Statistics That Explain GOP White Nativism

First, Republican seats in the House of Representative have significantly lower foreign-born populations compared to seats held by Democrats. This suggests why Republican lawmakers prefer anti-immigration policies more than Democrats. Support: Caitlin Owens & Chris Canipe, Two Americas: Republican Districts Have Far Fewer Immigrants, AXIOS (Feb. 6, 2018).

Second, foreign-born residents in the United States U.S. are overwhelmingly nonwhite.  Census data from 2016 indicate among the foreign-born population in the United States U.S.—totaling 43,681,654—7,895,629 people were “White Only” (18.1%).   This means that the term foreign-born population in the United States U.S. refers to a group that is more than 80 eighty percent people of color. Support: Jynnah Radford & Abby Budiman, 2016, Foreign-Born Population in the United States Statistical Portrait PEW. RES. CTR. (Sept. 14, 2018). Census data from 2016 indicate among the foreign-born population in the U.S.—totaling 43,681,654—only 7,895,629 people were “White Only” (18.1%). The breakdown shows 19,595,412 “Hispanic”; 7,895,629 “White Alone, Not Hispanic”; 3,660,002 “Black Alone, Not Hispanic”; 11,569,405 “Asian Alone, Not Hispanic”; and 961,206 “Other, Not Hispanic.”

Third, racial gerrymandering that results from Republican map-drawing is common in the United States U.S., and usually packs Democrats into few districts to dilute their broader electoral influence.  Support: Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama (2015), and Shaw v. Hunt, (1996) (Supreme Court struck down GOP drawn election maps improperly used race to draw a majority-black district, and dilute black voting power); and Kenneth W. Shotts, Does Racial Redistricting Cause Conservative Policy Outcomes? Policy Preferences of Southern Representatives in the 1980s and 1990s, 65 J. POL. 216, 224-25 (2003); Charles Cameron, et al., Do Majority-Minority Districts Maximize Substantive Black Representation in Congress?, 93 AM. POL. SCI. REV. 794, 807, 809 (1996); and Kevin A. Hill, Does the Creation of Majority Black Districts Aid Republicans? An Analysis of the 1992 Congressional Elections in Eight Southern States, 57 J. POL. 384, 394 (1995). 

Nicotine Fit: Can Employers Discriminate Against Users?

Photo Credit: Prime Health Channel

While much of the media focuses this week on Illinois’ new recreational marijuana law, U-Haul has announced a company-wide ban on employing nicotine users in states where there is an employer right to make hiring decisions based on tobacco and nicotine use.

Those 21 states are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia and Washington.

The policy will not apply to current employees who may smoke or use nicotine in some other manner. And the new rule won’t apply to job applicants in most states.

The company says that it implementing the policy to foster a culture wellness at U-Haul.

On Friday, January 3^rd at 8:20 Central Time, I’ll discuss this policy in a live interview on KCBS.

If time permits, I’ll briefly discuss a lead case in this area involved the Lawrence Livermore Lab in the Bay area.

The lab used medical tests to screen for syphilis, Sickle cell, pregnancy, and other personal medical information. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the lab, and in doing so it found a broad employee privacy right to shield individuals from employer screening.

That said, I am not aware of a blanket nicotine-use right for employees.

Here is my point: If U-Haul could prove a “compelling interest” to test for nicotine, it’s conceivable they could implement the policy in California. I don’t know if the medical evidence on nicotine use gives employers a “compelling interest” (it’s such a high legal threshold). 
If employers could only prove a “substantial interest,” they would lose (that's my hunch on this issue). 

For now, U-Haul is choosing to play it safe with states that don’t restrict employee medical tests— they won’t test for nicotine use in California.