Human rights in the United States are legally protected by
the Constitution of the United States and amendments,[2][3] conferred by
treaty, and enacted legislatively through Congress, state legislatures, and
plebiscites (state referenda). Federal courts in the United States have
jurisdiction over international human rights laws as a federal question,
arising under international law, which is part of the law of the United
States.[4][page needed]
The first human rights organization in the Thirteen Colonies
of British America, dedicated to the abolition of slavery, was formed by
Anthony Benezet in 1775. A year later, the Declaration of Independence
advocated for civil liberties based on the self-evident truth “that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”[5]
This view of human liberties postulates that fundamental rights are not granted
by the government but are inalienable and inherent to each individual,
anteceding government.[6]
Holding to these principles, the United States Constitution,
adopted in 1787, created a republic that guaranteed several rights and civil
liberties. Those rights and liberties were further codified in the Bill of
Rights (the first ten amendments of the Constitution) and subsequently extended
over time to more universal applicability through judicial rulings and law and
reflecting the evolving norms of society — slavery being constitutionally
abolished in 1865 and women's suffrage being established nationally in 1920.
In the 20th century, the United States took a leading role
in the creation of the United Nations and in the drafting of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.[7] Much of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights was modeled in part on the U.S. Bill of Rights.[8] Even as such, the
United States is in violation of the Declaration, in as much that
"everyone has the right to leave any country" because the government
may prevent the entry and exit of anyone from the United States for foreign
policy, national security, or child support rearage reasons by revoking their
passport.[9]Contents [hide]
According to Human Rights: The Essential Reference,
"the American Declaration of Independence was the first civic document
that met a modern definition of human rights."[10] The Constitution
recognizes a number of inalienable human rights, including freedom of speech,
freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms,
freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, and the right to a fair trial by
jury.[11]
Constitutional amendments have been enacted as the needs of
the society evolved. The Ninth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment recognize
that not all human rights have yet been enumerated. The Civil Rights Act and
the Americans with Disabilities Act are examples of human rights that were
enumerated by Congress well after the Constitution's writing. The scope of the
legal protections of human rights afforded by the US government is defined by
case law, particularly by the precedent of the Supreme Court of the United
States.
Within the federal government, the debate about what may or
may not be an emerging human right is held in two forums: the United States
Congress, which may enumerate these; and the Supreme Court, which may
articulate rights that the law does not spell out. Additionally, individual
states, through court action or legislation, have often protected human rights
not recognized at federal level. For example, Massachusetts was the first of
several states to recognize same sex marriage.[12]
[edit]
Effect of international treaties
In the context of human rights and treaties that recognize
or create individual rights, there are self-executing and non-self-executing
treaties. Non-self-executing treaties, which ascribe rights that under the
Constitution may be assigned by law, require legislative action to execute the
contract (treaty) before it can apply to law.[13] There are also cases that
explicitly require legislative approval according to the Constitution, such as
cases that could commit the U.S. to declare war or appropriate funds.
Treaties regarding human rights, which create a duty to
refrain from acting in a particular manner or confer specific rights, are
generally held to be self-executing, requiring no further legislative action.
In cases where legislative bodies refuse to recognize otherwise self-executing
treaties by declaring them to be non-self-executing in an act of legislative
non-recognition, constitutional scholars argue that such acts violate the
separation of powers — in cases of controversy, the judiciary, not Congress,
has the authority under Article III to apply treaty law to cases before the
court. This is a key provision in cases where the Congress declares a human
rights treaty to be non-self-executing, for example, by contending it does not
add anything to human rights under U.S. domestic law. The International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is one such case, which, while ratified
after more than two decades of inaction, was done so with reservations,
understandings, and declarations.[14]
[edit]
Equality
[edit]
Racial
See also: Civil Rights Act of 1964 and African-American
Civil Rights Movement
Lyndon B. Johnson signs the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the
first comprehensive legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race
and national origin in the workplace in a major industrialized country. Among
the guests behind him is Martin Luther King, Jr.
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to
the United States Constitution guarantees that "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 race, color, or previous condition of servitude."[15]
In addition, Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits
the denial of a citizen of the right to vote based on that citizen's
"race, color, or previous condition of servitude".
The United States was the first major industrialized country
to enact comprehensive legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of
race and national origin in the workplace in the Civil Rights Act of 1964
(CRA),[16] while most of the world contains no such recourse for job
discrimination.[17] The CRA is perhaps the most prominent civil rights
legislation enacted in modern times, has served as a model for subsequent
anti-discrimination laws and has greatly expanded civil rights protections in a
wide variety of settings.[18] The United States' 1991 provision of recourse for
victims of such discrimination for punitive damages and full back pay has
virtually no parallel in the legal systems of any other nation.[17]
In addition to individual civil recourse, the United States
possesses anti-discrimination government enforcement bodies, such as the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, while only the United Kingdom and Ireland
possess faintly analogous bureaucracies.[17] Beginning in 1965, the United
States also began a program of affirmative action that not only obliges
employers not to discriminate, but requires them to provide preferences for
groups protected under the Civil Rights Act to increase their numbers where
they are judged to be underrepresented.[19]
Such affirmative action programs are also applied in college
admissions.[19] The United States also prohibits the imposition of any
"...voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice,
or procedure ... to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United
States to vote on account of race or color," which prevents the use of
grandfather clauses, literacy tests, poll taxes and white primaries.
Abolitionist Anthony Benezet and others formed the first
human rights nongovernmental organization in the U.S. This image was used as a
symbol for their cause.[20][21]
Prior to the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution, slavery was legal in some states of the United
States until 1865.[22] Influenced by the principles of the Religious Society of
Friends, Anthony Benezet formed the Pennsylvania Abolition Society in 1775,
believing that all ethnic groups were considered equal and that human slavery
was incompatible with Christian beliefs. Benezet extended the recognition of
human rights to Native Americans and he argued for a peaceful solution to the
violence between the Native and European Americans. Benjamin Franklin became
the president of Benezet's abolition society in the late 18th century. In
addition, the Fourteenth Amendment was interpreted to permit what was termed
Separate but equal treatment of minorities until the United States Supreme
Court overturned this interpretation in 1954, which consequently overturned Jim
Crow laws.[23][24] Native Americans did not have citizenship rights until the
Dawes Act of 1887 and the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.
Following the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama was
sworn in as the first African-American president of the United States on
January 20, 2009.[25] In his Inaugural Address, President Obama stated "A
man whose father less than 60 years ago might not have been served at a local
restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath....So let us mark
this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have
traveled".[25]
[edit]
Gender
See also: Women's suffrage in the United States
U.S. women suffragists demonstrating for the right to vote,
February 1913
The Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
prohibits the states and the federal government from denying any citizen the
right to vote because of that citizen's sex.[26] While this does not
necessarily guarantee all women the right to vote, as suffrage qualifications
are determined by individual states, it does mean that states' suffrage
qualifications may not prevent women from voting due to their gender.[26]
The United States was the first major industrialized country
to enact comprehensive CRA legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis
of gender in the workplace[16] while most of the world contains no such
recourse for job discrimination.[17] The United States' 1991 provision of
recourse for discrimination victims for punitive damages and full back pay has
virtually no parallel in the legal systems of any other nation.[17] In addition
to individual civil recourse, the United States possesses anti-discrimination
government enforcement bodies, such as the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, while only the United Kingdom and Ireland possess faintly analogous
bureaucracies.[17] Beginning in 1965, the United States also began a program of
affirmative action that not only obliges employers not to discriminate, but
also requires them to provide preferences for groups protected under the CRA to
increase their numbers where they are judged to be underrepresented.[19] Such
affirmative action programs are also applied in college admissions.[19]
The United States was also the first country to legally
define sexual harassment in the workplace.[27] Because sexual harassment is
therefore a Civil Rights violation, individual legal rights of those harassed
in the workplace are comparably stronger in the United States than in most
European countries.[27][28] The Selective Service System does not require women
to register for a possible military draft[29] and the United States military
does not permit women to serve in some front-line combat units.
[edit]
Disability
See also: Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
The United States was the first country in the world to
adopt sweeping antidiscrimination legislation for people with disabilities, the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA).[30] The ADA reflected a dramatic
shift toward the employment of persons with disabilities to enhance the labor
force participation of qualified persons with disabilities and in reducing
their dependence on government entitlement programs.[31] The ADA amends the CRA
and permits plaintiffs to recover punitive damages.[32] The ADA has been
instrumental in the evolution of disability discrimination law in many
countries, and has had such an enormous impact on foreign law development that
its international impact may be even larger than its domestic impact.[33]
Although ADA Title I was found to be unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has
extended the protection to people with Acquired immune deficiency syndrome
(AIDS).[34]
It is important to note that federal benefits such as Social
Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) are
often administratively viewed in the United States as being primarily or
near-exclusively the entitlement only of impoverished U.S. people with
disabilities, and not applicable to those with disabilities who make
significantly above-poverty level income. This is proven in practice by the
general fact that in the U.S., a disabled person on SSI without significant
employment income who is suddenly employed, with a salary or wage at or above
the living wage threshold, often discovers that government benefits they were
previously entitled to have ceased, because supposedly the new job
"invalidates" the need for this assistance. The U.S. is the only
industrialized country in the world to have this particular approach to
physical disability assistance programming.
[edit]
Sexual orientation
See also: LGBT rights in the United States and Same-sex
marriage in the United States
Same-sex marriage rally in Iowa
The Constitution of the United States explicitly recognizes
certain individual rights. The 14th Amendment recognizes that some human rights
may exist but are not yet recognized within constitutional law; for example,
civil rights for people of color and disability rights were long unrecognized.
There may exist additional gender-related civil rights that are presently not
recognized by US law but it does not explicitly state any sexual orientation
rights. Some states have recognized sexual orientation rights, which are
discussed below.
The United States Federal Government does not have any
substantial body of law relating to marriage; these laws have developed
separately within each state. The Full faith and credit clause of the US
Constitution ordinarily guarantees the recognition of a marriage performed in
one state by another. However, the Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act
of 1996,[35] which affirmed that no state (or other political subdivision
within the United States) need recognize a marriage between persons of the same
sex, even if the marriage was concluded or recognized in another state and the
Federal Government may not recognize same-sex or polygamous marriages for any
purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states. The US Constitution
denies the federal government any authority to limit state recognition of
sexual orientation rights or protections. This federal law only limits the
interstate recognition of individual state laws and does not limit state law in
any way.
[edit]
State laws
At an anti-Proposition 8 rally in New York City a protester
compares the discrimination blacks experienced with the state of gay rights.
Wisconsin was the first state to pass a law explicitly
prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.[36] In 1996,
Hawaii ruled same-sex marriage is a Hawaiian constitutional right.
Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, Washington
D.C., and Washington State are the only states that allow same-sex marriage.
Same-sex marriage rights were established by the California Supreme Court in
2008, and over 18,000 same-sex couples were married. In November 2008 voters
passed Proposition 8, amending the state constitution to deny same-sex couples
marriage rights, which was upheld in a May 2009 decision that also allowed
existing same-sex marriages to stand.[37][38]
[edit]
Privacy
Privacy is not explicitly stated in the United States
Constitution. In the Griswold v. Connecticut case, the Supreme Court ruled that
it is implied in the Constitution. In the Roe v. Wade case, the Supreme Court
used privacy rights to overturn most laws against abortion in the United
States. In the Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health case, the
Supreme Court held that the patient had a right of privacy to terminate medical
treatment. In Gonzales v. Oregon, the Supreme Court held that the Federal
Controlled Substances Act can not prohibit physician-assisted suicide allowed
by the Oregon Death with Dignity Act. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality
of criminalizing oral and anal sex in the Bowers v. Hardwick 478 U.S. 186
(1986) decision; however, it overturned the decision in the Lawrence v. Texas
539 U.S. 558 (2003) case and established the protection to sexual privacy.
[edit]
Accused
The United States maintains a presumption of innocence in
legal procedures. The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth Amendment to the United States
Constitution and Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution deals with
the rights of criminal suspects. Later the protection was extended to civil
cases as well[39] In the Gideon v. Wainwright case, the Supreme Court requires
that indigent criminal defendants who are unable to afford their own attorney
be provided counsel at trial. Since the Miranda v. Arizona case, the United
States requires police departments to inform arrested persons of their rights,
which is later called Miranda warning and typically begins with "You have
the right to remain silent."
[edit]
Freedoms
[edit]
Freedom of religion
Main article: Freedom of religion in the United States
The establishment clause of the first amendment prohibits
the establishment of a national religion by Congress or the preference of one
religion over another. The clause was used to limit school praying, beginning
with Engel v. Vitale, which ruled government-led prayer unconstitutional.
Wallace v. Jaffree banned moments of silence allocated for praying. The Supreme
Court also ruled clergy-led prayer at public high school graduations
unconstitutional with Lee v. Weisman.
The free exercise clause guarantees the free exercise of
religion. The Supreme Court's Lemon v. Kurtzman decision established the
"Lemon test" exception, which details the requirements for
legislation concerning religion. The Employment Division v. Smith decision, the
Supreme Court maintained a "neutral law of general applicability" can
be used to limit religion exercises. In the City of Boerne v. Flores decision,
the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was struck down as exceeding
congressional power; however, the decision's effect is limited by the Gonzales
v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal decision, which requires
states to express compelling interest in prohibiting illegal drug use in
religious practices.
[edit]
Freedom of expression
The Four Freedoms are derived from the 1941 State of the
Union Address by United States President Franklin Roosevelt delivered to the
77th United States Congress on January 6, 1941. The theme was incorporated into
the Atlantic Charter, and it became part of the charter of the United
Nations[40] and appears in the preamble of the United Nations Declaration of Human
Rights.
Main articles: Freedom of speech in the United States and
Censorship in the United States
The United States, like other liberal democracies, is
supposed to be a constitutional republic based on founding documents that
restrict the power of government to preserve the liberty of the people. The
freedom of expression (including speech, media, and public assembly) is an
important right and is given special protection, as declared by the First
amendment of the constitution. According to Supreme Court precedent, the
federal and lower governments may not apply prior restraint to expression, with
certain exceptions, such as national security and obscenity.[41] There is no
law punishing insults against the government, ethnic groups, or religious
groups. Symbols of the government or its officials may be destroyed in protest,
including the American flag. Legal limits on expression include:
Solicitation, fraud, specific threats of violence, or
disclosure of classified information
Advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government through
speech or publication, or organizing political parties that advocate the
overthrow of the U.S. government (the Smith Act)[42]
Civil offenses involving defamation, fraud, or workplace
harassment
Copyright violations
Federal Communications Commission rules governing the use of
broadcast media
Crimes involving sexual obscenity in pornography and text
only erotic stories.
Ordinances requiring mass demonstrations on public property
to register in advance.
The use of free speech zones and protest free zones.
Military censorship of blogs written by military personnel
claiming some include sensitive information ineligible for release. Some
critics view military officials as trying to suppress dissent from troops in
the field.[43][44] The US Constitution specifically limits the human rights of
active duty members, and this constitutional authority is used to limit speech
rights by members in this and in other ways.
Some laws remain controversial due to concerns that they
infringe on freedom of expression. These include the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act[45] and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.[46]
In two high profile cases, grand juries have decided that
Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller
must reveal their sources in cases involving CIA leaks. Time magazine exhausted
its legal appeals, and Mr. Cooper eventually agreed to testify. Miller was
jailed for 85 days before cooperating. U.S. District Chief Judge Thomas F.
Hogan ruled that the First Amendment does not insulate Time magazine reporters
from a requirement to testify before a criminal grand jury that's conducting
the investigation into the possible illegal disclosure of classified
information.
Approximately 30,000 government employees and contractors
are currently employed to monitor telephone calls and other communications.[47]
[edit]
Right to peaceably assemble
Although Americans are supposed to enjoy the freedom to
peacefully protest, protesters are sometimes mistreated, beaten, arrested,
jailed or fired upon.
On February 19, 2011, Ray McGovern was dragged out of a
speech by Hillary Clinton on Internet freedom, in which she said that people
should be free to protest without fear of violence. McGovern, who was wearing a
Veterans for Peace t-shirt, stood up during the speech and silently turned his
back on Clinton. He was then assaulted by undercover and uniformed police,
roughed up, handcuffed and jailed. He suffered bruises and lacerations in the
attack and required medical treatment.[48]
Protesters have also been arrested for protesting outside of
designated “free speech zones”.[49] At the 2004 Republican National Convention
in New York City, over 1,700 protesters were arrested.[50]
On May 4, 1970, Ohio National Guardsmen opened fire on
protesting students at Kent State University, killing four students.
Investigators determined that 28 Guardsmen fired 61 to 67 shots. The Justice
Department concluded that the Guardsmen were not in danger and that their claim
that they fired in self-defense was untrue. The nearest student was almost 100
yards away at the time of the shooting.[51]
On March 7, 1965, approximately 600 civil rights marchers
were violently dispersed by state and local police near the Edmund Pettus
Bridge outside of Selma, Alabama.[52]
In June 2009, the ACLU asked the Department of Defense to
stop categorizing political protests as "low-level terrorism" in
their training courses.[53]
During the fall of 2011, large numbers of protesters taking
part in the "Occupy movement" in cities around the country were
arrested on various charges during protests for economic and political
reforms.[54]
[edit]
Freedom of movement This
section requires expansion.
Further information: Freedom of movement under United States
law
As per § 707(b) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act,
Fiscal Year 1979,[55] United States passports are required to enter and exit
the country, and as per the Passport Act of 1926 and Haig v. Agee, the
Presidential administration may deny or revoke passports for foreign policy or
national security reasons at any time. Perhaps the most notable example of
enforcement of this ability was the 1948 denial of a passport to U.S.
Representative Leo Isacson, who sought to go to Paris to attend a conference as
an observer for the American Council for a Democratic Greece, a Communist front
organization, because of the group's role in opposing the Greek government in
the Greek Civil War.[56][57]
The United States prevents U.S. citizens to travel to Cuba,
citing national security reasons, as part of an embargo against Cuba that has
been condemned as an illegal act by the United Nations General Assembly.[58]
The current exception to the ban on travel to the island, permitted since April
2009, has been an easing of travel restrictions for Cuban-Americans visiting
their relatives. Restrictions continue to remain in place for the rest of the
American populace.[59]
On June 30, 2010, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a
lawsuit on behalf of ten people who are either U.S. citizens or legal residents
of the U.S., challenging the constitutionality of the government's
"no-fly" list. The plaintiffs have not been told why they are on the
list. Five of the plaintiffs have been stranded abroad. It is estimated that the
"no-fly" list contained about 8,000 names at the time of the
lawsuit.[60]
The Secretary of State can deny a passport to anyone
imprisoned, on parole, or on supervised release for a conviction for
international drug trafficking or sex tourism, or to anyone who is behind on
their child support payments.[61]
The following case precedents are typically cited in defense
of unencumbered travel within the United States:
"The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and
transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which
the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor
Coach v. Chicago, 337 Ill. 200; 169 N.E. 22 (1929).
"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public
highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by
automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at
will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, Supreme Court of Virginia, 155
Va. 367; 154 S.E. 579; (1930).
"Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to move
from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal
liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the
territory of any State is a right secured by the 14th amendment and by other
provisions of the Constitution." Schactman v. Dulles, 225 F.2d 938; 96
U.S. App. D.C. 287 (1955).
"The right to travel is a well-established common right
that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by
the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 225 F.2d 938; 96 U.S.
App. D.C. 287 (1955) at 941.
"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which
the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth
Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125 (1958).
[edit]
Freedom of association
Further information: Freedom of association
Freedom of association is the right of individuals to come
together in groups for political action or to pursue common interests.
Freedom of association in the U.S. is restricted by the
Smith Act, which bans political parties that advocate the violent overthrow of
the U.S. government.[42]
Between 1956 and 1971, the FBI attempted to "expose,
disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize" radical groups
through the COINTELPRO program.[62]
In 2008, the Maryland State Police admitted that they had
added the names of Iraq War protesters and death penalty opponents to a
terrorist database. They also admitted that other "protest groups"
were added to the terrorist database, but did not specify which groups. It was
also discovered that undercover troopers used aliases to infiltrate
organizational meetings, rallies and group e-mail lists. Police admitted there
was "no evidence whatsoever of any involvement in violent crime" by
those classified as terrorists.[63]
[edit]
National security exceptions
Further information: National Security Strategy of the
United States
The United States government has declared martial law,[64]
suspended (or claimed exceptions to) some rights on national security grounds,
typically in wartime and conflicts such as the United States Civil War,[64][65]
Cold War or the War against Terror.[65] 70,000 Americans of Japanese ancestry
were legally interned during World War II under Executive Order 9066. In some
instances the federal courts have allowed these exceptions, while in others the
courts have decided that the national security interest was insufficient.
Presidents Lincoln, Wilson, and F.D. Roosevelt ignored such judicial
decisions.[65]
[edit]
Historical restrictions
Sedition laws have sometimes placed restrictions on freedom
of expression. The Alien and Sedition Acts, passed by President John Adams
during an undeclared naval conflict with France, allowed the government to
punish "false" statements about the government and to deport
"dangerous" immigrants. The Federalist Party used these acts to
harass supporters of the Democratic-Republican Party. While Woodrow Wilson was
president, another broad sedition law called the Sedition Act of 1918, was
passed during World War I. It also caused the arrest and ten year sentencing of
Socialist Party of America Presidential candidate Eugene V. Debs for speaking
out against the atrocities of World War I, although he was later released early
by President Warren G. Harding. Countless others, labeled as
"subverts" (especially the Wobblies), were investigated by the
Woodrow Wilson Administration.
Presidents have claimed the power to imprison summarily,
under military jurisdiction, those suspected of being combatants for states or
groups at war against the United States. Abraham Lincoln invoked this power in
the American Civil War to imprison Maryland secessionists. In that case, the
Supreme Court concluded that only Congress could suspend the writ of habeas
corpus, and the government released the detainees. During World War II, the
United States interned thousands of Japanese-Americans on alleged fears that
Japan might use them as saboteurs.
The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution
forbids unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant, but some
administrations have claimed exceptions to this rule to investigate alleged
conspiracies against the government. During the Cold War, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation established COINTELPRO to infiltrate and disrupt left-wing
organizations, including those that supported the rights of black Americans.
National security, as well as other concerns like
unelployment, has sometimes led the United States to toughen its generally
liberal immigration policy. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 all but banned
Chinese immigrants, who were accused of crowding out American workers.
[edit]
Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative
The federal government has set up a data collection and
storage network that keeps a wide variety of data on tens of thousands of
Americans who have not been accused of committing a crime. Operated primarily
under the direction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the program is
known as the Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative or SAR.
Reports of suspicious behavior noticed by local law enforcement or by private
citizens are forwarded to the program, and profiles are constructed of the
persons under suspicion.[66] see also Fusion Center.
[edit]
Labor rights
Main article: Labor rights
Labor rights in the United States have been linked to basic
constitutional rights.[67] Comporting with the notion of creating an economy
based upon highly skilled and high wage labor employed in a capital-intensive
dynamic growth economy, the United States enacted laws mandating the right to a
safe workplace, Workers compensation, Unemployment insurance, fair labor
standards, collective bargaining rights, Social Security, along with laws
prohibiting child labor and guaranteeing a minimum wage.[68] While U.S. workers
tend to work longer hours than other industrialized nations, lower taxes and
more benefits give them a larger disposable income than those of most
industrialized nations, however the advantage of lower taxes have been
challenged. See: Disposable and discretionary income. U.S. workers are among
the most productive in the world.[69] During the 19th and 20th centuries, safer
conditions and workers' rights were gradually mandated by law.[70]
In 1935, the National Labor Relations Act recognized and
protected "the rights of most workers in the private sector to organize
labor unions, to engage in collective bargaining, and to take part in strikes
and other forms of concerted activity in support of their demands."
However, many states hold to the principle of at-will employment, which says an
employee can be fired for any or no reason, without warning and without
recourse, unless violation of State or Federal civil rights laws can be proven.
In 2011, 11.8% of U.S. workers were members of labor unions[71] with 37% of
public sector (government) workers in unions while only 6.9% of private sector
workers were union members.[72]
[edit]
Health care
See also: Health care in the United States
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the
United Nations in 1948, states that “everyone has the right to a standard of
living adequate for the health and well-being of oneself and one’s family,
including food, clothing, housing, and medical care.”[73] In addition, the
Principles of Medical Ethics of the American Medical Association require
medical doctors to respect the human rights of the patient, including that of
providing medical treatment when it is needed.[74] Americans' rights in health
care are regulated by the US Patients' Bill of Rights.[citation needed]
Unlike most other industrialized nations, the United States
does not offer most of its citizens subsidized health care. The United States
Medicaid program provides subsidized coverage to some categories of individuals
and families with low incomes and resources, including children, pregnant
women, and very low-income people with disabilities (higher-earning people with
disabilities do not qualify for Medicaid, although they do qualify for
Medicare). However, according to Medicaid's own documents, "the Medicaid
program does not provide health care services, even for very poor persons,
unless they are in one of the designated eligibility groups."[75]
Nonetheless, some states offer subsidized health insurance
to broader populations. Coverage is subsidized for persons age 65 and over, or
who meet other special criteria through Medicare. Every person with a permanent
disability, both young and old, is inherently entitled to Medicare health
benefits — a fact not all disabled US citizens are aware of. However, just like
every other Medicare recipient, a disabled person finds that his or her
Medicare benefits only cover up to 80% of anything in the U.S. medical system,
and that the other 20% must be paid by other means (typically supplemental,
privately-held insurance plans, or cash out of the person's own pocket).
Therefore, even the Medicare program is not truly national health insurance or
universal health care the way most of the rest of the industrialized world
understands it.
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of
1986, an unfunded mandate, mandates that no person may ever be denied emergency
services regardless of ability to pay, citizenship, or immigration status.[76]
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act has been criticized by the
American College of Emergency Physicians as an unfunded mandate.[77][78]
46.6 million residents, or 15.9 percent, were without health
insurance coverage in 2005.[79] This number includes about ten million
non-citizens, millions more who are eligible for Medicaid but never applied,
and 18 million with annual household incomes above $50,000.[80] According to a
study led by the Johns Hopkins Children's Center, uninsured children who are
hospitalized are 60% more likely to die than children who are covered by health
insurance.[81
