skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Welcome to the class blog! The John Jay - Vera Fellows Program is a collaborative effort between John Jay College and the spin-off agencies of the Vera Institute of Justice, combining an internship and participation in a seminar taught by faculty from John Jay's Interdisciplinary Studies Program. (To see a video about the John Jay - Vera Fellows Program, click here.) Part of the seminar experience is weekly participation in the class blog, which keeps the conversation going from week to week and will be a place for you to share your thoughts and concerns about the materials discussed in seminar as well as the internship experience. The opinions expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect the views of the Vera Institute of Justice or its spin-off organizations. While the blog is open to the public and anyone, theoretically, can comment, only class members and invited guests will be able to post. You can also look for us on our student and alumni page on Facebook. Each student has been assigned one week to write the "post." Please post within 24 hours after class. Every week, each student must comment on the post (feel free to comment more than once). Please comment by Monday afternoon to allow time for further questions and responses and so that we can read all the entries before class.
Expand VA-WHAT? Not in this economy.
First of thank you all for your cooperation this past Thursday. Your participation in this class was phenomenal. Ruby and Popy, special thanks to you and your wonderful collaboration with your testimonies about how this issue also had impact in each of your lives. One article that we spoke very little about was the New York Times article on the legislation of reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). This article spoke about the heated discussion from the politicians of moving forward with this piece of legislation. The purpose is to expand the programs and services of VAWA in order to reach awareness and help populations such as immigrants. The legislations also looks to help same- sex couples, which is something many Republicans are opposing because they are a conservative party. VAWA has been expanded over the years and this expansion is looking to create more outreach in order to prevent worse abuse and help survivors on time. Why else do you think that certain politicians oppose the reauthorization of VAWA? How would this legislation affect our economy? Why? What would you add or remove from this legislation and why?
16 comments:
Maybe the conservatives are painted into a bit of a corner where the expansion of VAWA is concerned, as the NY Times article suggests. Consider a few of the key planks in the contemporary Republican party's platform: a tough-on-immigration stance, an anti "big government" policy, and a religiously-based refusal to recognize gay rights. One almost wonders whether the conservatives in Congress are correct in noting that the raising of this issue at the present time and in this particular way is designed exactly to trap the Republicans with their own arguments. They are forced to oppose the reauthorization of VAWA as it stands in order to throw red meat to their party's base, but by opposing it, they seem insensitive and potentially anti-women. It looks like a lose-lose situation for them.
Painted into a corner at the moment they might be, but I wouldn't count them out just yet. They're far better at messaging and spinning than the Democrats are. In fact, the very question Cynthia poses about how the reauthorization might influence our economy reveals just how successfully the Republicans have made it conventional wisdom that we need to reduce the deficit and cut spending. I think Cynthia's post title suggests the way out for the Republicans, and it's probably the way out they'll use: we support protecting victims but this country cannot afford more big government at the moment, they'll say.
But I would answer the question about how it would impact the economy by noting that the increased funding would support more jobs for counselors, social workers, victim advocates and other service providers working on the issue and that those people would then be able to contribute to the economy, helping it grow. So in that way, it would benefit the economy. The Democrats could keep them painted into the corner by pointing this out, maybe forcing them to argue the other points--immigration and gay rights.
I wouldn't change the parts of the provisions in VAWA that involve immigrants or same-sex couples, except maybe to expand funding for the efforts, but I'd need to know more about the provisions involving new categories of crime and the continuance of grants to police departments. I'd like to see what the police departments have been doing with the money. I confess that I'm ignorant as to why the police need extra funding to enforce the law. I would think the money is more needed in services, but again, I don't know much about what the police need the money for or do with it.
As for new categories of crime, I'm inclined to be against the expansion of police powers, but on the particular issue of stalking, I'm not sure. I'd like to see the evidence for why we need it and I'd be concerned about how it's defined. Is stalking not a federal crime already? If so, do we need for stalking to be included under the definition of violence against women? Could this be a slippery slope ending with staring being considered violence against women as well?
Great stuff, Cynthia. And Robert has raised some interesting questions that sent me scurrying to find out exactly what is being considered so new about the current iteration of VAWA and, more specifically, where the funds actually go.
It seems that by all accounts, VAWA has had a strong impact on domestic violence since its inception in 1994. Media blasts targeting possible victims have helped increase reports of DV over 51%. VAWA established the Sexual Assault Services Program, the first federal funding stream to support the establishment of rape crisis centers. All states have now made stalking a crime and have strengthened rape laws. VAWA money has helped establish a network of family crisis centers and shelters. Intimate partner homicide has decreased by 34% for women and 57% for men.
Money that goes to police departments has been used primarily to put special domestic violence response teams in place, trained to de-escalate inflammatory situations and help the police protect themselves. Police departments also use the money to sign up for DV alerts and press releases. Funding is used to assist collaboration among police, prosecutors, shelters, and medical and counseling personnel. VAWA and The American Recovery Act have helped local police departments to purchase investigative equipment such as still and video cameras to take on-site photos of victims and crime scenes.
VAWA is estimated to have saved $12.6 billion in its first 6 years alone.
The new VAWA is not very different from the old VAWA: the slight change in immigrant services (an additional 5000 visas) will simply help clear a bureaucratic backlog, a smaller increase than has been requested by Homeland Security. LGBT advocates already get VAWA funds and the law always said that criminal provisions applied regardless of gender or sexuality.
Efforts to stop reauthorization of the bill do seem like politics at its worst.
After rereading some of the newspaper articles about VAWA, it does seem like the politicians who are against it are arguing that the new expanded VAWA would help undeserving people more than victims. Somehow, people would learn about ways to get around loopholes that VAWA might have in order to stay in the United States instead of a real victim getting help from VAWA. For a program that has such a good track record and used to get backing from the Republicans too, I'm surprised they would argue now that the money used to expand the program might backfire. Then I think back to the Arizona immigration laws and I'm wondering if the majority of America is truly afraid of immigrants. The part of the bill that seems to be left out from Professor Stein's post is the expansion of the current services to Indian tribes and rural areas.
Personally, I wouldn't change anything, because if the program has been working well so far, I don't see a reason to believe that it will fail with the new changes now. Even if the new changes end up creating alternative means for immigrants to get into the country while skipping the normal steps necessary, I'm sure the government can act to change the program back.
So sorry I missed Cynthia & Roberto's class!
I also would not change the parts that have to do with immigrants or same-sex couples because it will hinder them, especially open them up to never ending political war. Most politicians that oppose the reauthorization of VAWA would be because of money and also the fact that the victims would have immunity. For example, politicians who are anti-immigration would disapprove of this simply because it would give victims who are undocumented immunity. They would be worried that people would take advantage of that.
Although I understand that point of view, I think VAWA would do more help then harm because of the amount of the actual amount of victims. Any risk would be worth it because of the amount of victims that do need help.
I know funding is tight in all aspect of local government but I am inclined to think that why exactly would more money make the police focus more? I think we all know it wouldn't so I'm for keeping VAWA into effect but with the fact that more evidence needs to be taken into effect when it comes to the money aspect
The VAWA has expanded to offer more aid to a wider net of battered individuals, and this is exactly why Republicans refuse to vote for this Act. Republicans claim that passing the Act would also allow more battered undocumented immigrants to claim temporary visas, and would include same-sex couples in programs for domestic violence. Republicans fear the expansion of immigration laws by creating new definitions of battery. They also say the Act does not regulate the grants and dilutes the focus of domestic violence by expanding to help same-sex couples. The argument is rooted in what the Republicans consider to be the vagueness of homosexuality, where they believe it is hard to determine their relationship status, which they consider to be grounds for abuse of the legislation. As Professor Stein said, VAWA is already providing funds to LGBT advocates. I think at the heart of the Republicans main concern is the people who are carrying out the law. The question becomes if police, lawyers, and judges can make the right choices when applying the law. I do not think the law itself is the problem. There needs to be more training and instruction on how the visas work and how to apply.
I do not think it is fair to evaluate our ability to help others on how much money we have. Doing what is right cannot be reduced to a dollar sign. What is a rich society that has no moral values, if not a poor society? However, I understand the importance of this economic debate to the tax payers of the United States. Like Professor Stein presented in her statistics, I do not think VAWA will increase costs, but rather save more money for the United States. Many undocumented immigrants are in the United States already, and their status prevents them from improving their living situations. If more people have visas to work then the economy will grow.
Thanks again for a terrific class, Cynthia and Roberto! The most fitting definition of a dynamic duo!
I believe certain politicians oppose the reauthorization of VAWA because it sets out to serve a broader population of people. Now that it does not target a smaller vulnerable population, and services are a bit more complex, I can understand why Republicans are reluctant to support the act. Funding is always a big issue, and I would have to agree with most of you on the grounds that resources need to be stretched, so that everyone in need of visas and services can be granted them. I think the larger concern is victims taking advantage of the aid and immigration, which is quite normal and expected.
As most of you mentioned, I wouldn’t change anything either. Like Simon, I believe the current program functions well, and if immigration happens to become a problem, then the program can be altered later on.
Thank you Cynthia and Roberto for a touching class that plays to beat of my drum. I agree with Popy that VAWA is meant to help all individuals regardless of your status and as always, people are quick to say that immigration is a problem and that the immigrants are at the forefront of the problems. As we discussed earlier in the semester, Americans don't want those jobs nor do they require these types of services to the extent that these immigrants need them. At the end of the day we are talking about men, women, and children who fear for their lives. Are these politicians suggesting that one life is more valuable than another? And if in fact they are, it is my opinion that Americans are then just as culpable as the batteres who kill their partners and children.
Thanks to Professor Stein for doing the research I was too busy (read lazy) to do! It's very interesting to know that Homeland Security is requesting more Visas to clear backlogs. This, more than any other bit of info in my opinion, suggests that indeed this part of VAWA is working and in need of increased funding. It's similar to a situation in which a company comes out with a new product, sells out, has back-orders, and needs to increase production to fill them. The U-Visa "product" is obviously a success, and the only reason to oppose it is political in the absolutely ugliest sense. And I now understand what the police need the money for and think that funding seems to be well-spent. As to the issue of including stalking under the VAWA, I'm still not convinced. If stalking is already against the law, then why can't people be prosecuted under existing laws? If the problem is that the penalties aren't strong enough, then I'd be in favor of modifying the stalking laws, perhaps including provisions that answer the problem the inclusion under VAWA is attempting to address. To define stalking as "violence" against women not only introduces the slippery slope problem I mentioned above but also seems to dilute the definition of violence. I understand that the idea is prevention, but considering that the vast majority of violence against women is committed by people she knows, then I wonder about the preventative effect this would have. Presumably, if the stalker is a stranger, then the idea that physical violence may follow seems "minority report-ish" at best, meaning it's like asking a fortune teller, for those unfamiliar with the reference. And again, there are laws against this already. And if the stalker is someone she knows and has maybe been victimized by already, then presumably there are not only the stalking laws but also the VAWA laws under which to prosecute. Am I missing something, though?
Oh, I forgot to mention this: a lot of us have mentioned the issue of resources and funding and tax payers' concerns. I just want to point out that the idea of "scarce resources" is a deeply conservative starting point for a discussion of how to spend public funds. Rather than accept this premise without question, we might consider instead that what we're talking about is not a question of "spending" or "increasing government" per se but rather a question of allocation. It isn't that we have all the money in the world to do all that we want; the point is that we make decisions about where to put resources based on values, as Christine touched on in her post. For example, we seem to have all the money in the world to conduct wars but at the same time we have difficulty funding our public schools. We could "shrink government" drastically by cutting the military budget in half. So rather than blindly repeating the idea of scarce resources, we might, instead, start these discussions by talking about the idea of allocation and distribution of resources.
Sorry to join the conversation so late, but one benefit is that I can see what an interesting connection there will be between Cynthia's class and Ruby's! I just this morning got an email from my dear friend Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz (just kidding: it was a Democratic National Committee e-mail blast) about reauthorizing the act. Clearly this is both a political fan to fuel the flames of the Republican's "War on Women" -- and also a highly effective piece of legislation for all the reasons given in the readings and by Prof Stein above. It raises all sorts of good examples of perspective (you knew I was going to say that) and my hunch is that Ruby's class will put that to the test by asking us to think about some of the very issues raised by VAWA.
Also a quick shout out to those of you who had things to say in regards to Roberto's lesson on affirmative action. While Cynthia led the blog this week, if anything has struck you/stuck with you about affirmative action from last week's class, feel free to share it here.
Finally, thanks to all of you for hitting it out of the park last night (and to your thoroughly heart-warming emails this morning). I wouldn't trade my time with you this year for all the tea at Hogwart's. Just kidding: I would totally go teach at Hogwart's. But I would miss you terribly.
Excellent job in facilitating the class discussions Cynthia!
Ruby and Popy, you young women are so honest and brave in telling your personal stories regarding domestic violence and how sometimes that violence can be psychological. What is also disturbing is that psychologically many women not only accept but welcome physical abuse. There are woman who feel that if their partner does not hit or beat them, that is an indication that the partner does not love them. Some how, for some reason, these women have equated violence with love. I've written a paper a few semesters ago arguing that experiencing physical discipline/corporal punishment as a child can lead to both the propensity to administer abuse (mostly by males) and the likelihood to accept it (mostly by females). Maybe again, our solution is prevention; again, referring back to how we raise our children is pertinent.
I do believe stalking is violence. It's psychologically violent. The only thing worse than death and danger is the anticipation of it.
After yesterday’s wonderful presentation, I had to check out the blog. I, of course, am thrilled that you guys focused on VAWA, particularly its impact on battered immigrants - a topic near and dear to my heart. I’m impressed with all of your comments and only want to briefly add to the U-visa discussion. Although the U-visa was created by law in October, 2000, no actual U-visas were issued until 8 LONG years later in 2008. Why? Because, despite Congress passing a lifesaving tool for immigrant victims, US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) failed to implement any regulations. Without regulations, there were simply no forms to fill out. No forms = no visas. It’s like being told you qualify for financial aid but you can’t apply because the school (not John Jay of course!) ran out of application forms and can’t seem to tell you when they’ll get them.
Starting in 2003, after much pressure from advocates, USCIS allowed noncitizens to submit informal requests for interim relief. Four years later, in 2007, after a class action lawsuit was filed against the government, USCIS finally implemented regulations. By that time, approximately 9,000 requests for interim relief had been submitted. The government’s delay created a serious backlog, warranting an expansion of the annual cap from 10,000 to 15,000. As Robert correctly points out, the U-visa is “obviously a success.”
Ooops I forgot to mention one other thing. Who was the US president after 2000? Sadly, Washington is playing politics with victims' lives.
Thursday was an amazing lesson Cynthia did us all a favor by bringing this topic to our attention. Popy and Ruby exemplified the definition of courage in their ability to share their powerful stories. Their stories are the stories of many women around the world
WAR ON WOMEN!!! Romney disagrees, but the GRAND OLD PARTY with a consistency like no other proves otherwise. As Robert pointed out there is a large problem with how the resources are allocated within this country. Rather spending trillions of dollars on national defense the government ought to protect individuals within their own borders. To me that is the best national defense. In addition this bill may in fact help the economy by leaving jobs in place which pay people and give those same individuals money to spend which in the long run keeps the economic wheel spinning.
As I was saying in class on Thursday living in a patriarch society causes many individuals especially those in position of power to fail at doing their jobs. Their failure is mainly due to their ability to realize the complexity of this issue. The feminist movements has done much to educate us on this issue, but failing to reauthorize this bill will make me question how far have we really come. When I ask myself this question I realize that in many instances when it comes to the rights of women we are in fact going backwards. This is seen in laws of contraception, abortion, how we view rape and many other instances. If conservatives decide to view more than half of the population and a consistent voting block as second class citizen’s hope they know that the projections on November 7th will not be in their favor.
Timothy's point about the internalization and repetition of abuse is something I have been researching and writing about for years. I would have to take the words “welcome abuse” out of the sentence, for sure, but there is a very complicated process of psychological defense against abuse that does end up in a kind of compulsion to repeat earlier scenarios. This is something maybe we can get to today in class.
Good news!!! Today the Senate voted 68 to 31 to pass VAWA S. 1925. Attention now turns to the House. If you want more information, check out www.4vawa.org.
Post a Comment