. Such "non-immigrant" visas are granted to everyone from tourists to foreign students to temporary workers permitted to remain in the country for years. While certain employment-based visas are subject to annual caps, other non-immigrant visas (including tourist and student visas) have no numerical limits.

I. Family-Based Immigration

Family unification is an important principle governing U.S. immigration policy. The family-based immigration system allows U.S. citizens and LPRs to bring certain family members to the United States. Family-based immigrants are admitted either as immediate relatives of U.S. citizens or through the family preference system.

An unlimited number of visas are available every year for the immediate relatives of U.S. citizens. Prospective immigrants in this category must meet standard eligibility criteria, and petitioners must meet certain age and financial requirements. Immediate relatives are:

spouses of U.S. citizens;

unmarried minor children of U.S. citizens (under 21 years old); and

parents of U.S. citizens (petitioner must be at least 21 years old to petition for a parent).

A limited number of visas are available every year under the family preference system. Prospective immigrants in the family preference system must meet standard eligibility criteria, and petitioners must meet certain age and financial requirements. The family preference system includes:

adult children (married and unmarried) and brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens (petitioner must be at least 21 years old to petition for a sibling); and

spouses and unmarried children (minor and adult) of LPRs.

In order to balance the overall number of immigrants arriving based on family relationships, Congress established a complicated system for calculating the available number of family preference visas for any given year. The number is determined by starting with 480,000 (the maximum number in principle allocated for all family-based immigrants) and then subtracting the number of immediate relative visas issued during the previous year and the number of aliens "paroled" into the United States during the previous year. Any unused employment preference immigrant numbers from the preceding year are then added to this total to establish the number of visas that are available for allocation through the family preference system. However, by law, the number of family-based visas allocated through the preference system may not be lower than 226,000. The number of immediate relatives often exceeds 250,000 in a given year and triggers the 226,000 minimum for preference visas. As a result, the total number of family-based visas often exceeds 480,000. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2019, family-based immigrants comprised 68.8 percent of all new LPRs in the United States.

The family-based immigration system is summarized in Table 1.
Table 1: Family-Based Immigration System

Immediate Relatives

U.S. Citizen adults

Spouses, unmarried minor children, and parents

* Plus any unused visas from the 4th preference.

** Plus any unused visas from 1st and 2nd preference.

***Plus any unused visas from the all other family-based preferences.

Worldwide level of family preference allocation: 480,000 minus visas issued to immediate relatives and parolees, plus unused employment-visas from previous fiscal year. Floor for preference categories: 226,000.

Source: William A. Kandel, Permanent Legal Migration to the United States, (CRS Report No. R42866) (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2014), https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R42866.pdf.

In order to be admitted through the family-based immigration system, a U.S. citizen or LPR sponsor must petition for an individual relative, establish the legitimacy of the relationship, meet minimum income requirements, and sign an affidavit of support stating that the sponsor will be financially responsible for the family member(s) upon arrival in the United States or adjustment to LPR status within the United States. The individual relative also must meet certain eligibility requirements that include submitting to a medical exam and obtaining required vaccinations (including a COVID-19 vaccination), an analysis of any immigration or criminal history, as well as demonstrating that they will not become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence.

The spouses and children who accompany or follow the principal immigrant (the one sponsored by the U.S. citizen or LPR under the family-preference category) are referred to as derivative immigrants. Derivative immigrants also count toward the numerical caps for the categories in Table 1. That means that many of the visa slots allotted for members of these categories are often actually used by the spouses and children of the members. For example, in FY 2019, 61,031 people were admitted in the category "brothers and sisters" of U.S. citizens, but only 22,179 of them were actual brothers or sisters of U.S. citizens. The rest were spouses (14,956) and children (23,896) of the siblings of U.S. citizens.

II. Employment-Based Immigration

The United States provides various ways for immigrants with valuable skills to come to the country on either a permanent or a temporary basis.

Temporary Visa Classifications

Temporary employment-based visa classifications permit employers to hire and petition for foreign nationals for specific jobs for limited periods. Most temporary workers must work for the employer that petitioned for them and have limited ability to change jobs. There are more than 20 types of visas for temporary nonimmigrant workers. These include L-1 visas for intracompany transfers; various P visas for athletes, entertainers, and skilled performers; R-1 visas for religious workers; various A visas for diplomatic employees; O-1 visas for workers of extraordinary ability; and various H visas for both highly skilled and lesser-skilled workers. The visa classifications vary in terms of their eligibility requirements, duration, whether they permit workers to bring dependents, and other factors. In most cases, these workers must leave the United States if their status expires or if their employment is terminated. It may be possible, depending on the type of job and the foreign national's qualifications, for an employer to sponsor the worker for permanent employment. A foreign national does not have to be working for the employer in order to be sponsored. However, depending on the permanent immigration category sought and the foreign national's current nonimmigrant category, he or she may be able to complete the steps to become an LPR while continuing to live and work in the United States.

Permanent Immigration

The overall numerical limit for permanent employment-based immigrants is 140,000 per year. This number includes the immigrants plus their eligible spouses and minor unmarried children, meaning the actual number of employment-based immigrants is less than 140,000 each year. Any unused family preference immigrant numbers from the preceding year are added to this cap to establish the number of visas that are available for allocation through the employment-based system. The total number of available visas is then divided into five preference categories. For some categories, the sponsor must first test the U.S. labor market under terms and conditions established by the Department of Labor, and the Secretary of Labor must certify that the petitioner's application meets certain requirements before the sponsor may file a petition with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). For some categories, the sponsor's first step is to file a petition with USCIS or the foreign national may self-petition. The final step is the foreign national's application for an immigrant visa at a U.S. embassy or consulate abroad or an application to adjust status to LPR if in lawful status in the United States. For consular processing, the immigrant visa application cannot be filed until after USCIS approves the immigrant petition. For adjustment of status, the time to file the application depends on whether a visa number is considered to be immediately available.

The employment-based immigration system is summarized in Table 2.
Table 2: Permanent Employment-Based Preference System

Skilled workers with at least two years of training or experience, professionals with college degrees, or "other" workers for unskilled labor that is not temporary or seasonal.

40,040***

"Other" unskilled laborers restricted to 5,000

*Plus any unused visas from the 4th and 5th preferences.

**Plus any unused visas from the 1st preference.

***Plus any unused visas from the 1st and 2nd preference.

Worldwide level of employment-based immigrants: 140,000 for principal applicants and their dependents.

Source: Ruth Ellen Wasem, U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions, (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, March 13, 2012), 4, https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL32235.pdf.

In FY 2019, immigrants admitted through the employment preferences made up 13.5 percent of all new LPRs in the United States.

III. Per-Country Ceilings

In addition to the numerical limits placed on the various immigration preference categories, the INA also places a limit on how many immigrants can come to the United States from any one country. Currently, no group of permanent immigrants (family-based and employment-based combined) from a single country can exceed seven percent of the total number of people immigrating to the United States in a single fiscal year. This is not a quota to ensure that certain nationalities make up seven percent of immigrants, but rather a limit that is set to prevent any immigrant group from dominating immigration flows to the United States.

IV. Refugees and Asylees

Refugees are admitted to the United States based upon an inability to return to their home countries because of a "well-founded fear of persecution" due to their race, membership in a particular social group, political opinion, religion, or national origin. Refugees apply for admission from outside of the United States, generally from a "transition country" that is outside their home country. The admission of refugees turns on numerous factors, such as the degree of risk they face, membership in a group that is of special concern to the United States (designated yearly by the president and Congress), and whether or not they have family members in the United States.

Each year, the president, in consultation with Congress, determines the numerical ceiling for refugee admissions. The overall cap is broken down into limits for each region of the world. After September 11, 2001, the number of refugees admitted into the United States fell drastically. After the Bush administration put new security checks in place, annual refugee admissions returned to their previous levels and rose during the Obama administration. During the Trump administration, the refugee ceiling fell sharply, from 110,000 in FY 2017 to 45,000 in FY 2018 and 30,000 in FY 2019. For FY 2020, the ceiling was set at an all-time low of 18,000-although only 11,814 were actually admitted (the lowest number of admitted refugees since the system was created in 1980.) The FY 2021 ceiling was set at 15,000 by the Trump administration, but was subsequently raised to 62,500 by the Biden administration. However, as of August 31, 2021, only 7,637 refugees had been admitted with just one month remaining in the current fiscal year.

Of the 62,500 admissions determined by the president for FY 2021, the regional allocations are shown in Table 3 below. Given the slow pace of admissions, it is unlikely that any of these allocations will be met.
Table 3: Presidential Determination on Refugee Admissions, FY 2021
Asylum is available to persons already in the United States who are seeking protection based on the same five protected grounds upon which refugees rely. They may apply at a port of entry at the time they seek admission or within one year of arriving in the United States. There is no limit on the number of individuals who may be granted asylum each year, nor are there specific categories for determining who may seek asylum. In FY 2019, 46,508 individuals were granted asylum.

Refugees and asylees are eligible to become LPRs one year after admission to the United States as a refugee or one year after receiving asylum.

V. The Diversity Visa Program

The Diversity Visa Program was created by the Immigration Act of 1990 as a dedicated channel for immigrants from countries with low rates of immigration to the United States. Each year, 55,000 visas are allocated randomly through a computer-generated lottery to nationals from countries that have sent fewer than 50,000 immigrants to the United States in the previous five years. Of the 55,000, up to 5,000 are made available for use under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act program, created in 1997 to provide relief to certain asylum seekers who applied for asylum before a specific date. This results in a reduction of the actual annual diversity visa limit to 50,000. The program was originally intended to favor immigration from Ireland (during the first three years of the program at least 40 percent of the visas were exclusively allocated to Irish immigrants). Diversity visas are now distributed on a regional basis and benefit Africans and Eastern Europeans in particular.

To be eligible for a diversity visa, potential applicants from qualifying countries must have a high-school education (or its equivalent) or have, within the past five years, a minimum of two years working in a profession requiring at least two years of training or experience. Spouses and minor unmarried children of the principal applicant may also enter as derivatives.

Immigration bans implemented by the Trump administration effectively shut down the Diversity Visa Program in 2020 and left roughly 43,000 of that year's lottery winners without their visas. Those 2020 lottery winners who did not receive visas by the end of the fiscal year lost their chance to immigrate to the United States, prompting some of them to file lawsuits against the federal government in an effort to obtain their visas. Although the Biden administration subsequently lifted the immigration bans, the Diversity Visa Program has resumed at a very slow pace. By the end of June 2021, the State Department had issued only 3,094 diversity visas for FY 2021. Some FY 2021 lottery winners have filed lawsuits demanding that the State Department issue their visas before the end of the fiscal year.

VI. Other Forms of Humanitarian Relief

Temporary Protected Status (TPS) is is granted to people who are in the United States but cannot return to their home country because of "natural disaster," "extraordinary temporary conditions," or "ongoing armed conflict." TPS is granted to a country for six, twelve, or eighteen months and can be extended beyond that if unsafe conditions in the country persist. TPS does not necessarily lead to LPR status or confer any other immigration status.

Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) provides protection from deportation for individuals whose home countries are unstable, therefore making return dangerous. Unlike TPS, which is authorized by statute, DED is at the discretion of the executive branch. DED does not necessarily lead to LPR status or confer any other immigration status.

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) is a program established in 2012 which permits certain individuals who were brought to the United States while under the age of 16 and who have resided continuously in the United States since June 15, 2007, to remain in the United States and work lawfully for at least two years, so long as they have no significant criminal record and have graduated high school or college or received a degree equivalent. It does not confer any path to permanent legal status and requires renewal every two years. In 2017, the Trump administration attempted to end DACA, but this action was challenged in court. In June 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that the administration's attempt to terminate the program was unlawful. The Trump administration subsequently tried to impose new limits on DACA, but this action was also challenged in court and a federal judge in New York ordered the administration to set aside the newly imposed limits. Separately, a federal judge in Texas ruled that DACA was unlawful and that no new, first-time applications should be accepted. In January 2021, President Biden issued a memorandum reaffirming the federal government's commitment to DACA and pledging to appeal the Texas ruling.

Humanitarian parole allows certain individuals to enter the United States, even though they may not meet the definition of a refugee and may not be eligible to immigrate through other channels. Parolees may be admitted temporarily for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit.

VII. U.S. Citizenship

In order to qualify for U.S. citizenship through naturalization, an individual must have had LPR status (a green card) for at least five years (or three years if he or she obtained the green card through a U.S.-citizen spouse or through the Violence Against Women Act, VAWA). There are other exceptions including, but not limited to, members of the U.S. military who serve in a time of war or declared hostilities. Applicants for U.S. citizenship must be at least 18 years old, demonstrate continuous residency, demonstrate "good moral character," pass English and U.S. history and civics exams (with certain exceptions), and pay an application fee, among other requirements.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How the United States Immigration System Works

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
U.S. immigration law is very complex, and there is much confusion as to how it works. This fact sheet provides basic information about how the U.S. legal immigration system is designed.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Difference Between "Migrant" and "Immigrant" from Teen Vogue 

# data[].attributes.subject
The Difference Between "Migrant" and "Immigrant" from Teen Vogue 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Teixeira says one distinction between an immigrant and a migrant can be seen in these visas, specifically in that immigrant visas are "related to lawful permanent-resident status."

Another distinction between the terms "migrant" and "immigrant" could be between the "outward-bound vs. inward-bound" viewpoint of the specific terms, he says. "The term 'migrant' focuses on the act of leaving one's country. The term 'immigrant' focuses on the act of settling in the receiving country," Teixeira says.
Can they be used interchangeably?
Conversationally and in the news, many people use the terms interchangeably. But can they be used interchangeably and mean the same thing?

While Teixeira says the terms can be used interchangeably casually, he says that "notable anti-immigration publications, especially in Europe, focus on using the term 'migrant' in a way that furthers their anti-immigrant viewpoint."

Using "migrant" in this way has led to the term carrying a "sinister, despective connotation," Teixeira says. "The term seems to be used, in such contexts, to undermine the permanence of the individual's life in the receiving country, and to play down any claim of, for instance, asylum, as there is increasingly an implication that 'migrants' tend to be economic migrants - and therefore only moving for work opportunities."

Teixeira tells Teen Vogue that this tactic is used to advance the idea that a migrant is a "temporary outsider" who is in the "receiving country to take and take without giving back." This rhetoric provides a way for people within a receiving country to "exclude noncitizens from being accepted as part of their local community."

For these reasons, Teixeira says he typically avoids using the term "migrant." He also notes that immigration law typically considers those people who are not on permanent-resident visas immigrants, even if they are here for seasonal work and plan on returning to their home country after they complete the seasonal work.

Teixeira says immigration lawyers in the U.S. typically focus on whether a person has "lawful permanent-resident status" as opposed to asking if they are an immigrant. He also states that immigration lawyers in the U.S. normally don't use the term "migrant" in an effort to avoid the "negative tone the term 'migrant' now carries."
Can a migrant be an immigrant?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Difference Between "Migrant" and "Immigrant"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The ongoing highlight of immigration issues has led to confusion about the definition of "immigrant" and that of "migrant," as both terms have been in the news quite a bit.

# data[].attributes.headline
What You Can Do Right Now to Help Immigrant Families Separated at the Border from The Cut 

# data[].attributes.subject
What You Can Do Right Now to Help Immigrant Families Separated at the Border from The Cut 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What You Can Do Right Now to Help Fight Trump’s Family-Separation Policy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
According to the experts who are actively doing just that.

# data[].attributes.headline
What It’s Like to Be a Teen Living in an Immigration Detention Center from Teen Vogue 

# data[].attributes.subject
What It’s Like to Be a Teen Living in an Immigration Detention Center from Teen Vogue 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Adriana had long looked forward to her 16th birthday - but when the date finally arrived, she celebrated not at home with her family and friends, but in a Texas center for immigrants that felt more like a prison.

"That day I didn't do anything. I just sat there and I cried and cried all day," Adriana recalls to Teen Vogue. Weeks earlier, she had fled El Salvador with her mother and sister, Allison, then 13, crossing the Rio Grande in order to escape violence. When they entered the United States, they didn't have any authorization, and when they were picked up by border patrol officials, they said they were seeking asylum.

The three have found themselves stuck in a system of family detention, where other women and children like themselves are kept under lock and key.

Until 2014, under the Obama administration, children and children traveling with families seeking asylum in the U.S., like Adriana (now 17) and Allison (now 15), were required to be held in the least restrictive setting appropriate for their age while they awaited their court dates. In 2014, however, following a summer of Central American violence that saw tens of thousands of families and children (more than 68,000 families and 68,000 unaccompanied children were apprehended by agents between fall 2013 and 2014) stopped by border patrol, those hoping for asylum began increasingly finding themselves sent to detention centers, often privately run, for stays that extended indefinitely. Then Homeland Security secretary Jeh Johnson explained at the time that detaining asylum seekers was seen as a method of deterring others from crossing the border. The new policy has led to a dramatically different experience for families seeking to immigrate. As of August 2016, more than 2,000 women and children were being held at facilities in Texas and Pennsylvania maintained by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE).

The facilities, two in Texas and a smaller one in Pennsylvania, are restrictive, dorm-like settings, often compared to cozier-looking prisons, where mothers and children as young as two weeks old are policed by guards. Meals, school, and recreation all take place within the center, and families share rooms with strangers. Some of the centers have features like playgrounds and salons. However, the inability to leave and the monotony of life take a toll on the mental health of some residents, with reports of depression, anxiety, and suicide attempts amongst residents.

Adriana, Allison, and their mother were picked up by border patrol after entering Texas in August 2015. Shortly thereafter, they were sent to the South Texas Family Residential Center, a 2,400-bed center in the city of Dilley, a community that's become an immigrant detention capital. The girls expected to be released after a short stay to join their father, who had left El Salvador several years prior and was living and working in Dallas. But while Johnson has said that the average detainee is held for only 20 days, their family is one of a number whose stays have stretched past the one-year mark.

After more than a month at Dilley, a center staff member told Allison to begin packing their things to prepare to leave. "We got very excited. We thought that that was where we were going, that we were going to go home. But then when we got all our stuff ready and they took us to our room, we saw a bunch of other women that were leaving as well," Adriana tells Teen Vogue. Aware that her mother had not signed any release documents, she began to fear they were about to be deported. After several hours in that room, the group was taken to an airport and put on a plane to Pennsylvania.

"When we got on the plane, it was several of us families, including kids as young as five years old. On the plane we saw a lot of men, a lot of people in shackles and cuffs, and we were wondering how they could allow a kid as young as five to see this?" says Adriana.

ICE officials tell Teen Vogue that protocols have shifted and families are now, for the most part, transported on commercial flights. But when Adriana's family traveled, it was on ICE Air, one of the routine flights mainly comprised of people facing deportation, including those being returned to their home countries, some of whom had been convicted of crimes. Arriving at yet another facility, the much smaller Berks County Residential Center, a public center in the borough of Leesport, she worked to maintain hope while spending each day in a sparse room shared with another family, eating cafeteria food and spending a lot of time indoors.

"When we got there, we were all trying to stay very positive, thinking, 'OK, now we're going to leave this place really soon,'" Adriana recalls. "Why would it be so difficult for them to just get us a ticket home and let us go back to our family [in Dallas]?" Administrators offered them no timeline for when they might be able to leave.

Adriana was not the only Berks resident feeling in limbo and receiving little information about her case. U.S. family detention is a system that doesn't seem to operate under any easily understandable rhyme or reason, with women and their children given little information about the progress of their cases, when they might expect to be released, or who is making that decision. This was acknowledged even by a Department of Homeland Security Advisory Committee, which said in a report that "At the individual immigration officer level, it remains unclear what factors are used for custody determinations, and how they are applied." This summer and fall, a group of mothers in the facility even joined together for hunger strikes meant to protest and draw attention to their prolonged detainment. Adriana said she and her sister, Allison, were eager to take part but said the strikers had been told that any minors involved could potentially be transferred and separated from their mothers.

As the weeks at Berks stretched on, the sisters grew tired of the restrictions and monotony. "Everything was the same," says Allison. "We would have breakfast in the morning, and we would have school, and then we would go to the computers or take a nap, or later at night we would watch some TV, and we were so tired of it all." Even school offered little in the way of stimulation. She says that children between the ages of 12 and 18 were in the same class with no distinctions made between grade levels. As an 11th grader, Adriana felt hopelessly unchallenged, learning alongside 7th- and 8th-graders.

ICE officials tell Teen Vogue that children are given an educational assessment within three days of arriving, and an individual educational plan is developed for each child.

After nearly a year at Berks, in the fall of 2016, Adriana and Allison's mother, Carmen, who had frequently been ill, began to feel dizzy. Adriana went to get her something to drink and returned to see her condition rapidly worsening. "Her hands started getting really cold. She said that everything was going numb. Her face was really pale. Mom started to say that she was feeling so bad that she thought that she was dying. I kept saying to her, 'Mom, please don't say that,'" says Adriana.

Carmen was eventually taken to the hospital, where she had her gall bladder removed. One day after her operation, she was discharged and returned to Berks. Her daughters were appalled at what they saw as a total lack of regard for her needs during her recuperation. No provisions were made for her to have food appropriate for her recovery, they say, and they received no assistance from staff in helping her to the bathroom or visits with outside family members. ICE officials said they could not comment on residents' individual health records due to strict HIPAA provisions.

While the surgery may have been the lowest point in a grueling 13-month period, it presented a ray of hope. Adriana says Carmen's attorneys filed paperwork contesting her having to return to the facility after undergoing such a serious surgery. Shortly thereafter, the family was notified that they were being released to go live with their father in Dallas. "We just cried and we screamed and laughed, and we couldn't believe it. We hugged each other. It was just unbelievable. That day was October 5. It was the day before my birthday, so I couldn't believe it," Adriana recalls.

Today, Adriana and Allison are in the 11th and 9th grades and living in Texas with their mom and dad. "We are at home; we go to school; we are learning things we are supposed to be learning. We meet a bunch of different people. We're going to a bunch of different places like normal teenagers. We have phones," Adriana explains. "Most importantly, we are with our family. We are with our dad after 11 years of not seeing each other."

But their fears remain. Their case is still not settled, and while it was the Obama administration under which they were held, they know that President Donald Trump's policies on immigration may threaten them and millions of others. A judicial order currently keeps them from being deported; they are required to report to ICE for regular appointments. "We are very scared for all the promises that he [Trump] has made of deporting so many people because we're very scared to go back to our country. Things in our country are not OK," Adriana says.

Thoughts of the families remaining in custody weigh heavily on the girls' minds as well. "There are people that we arrived with at Berks when we first arrived there who are still detained there, and we always wonder, How is it possible?" Adriana says. For many, it seems, fear in their own nation has been replaced by fear in a new one.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What It's Like to Be a Teen Living in an Immigration Detention Center

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"When we got there, we were all trying to stay very positive, thinking, 'OK, now we're going to leave this place really soon.'"

# data[].attributes.headline
My Secret Life as an Undocumented Immigrant from Elle Magazine 

# data[].attributes.subject
My Secret Life as an Undocumented Immigrant from Elle Magazine 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Statistics do not tell the story of immigration. People do. Since its inception, this nation has been continually infused with the energy of newcomers. Yet their assimilation has seldom been smooth. The challenges we face today are not new. Only the stories are.

IMPORTANT NOTICE
If you need legal advice on immigration law, please contact an attorney.

My grandparents were refugees at the time of partition in India from, what is now, Pakistan to present India. They worked long and hard days doing blue-collar jobs so that my parents would have a better chance at life. My parents chose to honor their sacrifices by seeking a better life in the United States. We came to this country because my mother had a fellowship. We landed with just over $800 in NYC. My father's MBA was not accredited in the United States so eventually he went back to school to repeat his degree. They recognized that the caste system in the US is based on where you go to school so they sent my sister and I to the best high schools and then the best colleges. I am now in law school working to make sure our systems provide everyone with a fair shot at success and my sister is teaching English helping the next generation learn empathy. We honor the sacrifices of our family by trying to make the world a better place. We believe that the promise of America can be a reality for all of us. We are Americans.
Aditi
New York, NY

My father was a bracero. He suffered a lot. He was far from his family in Mexico but convinced a good religious man to build a home for his family and brought his family home to the United States. Years later, my mother cleaned others people's homes and ironed other people's clothes: neighbors' homes and clothes, in a middle class neighborhood in a home my father purchased. I stand proud every day because of them. I am proud to be an immigrant.
Graciela
Los Angeles

After my family got a visa in Yemen, I was so glad that I would be going to the USA. All my family were happy for us but most of them were crying at the time we left. We left Yemen during the beginning of the revolution to change the president. Since then people are suffering from lack of food resources. Each year it gets worse. My father told us that we would not stay for a long time in NYC but since the war started in Yemen it's not safe anymore. We couldn't go back so we decided to stay. So for two years we have been hoping that Yemen will get better and it will be safe so we can go back and see my family after five years of being expatriates.
Basam

My dad was born in 1968 in Saigon, Vietnam during the Vietnam War. At that time grandpa was a soldier fighting for the South in the Vietnam War. My dad was 7 at the time when my grandfather was taken to a camp that was owned by the communists and was kept as a prisoner of war. He returned 10 years after when my dad was 17 years old and my dad's family opened up a salon. In 1993, when my dad was 24 years old, my dad and his whole family received airplane tickets to America to escape the communist takeover in Vietnam. My dad and his family chose to settle in California because he heard the weather was nice and there was a lot of job opportunities in San Jose. When my dad first arrived in America. They lived in an apartment in Blossom Hill. His first job was in electronic assembling. He says getting the job was easy since he had a friend who helped him. He wanted to learn the English language because he says living in America without knowing most of the words was difficult so he went to West Valley College for two years to learn English. Everyone has their own immigrant story.
Kelly
CA

I'm lucky. I'm 16, live in a small town and I am a daughter of an immigrant. Growing in a small town, when 96 percent of the population is white is tough. You turn white. Sure, the color of my skin will never be the color of a piece of printer paper but inside it feels like I'm all white. I guess the word "anchor baby" defines me.... sort of. I'm the president of debate club, where we talk about bills, current news topics, and political nominees. The hardest topic... Is immigration reform. People are so uninformed.. "Yes I believe we should deport all undocumented immigrants here, and they should get in line with all the other people to get their papers... LEGALLY" I find that easier said than done. I haven't seen my father since I was 8 and only spoken to him on the telephone. He was deported in 2009. The last day I saw him was in a train station... And I had no idea why I was saying good bye... and why everyone was crying. When my friends came over and asked where my father was I said he was "working". Every year on my birthday he calls me and I try hard not to cry because I know it's another year of him not being able to see me grow. My mother is a single mom. Terrified of being deported. Just a couple weeks ago she was caught. She was driving to work when a police officer pulled her over because she wasn't wearing her seat belt. For anyone else it's just a ticket. For a single mother that is illegal it's "I have to go to court, I have to show identification... They will find out I am illegal.. I will be deported... I have to call my lawyer... Who will take care of my daughters? " I hate seeing my mother in constant fear. I hate hearing family members and friends calling us to be careful because in Hudson ICE was seen deporting families. She's scared. I'm scared. We're all scared. Living the American dream shouldn't consist of being scared every second of the day.
E.G.
Albany, New York

I came to the United States as a child. My dad is a resident alien but could never fix my situation.
Since I have been here I've formed a family of my own. I don't know anything about Mexico because I was raised here and I find myself scared to be deported to a place that I do not know.
Gonzalo
South Bay, Florida

My parents moved to America when I was a year old and my sister was 2 1/2. I have 2 younger siblings who are born in America. Sometimes I hate how unknowingly privileged they are. They get free doctor and dentist visits while I haven't been to the doctor since I was 8 years old. I did not know about immigration until recently and I cried for days. My father, mother, sister, and I all have our passports. I am now 16 years old and counselors are telling me to start looking for college. My sister is a senior and she recently found out that we cannot apply for FAFSA. I don't know how I'm going to pay for college and I want to be an engineer. I don't even have my workers permit and it sucks to see everyone else getting jobs and licenses when I'm just stuck. I feel so helpless and sometimes I wonder why my parents even decided to come here. There is nothing for us here.
A Dreamless Child
Indiana

I came to the U.S. When I was 1 year old along with my 2 older brothers and my mom. My dad was working in the U.S. at the time so he never really had the chance to see me when I was born. My parents have had to go through so much just us. I admire them so much. They came to America seeking a future. I never went hungry. We came here with a tourist visa. I am 17 years old now and I want to travel the world but sadly I can't. There are so many risk factors that come with being an immigrant but my parents always managed to cope with them.
Maria
New Jersey

I never knew being illegal holds you back from many things you can do here in the states. I've been illegal all my life but found out when I was 15. I came to the United States when I was 5. I lived the life of a normal kid with school and friends and just being a kid. When I got older I couldn't get a normal job or even go to school or even get my first car. It is hard and it keeps getting harder for some reason. I'm 24 and don't really know where to turn to.
Jose
Orlando FL

I went to N.Y. in 2004 where I met my child's father. I stayed 90 days, came home then went back and fell pregnant in August 2005. I left of my own accord went back twice in 2006 then again in 2007. When I went to the US last month with my 9yr old whose father is an American citizen I was denied entry on the grounds of an overstay in the past. My child was seeing her father on father's day and meeting her brothers and great grandma. I am absolutely disgusted as to what they put my child through. Border control said get a visa you'll be back in 5 days. I don't know who to speak to what to do. The US consulate won't answer calls. I feel when you find yourself in a situation like this you need to speak to a human being not an automated service. I'm so tired been trying to fix this to no avail. The money for flights was a waste of £1000. I think it's disgusting.
Vicky
Scotland

I came to the States for the first time a couple days after I turned 18. I wanted to visit my uncle who lived in Seattle and thought I might get a bit lucky so then I could get a job and live there. I arrived legally on a tourist visa and I applied for an asylum 3 months after that. I really hoped I could get through the process and at the end I would be granted a US citizenship. I had a working permit which I had to renew annually and I never missed paying taxes. I saved up some money and I took classes from a top music college in Boston, MA but I couldn't graduate due to my financial situation. FAFSA couldn't approve my application at that time so I needed to reach into my own pocket to pay my tuition. I worked at a local restaurant 60-70 hours a week and I started my music career in 2012. I was a part of a band based in Seattle that was quite popular at that time and we got to play for famous comedians, big casinos and many others. They paid me really well and the manager of the band is just a great model of how America should be like. He would let me play as much as the others do without any exceptions. I paid my taxes as a sub-contractor of the band and I didn't mind. I wanted thank America for giving me chances! I would also like to ask why you would kick me out when my asylum case had been denied. Now I'm living in Asia not knowing what else to do other that teaching ESL because I actually speak English. I hope to see you again soon, America. I really miss you and all my relatives that are still there. Someday we'll see each other again.
No name given
Indonesia

I have been apart from my wife and kids for 4 years now. I got a letter from NVC long time ago says that my visa was approved but they asked for someone to sponsor me. Sometime I ask myself is the US of America is still on planet earth. If I start walking it's not going to take all this time to see my wife and my son for the first time. Maybe it is because my name is Mohamed & I am Muslim. If that the problem I am ready to change my name & religion if that will help me to see my family. I always imagine that moment of us together and that moment of me seeing my son for the first time. I really feel powerless that I just can't do anything about this and I really hate myself about how powerless I am.
Mohamed
Kasserine, Tunisia-North Africa

I am 16 years old. My mother and I are both from Guatemala. My mother was forced to have sexual intercourse when she was 14. She got kicked out and struggled trying to find a place to sleep. My father heard about it and didn't care. His sister gave her a place to sleep but the problem was that the place was really little and filled with bugs. She had to sleep with those bugs everyday .She was 15 with a new born. My father at the time was having dreams about me. He wanted my mom and I to come to the United States .I don't know why he didn't go to a lawyer and try to work things out. He is a citizen, and yet he decided to bring us illegally. I was five years old at the time .I remember the day. My mother just told me to be quiet if I wanted to see my father. I remember holding my breath for some time waiting for the car to cross. It was the most sad and yet happy day of my life. I think my mom just wanted a better future for me. She wasn't making much and she knew my dad would help out. I don't really remember the day i saw my dad for the first time, but the years with him were amazing. Everything changed when he left back to Guatemala and wanted us to go back. My mom saw how I was doing in school and how we didn't suffer like we did back home. She didn't want to go back and she didn't. She later on went to Chicago. Her sister let her stay with her, and it was awful. My aunt was really selfish and mean. My mom didn't like that at all. We later on moved to California and she met a guy. It was the worst five years of my life. The guy didn't treat her the way my dad did. She was scared and worried for her life, and so was i. I don't want to go more into that. We recently moved out. I think now that she is on her own, she is working hard and being the best mom. After all this my main focus is just doing well in school and going to college. It is my main goal to finish college and look and my mom and thank her for staying and making my dreams come true of being someone in life.
anonymous
San Bernardino California

I came to this country in May, 2001 on H-1B visa and my family members (wife and my 2 daughters) joined me 2 months later. My elder daughter, was almost 10 years and 5 months old at the time of her arrival to USA. The labor Department approved my Application for Employment in 2005. I filed my papers for I140 in 2006, and the approval was given in 2008. I could not file for my Permanent Resident Status (I-485 form) as the priority date for India at that time was June 2001. Unfortunately, we received the letter on October 17th, 2015 regarding denial of the Green Card for my elder daughter because her age was over 21 years. Considering the above situation, the USCIS gives us no choice but to send my elder daughter back to India. She grew up in America and asking one daughter to be separated from her whole family just because she is older than 21 is disheartening. Our family has always believed in going by the law and have put all our efforts forward in the last 15 years to stay legal in this country. Currently, illegal immigrant children who were educated in America from a young age have rights to work and receive financial aid. Why is it that a family who has worked hard to stay legal and always follow the law is being punished for doing things the right way?
Divya
California

You know sometimes it can get hard not having papers. I was brought to the U.S. at the age 3 because my mom saw a better future for me there. We lived in my uncle's house with his family which are legal. My mom worked really hard for me to have everything I needed. However she fell in love with my step-dad and so we moved together as a family with his daughter and two sons. At first he treated me well but then became so fake to me. I thought that I would actually have someone to care for me and call him my dad. I'm 13 and this immigration stuff gets to me every day. I just want to go back home with my real family. (I'm an only child if you were wondering)
Guadalupe
Michigan

My father is 52 years old now. He entered The US at the age of 16 with a 3rd grade education. He has always been a hard worker and had been trying to obtain residency since I could remember. He was deported 4 years ago. My younger brothers were 2 and 16 at the time and I was 20. My brother got a job to help pay bills along with me and my older sister. My 2 year old brother is going to be 7 now and barely even knows who our dad is. I have helped raise him and took both of my brothers under my wing. I graduated from a technical college the year he was deported and now I am back in college and plan to obtain a degree in teaching. My father didn't raise criminals, he set examples of what hard work can accomplish. We never received government help and he always paid his taxes. So my question is why not look further into his history here rather than just assume anybody here "illegally," is in fact not worthy of living and thriving in this unjust but beautiful country.
Richard
Dallas, TX

I came in the US 1988 at 12 and now today at 37. I'm still dealing with being an immigrant after being married with 4 kids. I have had lawyers take my money and scam me over and over. My recent lawyer was indicted for scam. I lost my job 5 weeks ago because my lawyer was arrested and he kept all my documents to return to work. I have done all I can the legal way to obtain a green card but I feel like the system has failed me. I have lived in a prison for 25 years and I have committed no crime. My daughter will be 17 soon and when I started this journey I was pregnant with her.
Denise
No location given

I came here in 2009 by myself from Iraq. I was 20 years old then. Now I'm 25 years old and pretty soon will become a citizen. I don't have family support or any kind of support. It was tough at times but quiet seas don't make good sailors. Life is going pretty well. I have a lot of experience in sales and customer service. I can work in any field I wish. I'm working full time and going to school part time. I made a really good plan for my future. I believe that my future is set.
Bashar
No location given

My father was heading to work when the immigration was waiting for him. They had a warrant for him. They took him even though he has been living here for 40+ years. Now he can't see his newborn grandson, nor me or my brother including my little sister. My parents are divorced and who is she supposed to give her advice, give her that comfort that my father did? He paid all of his taxes, did everything by the book. I just can't believe this is what we call justice in America. This isn't the land of the free anymore. My father is my role model he raised me and my older brother by himself. I just can't believe how they can do this to an innocent man. He's been in the immigration holding facilities for a year now!
Alejandro
Pasadena, Texas

I went school in Canada and moved to Texas in 2010. At that time I was thinking it will be hard to settle in because of my race. However this was not the case. Within 3 months I got my first job and from there on I am just progressing. My family moved here in 2012. I would just like to thank the US for giving me an opportunity to pursue my dreams. Of course all countries have pros and cons but I still believe US is the land of opportunities. It has all the tools and resources you need to succeed. You don't need to be rich to enjoy all the privileges this country has to offer. You can still live a beautiful life. People are so helpful here. You get the respect you deserve. I was not born here but I wish I did.
Thank you US for everything.
Texas

I was brought to the U.S illegally when I was 3 years of age. My father came to this country first before he brought my mother and I. My father and mother still continue to work hard every day to give me and my two younger brothers the absolute best. I thank my father every day for bringing us to this blessed and beautiful country and giving us a better quality of life. Throughout my life I never thought it would be such a big deal being illegal until I got to high school and staring applying for my licenses or college scholarships. Obviously I was denied for not having a social security number. Later on Mr. President Obama gave us an opportunity named deferred action and it has opened to many doors for me! I'm truly blessed. I was able to obtain my driver licenses and continue school. Honestly my life has completely changed.
Allison
North Carolina

I am from Somalia, endless battles forced me out of Somalia in March 11, 2011. I arrived Kenya and registered with the UNHCR as a refugee, many times i applied for a resettlement to a third country, due to the high number of Somali refugee the UNHCR was dealing with, i gave up and felt hopeless. One day in 2012 i applied for the diversity green card visa lottery, i was accepted, by 2014 i recieved my visa. I am now living and working in Portland, Maine. I am saving some money to go to college in the fall of this year, 2015.

Abdi
Portland, Maine

I was only a few months old when I was brought in the U.S with my mother my father and my big brother. I was born in Mexico DF on January 31. My mom thought it would be better to build a better life in the other side so we could have a better future. I am 20 years old now I've been waiting to get my papers for too long. I finished high school and got my diploma to be able to go to college. But I won't be able without my papers. Every day I cry because I can't help my mom with rent anymore. I don't work anymore. I want my mom to be proud of me but how can I if I'm not from here and they won't accept us. My mom was once deported when I was 10 years old. I found out the next day because she had not come home. I got a phone call from Mexico and she told me she wasn't going to come back until 3 to 4 month. Never in my entire life have I felt so mad, so mad because I was left without a mother for 3 month. After that I've been scared of cops because I don't remember anything from Mexico because I've been living in Houston for my entire life. I want to be able to enjoy my life and learn new stuff and travel, something I can't do.
Ivonne
Houston, TX

I met my husband a Mexican national in 2007 after having our daughter. We wanted to "fix" his status as he was illegal. He left the states in 2011 and was given a 10 year bar from reentering the US with no waiver. Living a nightmare of trying to keep our marriage together our kids happy and the inflow of money to the family. We will not be allowed to live "normal" until 2021. Immigration has robbed me of my children's daily growth and amazing first memories as I travel between Mexico and San Diego weekly. I simply want to see and hold my children daily and have the daily support of my amazing husband. Immigration is such a cold inhumane process... It's tearing families apart when it should be uniting them.
Stephanie
San Diego

My dad was deported when I was 16 years old. I know he is somewhere in the Dominican Republic, if he is still alive. I try not to think about it too much because there are so many questions and nobody to answer them. I'm now 22 years old and sometimes, I wonder where he is and what he is doing. I know that he would be proud of me getting my bachelor's degree and becoming a teacher and coach. Even though I don't have a good relationship with my mother and only lived with my father for a few years, I thank them wholeheartedly for their sacrifices. They had no idea where I would be at 22, but it was thanks to them that I was born and raised in a place with unlimited opportunities.
Emilia
Lawrence, MA

For as long as I can remember, I knew that my parents were undocumented. Growing up in New York City, so many of the people around me were undocumented I didn't really know what it meant. But, as I got older, I started to figure it out. My parents would tell my siblings that we wouldn't be able to fly to see our cousins in Florida or even take a bus to another state because they didn't have a state-issued ID. I have always feared my parents getting stopped by the authorities and then getting deported. When I left for Scripps College in August all the way in California (I was born and raised in NYC), my parents couldn't even accompany me into the airport. My mom was terrified of going into the terminal for fear that someone would ask her for documentation. I went alone. In November, when I heard President Obama issue an executive order that would help about 5 million undocumented people living in the United States come out of the shadows, I felt elated.
Henna
California

I came into this Country when I was 2 years of age, I am now 19 about to turn 20. Like everybody, my parents came into this country to seek for a better life and to provide me with a better quality of education and to make sure I had everything I could possibly need. The three of us came into this country illegally, they came here without knowing anybody or without speaking or understanding the English language. Since day one they've worked very hard every day to build our empire that we have now. I'm beyond blessed and grateful because every day we are living the American dream. All through out these years it has definitely not been easy but definitely worth it. I now have my SS thanks to DACA but I'm still hoping to have the opportunity to go back to my homeland and have the blessing to see my grandparents at least one more time. Even though I will never get 15-16 years back I pray every day to god to give me the chance to be able to see them someday because even though I have everything now I have an empty place in my heart of not being able to hug them or telling them how much they mean to me.
Allison
California
Like many others I came to the U.S at a young age, 6. My parents took me and my two sisters 9 and 1 at the time from Brazil. 15 years later we all got our green cards. In 2014, I was 22 years of age and met a beautiful girl. She was also an immigrant from Brazil. She and her family were here on a tourist visa and switched to the application of a religious visa. Her dad is a pastor. During the 8 months we dated, things were moving great until they were denied the religious visa and had to go back to Brazil. I proposed to her the day before she left in belief, I with a green card can legalize her. We were going to get married in 2016, but in March 2015 our lives changed. She still had a valid tourist visa, she was coming to celebrate our 1 year anniversary of the day we started dating. Coming from Brazil to the U.S. she was stopped at the airport for questioning. The officers asked her about her stay in the U.S, she admitted to having worked in the U.S. for a couple of months on a part-time job. She did not have employment authorization to have gotten the job. She was sent back that day to Brazil. I didn't get to see her and remember that as one of the worst days of my life. Now she can't visit me as her visa is cancelled. I went and got married July 2015. With the stain on her name, we were advised to wait for my citizenship before trying to legalize her. It will take 2 years for me to be eligible to be a citizen. I hope they will forgive her and let her live with me. I will continue to work and visit her periodically during these two years to build a future for us here in the U.S. It won't be easy but we are faithful things will work out and we can be together in the U.S. again.
Doug
Florida

My parents came here from Europe when I was just 3 years old. They haven't been back since and haven't seen their families in almost 20 years. It's been a very tough life for them and I almost wish they never came here. They have jobs they hate, no social life, and I have watched them grow to hate each other because of all these factors. I wish desperately there was some way to get them back home and to make them happy but there's not much I can do. Their mental energy is almost completely gone. I love them to death but can't handle seeing them so sad.
Ella
Colorado

I'm 22 years old and currently study Electrical Engineering. I was 8 years old when my parents decided to go to the Unites States. We lived there for almost ten years. Which means I lived my entire childhood there. Now we're living in Chile. I really feel like I don't belong here. It has been really depressing for me and my family. I have two younger brothers who were born in the US. I didn't get the chance to get my citizenship but I really miss the US and am struggling to leran Spanish and missing the life i had in New York. All my friends are over there and I feel more American than Chilean and hope one day I can go back to where I think I belong.
Bastian
Valparais, Chile

I am an American by heart, soul and hard work. I love my country but they apparently do not love. I moved to the US in 1984 with my girlfriend at that time. She had a GREEN CARD and was legal. I was a Canadian citizen. We married in the US and she started to work. In those times, I could work illegally easily until we had arranged for my legal status. My wife came home one day and said that she had my SSN that she had been working on for some time. I had no idea how the process worked (sticking my head in the ground a little of course) and utilized that SSN for the next 24 years while I worked, built a company, employed people, did year of volunteer work, paid all of my personal and corporate taxes fully (which for many years where substantial as I made a very good living). As a test to the reality of the SSN, I received 2 NASD licenses which required finger prints, FBI back ground, etc. to make sure I am who I say I am. I had no illegal activities and had renewed my driver's license a number of times without a problem. I was even audited twice. Then, when getting divorced I find out that it is NOT a good number. The person that really does have that SSN is alive and will receive the very handsome benefit of the taxes that I paid all those years. Now Canada, the country I was born in, says I do not have a very long history of work and very little contribution to my CPP so I will receive almost nothing in retirement. Having spent all my funds in my earlier years on my nieces and nephews to get them through school and university, I am up the creek without a paddle.
Warren
Canada

Both my parents came to the U.S illegally. After working in the U.S for over 20 years and paying taxes (even though they can never benefit from social security) they still cannot catch a break. My parents grew up poor in Mexico and both had to drop out of school to work to support their families. So before you judge, know that in Mexico it is a vicious cycle of not having an education because you don't have money and not having money because you don't have an education.
Israel
Portland, Oregon

My name is Vanessa and am an American citizen. I have a twin Samantha and we both are 16 years old and living with our grandparents. My mom and my other 2 sisters (also American citizens) live in Mexico with my Dad because he is deported and cannot come back. In 2005 they deported him and punished him for 10 years. On July 2015 he went to the Juarez Consulate and they denied his case. Since I was 6 years old I have been going to Mexico and coming to the US. I am a junior at Avenal High School. I get straight A's at school and life is hard without my family. My only dream since I was 6 is to have my Daddy here with me. Is it really much to ask for?
Vanessa
Avenal, CA

I immigrated to the Bronx, NY, in December 1984 when I was only fourteen years old after waiting 11 long years for my father to send for us. The wait was long but it was worth it. I come from a family of five children, I'm #4. I could not imagine life anywhere else. My home country (Dominican Republic) although beautiful, is corrupt and lacks education and job opportunities. I can honestly say that I have lived the American Drea. I took every opportunity available to me and have been able to experience a great education, have lived well and have benefited from all the work of all of those who came before me, including my father with his 2nd grade education, a hard worker who taught me the values of hard work and education. I am proud to be an American and to enjoy the freedom and wealth this country has to offer. God bless America.
Martha D.
West Palm Beach, FL

My mom brought me here along with my older sister. My mom was raped and forced to be with the guy that raped her. She did not get any counseling, left for the U.S and brought that same mindset. I have more siblings now. My oldest sister suffered from my mom's mindset of being abused. Our step dad forced himself on her. He left with three daughters and a son that were his. My mom has brought home a new dad. I think she doesn't realize how much it affects us.
Karen
Georgia

My father arrived illegally in New York about 18 years ago with his younger brother. My father worked hard upon arrival. He took jobs in New Jersey and New York City delivering packages. He then met my mother-disabled and born with only one arm-and fell in love. They had me and my sister only a year apart and started a family. Deportation was feared among my parents especially after so many tries with countless lawyers. How could my father leave his wife with one arm and two underage daughters alone?
Bianca
New York

I was born in Guadalajara Mexico. My parents came to the USA when I was 8 years old. I'm now 36 years old and unemployed. Being undocumented has made life so difficult. I became pregnant with twins at age 16 my kids are now 19 and my youngest 13. I have been living in constant fear of deportation and not been able to obtain stability and provide for my younger daughter. I feel like everyone around me is moving up in life and I'm stuck. I literally cry every day because of my immigration status, all my family is here legally except me. I want to do so much with my life but it seems impossible. I stay optimistic but it doesn't change the fact that I'm undocumented. Life is just so unfair.
Jessica
San Diego CA

I'm about to be 16. My dad has been trying to get his papers since I was born. They've gone to lawyers in New Orleans but all they do is say wait and to pay money when they don't do anything for us. At one point my dad was able to get his license but they never let him renew it. He's been working hard since I was born. We have a new house that we built. We can't buy a four wheeler or a truck since he doesn't have a license. He has DUI's from like 02-03 and that's it. I just want to get his papers for him so that I don't lose him. He deserves his papers being a hard worker and has done nothing wrong in his life.
Brian
Louisiana

South Koreans call United States Mee-Gook, which means "beautiful nation". America, the beautiful land of opportunity, is how I always envisioned my journey. I applied for jobs thinking I have 12 months to find a sponsorship. After several interviews, I realized that getting a job with H-1B sponsorship looming over my head is extremely difficult. Here is why: I'm a recent graduate from undergraduate with math degree, this severely limits my job options because USCIS determines what jobs math majors are allowed to work for H-1B visa through an occupational outlook handbook.
Charlie
Richmond, Virginia

My parents had left me at the age of 2 back in Mexico with my grandparents while they came to the U.S. They sent for me at the age of 4 and that is when I crossed the border with my aunt. It was hard at first but I got used to being here. I am now 18 years old and thankful that I was able to qualify for the DACA. With DACA I have been able to do so much. Thankfully I now have 2 jobs and I am in school. Although I am undocumented, I do not give up my hopes and dreams of a better life for my family. Although, it is difficult I was able to enroll into college and I am about to be done with my first semester. Hopefully I can continue my studies later on. As much as I would like to go visit my family in Mexico, I can't. That upsets me every day but I keep going strong for them. This isn't a sad story, this is just to let everyone know there is hope and to fight for what they want! Being undocumented shouldn't stop us, WE CAN DO IT! We just have to believe.
Wendy
New York

I am 19 years old and lived in the USA for 10 years of my life. I was deported alongside my mother and sister 5 years ago. My life has never been the same. When you realize how much your life is going to change in such a short period of time, you can only miss and mourn about the past, because that's what it is and will be. The past. There's not a day in my life, even though I don't necessarily want to, that I don't say to myself "what if I was still there...". Depression, came to me at a young age. Nostalgia was more than just a word at the age of 13. It is hard coping with a loss of what could've been a lifetime. I am doing my best to overcome reality and move along but all I seem to want is an opportunity to go back. I have no idea how or even if I can but it's a dream I wish came true soon enough.
Juan David
North Bergen, New Jersey

I was deported after being legally in the USA for over fifty years and receiving social security. They took my S.S. away. I am 69 years old and had not visited my country in all that time. My sons are all U.S. Citizens and my mother too. I do not know anyone in my country. It's been a nightmare. I sas hoping the plane would crash. That's how depressed I felt. I think it was an injustice to take my only source of income. I thought this was a just country.
Luis Eugenio
Dominican Republic

I came to the US on the Iraqi Young Leaders Exchange Program. I have been here since July, 23, 2014 and my visa was for 1 month. Right in the middle of the fun I was having around the US with 35 Iraqi students and 10 Americans, my family called me and told me that they have left home and they are refugees. Now my village was taken over by ISIS and they are killing people for their religious beliefs and thousands of the young girls are now taken as sex slaves. So I applied for asylum in US before my visa expired and I did my interview 2 months ago. Now I'm just waiting for the letter to come and if they say yes then I'm safe here. If not then I might have to go back and I could be killed there.
Azswan
Portland, OR

I came to United States at the age of 14 from Uzbekistan. The decision was my mother's; she felt like we needed a better life after my father died from lymphatic cancer. It was tough at first, but all I cared about is that I'm here now. I knew I had no future in Uzbekistan due to extreme corruption and broken education for which you can pay through. I am 17 now, on my way to college. Although current circumstances aren't as I'd want them to be, I will change that. After all, this is the land of opportunities.
Umar
Los Angeles

I was brought here when I was 2 years old. My dad came to New York a few years before but left my mom pregnant. Sadly, he couldn't see me when I was a baby due to him being illegal. He sent for us when I was 2 1/2 years old. I crossed the border with my mom and granddad and my aunt. Back then it was easier than it is now. My mom told me she was lucky that I was a quiet baby so we had no trouble. When we came to new York I lived in my uncle's house (who is a citizen) and I moved to new jersey 3 months later. I'm 15 now and I still get really upset because I want to be legal here. I want to help my parents out and get a good job and buy them their own house, but sadly I can't. I want to study cosmetology or psychology but me being illegal I can't.
Maria
New York

I went school in Canada and moved to Texas in 2010. At that time I was thinking it will be hard to settle in because of my race. However this was not the case. Within 3 months I got my first job and from there on I am just progressing. My family moved here in 2012. I would just like to thank the US for giving me an opportunity to pursue my dreams. Of course all countries have pros and cons but I still believe US is the land of opportunities. It has all the tools and resources you need to succeed. You don't need to be rich to enjoy all the privileges this country has to offer. You can still live a beautiful life. People are so helpful here. You get the respect you deserve. I was not born here but I wish I did.
Thank you US for everything.
Texas

My father was heading to work when the immigration was waiting for him. They had a warrant for him. They took him even though he has been living here for 40+ years. Now he can't see his newborn grandson, nor me or my brother including my little sister. My parents are divorced and who is she supposed to give her advice, give her that comfort that my father did. He paid all of his taxes and did everything by the books. I just can't believe this is what we call justice in America. This isn't the land of the free anymore. My father is my role model. He raised me and my older brother by himself. I just can't believe how they can do this to an innocent man. He's been in the immigration holding facilities for a year now!
Alejandro
Pasadena, TX

I came here in 2009 and immigrated by myself from Iraq. I was 20 years old then. Now I'm 25 years old and pretty soon will become a citizen. Don't have family support or any kind of support. It was tough at times but quiet seas don't make good sailors. Life is going pretty well. I have a lot of experience in sales and customer service. I can work in any field I wish for. I'm working full time and going to school part time. I made a really good plan for my future. I believe that my future is set.
Bashar
No location given

I came to the United States when I was only 4 years old. I have 3 siblings, 2 of them are apart of the dream act , they have their ss and worker permit for a limited time. My parents are illegal immigrants, but my father has his drivers license which expires 2017 and we don't know what is gonna happen after that. It was a miracle how he got his license back in 2007. My parents work as janitors because they can't get better jobs because of their status. I'm 18 years old, I recently just graduated high school. I'm very depressed because I see kids going to school, getting jobs, cars etc and I am stuck in my life. I can't work, I can't do a thing without being afraid of being deported. I feel very low. It saddens me everyday I sit at home wishing my life was better.
Anonymous

At the age of three, my mom left me and my twin brother in the care of my grandmother to find a better life. She worked day and night to have us back. Six months later my lovely, hardworking mother sent for us. Our trip to America wasn't nearly as hard as hers though. She had to walk the deadly trail, hoping she could make it is so she can see us again. Once we were all together life got better for a short time. Some years after my mother lost her job because of an on the job accident. My mother was fired and felt lost. Our life is now better, but all I want is to be able to keep my education going and to give back all I was given. It's a dream that may never come true, but my hope is there. May God help me and bless all of you.
Diana
No location given

I was born here in USA Northridge, CA in 1980 by immigrant parents. My mother came to the USA at the age of 15 and my father at the age of 16. Both of them should of been in high school but got here and started working. We never received any type of government help. We had to work very hard to survive and pay our rent until now. I heard on the news about what is going on at the border and didn't really care until I heard my cousin and her two young children were held. She and her husband and children are here because their lands were taken away and some bad people are trying to steal the rest of their lands. My cousin was able to get help but told me some really horrible stories about how they are being held in one small room and they are all crowded with moms and babies not being able to sleep and eat only once a day. I had no idea this was happening until today when she and her 2 children were released. The youngest of her children is a 1 1/2 yr old girl. They are here now but she was left with a real bad trauma. She wakes up crying asking for food, something that she never did until this happed. I really feel sad to know that people are not being treated right but worse than animals! We are children of God. What happened to one nation under God?
Yesenia
Northridge, CA

I'm 42 and live in Morocco with my deported husband. His visa had expired and he overstayed. He saved my life as I was divorcing an abusive husband of 20 years. I relocated and we married. He was taking care of me and my son. I was back in college. Until the day they found him. They deported him and left me homeless. I only had enough money to buy a ticket to his country as nobody would help me. We are now stuck here and making it but struggling. I say why would my country deport someone who was working and helped me a citizen make my life better. We are out of ways for me to come home and nobody to help us.
Julie
Morocco

I am a U.S. and Canadian citizen and have lived here in the U.S. for over 9 years now. My boyfriend was brought to the U.S. (without papers) when he was 17. He came with his dad, leaving his mom and siblings behind in Mexico. He has never been back and has now lived in the U.S. for over 14 years. When they arrived at the border town in Mexico, they were kidnapped for ransom. Their kidnappers started to take them out to the desert (which many times means death.) Thankfully, however, he and his dad managed to escape and continue their journey. Despite having had that harrowing experience, my boyfriend explained that he and his dad had a rather easy crossing, not suffering nearly as much as many do. Anyway, we plan to get married soon, but our future is uncertain. In the beginning of this year, he got pulled over for driving with a suspended license. Instead of just being given the standard fine, he was also given a court date. Before I met him, I had a very different perspective over illegal immigration. I was very "by the books" and not very understanding of what immigrants go through. But now I have a lot of respect for all immigrants; they are so determined and work so hard and are willing to suffer everything in order to provide a better life for their families. His story and his perspective have helped me broaden my perspective and have a greater compassion for others.
Katie
No city given

My parents and I arrived to the U.S with a visitor's visa. My grandfather was facing some serious times and my mother was 19 years old and not seeing her dad for 18 years decided to visit him. My dad was 22 and I was 1 year old! My mother tells me their intention was never to stay, but they did. It has been 19 years and I was excited when they passed the act where students could get a legal temporary stay ,DACA (deferred action for children arrivals). After all this time of feeling in the shadows and not really living "free" I went to see lawyers who could help me apply, but I couldn't because I visited my grandmother in Mexico for 7 months. Since I couldn't apply for the DACA my parents got me into an arranged marriage. At first i agreed but once I thought about it I changed my mind but it didn't matter. They took me into the office and I got married. I was manipulated in several was into doing so. What hurts the most is that not even seeing me crying did they not go through with it. But I didn't apply for my papers through my husband. I got the courage to stand my ground and not care about the consequences and even though people tell me " you're already married just do it" I say no. It is not right! I'm filling for divorce! And if there is no solution to my situation. I'm going back to Mexico. Starting fresh and trusting god! I'm 20 years old now, I'm waiting until my 26 birthday to make my final choice. Some people forget that the constitution of the United States starts with "We the people ..." not "We the American Citizens"
Liz
California

I came here when I was 3 years old. I'm currently 16. Everyone else in my family that is here with me is legal. Everyone but me. I'm close to finishing high school... too close. I love America, this is my home, but this is no way to live. I didn't choose to be here, they did... and now I'll have to deal with the consequences.I just want to go to college, study medicine and save lives. Is that too much to ask for? I just want to belong here, I want to be an American citizen.
Lost Dreamer
Somewhere within America

I came to America from United Kingdom London in 2005 for a holiday. I was 18 years old at the time I got a 3 months visa waiver, I had no plans staying over my visa but faith had its own plans. I meet guy and we married in 2007. We continued living together till we went to a lawyer and advised me to go back to England as that's the only way for my hubby to apply a petition for me. Meanwhile we took his advice I came back to UK so when he tried to process for me the petition we found out that I have ban for 10 years as I overstayed my visa more than 1 year.
Londoner
Oregon

My story starts in Haiti 1978. My mom was only 15 and pregnant. My dad 22. My dad left me and my mom and came to America for a better life. When I was about 7months old my mom decided to let my aunt take me to America under a different name. When I came to America I was passed around with no status or papers. My father later became a U.S. Citizen and never applied for me. I am now 35yrs old and I don't know any other country but here! And I don't have enough money to fix my situation either I feel lost.
Chenille
Boston

I was brought here when I was 10 years old. I am now 28yrs old. I went to elementary, middle and high school. I have three daughters with my fiance. He is a U.S citizen born in California. He wants to apply for my residency here, but we are scared that because I was brought here illegally they could send me back to El Salvador. I have been working as a Medical Assistant for 8 yrs and started taking courses at a local college to get my nursing degree. We want to get marry but we don't know if USCIS will sent me back.
Carolina
Wheaton, MD

I came to the U.S. when I was 7 years old. My stepfather was an american soldier who married my German mother in Germany and also adopted me before we entered the U.S. My mother passed away in 1968 and told me I was a citizen. Being a young girl and not knowing what credentials that were needed to get government benefits for Medicare and monthly Social Security payouts for later after all my husband and I have paid into the system since age 16. We have been married for 48 years. My husband is an American citizen, born in Tx.
Presently Homeland is supposed to look up my history in the U.S and finding info on permanent resident and citizenship through my mother. I was 18 when she received her citizenship. It has been 2 years that Homeland has had my info filled out by Catholic family services. I also applied for my permanent resident card. I really don't care at this point which one they send but it has been one year for the green card and everything is at a standstill for both applications. What does a person do with this Obama care? I am over 65 and cannot get Medicare through Obama and private insurance is very expensive!
Marianne White
Amarillo Tx

I'm married a wonderful citizen American for 8 years, live together for 10 years, but we are living out of states since 2004 due to visa denied. The reason is " sham divorce for immigration" from consulate officer...for 10 years my husband never go back to USA and I'm so scared to go to US consulate to interview for visa (for any kind of visa). I just feel so sorry for my husband. He could not see his parents for longtime... because we love each other so much no matter what we stay...but still...feel so sad and don't know what to do next.
Mai
Ho Chi Minh City

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Statistics do not tell the story of immigration. People do. Since its inception, this nation has been continually infused with the energy of newcomers. Yet their assimilation has seldom been smooth. The challenges we face today are not new. Only the stories are. SHARE YOUR STORY IMPORTANT NOTICE If you need legal advice on immigration...

# data[].attributes.headline
Should the Government Allow Immigrants Who Are Here Illegally to Become US Citizens?  From ProCon.org 

# data[].attributes.subject
Should the Government Allow Immigrants Who Are Here Illegally to Become US Citizens?  From ProCon.org 

# data[].attributes.headline
Through the eyes of a child immigrant from Erik Gomez, TEDxPSU 

# data[].attributes.subject
Through the eyes of a child immigrant from Erik Gomez, TEDxPSU 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Through the eyes of a child immigrant | Erik Gomez | TEDxPSU

# data[].attributes.headline
History of Immigration in the US for Dummies from Hip Hughes

# data[].attributes.subject
History of Immigration in the US for Dummies from Hip Hughes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
History of Immigration in the US for Dummies

# data[].attributes.headline
21 Savage: Atlanta rapper really from UK, say US immigration from BBC

# data[].attributes.subject
21 Savage: Atlanta rapper really from UK, say US immigration from BBC

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
21 Savage: Atlanta rapper really from UK, say US immigration

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
US officials say the Atlanta rapper came from the UK in 2005 and overstayed after his visa ran out.

# data[].attributes.headline
DACA Information from University of California Berkeley

# data[].attributes.subject
DACA Information from University of California Berkeley

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The East Bay Community Law Center (EBCLC), the legal partner of UC Berkley's Undocumented Students' Program, assists with all DACA-related petitions, including Initial DACA, DACA Renewals and Advance Parole.

Those who are seeking assistance with their DACA renewals and Advance Parole applications can use our online appointment system to book an appointment with the USP legal team/East Bay Community Law Center. Please review the eligibility guidelines found here before making an appointment ; your appointment will be cancelled if you are not eligible for services through this program .

Even if you are scheduling an appointment for family member, the UC Berkeley student must be the one to schedule the appointment under their name. The booking form will indicate where to list your family member's information.

Please make sure to list the DACA status expiration date and you and your family member's income where indicated on the booking form. Without that information, it will be very hard for our team to accurately prioritize your consultation, and we may even have to cancel the consultation if we do not have that information.

Please note that due to a high demand for services, the next available appointment time may be for a date many weeks from now.

Even if none of the available appointment times work for you, or you have a deadline that falls before the next available appointment, please still fill out an appointment request anyway and be as detailed as possible in your appointment request. Our office reviews consultation requests several times in the work week (Monday through Friday) and contacts people who self-identify as having an urgent deadline to possibly meet with you sooner. We also use the information gathered in the appointment request to determine your eligibility for fee assistance for DACA, DACA Advance Parole, and other immigration relief applications.
What is Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)
DACA is an administrative relief that protects eligible immigrants who came to the United States when they were children from deportation. DACA gives undocumented immigrants: 1) protection from deportation, and 2) a work permit. The program requires that the DACA status and work permit be renewed every two years.
DACA TODAY
On January 20, 2021, President Biden issued a memorandum noting his administration's intent to both preserve and fortify DACA. While it is not yet clear what the word "fortify" may mean for the future of DACA, it is apparent that this administration has - at the very least - committed to preserving DACA in its original form.

If you want to read more about the timeline of DACA and more information about the DACA program today, you can visit:
Texas v United States: A Timeline of The Fight to Protect DACA | MALDEF DACA REQUIREMENTS

You were under 31 years old as of June 15, 2012;

You first came to the United States before your 16th birthday;

You have lived continuously in the United States from June 15, 2007 until the present;

You were physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012 and at the time you apply;

You came to the United States without "valid" documents before June 15, 2012, or your lawful status expired as of June 15, 2012;

You are currently studying, or you graduated from high school or earned a certificate of completion of high school or GED, or have been honorably discharged from the Coast Guard or military (technical and trade school completion also qualifies); and

You have NOT been convicted of a felony, certain significant misdemeanors, or three or more misdemeanors of any kind. Consult with an attorney about ANY contact you have had with law enforcement or immigration authorities before applying.

INITIAL DACA APPLICATIONS
Initial DACA applications (for those people who are applying for the very first time) can be submitted to USCIS but are not currently being reviewed or approved by USCIS. You can find up to date information . We will also keep this page updated.

UC Berkeley students who need assistance with their DACA renewals can use our online appointment system to book an appointment with the USP legal team/East Bay Community Law Center. If you cannot make one of these appointment times, or if you are unable to make any of the available appointment times, and/or if you have an urgent matter, please make an appointment using the online system anyway and then also contact the USP legal team at usplegal@ebclc.org . Please allow at least 3 business days for staff to get back to you. Feel free to reach out with any questions.
DACA RENEWALS
All DACA renewals are being accepted by USCIS. Please get help and do not apply alone. UC Berkeley students who need assistance with their DACA renewals can use our online appointment system to book an appointment with the USP legal team/East Bay Community Law Center. We strongly recommend that you schedule an appointment to renew your DACA 6 months before expiration. If you cannot make one of these appointment times, or if you are unable to make any of the available appointment times, and/or if you have an urgent matter, please make an appointment using the online system anyway and then also contact the USP legal team at usplegal@ebclc.org . Please allow at least 3 business days for staff to get back to you. Feel free to reach out with any questions. See below for detailed list of required documents. Reminder to only send copies (not originals) of support documents.

Please note: USCIS treats requests filed a year or more after the expiration as initial DACA requests and is currently prevented from approving them. Please see above for more information about Initial DACA applications.

Complete DACA renewal Applications :

G-28 - Notice of Entry of Appearance As Attorney (Optional)

G-1145 - E-Notification (Optional)

Form I-821D - Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals;

Form I-765 - Application for Employment Authorization (work permit);

Form I-765WS - Worksheet explaining your economic need to work; and

Copy of front/back of current Employment Authorization Document (work permit).

Submit Applications: Include all supporting documents, two passport-sized photos and fees. The fee is $495.00 (pay using a check or money order payable to Department of Homeland Security). If you are a UC Berkeley student, your application fees will be covered by USP. Mail to: USCIS Phoenix Lockbox, PO Box 20700, Phoenix, Arizona 85036-0700. As of April 12, 2022, USCIS announced that individuals may now file their DACA renewal online.

Background Check and Fingerprints: You will receive a receipt by mail that contains your receipt number and an appointment notice to get your fingerprints and photo (biometrics) taken for a background check.

Final Steps: Once you have been fingerprinted, you will receive either a letter asking for additional information (called a Request for Evidence) or a final decision. According to USCIS, the current processing time for DACA renewals are 3 to 3.5 months. You can find the most up to date information about processing times .

What is DACA Advance Parole?
DACA Advance Parole is an administrative procedure that allows a person inside the United States, who seeks to travel abroad, to receive advance authorization to re-enter the United States upon their return.
DACA ADVANCE PAROLE REQUIREMENTS
Individuals that have already received deferred action under DACA may request permission to temporarily travel outside of the United States through advance parole.

USCIS will currently only grant advance parole to DACA recipients if the travel abroad is in furtherance of one of the following categories:

1. Humanitarian purposes, including travel to obtain medical treatment, attending funeral services for a family member, or visiting an ailing relative;

2. Educational purposes, such as semester-abroad programs and academic research; or

3. Employment purposes such as overseas assignments, interviews, conferences, training, or meetings with clients overseas.

Travel for purely vacation purposes is not a valid basis for advance parole for DACA recipients. APPLYING FOR DACA ADVANCE PAROLE
UC Berkeley students who are interested in applying for DACA Advance Parole, we recommend scheduling an appointment at least 13 - 16 months prior to your expected travel date on our online appointment system . If you cannot make one of these appointment times, or if you are unable to make any of the available appointment times, and/or if you have an urgent matter, please make an appointment using the online system anyway and then also contact the USP legal team at usplegal@ebclc.org . Please allow at least 3 business days for staff to get back to you. Feel free to reach out with any questions.

We acknowledge that this may be difficult and even frustrating for students to have to make plans so far in advance. This is our recommendation based on the posted processing times and our real-time experience with these applications. We believe that following these timeframes will help our clients be as successful as possible in their legal cases. **If you need an Advance Parole document to travel for an urgent reason, like a family member abroad is seriously ill or to attend a funeral, please schedule an appointment ASAP so that we can review your options.**

Requirements to Request DACA Advance Parole:

Have a valid passport from your home country.

In evaluating the advance parole application, USCIS will look at the evidence submitted by the applicant to support their reason for travel outside the United States. Any supporting documents submitted in a language other than English must be accompanied by a full, certified English translation. The instructions to Form I-131 and the Standard Operating Procedure for DACA list some examples of appropriate evidence for requesting advance parole under each of the three categories.

Evidence to support an advance parole application for humanitarian purposes should show "emergent, compelling or sympathetic circumstances," and might include:

Documentation of a family member's serious illness or death, such as a letter from a hospital or treating physician explaining the family member's illness or a death certificate of a deceased relative, or

A letter from the applicant's physician explaining the nature of the applicant's medical condition, the specific medical treatment sought outside of the United States, and a brief explanation of why travel outside of the United States is medically necessary. *Note: If the reason for traveling is connected to a family member, it is generally advisable to also include evidence proving the family relationship between the DACA recipient and the person they are visiting.

Evidence to support an advance parole application for educational purposes may include:

A letter from the applicant's educational institution or from an employee of the institution acting in their official capacity explaining why the travel is required or beneficial; and

A document showing enrollment in a specific program or class requiring travel.

Evidence to support an advance parole application for employment purposes must show that the travel relates to "fulfilling job requirements," and may include:

A letter from the applicant's employer describing the need for travel; or

A document showing a specific employment need, such as a conference program that also shows the applicant's participation

RISKS AND POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF ADVANCE PAROLE
Risks :

Even with advance parole, there is no guarantee that a DACA recipient will be allowed to re-enter the U.S. after traveling, as U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers have discretion to deny entry. Speak to your legal representative before you decide to apply and travel outside of the U.S. It is important that any travel with advance parole is consistent with the dates and purpose stated in the approved application.

Before applying for advance parole, be sure to talk to your legal representative about the following:

your history of entries into the U.S., particularly if you exited and re-entered the U.S.;

any interaction with the police;

any documents you received that indicated you need to go to immigration court;

any time you went to immigration court;

any other issues that you think may affect your immigration status

Potential path to permanent residency (i.e. green card) via advance parole :

Advance parole can be very helpful for a DACA recipient who has (or may have in the future) a family member that is:

a U.S. citizen spouse,

a U.S. citizen parent (if you are under 21 and unmarried),

or a U.S. citizen child at least 21 years old

If you have one of the types of family members listed above, called "immediate relatives" in immigration practice, you could be eligible to apply for permanent residency. That is because people who came to the U.S. without permission are considered "inadmissible," which can make it difficult or impossible for the permanent residency application to be successful. However, traveling outside of the U.S. and re-entering with advance parole overcomes the inadmissibility problem, because an entry into the U.S. with advance parole is an entry with permission. There are more factors to consider so talk to your attorney about this option.
Information provided by East Bay Community Law Center, usplegal@ebclc.org. Last updated on 06/07/2023.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is DACA? - Undocumented Student Program

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) is a kind of administrative relief from deportation which protects eligible immigrant youth from deportation.

# data[].attributes.headline
DACA Information from University of California Berkeley

# data[].attributes.subject
DACA Information from University of California Berkeley

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The East Bay Community Law Center (EBCLC), the legal partner of UC Berkley's Undocumented Students' Program, assists with all DACA-related petitions, including Initial DACA, DACA Renewals and Advance Parole.

Those who are seeking assistance with their DACA renewals and Advance Parole applications can use our online appointment system to book an appointment with the USP legal team/East Bay Community Law Center. Please review the eligibility guidelines found here before making an appointment ; your appointment will be cancelled if you are not eligible for services through this program .

Even if you are scheduling an appointment for family member, the UC Berkeley student must be the one to schedule the appointment under their name. The booking form will indicate where to list your family member's information.

Please make sure to list the DACA status expiration date and you and your family member's income where indicated on the booking form. Without that information, it will be very hard for our team to accurately prioritize your consultation, and we may even have to cancel the consultation if we do not have that information.

Please note that due to a high demand for services, the next available appointment time may be for a date many weeks from now.

Even if none of the available appointment times work for you, or you have a deadline that falls before the next available appointment, please still fill out an appointment request anyway and be as detailed as possible in your appointment request. Our office reviews consultation requests several times in the work week (Monday through Friday) and contacts people who self-identify as having an urgent deadline to possibly meet with you sooner. We also use the information gathered in the appointment request to determine your eligibility for fee assistance for DACA, DACA Advance Parole, and other immigration relief applications.
What is Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)
DACA is an administrative relief that protects eligible immigrants who came to the United States when they were children from deportation. DACA gives undocumented immigrants: 1) protection from deportation, and 2) a work permit. The program requires that the DACA status and work permit be renewed every two years.
DACA TODAY
On January 20, 2021, President Biden issued a memorandum noting his administration's intent to both preserve and fortify DACA. While it is not yet clear what the word "fortify" may mean for the future of DACA, it is apparent that this administration has - at the very least - committed to preserving DACA in its original form.

If you want to read more about the timeline of DACA and more information about the DACA program today, you can visit:
Texas v United States: A Timeline of The Fight to Protect DACA | MALDEF DACA REQUIREMENTS

You were under 31 years old as of June 15, 2012;

You first came to the United States before your 16th birthday;

You have lived continuously in the United States from June 15, 2007 until the present;

You were physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012 and at the time you apply;

You came to the United States without "valid" documents before June 15, 2012, or your lawful status expired as of June 15, 2012;

You are currently studying, or you graduated from high school or earned a certificate of completion of high school or GED, or have been honorably discharged from the Coast Guard or military (technical and trade school completion also qualifies); and

You have NOT been convicted of a felony, certain significant misdemeanors, or three or more misdemeanors of any kind. Consult with an attorney about ANY contact you have had with law enforcement or immigration authorities before applying.

INITIAL DACA APPLICATIONS
Initial DACA applications (for those people who are applying for the very first time) can be submitted to USCIS but are not currently being reviewed or approved by USCIS. You can find up to date information . We will also keep this page updated.

UC Berkeley students who need assistance with their DACA renewals can use our online appointment system to book an appointment with the USP legal team/East Bay Community Law Center. If you cannot make one of these appointment times, or if you are unable to make any of the available appointment times, and/or if you have an urgent matter, please make an appointment using the online system anyway and then also contact the USP legal team at usplegal@ebclc.org . Please allow at least 3 business days for staff to get back to you. Feel free to reach out with any questions.
DACA RENEWALS
All DACA renewals are being accepted by USCIS. Please get help and do not apply alone. UC Berkeley students who need assistance with their DACA renewals can use our online appointment system to book an appointment with the USP legal team/East Bay Community Law Center. We strongly recommend that you schedule an appointment to renew your DACA 6 months before expiration. If you cannot make one of these appointment times, or if you are unable to make any of the available appointment times, and/or if you have an urgent matter, please make an appointment using the online system anyway and then also contact the USP legal team at usplegal@ebclc.org . Please allow at least 3 business days for staff to get back to you. Feel free to reach out with any questions. See below for detailed list of required documents. Reminder to only send copies (not originals) of support documents.

Please note: USCIS treats requests filed a year or more after the expiration as initial DACA requests and is currently prevented from approving them. Please see above for more information about Initial DACA applications.

Complete DACA renewal Applications :

G-28 - Notice of Entry of Appearance As Attorney (Optional)

G-1145 - E-Notification (Optional)

Form I-821D - Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals;

Form I-765 - Application for Employment Authorization (work permit);

Form I-765WS - Worksheet explaining your economic need to work; and

Copy of front/back of current Employment Authorization Document (work permit).

Submit Applications: Include all supporting documents, two passport-sized photos and fees. The fee is $495.00 (pay using a check or money order payable to Department of Homeland Security). If you are a UC Berkeley student, your application fees will be covered by USP. Mail to: USCIS Phoenix Lockbox, PO Box 20700, Phoenix, Arizona 85036-0700. As of April 12, 2022, USCIS announced that individuals may now file their DACA renewal online.

Background Check and Fingerprints: You will receive a receipt by mail that contains your receipt number and an appointment notice to get your fingerprints and photo (biometrics) taken for a background check.

Final Steps: Once you have been fingerprinted, you will receive either a letter asking for additional information (called a Request for Evidence) or a final decision. According to USCIS, the current processing time for DACA renewals are 3 to 3.5 months. You can find the most up to date information about processing times .

What is DACA Advance Parole?
DACA Advance Parole is an administrative procedure that allows a person inside the United States, who seeks to travel abroad, to receive advance authorization to re-enter the United States upon their return.
DACA ADVANCE PAROLE REQUIREMENTS
Individuals that have already received deferred action under DACA may request permission to temporarily travel outside of the United States through advance parole.

USCIS will currently only grant advance parole to DACA recipients if the travel abroad is in furtherance of one of the following categories:

1. Humanitarian purposes, including travel to obtain medical treatment, attending funeral services for a family member, or visiting an ailing relative;

2. Educational purposes, such as semester-abroad programs and academic research; or

3. Employment purposes such as overseas assignments, interviews, conferences, training, or meetings with clients overseas.

Travel for purely vacation purposes is not a valid basis for advance parole for DACA recipients. APPLYING FOR DACA ADVANCE PAROLE
UC Berkeley students who are interested in applying for DACA Advance Parole, we recommend scheduling an appointment at least 13 - 16 months prior to your expected travel date on our online appointment system . If you cannot make one of these appointment times, or if you are unable to make any of the available appointment times, and/or if you have an urgent matter, please make an appointment using the online system anyway and then also contact the USP legal team at usplegal@ebclc.org . Please allow at least 3 business days for staff to get back to you. Feel free to reach out with any questions.

We acknowledge that this may be difficult and even frustrating for students to have to make plans so far in advance. This is our recommendation based on the posted processing times and our real-time experience with these applications. We believe that following these timeframes will help our clients be as successful as possible in their legal cases. **If you need an Advance Parole document to travel for an urgent reason, like a family member abroad is seriously ill or to attend a funeral, please schedule an appointment ASAP so that we can review your options.**

Requirements to Request DACA Advance Parole:

Have a valid passport from your home country.

In evaluating the advance parole application, USCIS will look at the evidence submitted by the applicant to support their reason for travel outside the United States. Any supporting documents submitted in a language other than English must be accompanied by a full, certified English translation. The instructions to Form I-131 and the Standard Operating Procedure for DACA list some examples of appropriate evidence for requesting advance parole under each of the three categories.

Evidence to support an advance parole application for humanitarian purposes should show "emergent, compelling or sympathetic circumstances," and might include:

Documentation of a family member's serious illness or death, such as a letter from a hospital or treating physician explaining the family member's illness or a death certificate of a deceased relative, or

A letter from the applicant's physician explaining the nature of the applicant's medical condition, the specific medical treatment sought outside of the United States, and a brief explanation of why travel outside of the United States is medically necessary. *Note: If the reason for traveling is connected to a family member, it is generally advisable to also include evidence proving the family relationship between the DACA recipient and the person they are visiting.

Evidence to support an advance parole application for educational purposes may include:

A letter from the applicant's educational institution or from an employee of the institution acting in their official capacity explaining why the travel is required or beneficial; and

A document showing enrollment in a specific program or class requiring travel.

Evidence to support an advance parole application for employment purposes must show that the travel relates to "fulfilling job requirements," and may include:

A letter from the applicant's employer describing the need for travel; or

A document showing a specific employment need, such as a conference program that also shows the applicant's participation

RISKS AND POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF ADVANCE PAROLE
Risks :

Even with advance parole, there is no guarantee that a DACA recipient will be allowed to re-enter the U.S. after traveling, as U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers have discretion to deny entry. Speak to your legal representative before you decide to apply and travel outside of the U.S. It is important that any travel with advance parole is consistent with the dates and purpose stated in the approved application.

Before applying for advance parole, be sure to talk to your legal representative about the following:

your history of entries into the U.S., particularly if you exited and re-entered the U.S.;

any interaction with the police;

any documents you received that indicated you need to go to immigration court;

any time you went to immigration court;

any other issues that you think may affect your immigration status

Potential path to permanent residency (i.e. green card) via advance parole :

Advance parole can be very helpful for a DACA recipient who has (or may have in the future) a family member that is:

a U.S. citizen spouse,

a U.S. citizen parent (if you are under 21 and unmarried),

or a U.S. citizen child at least 21 years old

If you have one of the types of family members listed above, called "immediate relatives" in immigration practice, you could be eligible to apply for permanent residency. That is because people who came to the U.S. without permission are considered "inadmissible," which can make it difficult or impossible for the permanent residency application to be successful. However, traveling outside of the U.S. and re-entering with advance parole overcomes the inadmissibility problem, because an entry into the U.S. with advance parole is an entry with permission. There are more factors to consider so talk to your attorney about this option.
Information provided by East Bay Community Law Center, usplegal@ebclc.org. Last updated on 06/07/2023.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is DACA? - Undocumented Student Program

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) is a kind of administrative relief from deportation which protects eligible immigrant youth from deportation.

# data[].attributes.headline
Deportation from the United States Government

# data[].attributes.subject
Deportation from the United States Government

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn how to get help if you are facing deportation. Locate someone who is detained by ICE, and know how to report an immigration violation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The 19th Amendment was ratified on August 18, 1920, granting women the right to vote.

The founding fathers saw voting as a fundamental component of the democracy and perfect union they sought to create.

But women, African Americans, Native Americans, and Asian Americans were systematically denied the right to vote for centuries.

Here's a look at how voting rights in America have evolved over the centuries, and what issues remain today.

Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

Women won the right to vote when the 19th Amendment was ratified 100 years ago on August 18, 1920.

Voting is one of America's most cherished democratic liberties, and it has a long and storied history. While the founding fathers saw voting as a fundamental component of the democracy and perfect union they sought to create, the right to vote was denied for many populations for centuries of US history.

In the beginning of the republic, voting was mainly restricted to property-owning white men, which would later be extended to all men. While the right to vote was eventually granted to women with the 19th Amendment in 1920, white women were the main beneficiaries.

Men and women of color would continue to fight to battle discriminatory voting practices for decades even after technically receiving the right to vote, culminating in the historic civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, which led to landmark legislation that transformed American voting rights.

But even today, activists and civil rights groups are continuing to fight voting laws they argue are discriminatory.

Here's a look at how voting rights in America have evolved over the centuries, and what issues remain today:

In 1856, North Carolina became the last state to remove property ownership as a requirement for voting, meaning all white men could vote by this time.
Source: Constitutional Rights Foundation

After the Civil War and the end of slavery, Congress passed the 14th Amendment to extend citizenship to freed slaves. The amendment directs that "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

This amendment gave freed African Americans citizenship, but they wouldn't get the right to vote for two more years. And even then, Southern states used a variety of tactics to suppress African American turnout for nearly a century afterwards.
Source: Library of Congress

Women's suffrage activist Susan B. Anthony was famously arrested along with 15 other women, and prosecuted for attempting to vote in the presidential election of 1872 in Rochester, New York. President Trump pardoned Susan B. Anthony on August 18, 2020.

In Detroit, former slave and fellow activist Sojourner Truth was similarly turned away when she demanded a ballot at her polling place.

The next several decades would see a surge in women's suffrage activism, including marches, lobbying, and more militant methods such as breaking windows of buildings during marches, and going on hunger strikes.
Source: History Channel

The United States has a long, painful, and complicated history with its treatment of Native Americans, and voting rights is no exception.

In 1876, a federal court ruled that Native Americans could not vote because they were not properly citizens under the 14th Amendment.

Ten years later, Congress passed the Dawes Act, which allowed Native Americans to gain citizenship if they renounced their tribal citizenship, and created a process for Native Americans to apply for naturalization in 1890.

Native Americans and other racial minority groups who had served in World War I were also granted citizenship and the right to vote in the late 1910s.

While Congress granted citizenship to all Native Americans in 1924, many state-level discriminatory policies - such as banning people living on a reservation or enrolled in a tribe from voting, or instituting fees and "competency tests" - kept them from the polls for decades.
Source: Native American Voting Rights Fund

On many DC license plates you'll see the phrase "taxation without representation" - and it's because residents of the District of Columbia paid taxes, but couldn't vote in presidential elections until the early 1960s.

While DC is allotted three electoral votes in presidential election years, they have no representation in Congress. A 1978 amendment to give DC congressional representatives ultimately failed in Congress.
Source: Time

The NVRA streamlined the voter registration process by allowing people to register to vote while obtaining or renewing driver's licenses at Departments of Motor Vehicles or other public assistance centers instead of having to apply by mail.
Source: US Department of Justice

While voting rights in America have come a long way toward ensuring equal ballot access for all, many scholars and activists argue that the overtly racist Jim Crow laws of the past have given way to discriminatory policies, like voter ID laws, cuts to early voting, polling place closures, and limits to pre-registration.

Strict voter ID laws and other restrictions enacted by Texas and North Carolina in the wake of the Shelby County v. Holder were struck down in federal court, with one federal appeals court finding that North Carolina's law targeted "African Americans with almost surgical precision."

Among voting issues and controversies in recent years, in 2018, former Georgia Secretary of State and current Governor Brian Kemp was accused of putting 53,000 voter registration applications "on hold" for mismatched names, and incorrectly purging 340,000 voters from the rolls.

In North Dakota, where most Native Americans who reside on reservations only have a PO box, the US Supreme Court upheld a state law requiring voters to bring an ID to the polls with a residential address. The ruling left Native communities scrambling to obtain proper IDs just weeks before the election.

Along with the predominately non-white citizens of American territories like Guam and American Samoa, almost 6 million taxpaying Americans with felony convictions were barred from voting in the 2018 midterms due to state-level felon disenfranchisement laws.

In November 2018, voters in Florida approved a constitutional amendment overturning the state's disenfranchisement law for good, allowing around 1 million formerly disenfranchised residents to vote. The following year, the Florida Legislature passed a law that requires people with felony convictions to pay off any court fines and fees before they can register to vote, which critics say discriminates against poorer residents who cannot afford to do so. In July 2020, the Supreme Court allowed Florida to keep this law in place - it continues to be appealed.
Sources: Brennan Center for Justice, Business Insider, Brennan Center for Justice, Rolling Stone, Associated Press, The New York Times

Voting 2018 Midterm Elections

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The 19th Amendment passed 100 years ago today. The evolution of American voting rights in 244 years shows how far we've come - and how far we still have to go

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
While the founding fathers saw voting as a fundamental component of democracy, they only granted the right to vote to white, male property owners.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Voting Rights | Articles and Essays | Civil Rights History Project | Digital Collections | Library of Congress

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When Reconstruction ended in 1877, states across the South implemented new laws to restrict the voting rights of African Americans. These included onerous requirements of owning property, paying poll taxes, and passing literacy or civics exams. Many African Americans who attempted to vote were also threatened physically or feared losing their jobs. One of the major goals of the Civil Rights Movement was to register voters across the South in order for African Americans to gain political power. Most of the interviewees in the Civil Rights History Project were involved in voter registration drives, driving voters to the polls, teaching literacy classes for the purposes of voter registration, or encouraging local African Americans to run as candidates.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Earlier this month, a Washington, D.C., city councilman proposed what hasn't been a widely embraced idea in recent years: lowering the voting age threshold in local and federal elections from 18 to 16.

Charles Allen had attempted to pass his bill once before, in 2015, but it died in committee. This time, he said, he thinks there's more support. Since the early 2010s, a handful of communities, mostly clustered in the suburbs of D.C., have already lowered the voting age to 16 for local elections, and other cities are considering similar legislation.

As young people across the country have staged protests and pressured their lawmakers for action on gun violence, largely in response to the Parkland, Florida, school shooting, the question of when teens ought to have an electoral voice has resurfaced.

Constitutional law expert Michael Morley said states, for the most part, are empowered to define their own electorates. States have broader power than Congress to set the voting age for state and local elections, though Congress regulates federal offices, he added.

Here's a look at the issue, and what it might mean for the 2018 and 2020 elections.
Why is the voting age 18?
In 1970, Congress passed a series of amendments to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, one of which lowered the national voting age from 21 to 18. After the amendments passed, states had one of three options, Morley said. They could comply, they could ignore the new law and wait until then-Attorney General John Mitchell enforced the rule by suing the states, or they could do what Oregon chose to do: preemptively sue Mitchell on the grounds that the amendments were unconstitutional.

Later that year, the Supreme Court heard arguments for Oregon v. Mitchell, and ultimately mostly ruled in favor of the state; the Court said Congress only had the authority to legislate voting over previously passed amendments which regulated voting rights (the 14th, 15th, and 19th Amendments, for example), and over federal elections. State and local elections, the Supreme Court said, were regulated solely by the states.

But nationally, a movement was growing in favor of lowering the voting age, Morley said. The nation had been embroiled in the Vietnam War for years, and the sentiment that began to emerge was that if young men (and women) were old enough to fight in the U.S. military, they were old enough to vote. In 1971, Congress proposed the 26th amendment, and it was ratified by three quarters of the states in a matter of months - the fastest ratification of an amendment to date, Morley said.
Who has lowered the voting age since then?
According to Brandon Klugman, campaign coordinator at Vote16USA, an organization which lobbies for lowering the voting age, currently four other cities have laws allowing 16- or 17-year-olds to vote: three Maryland cities - Takoma Park, Greenbelt, and Hyattsville - allow 16-year-olds to vote in local elections; and Berkeley, California, allows 16-year-olds to vote in school board elections only.

Many states also allow 17-year-olds to vote in state and presidential primary elections if they turn 18 before the general election, according to FairVote.
Why the D.C. campaign is complicated
D.C. is a unique case. Though it operates as a city, it's also a district under federal control. So, while the 50 states can change their individual voting age requirements, only D.C. is also under the watchful eye of Congress, which can overturn legislation from the city if it wants to, Morley said.
What supporters say
Allen has a laundry list of reasons he believes the voting age is too high. Among them: 16-year-olds should have a stake in laws which affect them, such as education policy; research suggests that a strong predictor for voting habits is a record of previous voting; and as student activists around the country have demonstrated, many teenagers, "have very well thought out positions and frankly, in many cases, they're leading the adults," Allen said.

For Allen, however, perhaps his greatest motivation is that many 16-year-olds are taxpayers who cannot vote for their own elected representation. That issue speaks strongly to a councilmember in D.C., which does not have voting representation in Congress.

Allen has re-introduced his bill at a time when a youth movement is unfolding across the country, with students and teenagers are participating in advocacy, activism, and even government itself.

The national voting rights advocacy group FairVote supports Allen's bill. "Sixteen and 17-year-olds are affected by the same policies or even policies in a different way than older voters are," said Dave O'Brien, legal fellow at FairVote. "Sometimes, they'll be affected by those policies longer," like the environment, the national debt, and decisions about war. "It seems only right that they should have some sort of input into it," he added.
What critics say
Some critics say 16-year-olds aren't mature enough or don't have enough life experience.

"The arguments for lowering the voting age to 18 don't entirely translate to lowering it to 16," Morley said, referring to the 1970 campaign. "You had the notion that 18 was already adulthood in several other contexts," such as facing the draft, establishing households, and starting families. But Morley doesn't necessarily think those arguments apply to 16-year-olds, who in most cases are still legally required to attend school and generally depend on parental support.

Allen doesn't see legal adulthood as relevant.

"I think that young people have a stake in election outcomes. At age 16 your relationship with the law changes dramatically, from being able to drive on city streets to having a job and paying taxes," he said.

"There are a lot of 16- and 17-year-olds that also walk around everyday with adult responsibilities," Allen said. "Not only are they having jobs, they're a part of helping run a family. Some of them may even have kids of their own. When you think about what those responsibilities are, why shouldn't they have a voice in helping shape that?"
Why it matters
Historically, political parties have struggled to get 18- to 24-year-olds to show up on Election Day. According to census data, 50.9 percent of the 18- to 24-year-old population voted in the 1964 presidential election. While turnout was similar in the subsequent presidential election, the percentage of voters in that age bracket hasn't been as high since. The percentage didn't crack 40 percent in the 2016 election.

Despite that history, Allen thinks young people are demonstrating a willingness to get engaged. He pointed to Takoma Park, Maryland, as one example. A FairVote analysis of the 2013 election in Takoma Park showed that about 17 percent of 16- and 17-year-old eligible voters cast a ballot in the local election. That's about double the 8.5 percent of eligible 18-year-olds.

"They've shown that they will vote, and they'll vote repeatedly which is good for civics. They're getting engaged now and becoming lifelong voters," Allen said.

At FairVote, O'Brien said that it's possible that allowing teens to vote could impact the voting decisions of the larger electorate. "There might be concerns that older voters might perceive younger voters, or at least that section of the electorate, as somehow less legitimate because they're too immature," O'Brien said. "But you have that same concern whenever a new group is a brought to the electorate, whether it's women or African-Americans."

Neither Allen nor O'Brien sees the issue as partisan - "there are young people who are going to be of all political persuasions," Allen said - but Morley isn't as convinced.

Given that data suggests today's youth tend to vote more Democratic, Morley says jurisdictions' efforts to lower the voting age "could be seen not so much as an attempt to rectify some injustice, but instead as a means of trying to stack the electoral deck" in favor of Democrats.
What's next?
Klugman at Vote16USA said many states are making a good effort to increase voter turnout among young people. Currently, 13 states and D.C. allow for voter pre-registration at age 16. In California, a new law will go into effect this month, in which 16 and 17-year-olds will be pre-registered to vote when they get a driver's license. They'll have to opt out if they don't want to register.

And Klugman said that state legislators in at least three other states - New York, Virginia and Minnesota - have introduced bills to lower the voting age in state and local elections, federal elections, or both.

The next step for the D.C. bill is a hearing at the Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety, which Allen chairs. He said since four of the five committee members co-introduced the bill, he anticipates it will be voted on fairly quickly this summer. It will then move to a vote before the entire city council, and, if successful, to Mayor Muriel Bowser's desk (Bowser's press secretary, LaToya Foster, said the mayor will support the bill).

By 2020, Allen hopes 16- and 17-year-olds will be able to vote in both local and federal races.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Earlier this month, a Washington, D.C., city councilman proposed what hasn't been a widely embraced idea in recent years: lowering the voting age threshold in local and federal elections from 18 to 16.

# data[].attributes.headline
America's turbulent voting rights history

# data[].attributes.subject
America's turbulent voting rights history

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Fight to Vote: America’s Turbulent Voting Rights History [Interactive Timeline] | KQED

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The United States prides itself as a beacon of democracy on the world stage. But universal suffrage has been elusive throughout its history. Teach with the Lowdown Nonfiction analysis, writing/discussion prompts and multimedia projects. Browse our entire lesson plan collection here. Voting rights history lesson plan (PDF) From the early years of the republic, when voting

# data[].attributes.headline
More teen and children's lives being taken

# data[].attributes.subject
More teen and children's lives being taken

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
ST. LOUIS (AP) - Gun violence is killing an increasing number of American children, from toddlers caught in crossfires to teenagers gunned down in turf wars, drug squabbles or for posting the wrong thing on social media.

Shootings involving children and teenagers have been on the rise in recent years, and 2021 is no exception. Experts say idleness caused by the COVID-19 pandemic shares the blame with easy access to guns and disputes that too often end with gunfire.

LeGend Taliferro, a 4-year-old boy who loved dinosaurs and basketball, was sleeping on the floor in an apartment in Kansas City, Missouri, when he was shot on June 29, 2020. A man who had been involved in a dispute with LeGend's father is awaiting trial for second-degree murder. A probable cause statement said the suspected shooter had been trying to find LeGend's dad after that altercation.

"Why do we have to resort to violence because we're mad?" LeGend's mother, Charron Powell, asks. "What are other ways we can figure out an issue without harming somebody?"

The U.S. saw 991 gun violence deaths among people 17 or younger in 2019, according to the website Gun Violence Archive, which tracks shootings from more than 7,500 law enforcement, media, government and commercial sources. That number spiked to 1,375 in 2020 and this year is on pace to be worse. Through Monday, shootings had claimed 1,179 young lives and left 3,292 youths injured.

FBI data backs that up. The agency released a report on Sept. 28 showing homicides in the U.S. increased nearly 30% in 2020, and homicides among people ages 19 and younger rose more than 21%.

Horror stories abound.

In St. Louis, 9-year-old Caion Greene died in March when someone opened fire on his family's car. A 17-year-old is charged in the crime. Police and prosecutors have declined to discuss a motive or say what prompted the shooting.

Two Minneapolis children were gunned down in May. Nine-year-old Trinity Ottoson-Smith was shot in the head while jumping on a trampoline. Police said she was the unintended victim of a bullet meant for someone else. No arrests have been made. Six-year-old Aniya Allen was shot when her mother drove her car through a gun battle.

On Oct. 2 in Milwaukee, an 11-year-old girl was killed and a 5-year-old girl was injured when someone fired into their family's car from another vehicle. Police have not said if they know of a motive and are seeking information from the public.

More often, the victims are teenagers.

Jamari Williams and Kentrell McNeal, both 15-year-old students at Simeon Career Academy High School in Chicago, were killed in separate shootings on Sept. 21. No arrests have been made and police declined to speculate on what led to the shootings.

At Philadelphia's Simon Gratz High School Mastery Charter, five students were killed and nine others were shot or shot at during the last school year. Just weeks into the new school year, two students and a recent graduate have been killed. The school offers a space for memorials to slain students, often helps with funeral expenses and offers counseling services.

"We have gotten exceptionally good at knowing what to do, and how to offer help when a young person loses their life ... we have gotten really good at that," principal Le'Yondo Dunn said.

A March report from the Children's Defense Fund found that child and teen shooting deaths reached a 19-year high in 2017 and have remained elevated. Black children and teenagers were four times more likely than whites to be fatally shot.

The fund's president and CEO, the Rev. Starsky Wilson, said a spike in gun sales during the pandemic has made things worse.

"There are more guns available on the street and there are folks with less opportunity to engage in productive activity," Wilson said. "A combination of those two is really challenging."

Social media also plays a role, experts say. A posted insult can turn quickly into retaliation, said Jason Smith, a homicide division captain in Philadelphia.

"Social media makes it so easy to throw that disrespect," Smith said. "They're doing it in real time."

Dr. Lindsay Clukies, an emergency room doctor at St. Louis Children's Hospital, said she and her staff often see repeat victims.

"It's not uncommon that we see a child with a big scar and we say, 'What happened?' and they say, 'Oh, I was shot once before,'" Clukies said.

"It's so frustrating as a medical provider because we obviously pride ourselves in taking amazing care of kids and saving lives and fixing lives, but these injuries are preventable," Clukies said. "There's nothing that compares to having to tell a parent that their child passed away from a completely preventable thing."

The Justice Department sought to address the violence through "Operation Legend," named for LeGend Taliferro. His mother takes comfort in the fact that her son's death helped spur a national effort that resulted in hundreds of arrests. Still, the pain never goes away.

"It's really a mental battle to get through every day," Powell said. "It's really difficult to know he's not here and I won't hear his voice."

On the day before Father's Day last year, someone fired shots at a group of boys on the front porch of a Chicago home. The bullet missed the boys but pierced a window into the dining room where 13-year-old Amaria Jones was showing her mom a dance routine she was perfecting for TikTok.

The bullet shattered a TV and everyone scattered for safety. When Amaria's mother returned, she found her daughter on the floor, holding her wounded neck and trying to call out, "Mom." Amaria was pronounced dead at a hospital. No arrests have been made.

"I grew up in this neighborhood and I've been around a lot of gun violence," Mercedes Jones, Amaria's 28-year-old sister, said. "I've ducked bullets flying near my head. I'm used to that. Not Amaria. She didn't hang out like me. She didn't know that lifestyle."

While small children are often caught in the crossfire, teenagers are most commonly targeted - often by other teenagers - in drive-by shootings on interstate highways or gunned down in broad daylight on urban streets.

Shaquille Barbour of Philadelphia was killed June 6, a week before his high school graduation - shot 13 times as he rode his bike home from a corner store. No arrests have been made, and police aren't offering a motive.

His father, Joseph Barbour, still struggles to hold back the anger.

"I don't think people know how hard it is, not to want to retaliate," he said. "These kids are on the street, and it feels like they're hunters. They brag and taunt people after they kill someone, too."

Smith, the Philadelphia detective, said the shootings are as brutal as they are brazen.

"They will empty an entire magazine into someone's torso or their head," he said. "They call it walking a person down. They shoot a person and incapacitate them ... then walk them down, walk until they are standing over them and unload their firearm into that individual."

Efforts and ideas to slow the violence are varied.

Wilson, of the Children's Defense Fund, suggested a threefold strategy: Adopt new gun legislation to strengthen background checks and incentivize safe storage of weapons; invest in social services such as after-school programs and mental health support for young people; and create more economic opportunity, including summer jobs.

Studies have shown that victims of violence are at an elevated risk of becoming violent themselves. So St. Louis Children's Hospital developed its Victims of Violence program that seeks to reduce recidivism by pairing surviving shooting victims with mentors and offering counseling, mediation and a link to social service agencies.

In Philadelphia, Chief Inspector Frank Vanore said police also monitor social media and if they're aware of a feud, a team of officers and community leaders meet with those involved in the dispute.

A pilot program this year at Philadelphia's Simon Gratz high will provide intensive services to students in danger of becoming a victim - or a perpetrator - of gun violence.

"We are going to have capacity to get about 60 students into the program but with the number of students we've lost, the amount of violence and guns that Philadelphia is seeing, we know there will be more students who need this program than we can get in," Dunn said. "We know it."

___

Lauer reported from Philadelphia.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gun violence claiming more lives of American teens, children

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
ST. LOUIS (AP) - Gun violence is killing an increasing number of American children, from toddlers caught in crossfires to teenagers gunned down in turf wars, drug squabbles or for posting the wrong thing on social media. Shootings involving children and teenagers have been on the rise in recent years, and 2021 is no exception.

# data[].attributes.headline
Lego vows to remove gender bias from their toys

# data[].attributes.subject
Lego vows to remove gender bias from their toys

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Lego vows to dismantle harmful gender norms brick by plastic brick

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Lego has vowed to remove gender bias from its toys in light of new research that found girls are being held back by society’s ingrained gender stereotypes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The NBA and WNBA wage gap explained via professional chess, Major League Soccer, and "Hero Ball"

If you follow basketball (and maybe even if you don't), you've probably heard of him: Anthony Davis is a superstar. He was a first overall pick in the NBA draft in 2012. He's a seven-time All-Star. And...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The NBA and WNBA wage gap explained via professional chess, Major League Soccer, and "Hero Ball" If you follow basketball (and maybe even if you don't), you've probably heard of him: Anthony Davis is a superstar. He was a first overall pick in the NBA draft in 2012. He's a seven-time All-Star.

# data[].attributes.headline
Are US women's soccer players earning less than men?

# data[].attributes.subject
Are US women's soccer players earning less than men?