It’s no secret that President Donald Trump has a distinctive style of speaking. From his sort-of made-up words (bigly), to his odd turns of phrase (fire like a dog?) to his grammar that is only hovering around the sixth grade level, Trump’s rhetoric can be hard to follow. And for one group of people–interpreters, it’s causing quite the headache.

According to some interpreters, it’s easy enough to translate Trump when he’s speaking from a prepared speech, like he did at his Inaugural ceremony. But those instances are few and far between. For the most part, Trump makes off-the-cuff statements, with lots of repetition and odd word choices. His lack of coherence, and manner of jumping around from topic to topic also makes it difficult to translate his speeches into other languages.

A recent Japan Times piece highlighted the struggles that some Japanese interpreters have conveying POTUS’s speeches in their language. One interpreter explained how Trump’s use of proper nouns without any context makes it difficult. For example, during his victory speech on November 9, 2016, he referenced Reince (Priebus) and Secretariat (the horse) suddenly. Miwako Hibi, who was tasked with translating Trump’s speech into Japanese, said:

When he suddenly said ‘Reince is a superstar,’ I was literally thrown off. Only after the camera zoomed in on the face of a ‘Reince’ did I realize who Trump was talking about, and I hastily added, for the sake of the audience, that it’s actually ‘Reince Priebus, the Republican National Committee chairman.

But, “Secretariat” was even harder to place. Hibi admitted: “I mistranslated that one. It didn’t even occur to me that he was talking about a race horse. … It’s really hard to follow his train of thought.”

One French interpreter, Bérengère Viennot, speaking to the Los Angeles Review of Books, also complained about Trump’s disjointed speech patterns. And she pointed out another issue with translating his speaking–if she adds context in an attempt to make his speeches comprehensible for her audience, she runs the risk of making him seem like a better speaker than he actually is.

And that actually pertains to another issue–how do interpreters deal with Trump’s crude language? Take, for example, his now infamous “grab them by the pussy” quote. Is it an interpreter’s job to translate the word “pussy,” which in many languages holds no direct translation, as accurately or as conservatively as possible?

And it’s easy enough to sympathize with the interpreters who are struggling to convey Trump’s words in another language. After all, those of us in the U.S. have an admittedly hard time gleaning what Trump is trying to say sometimes too.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Bigly Problem: Translating Donald Trump Creates Headaches for Interpreters appeared first on Law Street.

Melania Trump gave a rare speech in Pennsylvania on Thursday, in which she expressed her concerns about people being mean on the internet, causing many to ask: does she even know her husband?

Melania Trump has generally kept quiet in the campaign since it was revealed that she plagiarized parts of Michelle Obama’s speech from 2008 during the Republican National Convention in July. But on Thursday evening, Pennsylvania women got to hear what her plans would be if she were to become the First Lady.

Trump said she worries about “all of our children” and that people are being mean on the internet. “Our culture has gotten too mean and too rough, especially to children and teenagers,” she said. She went on to say that kids are “hurt when they are made fun of, or made to feel less in looks or intelligence. This makes their life hard. It can force them to hide and retreat.”

The irony in Melania Trump’s words–as her husband has become known for cyberbullying, insulting people based on their looks, and for the recent news that he may have sexually assaulted as many as 17 women–is almost too much. During the campaign, Donald Trump has insulted and verbally harassed anyone who is the least bit critical of him or doesn’t live up to his standards of appearance. The New York Times compiled a list of 282 people, places, and things that Trump has insulted since declaring his candidacy last June. The list includes, among many others, the TV show Saturday Night Live (“unfunny show”), actor Alec Baldwin (“portrayal stinks”), Megyn Kelly (“crazy” and “sick”), Alicia Machado (“disgusting”), and the United States (“weak”).

Melania Trump can’t be serious with being an advocate for cyberbullying when Donald Trump is a cyberbullying predator on & off social media! pic.twitter.com/lRAbw3b3Ba

— Mr. Weeks (@MrDane1982) November 4, 2016

Melania may not have realized that she used one of Hillary Clinton’s foremost arguments against Donald–also put forth by Michelle Obama–to challenge his fitness for the presidency. Clinton and Obama both talk about how important it is to be a role model for children and to protect them from language that is disrespectful and mean. On Thursday, Melania Trump spoke of the exact same problems. She said:

It is never OK when a 12-year-old girl or boy is mocked, bullied or attacked. It is terrible when that happens on the playground and it is unacceptable when it’s done by someone with no name hiding on the Internet.

The internet reacted right away.

.@MELANIATRUMP I’m so glad you lectured America on the evils of cyber bullying. Please also discuss it with this man.->

“Melania Trump” pic.twitter.com/lPL4V1j8Ma

— Cornelia (@PaladinCornelia) November 4, 2016

She also said that children are often picked on for their “looks and intelligence,” which she says isn’t cool. Trump also said that she will work for women’s rights. Maybe she forgot that her husband called Rosie O’Donnell “fat” and “ugly,” Bette Midler “extremely unattractive,” and Debbie Wasserman Schultz “highly neurotic.”

Donald Trump’s rhetoric has already had a notable effect on kids, a development that has actually been named the “Trump Effect.” His language may be increasing bullying in schools, especially for kids of a nationality, race, or religion that Trump has mocked.

Now Melania Trump says she would like to focus on the same groups and issues that the Democrats are using to criticize her husband. But the question is, will she be able to disregard everything that her husband has said and done, and how long will that last?

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Melania Trump Wants to Fight Cyberbullying, but Forgot Who She Married appeared first on Law Street.

The Islamic State is ”inevitably going to be defeated,” said President Obama at a press conference on Thursday. The President met with reporters after a briefing at the Pentagon from his national security team on the fight against ISIS.

He said that even though ISIS will certainly be defeated, the networks from the terrorist group will probably keep trying to commit acts of terrorism:

As we’ve seen, it is still very difficult to detect and prevent lone actors or small cells of terrorists who are determined to kill the innocent and are willing to die. And that’s why… we’re going to keep going after ISIL aggressively across every front of this campaign.

Although the press was supposed to focus on the war against terrorism, a lot of the questions ended up being about the Trump situation. But after a few, the President had had enough.

I would ask all of you to just make your own judgment. I’ve made this point already multiple times. Just listen to what Mr. Trump has to say and make your own judgment with respect to how confident you feel about his ability to manage things like our nuclear triad.

See Obama’s speech here.

Today @POTUS convened his @NSC44 at the Pentagon for a regular meeting on efforts to degrade & destroy ISIL.https://t.co/XhNlSMdNfj

— WH National Security (@NSC44) August 4, 2016

Also on Thursday, the Egyptian army confirmed that it killed an important ISIS-allied leader, Abu Duaa al-Ansari. In total 45 terrorists were killed and weapon and ammunition supplies destroyed in the airstrikes by the army in the Sinai Peninsula.

Al-Ansari was the head of the group Ansar Bait al-Maqdis, which prospered in the chaos after the Government of Egyptian President Mubarak was overthrown in 2011. The group entered an alliance with ISIS in 2014 and was responsible for bombing a gas pipeline between Egypt, Israel, and Jordan, as well as the crash of Russian flight 9268 in 2015.

Russia got a reprimand from Obama for its continued support of the Syrian government and attacks on opposing forces. But the U.S. will continue to attempt to cooperate with the nation to jointly bring down ISIS.

However, as Obama pointed out at the press conference, independents inspired by the Islamic State may very well keep attacking people in public spaces such as subways or parades to spread fear, which is why the U.S. must keep up the work of fighting against the terrorist group.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama: Islamic State Will Be Defeated, But Independent Attacks Still a Threat appeared first on Law Street.

Melania Trump delivered a speech last night at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland and it was great. So heartfelt and inspiring….and oddly familiar? When she spoke about her values and work ethic, people couldn’t help but get a weird sense of deja-vu. But from where? As it turns out, Donald Trump’s wife seemingly plagiarized some of Michelle Obama’s 2008 Democratic National Convention speech, and people are not happy about it.

Here’s a side by side comparison:

Shortly after people discovered where Melania and her speech writers got their (*ahem*) “inspiration” from, social media users began compiling other famous quotes that the potential future first lady could also take credit for. Since they are all pretty hilarious, here are some #FamousMelaniaTrumpQuotes:

“I was born a poor black child.” #FamousMelaniaTrumpQuotes

— Eric Benet (@ebenet) July 19, 2016

Special Shoutout to Malia and Sasha,My husband Barrack and my speech writers Copy & Paste #FamousMelaniaTrumpQuotes pic.twitter.com/ibN7XwSKVH

— Aron Mtunji (@mtunjiaron) July 19, 2016

“Put some respek on my name” #FamousMelaniaTrumpQuotes

— Loni Love (@LoniLove) July 19, 2016

“I don’t want no scrub, A scrub is a guy that can’t get no love from me” #FamousMelaniaTrumpQuotes

— Kandi Burruss (@Kandi) July 19, 2016

“In west Philadelphia born and raised, on the playground is where I spent most of my days” #FamousMelaniaTrumpQuotes

— Lamorne Morris (@LamorneMorris) July 19, 2016

“I have had it with these mothahfuckin’ snakes on this mothahfuckin’ plane” #FamousMelaniaTrumpQuotes

— Anna Kendrick (@AnnaKendrick47) July 19, 2016

“I wanna be the very best like no one ever was. To catch them is my real test. To train them is my cause.” #FamousMelaniaTrumpQuotes

— DeStorm Power (@DeStorm) July 19, 2016

Ok, this is pretty funny… #FamousMelaniaTrumpQuotes pic.twitter.com/Mpe8wkytSL

— Siefe (@Siefe) July 19, 2016

“Four score and 7 years ago, our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation…” #FamousMelaniaTrumpQuotes pic.twitter.com/VKcAlYtzU8

— Ethan Fixell (@EthanFixell) July 19, 2016

“Our routines are 100% original” #FamousMelaniaTrumpQuotes pic.twitter.com/Da5jjEgppb

— Ian Warren (@ijwarren) July 19, 2016

But the award for best catalog of compiled #FamousMelaniaTrumpQuotes goes to… Jesse Williams! The “Grey’s Anatomy” actor and outspoken Black Lives Matter supporter had fun remembering plenty of famous quotes from Melania.

“Work, work, work, work, work, work
He say me have to
Work, work, work, work, work, work!” #FamousMelaniaTrumpQuotes

— jesseWilliams. (@iJesseWilliams) July 19, 2016

“I was told by AppleCare that I could walk in the store and get the part!!!!” #FamousMelaniaTrumpQuotes

— jesseWilliams. (@iJesseWilliams) July 19, 2016

“All right stop
Collaborate and listen
Ice is back with my brand new invention…” #FamousMelaniaTrumpQuotes

— jesseWilliams. (@iJesseWilliams) July 19, 2016

“What a man, what a man, what a mighty good man.” #FamousMelaniaTrumpQuotes

— jesseWilliams. (@iJesseWilliams) July 19, 2016

“I have a dream” #FamousMelaniaTrumpQuotes

— jesseWilliams. (@iJesseWilliams) July 19, 2016

All jokes aside, the Trump campaign released a statement saying that they are not planning to fire anyone in connection with the plagiarism of Michelle Obama. They even went as far as to blame the scrutiny over Melania’s speech on Hillary Clinton going full Regina George on women she feels “threatened” by.

Normally, if a candidate’s team were to be caught red-handed plagiarizing, it would mean the end of the campaign–but there’s nothing normal about this election cycle. Donald Trump has been highly successful in his strategy of doubling down on controversies, rather than apologizing. However, there are still three days left in Cleveland, so we’ll have to wait and see if this major snafu ends up alienating voters.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post “Famous Quotes” From Melania Trump’s Copy + Paste Speech appeared first on Law Street.

ICYMI, the 16th annual BET Awards aired live Sunday night, and it was full of yaaas-worthy performances and epic Prince tributes. Yet, despite the show opening with Beyonce-induced pandemonium and a semi-awkward “Hamilton” spoof courtesy of hosts Tracee Ellis Ross and Anthony Anderson, all anyone can talk about Monday is Jesse Williams and his show-stealing acceptance speech.

The “Grey’s Anatomy” star, who has long been an outspoken human rights advocate and recently was the executive producer of the documentary “Stay Woke: The Black Lives Matter Movement,” took the mic to accept this year’s Humanitarian Award. Shortly after uttering a few gracious name mentions, he capitalized on the opportunity to deliver a powerfully moving speech on racism, police brutality, and cultural appropriation.

At one point, Williams poignantly referenced the deaths of Tamir Rice, Rekia Boyd, Eric Garner, Sandra Bland, and Dorian Hunt–all black people who died during confrontations with the police–saying,

Yesterday would have been young Tamir Rice’s 14th birthday so I don’t want to hear anymore about how far we’ve come when paid public servants can pull a drive-by on 12 year old playing alone in the park in broad daylight, killing him on television and then going home to make a sandwich. Tell Rekia Boyd how it’s so much better than it is to live in 2012 than it is to live in 1612 or 1712. Tell that to Eric Garner. Tell that to Sandra Bland. Tell that to Dorian Hunt.

Williams concluded his speech with thoughts on racial oppression and cultural appropriation, including  a reference to  Billie Holiday’s “Strange Fruit”–a haunting musical metaphor for lynchings.

We’ve been floating this country on credit for centuries, yo, and we’re done watching and waiting while this invention called whiteness uses and abuses us, burying black people out of sight and out of mind while extracting our culture, our dollars, our entertainment like oil – black gold, ghettoizing and demeaning our creations then stealing them, gentrifying our genius and then trying us on like costumes before discarding our bodies like rinds of strange fruit. The thing is though… the thing is that just because we’re magic doesn’t mean we’re not real.

Afterwards, Williams’ words were met with a standing ovation from the audience of distinguished guests and praised by thousands of viewers on Twitter.

Click here for the full transcript of Williams’ speech, courtesy of Time.

Watch Jesse William’s full speech below.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Jesse Williams Delivers Powerful Speech on Race at BET Awards appeared first on Law Street.

We’ve all heard Donald Trump say some off-color things–after all he kicked off his campaign that way– but lately it seems like he’s getting more and more fed up with the way things are going, and refuses to apologize for it. In a 95-minute speech to a large crowd in Davenport, Iowa, Trump went on his most recent, and quite possibly his most exasperated rant yet.

Trump, who showed up to the event 40 minutes late, sounded like he lost his voice and at times ran out of breath while ranting about the state of the Republican primary and the United States in general. He began his speech on Thursday with the topic of illegal immigration, a subject that has become central to his campaign, but he didn’t stop there.

Over the course of his speech he touched on several classic Trump themes and sayings. “We don’t win anymore,” he lamented and “I’ll be the best jobs president that God ever created.” He also called several politicians “stupid,” for negotiating bad deals, most notably President Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry, and Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

While most of these antics seem like the standard practice for the colorful real estate mogul, he continued for over an hour and a half on arguably his most intense rant of the campaign. Much of his discussion focused on the military, specifically the United States’ involvement in the Middle East. At one point he claimed that he would have stopped the 9/11 attacks:

I wrote a book, ‘The America We Deserve’–in 2000–where I said there’s a guy named Osama Bin Laden, in my book! And we better watch him… I said, ‘there’s a guy, Osama bin Laden, and we better do something about him because he’s gonna go under a rock’–and this is what I said in the book–and three years later the World Trade Center came down with him.

He also talked about more contemporary military challenges, notably how he would deal with the Islamic State. After recanting his initial reluctance to divulge the details of his grand strategy (so as not to inform the enemy) he laid out a bold plan:

ISIS is making a tremendous amount of money because they have certain oil camps, they have certain areas of oil that they took away, some in Syria some in Iraq, I would bomb the shit out of ’em. I would just bomb those suckers. I’d blow up the pipes, I’d blow up the refineries, I’d blow up every single inch, there’d be nothing left.

At the beginning of Trump’s speech, the crowd fed off of his enthusiasm, cheering when Trump refused to be “politically correct.” But as he went on, the crowd’s applause became less frequent and more tepid. Those standing in the bleachers behind his podium started to sit down after about an hour and 20 minutes of talking. When he started discussing his competition in the primary race, the audience appeared to become somewhat uncomfortable. The Washington Post notes, “As Trump attacked Carson using deeply personal language, the audience grew quiet, a few shaking their heads. A man sitting in the back of the auditorium loudly gasped.”

Trump became particularly animated, and at times distraught, when he discussed his opponents. He first teed off on Hillary Clinton, claiming that she is “playing the women’s card,” and argued that her gender is the limit of her appeal. After Clinton, he moved on to his competition in the Republican primary. The most notable attack, however, was saved for Ben Carson, who has become his most significant challenger in the polls.

He started by saying, “now Carson’s an enigma to me,” and he continued to note that “he wrote a book, and in the book he said terrible things about himself. He said he’s pathological and that he’s got, basically, pathological disease.” He continued to rip into Carson exclaiming,

I don’t want a person whose got pathological disease… I’m not saying it! He said he’s got pathological disease… If you’re pathological, there’s no cure for that, folks.

Next, he referenced an interview that he did on CNN earlier that day. In the interview, he essentially compared Carson to a child molester, a claim that despite there being no evidence to back up, he repeated in Davenport.

If you’re a child molester, a sick puppy, there’s no cure for that… if you’re a child molester, there’s no cure. Pathological–there’s no cure… So he’s a pathological, damaged, temper, a problem.

At one point when discussing Carson’s life story–which involved him attempting to stab one of his friends at a young age only to be stopped by his friend’s belt buckle–Trump stepped away from the mic to demonstrate with his own belt.

“How stupid are the people of Iowa? How stupid are the people of the country to believe this crap?” Trump bemoaned. He finished his analysis of Carson’s story saying, “And he goes into the bathroom for a couple of hours and he comes out and now he’s religious… And the people of Iowa believe him. Give me a break.”

Trump is generally pessimistic about the current state of the country, after all, he wants to “make America great again,” but this time it seemed like he had just about had enough. He couldn’t understand Carson’s surge in the polls, he thinks American politicians are stupid, and he just can’t quite figure out why everyone doesn’t love him.

I don’t want to be the 100th person to mark “the beginning of the end” for Donald Trump’s presidential bid, but it’s becoming clear that campaigning is wearing on him. Truthfully, it’s impossible to say what’s next for Trump, but if his campaign does end prematurely, he might actually be fine with that. “I go back to my life,” he said, “I don’t have to do interviews, which I don’t like doing to be honest with you,” and “I can leave the scum back here, the press, alone… I don’t need them anymore.”

If you want to subject yourself to the pain, here’s the full video:

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Goes on Bizarre and Exasperated Rant in Iowa appeared first on Law Street.

The idea of a “welfare queen” has been a political talking point for several decades. It began as a term used by President Reagan in a story he told while he was running for election in 1976:

‘In Chicago, they found a woman who holds the record…She used 80 names, 30 addresses, 15 telephone numbers to collect food stamps, Social Security, veterans’ benefits for four nonexistent deceased veteran husbands, as well as welfare. Her tax-free cash income alone has been running $150,000 a year.’

The idea of a welfare queen has evolved into being characterized as a woman who stays on welfare, receiving benefits, and continuing to have children so she can get even more money from the government to support those children. In the eyes of many, the stereotype is thoroughly racist–she’s an under-performing black woman, living off of taxpayers’ money. The term is seen by many as a dog whistle of sorts, a way to play on the public’s racial anxieties without actively saying so.

Read More: No Strings Attached: Replacing Welfare With a Guaranteed Income

Some claim that Reagan’s story was a complete lie, but, there is some proof that it was at least based on reality. It now appears that there wasn’t just one welfare queen, but the subject of Reagan’s story  was actually an amalgamation of three different women. Craig R. Smith, a former speechwriter for Presidents Ford and George H.W. Bush said,

It hangs together as a good story because it’s consistent with people’s perception of the real world…Like in any good mythology, you need heroes and villains and in the Welfare Queen, you had a villain who was taking advantage of the system.

Regardless of the truth, this story changed the minds of many Americans about the state of the welfare system and the people who receive the benefits.

 What is the “Welfare Queen” law?

Nearly two decades ago, California  passed a law that many have come to call the “Welfare Queen” law. It states that a family that has any additional children while on the welfare system is barred from getting any increases in the grant it already receives from the state. There are exemptions made if the couple in question can prove that birth control measures such as sterilization, IUD, or Norplant failed. There are also concessions made if the case involves rape or incest. In cases like those, the mothers were more quickly offered medical, physical, and monetary help. California is not the only state to use a variation of this law. In fact, other states including Arizona, Mississippi, and Virginia have similar measures.

Senate Bill 23

California Democrats are fighting to repeal the measure, calling it “classism” and “prejudicial” to the citizens of the state. Holly Mitchell, a Senator from Los Angeles, is working for the third time to abolish the law. She introduced Senate Bill 23, which would repeal the “welfare queen” law.

Advocates for the poor are mounting their strongest efforts ever to repeal the “maximum family grant” ruling as the state is about to set its budget for the next year. These changes come after it was announced that California was named the state with the highest child poverty rate.

“It is a classist, sexist, anti-democratic, anti-child, anti-family policy whose premise did not come to fruition,” said Mitchell, the author of Senate Bill 23. “It did not accomplish what it set out to accomplish. So it’s appropriate to take it off the books.”

California is very split on this topic, ranging from those who would like to impose stronger rules against the so called “welfare queens” to those who want to completely annul the law.

Arguments to Eliminate the “Welfare Queen” Law

The average cost to raise a child in America, from birth to 18 years old, is $241,080, according to CNN Money. That breaks down to about $1,116 a month–something that many low-income families will not make. If a family has more than one child, many families will go without in order to provide for the children instead.

Advocates for repeal also argue that when it comes down to it, the law is aimed at controlling women. According to Sacramento Bee, Toni Atkins (D-San Diego) said reversing the policy is “critically important to families, telling a recent women’s policy summit in Sacramento that the criteria are “’invasive (and) insulting.’” Some have even compared the law to China’s One Child Policy. Women’s groups and Planned Parenthood find fault with this measure as well, citing that it is more controlling than necessary.

In addition, those who want to repeal it say that it unfairly punishes children for the actions of their parents. Newborns need care and support, and not allowing the parents of newborns to gain the necessary resources can endanger the health and wellbeing of those children.

In an unlikely collaboration, Linda Wanner, the associate director of government relations at the California Catholic Conference, said that her group favors annulment of the bill as well, but for other reasons: “We have the opportunity to remove burdensome county processes, reduce the number of children living in poverty, and, more importantly, eliminate the incentive to terminate a pregnancy,” she said.

Arguments to Keep the Law in Place

Those who oppose abolishing the law say that removing it to raise the amount of money that the family gets will not lift any family out of poverty. According to the Sacramento Bee, Mary L.G. Theroux, senior vice president of The Independent Institute, a nonprofit research organization based in Oakland, said she doesn’t disagree that the law did not prevent births. “The opportunity cost of them having another kid is not going to stop them from doing it,” she said. However, she continued to say that giving more money would not give the growing families the incentive to get help from charities, family members, or find higher paying jobs. She then continued, “What these programs are doing is completely handicapping people from learning how to take care of their families and how to help their children have a better life than they do.” In addition, many feel that these programs that provide complete care to parents and children actually hinder further development of the child and his or her autonomy.

There’s also a concern that repealing the law would be a huge economic strain on the state of California. The state’s economy has been struggling since the recession in 2008, and pouring more money into welfare could harm its rebound even further. One analyst claimed that repealing the law could cost up to $205 million a year, although that number is difficult to reliably quantify.

According to the Sacramento Bee, Senate Republican Leader Bob Huff (R-Diamond Bar) said that helping families in poverty is an important role for officials in the state government as well as people outside of the state, and is even a nationwide issue. The question is whether repealing the maximum grant is the best thing to do with the money. “Putting $200 million into an effective job training program or providing child care for working mothers would be a better use of resources,” Huff said. Huff “pointed to a long list of other needs for both the parents and children in the state, including services for the developmentally disabled and foster children.”

Conclusion

This is not the only time that discussions have been developed around the “welfare queen” law. In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed a welfare reform law, and then-Governor of California Pete Wilson and lawmakers compromised on a statewide program called CalWORKS in 1997. This bill stiffened the work requirements and set time limits, sanctions, grant levels, and eligibility requirements for California welfare recipients.

So how much fraud is there really in the welfare system? According to Eric Schnurer of the Atlantic it’s actually not so clear.

It’s not easy to get agreement on actual fraud levels in government programs. Unsurprisingly, liberals say they’re low, while conservatives insist they’re astronomically high. In truth, it varies from program to program. One government report says fraud accounts for less than 2 percent of unemployment insurance payments. It’s seemingly impossible to find statistics on ‘welfare’ (i.e., TANF) fraud, but the best guess is that it’s about the same. A bevy of inspector general reports found ‘improper payment’ levels of 20 to 40 percent in state TANF programs — but when you look at the reports, the payments appear all to be due to bureaucratic incompetence (categorized by the inspector general as either ‘eligibility and payment calculation errors’ or ‘documentation errors’), rather than intentional fraud by beneficiaries.

The number of people living in poverty in California, and nationwide, has continued to grow and grow. The face of welfare has changed since the 1980s, as has the amount of money that is needed to raise a child, especially in a state where the cost of living is high.

Resources

Primary

California Legislature: Senate Bill No. 23

Additional

Cal Coast News: California May Repeal “Welfare Queen” Law

CNN: Return of the ‘Welfare Queen’

NPR: The Truth Behind the Lies of the Original ‘Welfare Queen‘

New York Post: When Welfare Pays Better Than Work

CNN: Average Cost to Raise a Child

Huffington Post: California Poverty Rate

Slate: The Welfare Queen

Nieman Reports: The ‘Welfare Queen’ Experiment

SCPR: Lawmakers Debate Repeal of Welfare Queen Law in California

Jezebel: Reagan’s ‘Welfare Queen’ Was a Real Person and Her Story is Bananas

Editor’s Note: This post has been updated to credit select information to the Sacramento Bee. 

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Battle Over the “Welfare Queen” Law in California appeared first on Law Street.

Thursday night, President Obama announced an executive action that will protect millions of undocumented immigrants and restructure the United States’ priorities when it comes to immigration enforcement. And he used some fighting words. Obama stated:

The actions I’m taking are not only lawful, they’re the kinds of actions taken by every single Republican president and every Democratic president for the past half century. And to those members of Congress who question my authority to make our immigration system work better, or question the wisdom of me acting where Congress has failed, I have one answer: Pass a bill.

Obama’s speech–just weeks after the Democrats basically got trounced in the midterms–was powerful, and regardless of how both his political allies and opponents are acting on the Hill, will make a real difference in the lives of millions of people who call America home.

But if you were interested in watching this speech, you may have had a hard time finding it. The big TV networks–ABC, NBC, FOX, and CBS–chose not to air the speech. Instead, CBS presented an episode of The Big Bang Theory; Fox network viewers saw Bones; and viewers tuning to NBC were able to enjoy The Biggest Loser: Glory Days.

While cable stations like Fox News, CNN, and Univision carried it, the big four networks chose not to and opted for their regular programming instead. That was their choice. When the President is giving an important speech, the White House can put in an official request that the speech be carried. In this case, the White House did not, apparently after hearing from networks that they weren’t too enthusiastic to postpone their normal programming. At one point, a supposed network insider called the speech too “overtly political.”

Obviously, this choice on the networks’ part wasn’t just about politics–it was about money. In today’s epoch of pretty predictable political apathy, you get more viewers when you show beloved shows like Shonda Rhimes’ Grey’s Anatomy than when you show the same President Obama speech on immigration that every other network has access to. And when you get more viewers your advertisers are happy. And then you make more money. It’s a pretty simple equation.

The story gets more complicated than that though. You see, stations like FOX, NBC, ABC, and CBS are national, but each place has their local affiliate that actually controls what that locale sees. That’s why I, living in D.C., can watch NBC but see a different morning news team than my parents living in Connecticut. There is some flexibility, apparently, because a few local affiliates gave a big middle finger up to their national stations, and showed the speech anyway. POLITICO found that:

A quick look at some major media markets found that the NBC affiliates in New York, Washington, Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas and Phoenix; the ABC affiliates in Washington, Chicago, Boston and Kansas City; the Fox affiliates in Boston, Chicago, Dallas and Miami all aired the speech live. CBS affiliates were less likely to air the speech when it fell during the hit show “The Big Bang Theory,” though several of their affiliates outside the East Coast did air it live.

There seems to be fodder for an interesting internal struggle here–networks balked at the idea of showing Obama’s speech for presumably centrally financial reasons. But not everyone was willing to play ball, and the places where the speech ended up being shown are certainly illuminating. With a few exceptions, it seems like channels that showed the speech were in either more liberal areas, or areas like Dallas and Miami, known for larger immigrant populations. As strategic as the call was to not show the speech by big networks, the local stations took their own strategies into account.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Where Could You Watch Obama’s Speech? Depends Where you Live appeared first on Law Street.