Thursday, 30 January 2020

ACLU: The Government Is Trying to Strip Student Workers of the Ability to Unionize

The Government Is Trying to Strip Student Workers of the Ability to Unionize

The federal government recently proposed a rule that would strip graduate student workers of their ability to organize under the National Labor Relations Act, the law that grants most private sector employees the right to engage in collective bargaining. In justifying its proposed rule, the government’s National Labor Relations Board asserted that allowing graduate student assistants to bargain collectively would “uniquely imperil[ ] the protection of academic freedoms.”

The government is wrong.

Like any other employee, student workers seek to organize to improve their working conditions — not to exert control over academic matters. “Protecting academic freedom” is just the government’s phony justification for limiting workers’ ability to unionize, and, as an organization deeply devoted to both academic freedom and free association, we won’t stand by it. That’s why we’re opposing the proposed rule.

Academic freedom is undoubtedly crucial to the spread of ideas on university campuses. The role of a university is to teach and encourage its students to freely engage with new topics, constantly inquiring, questioning, and evaluating different perspectives and perceptions. The ability to do so independently and freely is critical not only for students, but also for professors and other members of the campus community. An infringement on this essential aspect of education would be cause for concern, but there is no reason to believe that collective bargaining over employment conditions will have any effect on the academic freedom of schools.

To the contrary, student workers are seeking to bargain over their wages, hours, and health care — not over what topics will and will not be covered in a biology class. In recent collective bargaining agreements reached between universities like NYU, Tufts, Brandeis, and their student employees, the heart of the bargaining has focused on core economic issues and conditions of employment.

If anything, rather than requiring the exclusion of graduate student workers from the NLRA, the principles the First Amendment rest upon suggest just the opposite. The role of the First Amendment is to protect our ability to speak out, to join together on the issues we care about, and to rally for change. As the Supreme Court has long recognized, “The practice of persons sharing common views banding together to achieve a common end is deeply embedded in the American political process.” When employees form a union, they are doing just that: banding together over issues of mutual interest to guarantee their ability to communicate serious workplace concerns, and elevate their voices so these concerns are heard.

The ACLU has defended the associational rights of workers throughout the last century and continues to do so now. For example, in Farm Labor Organizing Committee v. Stein, we are fighting to protect the ability of North Carolina’s farmworkers to organize and join collective bargaining agreements with their employers. From farmworkers to graduate student assistants, all workers should be able to advocate for better working conditions, pay, and benefits for themselves and their families.

If particular schools remain concerned about the preservation of their academic freedom despite the fact that First Amendment principles actually weigh against this rule, there are precautionary measures they could take. Schools could explicitly exclude all academic decision making from the scope of bargaining, or state that the sole authority over all academic matters rests with the university. While by no means required by the First Amendment, provisions like these should reassure institutions that their academic freedom will be preserved through the bargaining process.

As the agency “vested with the power to safeguard employees’ rights to organize,” the National Labor Relations Board should be supporting — not undercutting — student workers’ ability to effect change in the workplace. Reconsidering this proposed rule would be a start.



Published January 30, 2020 at 10:12PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/36H0b9V

ACLU: The Government Is Trying to Strip Student Workers of the Ability to Unionize

The Government Is Trying to Strip Student Workers of the Ability to Unionize

The federal government recently proposed a rule that would strip graduate student workers of their ability to organize under the National Labor Relations Act, the law that grants most private sector employees the right to engage in collective bargaining. In justifying its proposed rule, the government’s National Labor Relations Board asserted that allowing graduate student assistants to bargain collectively would “uniquely imperil[ ] the protection of academic freedoms.”

The government is wrong.

Like any other employee, student workers seek to organize to improve their working conditions — not to exert control over academic matters. “Protecting academic freedom” is just the government’s phony justification for limiting workers’ ability to unionize, and, as an organization deeply devoted to both academic freedom and free association, we won’t stand by it. That’s why we’re opposing the proposed rule.

Academic freedom is undoubtedly crucial to the spread of ideas on university campuses. The role of a university is to teach and encourage its students to freely engage with new topics, constantly inquiring, questioning, and evaluating different perspectives and perceptions. The ability to do so independently and freely is critical not only for students, but also for professors and other members of the campus community. An infringement on this essential aspect of education would be cause for concern, but there is no reason to believe that collective bargaining over employment conditions will have any effect on the academic freedom of schools.

To the contrary, student workers are seeking to bargain over their wages, hours, and health care — not over what topics will and will not be covered in a biology class. In recent collective bargaining agreements reached between universities like NYU, Tufts, Brandeis, and their student employees, the heart of the bargaining has focused on core economic issues and conditions of employment.

If anything, rather than requiring the exclusion of graduate student workers from the NLRA, the principles the First Amendment rest upon suggest just the opposite. The role of the First Amendment is to protect our ability to speak out, to join together on the issues we care about, and to rally for change. As the Supreme Court has long recognized, “The practice of persons sharing common views banding together to achieve a common end is deeply embedded in the American political process.” When employees form a union, they are doing just that: banding together over issues of mutual interest to guarantee their ability to communicate serious workplace concerns, and elevate their voices so these concerns are heard.

The ACLU has defended the associational rights of workers throughout the last century and continues to do so now. For example, in Farm Labor Organizing Committee v. Stein, we are fighting to protect the ability of North Carolina’s farmworkers to organize and join collective bargaining agreements with their employers. From farmworkers to graduate student assistants, all workers should be able to advocate for better working conditions, pay, and benefits for themselves and their families.

If particular schools remain concerned about the preservation of their academic freedom despite the fact that First Amendment principles actually weigh against this rule, there are precautionary measures they could take. Schools could explicitly exclude all academic decision making from the scope of bargaining, or state that the sole authority over all academic matters rests with the university. While by no means required by the First Amendment, provisions like these should reassure institutions that their academic freedom will be preserved through the bargaining process.

As the agency “vested with the power to safeguard employees’ rights to organize,” the National Labor Relations Board should be supporting — not undercutting — student workers’ ability to effect change in the workplace. Reconsidering this proposed rule would be a start.



Published January 30, 2020 at 04:42PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/36H0b9V

South Africa : Selected Issues

South Africa : Selected Issues
Published January 30, 2020 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

South Africa : 2019 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; and Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for South Africa

South Africa : 2019 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; and Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for South Africa
Published January 30, 2020 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

Wednesday, 29 January 2020

ACLU: We’re Back in Court this Week Defending Access to Safe Abortion in Kentucky

We’re Back in Court this Week Defending Access to Safe Abortion in Kentucky

The ACLU is back in court today once again to stop Kentucky’s attempt to block access to abortion. We’ve been here before. Over the past three years, the Kentucky General Assembly has passed bill after bill that limits — and even bans — a person’s ability to get an abortion. And time after time, we’ve gone to court to protect people’s rights to get the care they need.    

At issue this week is a law that makes it a crime for doctors at Kentucky’s last remaining abortion clinic to perform an abortion procedure that is the standard of care. In reality, the law is nothing more than a backdoor abortion ban: It would bar the only procedure available in the state after about 15 weeks of pregnancy.

Following a trial last year, a federal district court blocked the law, finding that it imposed “a substantial obstacle to a woman’s right to an abortion”—as other courts around the country similarly found.  But the Commonwealth of Kentucky appealed, and we are arguing the appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit today.

The commonwealth’s opposition to this type of procedure is blatantly political, not medical. Leading medical experts such as the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists oppose these bans, saying they interfere with a doctor’s ability to provide the best possible care for their patient.

This restriction is part of a national and statewide strategy to push abortion out of reach. Since Jan. 2011, state lawmakers around the country have enacted more than 400 new restrictions on abortion that force patients to delay care, shut down clinics, and make abortion care unaffordable.

Because of regulations like these, today Kentucky has only one clinic left in the entire state. And the state is trying to force that last clinic to close its doors, leaving Kentuckians with no abortion provider at all. It’s only because we went with the clinic, EMW Women’s Surgical Center, to get a court order that the doors are still open; this case is on appeal. 

Kentucky politicians have passed yet more attempts to block abortion access: a flat-out ban on abortion from the earliest weeks of pregnancy, and a ban based on the patient’s reason for deciding to have an abortion. The ACLU and the clinic went to court, and those laws are all blocked.

Kentucky politicians are determined to stop people who have decided to have an abortion from getting one. But we won’t turn from this fight. We will continue this battle so Kentuckians can get the care they need, and the right to decide what happens to their bodies.



Published January 29, 2020 at 09:37PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/2uFWiVk

ACLU: We’re Back in Court this Week Defending Access to Safe Abortion in Kentucky

We’re Back in Court this Week Defending Access to Safe Abortion in Kentucky

The ACLU is back in court today once again to stop Kentucky’s attempt to block access to abortion. We’ve been here before. Over the past three years, the Kentucky General Assembly has passed bill after bill that limits — and even bans — a person’s ability to get an abortion. And time after time, we’ve gone to court to protect people’s rights to get the care they need.    

At issue this week is a law that makes it a crime for doctors at Kentucky’s last remaining abortion clinic to perform an abortion procedure that is the standard of care. In reality, the law is nothing more than a backdoor abortion ban: It would bar the only procedure available in the state after about 15 weeks of pregnancy.

Following a trial last year, a federal district court blocked the law, finding that it imposed “a substantial obstacle to a woman’s right to an abortion”—as other courts around the country similarly found.  But the Commonwealth of Kentucky appealed, and we are arguing the appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit today.

The commonwealth’s opposition to this type of procedure is blatantly political, not medical. Leading medical experts such as the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists oppose these bans, saying they interfere with a doctor’s ability to provide the best possible care for their patient.

This restriction is part of a national and statewide strategy to push abortion out of reach. Since Jan. 2011, state lawmakers around the country have enacted more than 400 new restrictions on abortion that force patients to delay care, shut down clinics, and make abortion care unaffordable.

Because of regulations like these, today Kentucky has only one clinic left in the entire state. And the state is trying to force that last clinic to close its doors, leaving Kentuckians with no abortion provider at all. It’s only because we went with the clinic, EMW Women’s Surgical Center, to get a court order that the doors are still open; this case is on appeal. 

Kentucky politicians have passed yet more attempts to block abortion access: a flat-out ban on abortion from the earliest weeks of pregnancy, and a ban based on the patient’s reason for deciding to have an abortion. The ACLU and the clinic went to court, and those laws are all blocked.

Kentucky politicians are determined to stop people who have decided to have an abortion from getting one. But we won’t turn from this fight. We will continue this battle so Kentuckians can get the care they need, and the right to decide what happens to their bodies.



Published January 30, 2020 at 03:07AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/2uFWiVk

Republic of Kazakhstan : 2019 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; and Staff Report

Republic of Kazakhstan : 2019 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; and Staff Report
Published January 29, 2020 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

Republic of Nauru : 2019 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for the Republic of Nauru

Republic of Nauru : 2019 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for the Republic of Nauru
Published January 29, 2020 at 10:00PM
Read more at imf.org

Kenya : Technical Assistance Report-Monetary and Financial Statistics Mission (December 3-14, 2018)

Kenya : Technical Assistance Report-Monetary and Financial Statistics Mission (December 3-14, 2018)
Published January 29, 2020 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

ACLU: One Year of Forced Return to Mexico; Three Years of Trump Dismantling the Asylum System

One Year of Forced Return to Mexico; Three Years of Trump Dismantling the Asylum System

Today marks one year since the Trump administration implemented its forced Return to Mexico policy. In that time, the U.S. has sent tens of thousands of asylum seekers to dangerous northern border cities in Mexico to wait for their hearings in the U.S. It is the most visible but by no means the only policy that the administration has adopted in its effort to systematically dismantle the U.S. asylum system over the past two years. 

The asylum system may seem distant and abstract to many Americans, but along with the refugee resettlement system, it’s the foundation of our country’s commitment to providing safety for people fleeing desperate conditions. In 1939, off the coast of Florida, the U.S. turned away a ship named the St. Louis, which carried 1,000 refugees fleeing Nazi persecution in Europe. Nearly a third of the passengers were killed by the end of World War II. In the aftermath of the war and the horrors of the Holocaust, the U.S., along with other countries, resolved that people fleeing violence and persecution, like those on the St. Louis, would no longer be met with global indifference. Our country formalized the commitment in the bipartisan Refugee Act of 1980, which enshrined the principle of asylum in domestic immigration law. Since then, millions have found safety in the U.S., sometimes fleeing dangerous conditions created by our own foreign policy. The United States’ obligation is not only a legal one; it’s a moral one as well. 

How quickly this administration has undone it all. We are now shipping tens of thousands of asylum seekers to other countries to avoid fulfilling our obligations. In January 2019, the administration rolled out the forced Return to Mexico program, officially called the Migrant Protection Protocols. Under MPP, DHS has sent almost 60,000 asylum seekers to wait for their hearings in Mexico — an unprecedented, illegal practice that forces vulnerable families to live in dangerous and dire conditions. MPP, along with another policy called “metering,” which illegally delays asylum seekers from entering at formal ports of entry at the U.S.-Mexico border, created full-blown humanitarian crises in cities like Matamoros and Juárez , where people are living in makeshift encampments or other shelters, often without access to adequate water, food, or medical care. Human Rights First documented at least 816 public reports of murder, torture, rape, kidnapping, and other violence against asylum seekers and migrants subjected to MPP. 

In November, the Trump administration issued new “safe third country” regulations that detail illegal procedures by which DHS will send people seeking safety in the U.S. to Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras to apply for asylum in those countries instead. Tens of thousands of people flee those countries every year, and none has a fair and effective asylum system that could possibly handle the large volume of applications they’ll receive under this scheme. 

For those asylum seekers who somehow manage to avoid being immediately sent to Mexico or Central America and are able to request asylum in the U.S., the administration has created even more hurdles. 

It’s run roughshod over an already flawed initial screening process. Under programs expected to expand border-wide next month, asylum seekers receive the high-stakes credible fear interview, which determines whether they’re deported or allowed to pursue their asylum claim in immigration court, within 48 hours of their arrival and while they’re jailed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. They are effectively prevented from consulting with counsel or any other third parties, in violation of the law

The administration is also attempting to change the legal standards that asylum seekers must meet both in the credible fear interview and in the ultimate adjudication of their claim. Last July, the administration announced a ban on asylum eligibility for anyone who traveled by land through a third country and didn’t apply for asylum there, with extremely limited exceptions. (In 2018, the administration announced that anyone who crossed the border between formal ports of entry would be ineligible for asylum, but courts temporarily halted this ban.) The Attorney General issued decisions intended to limit the ability of people with gang- and domestic violence-based claims to win asylum, as well as people whose claims are based on their family membership. Most recently, the administration proposed new bars to asylum for people with minor criminal histories. 

Finally, Trump attempted to force asylum seekers who have passed their credible fear interviews to remain in jail for the duration of their case, despite their eligibility for bond or parole. Fortunately, the courts halted these efforts. Had the policies been allowed to proceed, they would have tipped the scales against the asylum seekers; data from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University show that detained asylum seekers are far less likely to win relief than asylum seekers who were never detained or who were released from custody.  

This all sounds like a wonky laundry list of policies. But it’s not. Together, these changes to government practice have made it virtually impossible for asylum seekers at the border to receive protection in our country, or even more limited forms of relief from deportation. We have slammed the doors on our neighbors in need and pushed tens of thousands of asylum seekers into dangerous conditions in countries ill-equipped to protect them. The policies have nothing to do with “burden-sharing” with other countries in the region, or preventing fraud in the system. They are patently indifferent to the safety or well-being of the people subject to them. They are, quite simply, the administration’s most devastatingly comprehensive blueprint for halting immigration from non-European countries to the U.S.. 

Legal and advocacy organizations and the courts have proved crucial in defending against the Trump administration’s evisceration of the asylum system. But it’s simply not enough. It is incumbent upon the next president to undo Trump’s anti-asylum policies and restore access to protection for people seeking safety in the U.S. And, with the 2020 election upon us, we must all demand that presidential candidates commit to rebuilding and strengthening America’s asylum system and fulfilling our moral and legal obligations to once again provide refuge for those in need. 



Published January 29, 2020 at 09:22PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/2S3chVm

ACLU: One Year of Forced Return to Mexico; Three Years of Trump Dismantling the Asylum System

One Year of Forced Return to Mexico; Three Years of Trump Dismantling the Asylum System

Today marks one year since the Trump administration implemented its forced Return to Mexico policy. In that time, the U.S. has sent tens of thousands of asylum seekers to dangerous northern border cities in Mexico to wait for their hearings in the U.S. It is the most visible but by no means the only policy that the administration has adopted in its effort to systematically dismantle the U.S. asylum system over the past two years. 

The asylum system may seem distant and abstract to many Americans, but along with the refugee resettlement system, it’s the foundation of our country’s commitment to providing safety for people fleeing desperate conditions. In 1939, off the coast of Florida, the U.S. turned away a ship named the St. Louis, which carried 1,000 refugees fleeing Nazi persecution in Europe. Nearly a third of the passengers were killed by the end of World War II. In the aftermath of the war and the horrors of the Holocaust, the U.S., along with other countries, resolved that people fleeing violence and persecution, like those on the St. Louis, would no longer be met with global indifference. Our country formalized the commitment in the bipartisan Refugee Act of 1980, which enshrined the principle of asylum in domestic immigration law. Since then, millions have found safety in the U.S., sometimes fleeing dangerous conditions created by our own foreign policy. The United States’ obligation is not only a legal one; it’s a moral one as well. 

How quickly this administration has undone it all. We are now shipping tens of thousands of asylum seekers to other countries to avoid fulfilling our obligations. In January 2019, the administration rolled out the forced Return to Mexico program, officially called the Migrant Protection Protocols. Under MPP, DHS has sent almost 60,000 asylum seekers to wait for their hearings in Mexico — an unprecedented, illegal practice that forces vulnerable families to live in dangerous and dire conditions. MPP, along with another policy called “metering,” which illegally delays asylum seekers from entering at formal ports of entry at the U.S.-Mexico border, created full-blown humanitarian crises in cities like Matamoros and Juárez , where people are living in makeshift encampments or other shelters, often without access to adequate water, food, or medical care. Human Rights First documented at least 816 public reports of murder, torture, rape, kidnapping, and other violence against asylum seekers and migrants subjected to MPP. 

In November, the Trump administration issued new “safe third country” regulations that detail illegal procedures by which DHS will send people seeking safety in the U.S. to Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras to apply for asylum in those countries instead. Tens of thousands of people flee those countries every year, and none has a fair and effective asylum system that could possibly handle the large volume of applications they’ll receive under this scheme. 

For those asylum seekers who somehow manage to avoid being immediately sent to Mexico or Central America and are able to request asylum in the U.S., the administration has created even more hurdles. 

It’s run roughshod over an already flawed initial screening process. Under programs expected to expand border-wide next month, asylum seekers receive the high-stakes credible fear interview, which determines whether they’re deported or allowed to pursue their asylum claim in immigration court, within 48 hours of their arrival and while they’re jailed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. They are effectively prevented from consulting with counsel or any other third parties, in violation of the law

The administration is also attempting to change the legal standards that asylum seekers must meet both in the credible fear interview and in the ultimate adjudication of their claim. Last July, the administration announced a ban on asylum eligibility for anyone who traveled by land through a third country and didn’t apply for asylum there, with extremely limited exceptions. (In 2018, the administration announced that anyone who crossed the border between formal ports of entry would be ineligible for asylum, but courts temporarily halted this ban.) The Attorney General issued decisions intended to limit the ability of people with gang- and domestic violence-based claims to win asylum, as well as people whose claims are based on their family membership. Most recently, the administration proposed new bars to asylum for people with minor criminal histories. 

Finally, Trump attempted to force asylum seekers who have passed their credible fear interviews to remain in jail for the duration of their case, despite their eligibility for bond or parole. Fortunately, the courts halted these efforts. Had the policies been allowed to proceed, they would have tipped the scales against the asylum seekers; data from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University show that detained asylum seekers are far less likely to win relief than asylum seekers who were never detained or who were released from custody.  

This all sounds like a wonky laundry list of policies. But it’s not. Together, these changes to government practice have made it virtually impossible for asylum seekers at the border to receive protection in our country, or even more limited forms of relief from deportation. We have slammed the doors on our neighbors in need and pushed tens of thousands of asylum seekers into dangerous conditions in countries ill-equipped to protect them. The policies have nothing to do with “burden-sharing” with other countries in the region, or preventing fraud in the system. They are patently indifferent to the safety or well-being of the people subject to them. They are, quite simply, the administration’s most devastatingly comprehensive blueprint for halting immigration from non-European countries to the U.S.. 

Legal and advocacy organizations and the courts have proved crucial in defending against the Trump administration’s evisceration of the asylum system. But it’s simply not enough. It is incumbent upon the next president to undo Trump’s anti-asylum policies and restore access to protection for people seeking safety in the U.S. And, with the 2020 election upon us, we must all demand that presidential candidates commit to rebuilding and strengthening America’s asylum system and fulfilling our moral and legal obligations to once again provide refuge for those in need. 



Published January 29, 2020 at 03:52PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/2S3chVm

Be a Good Sport

Soraya Roberts | Longreads | January 2020 |  9 minutes (2,284 words)

I hate jocks. Like a good Gen X’er, I walked around my high school with that patch on my backpack — red lettering, white backdrop, frisbee-size. A jock high school. It’s impossible to overstate the contempt I had for sports as a kid. I hated what I took to be phony puddle-deep camaraderie, the brain-dead monosyllabic mottos, the aggressive anti-intellectualism. More than that, there appeared to be a very specific cruelty to it. The way there were always a couple of kids who were always picked last. The collective bullying if someone didn’t measure up to the collective goals. And none of the teachers ever seemed to be as mean as the coaches. They strutted around like grown children, permanently transfixed by the ambitions of their adolescence, actively excluding the same kids they had mocked in their youth.

When I hear about sports stars who kill or commit suicide or generally behave antisocially, I always think: no wonder. In a culture that destroys your body and your mind, no wonder. It’s something of a paradox, of course, because, as we are repeatedly told, physical activity is often essential to psychological health. But why is it so rarely the other way around? I watch Cheer and I watch Killer Inside: The Mind of Aaron Hernandez and I watch former NBA star Delonte West get callously thrashed and I wonder why these athletes’ inner lives weren’t as prized as their motor skills. That’s not true; I know why. It suits a lucrative industry that shapes you from childhood to keep you pliable. And what makes you more pliable than mental instability? What better way to get a winning team than to have it populated with people for whom winning validates their existence and for whom losing is tantamount to death?

* * *

There’s a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it moment in the Hernandez doc when there’s an unexpected crossover with Cheer. A childhood photo of the late NFL star and convicted murderer flashes on-screen as we learn that his female cousins made him want be a cheerleader. It was the same for Cheer’s La’Darius Marshall, who is shown in one snapshot as a young cheerleader, having discovered the sport after hanging out with one of his childhood girlfriends. Both men came from dysfunctional backgrounds: Marshall’s mom was a drug user who ended up in prison for five years. He was sexually abused, not to mention beaten up by his brothers; Hernandez found his own mother distant, and he was also physically and sexually abused. Both found solace in sports, though Hernandez had the kind of dad who “slapped the faggot right out of you,” per one childhood friend, so he ended up in football, his dad’s sport, instead. But their similarities underscore how professional athletics, when so closely tied to a person’s sense of self, can simultaneously be a boon to your mental health and its undoing.

Killer Inside is a misnomer for a start. Everything pointed to Hernandez’s conviction for murdering another footballer (semipro linebacker Odin Lloyd) — or at the very least a fair amount of psychological distress. (I’m not certain why the doc chose to focus on his sexuality — besides prurience — as it seemed to be the least of his concerns.) As he said himself to his mom, who almost immediately replaced her dead husband with Hernandez’s cousin’s husband when he was just a teenager: “I had nobody. What’d you think I was gonna do, become a perfect angel?” The way he fled from his home straight into the arms of a University of Florida football scholarship, having wrapped up high school a semester early, is telling. Football made him somebody. He depended on being a star player because the alternative was being nothing — as one journalist says in the doc, at Florida you had to “win to survive.” 

If the NFL didn’t know the depth of his suffering, they at least knew something, something a scouting service categorized as low “social maturity.” Their report stated that Hernandez’s responses “suggest he enjoys living on the edge of acceptable behavior and that he may be prone to partying too much and doing questionable things that could be seen as a problem for him and his team.” But his schools seemed to care more about his history of drug use than his high school concussion (his autopsy would later show chronic traumatic encephalopathy) or the fact that he busted a bar manager’s eardrum for confronting him with his bill. Physical pain was something you played through — one former linebacker described a row of Wisconsin players lining up with their pants down to get painkiller injections — and psychological pain was apparently no different. “It’s a big industry,” the ex-linebacker said, “and they’re willing to put basically kids, young men, in situations that will compromise their long-term health just to beat Northwestern.”

Cheerleading, the billion-dollar sport monopolized by a company called Varsity Brand, has a similarly mercenary approach. While the money is less extreme — the NFL’s annual revenue is more than $14 billion — the contingent self-worth is not. A number of the kids highlighted in Cheer had the kind of childhoods that made them feel like Hernandez, like they had nobody. Morgan Simianer in particular, the weaker flyer who is chosen for her “look,” radiates insecurity. Abandoned by both her parents, she was left as a high school sophomore in a trailer with her brother to fend for herself. “I felt, like, super alone,” Simianer said. “Like everyone was against me and I wasn’t good enough. I wasn’t important to anyone.” Though Marshall’s experience was different, his memories of growing up are almost identical to his fellow cheerleader’s. “I felt like I was really alone,” he said. “There was nobody that was gonna come save me.” Like Hernandez, sports was all they had.

And if a competitive sport defines you, then its coach controls you. Hernandez’s father, the ex-football heavyweight, was known as the King; Monica Aldama, the head coach on Cheer, is the Queen. Describing how she felt when Aldama remembered her name at tryouts, Simianer said, “It was like I’m not just nobody.” For her ability to literally pummel a bunch of college kids into a winning team in half the regular time, Aldama has been characterized as both a saint and a sinner. While she claims to be an advocate for the troubled members of her team, she fails to see how their histories skew her intentions — her position as a maternal figure whose love is not unconditional ultimately puts the athletes more at risk. Aldama proudly comments on Simianer’s lack of fear, while it is a clear case of recklessness. This is a girl who is unable to express her pain in any way sacrificing her own life (literally — with her fragile ribs, one errant move could puncture an organ) for the woman who, ironically, made her feel like she was worthy of it. “I would do anything for that woman,” Simianer confesses at one point. “I would take a bullet for her.” Jury’s out on whether Marshall, the outspoken outsize talent who regularly clashes with his team, would do the same. His ambivalent approach to Aldama seems connected to how self-aware he is about his own struggles, which affords him freedom from her grasp. After she pushes him to be more empathetic, he explains, “It’s hard to be like that when you are mentally battling yourself.”

That Cheer and Killer Inside focus on the psychological as well as the physical strain faced by athletes — not to mention that athletics have no gender — is an improvement on the sports industries they present, which often objectify their stars as mere pedestals for their talents. The Navarro cheerleaders and Hernandez are both helped and hurt by sports, an outlet which can at once mean everything and nothing in the end. This is the legacy of the 1994 documentary Hoop Dreams, which followed two teen NBA hopefuls and was as much about the intersections of race and class as it was about basketball. Not to mention OJ: Made in America, the 2016 ESPN miniseries that explored how the story of the football star and alleged murderer reflected race relations in the United States in the mid-’90s. Conversely, mainstream film and television continues to be heavily male when it comes to sports, focusing on individual heroics, on pain leading to gain — the American Dream on steroids. Cheer and Killer Inside expose this narrative for the myth it is, spotlighting that all athletes have both minds and bodies that break, that their legacies as human beings are not about what they have won but who they are. But the climate in which they’ve landed cannot be ignored either, a social-media marinated world in which sports stars are no longer just players but people who are willing to be vulnerable with their public, who are even further willing to sign their names next to their problems for The Players’ Tribune, the six-year-old platform populated by content provided by pro athletes. “Everyone is going through something,” wrote NBA star Kevin Love in an industry-shaking post in 2018. “No matter what our circumstances, we’re all carrying around things that hurt — and they can hurt us if we keep them buried inside.”

Fast-forward to that new video of former basketball pro Delonte West, the one of him having his head stomped on so hard in the middle of the street that I still wonder how he survived it. He also came from an underprivileged, unstable background. He chose the college he did for its “family atmosphere.” Like Simianer, he fixated on his failures and played with abandon. Like her, he also had trouble verbalizing his feelings, to the point that they would overflow (in anger for him, tears for her). Though he says he was diagnosed with a bipolar disorder, he considers his biggest problem to be “self-loathing.” But why? He was a sports star who signed a nearly $13 million contract in his prime — what better reason for self-love? A study published two years ago in the Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, profiling the psychological well-being of 99 elite athletes, may provide an answer. The study found that those with high perfectionism, fear of failure, and performance-based self-worth had the highest levels of depression, anxiety, shame, and life dissatisfaction. Those with a more global self-worth that did not depend on their performance had the opposite outcome. As if to provide confirmation, a subsequent study published in Psychology of Sport and Exercise that same year revealed that athletes with contingent self-esteem were more likely to burn out. When sports become your only source of value, your wins ultimately don’t come to much.

* * *

The irony of all of this is that I came back to sports as an adult for my mental health. Obviously, I’m not an elite athlete — whatever the opposite of that is, I am. But having no stakes makes it that much easier to use physical activity for good. Nothing is dependent on it; that I’m moving at all is victory enough. But my circumstances are different. My jock high school was a private school, sports were (mostly) optional, and elite academics were where most of us found validation — and financial stability. “Conventional wisdom suggests that the sport offers an ‘escape’ from under-resourced communities suffering from the effects of systemic neglect,” Natalie Weiner writes in SB Nation. “If you work hard enough and make the right choices — playing football being one of the most accessible and appealing ways for boys, at least, to do that — you should be safe.” This reminds me of Aldama telling a room of underprivileged kids with limited prospects, “If you work hard at anything you do, you will be rewarded, you will be successful in life.” This is the American Dream–infused sports culture the media has traditionally plugged — the one, ironically, dismantled by the show in which Aldama herself appears. As Spike Lee tells a group of the top high school basketball players in the country in Hoop Dreams: “The only reason why you’re here, you can make their team win, and if their team wins, schools get a lot of money. This whole thing is revolving around money.” 

In the same SB Nation article, which focused on how school football coaches combat gun violence, Darnell Grant, a high school coach in Newark, admitted he prioritized schoolwork, something both Cheer and Killer Inside barely mentioned. “My thing is to at least have the choice,” he said. Without that, kids are caught in the thrall of sports, which serves the industry but not its players. Contingent self-worth does the same thing, which is why mental health is as much of a priority as education. The head football coach at a Chicago high school, D’Angelo Dereef, explained why dropping a problematic player — which is basically what happened to Hernandez at U of F, where coach Urban Meyer pushed him into the NFL draft rather than taking him back — doesn’t fix them. “They’re not getting into their brains to figure out why,” Dereef told the site. “It’s like putting a Band-Aid on a big cut — that’s not going to stop the bleeding.” While the NBA was the first major sports league to address mental health in its collective bargaining agreement in 2018, in mid-January the WNBA signed its own new CBA, which only vaguely promised “enhanced mental health benefits and resources.” That the sports industry as a whole does not go far enough to address the psychological welfare of its players is to their detriment, but also to their own: At least one study from 2003 has shown that prioritizing “athletes’ needs of autonomy” — the opposite of contingent self-worth — as opposed to conformity, has the potential to improve their motivation and performance. In sports terms, that’s a win-win.

* * *

Soraya Roberts is a culture columnist at Longreads.

Tuesday, 28 January 2020

ACLU: Asylum-Seekers Are Being Abandoned in Guatemala in a New Policy Officials Call a “Total Disaster”

Asylum-Seekers Are Being Abandoned in Guatemala in a New Policy Officials Call a “Total Disaster”

In late November, U.S. immigration authorities began deporting some Central American asylum-seekers to Guatemala under a new policy that makes it nearly impossible for them to seek asylum in the U.S.

But Guatemalan human rights workers say that their country’s asylum system isn’t capable of handling even the relatively small numbers that have been sent there so far, and that asylum seekers’ precarious status in the country has already pushed many to leave.

“They’re preferring to move on rather than staying here in a dangerous country,” said Rebeca Sanchez-Ralda, a Guatemalan attorney working with the U.S.-based organization Justice in Motion.

According to Sanchez-Ralda, insecurity in Guatemala and the low capacity of the government to process an influx of asylum applications means the new arrivals are faced with an impossible choice: stay, and face a new set of risks, or set off towards more familiar ones.

“They don’t have all the personnel to do the interviews or the shelters to put people,” she said. “I don’t think it’s going to be possible at all.”

The policy is the latest of the Trump administration’s attempts to block asylum at the Southern U.S. border. Now, people who show up looking for protection in the U.S. can be shipped to Guatemala and told to apply for asylum there instead. But the U.N. has called Guatemala’s asylum process “nascent,” and advocates familiar with it say that nearly all the applications in the system right now have been stuck in a bureaucratic limbo for years.

“Over 500 asylum petitions have been pending for more than two years now,” said Amílcar Vásquez, a Project Director with Pastoral de Movilidad Humana, a Catholic group that works with the UN to provide services to migrants.

Vásquez says that asylum-seekers are given no support from the Guatemalan government while their applications are being processed.

“They’re going to become desperate without any guarantee of help or assistance from the state.”

The Wall Street Journal reports that as of mid-January 158 people had been sent to Guatemala under the new policy. So far, only Honduran and El Salvadoran nationals have been subjected to the new policy, including families with young children.

The three countries — collectively known as the Northern Triangle — are struggling with record levels of violence and instability. Decades of civil conflicts that were inflamed by covert U.S. involvement in the region, along with a street gang crisis that traces its origins to a wave of deportations from Los Angeles in the 1990s, have made them some of the most dangerous in the world.

Guatemala had the twenty-sixth-highest overall homicide rate in the world in 2017, along with the seventh-highest for females. Honduras has struggled with political violence since a 2009 military coup, and El Salvador now has the highest murder rate in the world, driven primarily by street gangs that have spread to neighboring countries.

“Violence is common here, including extortion and other types of crimes that exist in El Salvador and Honduras as well,” said Sanchez-Ralda. “We have kidnappings, killing of women, and hatred towards LGBTQ people.”

To enable the new deportations, the Trump administration signed an Asylum Cooperative Agreement (ACA) with former Guatemalan president Jimmy Morales last July. Similar agreements have also been signed with the governments of Honduras and El Salvador. U.S. officials have indicated that the program will soon be expanded to include asylum-seekers from other countries.

This means people fleeing persecution from any country in the world could be sent to Central America rather than have the opportunity to seek asylum in the U.S.

Upon arrival in Guatemala, disoriented asylum-seekers encounter a rushed and confusing process where they have only 72 hours to decide whether to apply for asylum there. One Guatemalan official described the policy’s implementation thus far as a “total disaster.”

The ACLU filed suit on Jan. 15 in U.T. vs. Barr challenging the changes to asylum regulations that allow the ACAs — also known as “safe third country” agreements — to go into effect. The suit claims the policy violates U.S. and international law by failing to protect asylum-seekers from being exposed to harm in the three countries, which are among the most dangerous in the world.

One of the plaintiffs in the ACLU’s suit, identified as U.T., is a gay man from El Salvador who was disowned by his parents and threatened by an MS-13 gang member who solicited sex from him. After fleeing to the U.S. to claim asylum, he was instead deported to Guatemala, where he says officials told him it wasn’t safe for gay people and advised him to go to Mexico.

The ACLU’s complaint details how it is now nearly impossible for anyone subjected to an ACA to have their asylum claims heard in a U.S. court. The Trump administration has issued new rules that govern how someone is treated when they show up at the border and ask for asylum. Now, rather than being given a chance to convince an immigration judge that they should be given asylum in the U.S., they can be funneled into a separate process designed to quickly remove them to one of the countries that has signed an ACA.

In 2017, 3,741 El Salvadorans and 2,048 Hondurans won asylum in the U.S. The new rules make it all but certain that number will plummet as removals under the Guatemala ACA continue.

For those deported to Guatemala so far, the combination of danger and the prospect of navigating a confusing process with little help has already forced many to take their chances elsewhere. There are no restrictions on movement between the three countries, meaning that asylum-seekers who fled persecution in one can be easily reached by a person or group that tracks them down in another.

The ACLU’s suit was filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.

“The United States has an obligation to ensure asylum seekers have access to a safe haven from persecution,” said Katrina Eiland of the ACLU. “This policy does the exact opposite, sending them to a country that can’t adequately protect them through an absurd and illegal process.”



Published January 28, 2020 at 10:23PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/2U2OA23

ACLU: Asylum-Seekers Are Being Abandoned in Guatemala in a New Policy Officials Call a “Total Disaster”

Asylum-Seekers Are Being Abandoned in Guatemala in a New Policy Officials Call a “Total Disaster”

In late November, U.S. immigration authorities began deporting some Central American asylum-seekers to Guatemala under a new policy that makes it nearly impossible for them to seek asylum in the U.S.

But Guatemalan human rights workers say that their country’s asylum system isn’t capable of handling even the relatively small numbers that have been sent there so far, and that asylum seekers’ precarious status in the country has already pushed many to leave.

“They’re preferring to move on rather than staying here in a dangerous country,” said Rebeca Sanchez-Ralda, a Guatemalan attorney working with the U.S.-based organization Justice in Motion.

According to Sanchez-Ralda, insecurity in Guatemala and the low capacity of the government to process an influx of asylum applications means the new arrivals are faced with an impossible choice: stay, and face a new set of risks, or set off towards more familiar ones.

“They don’t have all the personnel to do the interviews or the shelters to put people,” she said. “I don’t think it’s going to be possible at all.”

The policy is the latest of the Trump administration’s attempts to block asylum at the Southern U.S. border. Now, people who show up looking for protection in the U.S. can be shipped to Guatemala and told to apply for asylum there instead. But the U.N. has called Guatemala’s asylum process “nascent,” and advocates familiar with it say that nearly all the applications in the system right now have been stuck in a bureaucratic limbo for years.

“Over 500 asylum petitions have been pending for more than two years now,” said Amílcar Vásquez, a Project Director with Pastoral de Movilidad Humana, a Catholic group that works with the UN to provide services to migrants.

Vásquez says that asylum-seekers are given no support from the Guatemalan government while their applications are being processed.

“They’re going to become desperate without any guarantee of help or assistance from the state.”

The Wall Street Journal reports that as of mid-January 158 people had been sent to Guatemala under the new policy. So far, only Honduran and El Salvadoran nationals have been subjected to the new policy, including families with young children.

The three countries — collectively known as the Northern Triangle — are struggling with record levels of violence and instability. Decades of civil conflicts that were inflamed by covert U.S. involvement in the region, along with a street gang crisis that traces its origins to a wave of deportations from Los Angeles in the 1990s, have made them some of the most dangerous in the world.

Guatemala had the twenty-sixth-highest overall homicide rate in the world in 2017, along with the seventh-highest for females. Honduras has struggled with political violence since a 2009 military coup, and El Salvador now has the highest murder rate in the world, driven primarily by street gangs that have spread to neighboring countries.

“Violence is common here, including extortion and other types of crimes that exist in El Salvador and Honduras as well,” said Sanchez-Ralda. “We have kidnappings, killing of women, and hatred towards LGBTQ people.”

To enable the new deportations, the Trump administration signed an Asylum Cooperative Agreement (ACA) with former Guatemalan president Jimmy Morales last July. Similar agreements have also been signed with the governments of Honduras and El Salvador. U.S. officials have indicated that the program will soon be expanded to include asylum-seekers from other countries.

This means people fleeing persecution from any country in the world could be sent to Central America rather than have the opportunity to seek asylum in the U.S.

Upon arrival in Guatemala, disoriented asylum-seekers encounter a rushed and confusing process where they have only 72 hours to decide whether to apply for asylum there. One Guatemalan official described the policy’s implementation thus far as a “total disaster.”

The ACLU filed suit on Jan. 15 in U.T. vs. Barr challenging the changes to asylum regulations that allow the ACAs — also known as “safe third country” agreements — to go into effect. The suit claims the policy violates U.S. and international law by failing to protect asylum-seekers from being exposed to harm in the three countries, which are among the most dangerous in the world.

One of the plaintiffs in the ACLU’s suit, identified as U.T., is a gay man from El Salvador who was disowned by his parents and threatened by an MS-13 gang member who solicited sex from him. After fleeing to the U.S. to claim asylum, he was instead deported to Guatemala, where he says officials told him it wasn’t safe for gay people and advised him to go to Mexico.

The ACLU’s complaint details how it is now nearly impossible for anyone subjected to an ACA to have their asylum claims heard in a U.S. court. The Trump administration has issued new rules that govern how someone is treated when they show up at the border and ask for asylum. Now, rather than being given a chance to convince an immigration judge that they should be given asylum in the U.S., they can be funneled into a separate process designed to quickly remove them to one of the countries that has signed an ACA.

In 2017, 3,741 El Salvadorans and 2,048 Hondurans won asylum in the U.S. The new rules make it all but certain that number will plummet as removals under the Guatemala ACA continue.

For those deported to Guatemala so far, the combination of danger and the prospect of navigating a confusing process with little help has already forced many to take their chances elsewhere. There are no restrictions on movement between the three countries, meaning that asylum-seekers who fled persecution in one can be easily reached by a person or group that tracks them down in another.

The ACLU’s suit was filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.

“The United States has an obligation to ensure asylum seekers have access to a safe haven from persecution,” said Katrina Eiland of the ACLU. “This policy does the exact opposite, sending them to a country that can’t adequately protect them through an absurd and illegal process.”



Published January 28, 2020 at 04:53PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/2U2OA23

Morocco : Second Review Under the Arrangement Under the Precautionary and Liquidity Line-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Morocco

Morocco : Second Review Under the Arrangement Under the Precautionary and Liquidity Line-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Morocco
Published January 28, 2020 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

ACLU: Asylum-Seekers are Being Shipped to Guatemala in a New Policy Officials Call a “Total Disaster”

Asylum-Seekers are Being Shipped to Guatemala in a New Policy Officials Call a “Total Disaster”

In late November, U.S. immigration authorities began deporting some Central American asylum-seekers to Guatemala under a new policy that makes it nearly impossible for them to seek asylum in the U.S.

But Guatemalan human rights workers say that their country’s asylum system isn’t capable of handling even the relatively small numbers that have been sent there so far, and that asylum seekers’ precarious status in the country has already pushed many to leave.

“They’re preferring to move on rather than staying here in a dangerous country,” said Rebeca Sanchez-Ralda, a Guatemalan attorney working with the U.S.-based organization Justice in Motion.

According to Sanchez-Ralda, insecurity in Guatemala and the low capacity of the government to process an influx of asylum applications means the new arrivals are faced with an impossible choice: stay, and face a new set of risks, or set off towards more familiar ones.

“They don’t have all the personnel to do the interviews or the shelters to put people,” she said. “I don’t think it’s going to be possible at all.”

The policy is the latest of the Trump administration’s attempts to block asylum at the Southern U.S. border. Now, people who show up looking for protection in the U.S. can be shipped to Guatemala and told to apply for asylum there instead. But the U.N. has called Guatemala’s asylum process “nascent,” and advocates familiar with it say that nearly all the applications in the system right now have been stuck in a bureaucratic limbo for years.

“Over 500 asylum petitions have been pending for more than two years now,” said Amílcar Vásquez, a Project Director with Pastoral de Movilidad Humana, a Catholic group that works with the UN to provide services to migrants.

Vásquez says that asylum-seekers are given no support from the Guatemalan government while their applications are being processed.

“They’re going to become desperate without any guarantee of help or assistance from the state.”

The Wall Street Journal reports that as of mid-January 158 people had been sent to Guatemala under the new policy. So far, only Honduran and El Salvadoran nationals have been subjected to the new policy, including families with young children.

The three countries — collectively known as the Northern Triangle — are struggling with record levels of violence and instability. Decades of civil conflicts that were inflamed by covert U.S. involvement in the region, along with a street gang crisis that traces its origins to a wave of deportations from Los Angeles in the 1990s, have made them some of the most dangerous in the world.

Guatemala had the twenty-sixth-highest overall homicide rate in the world in 2017, along with the seventh-highest for females. Honduras has struggled with political violence since a 2009 military coup, and El Salvador now has the highest murder rate in the world, driven primarily by street gangs that have spread to neighboring countries.

“Violence is common here, including extortion and other types of crimes that exist in El Salvador and Honduras as well,” said Sanchez-Ralda. “We have kidnappings, killing of women, and hatred towards LGBTQ people.”

To enable the new deportations, the Trump administration signed an Asylum Cooperative Agreement (ACA) with former Guatemalan president Jimmy Morales last July. Similar agreements have also been signed with the governments of Honduras and El Salvador. U.S. officials have indicated that the program will soon be expanded to include asylum-seekers from other countries.

This means people fleeing persecution from any country in the world could be sent to Central America rather than have the opportunity to seek asylum in the U.S.

Upon arrival in Guatemala, disoriented asylum-seekers encounter a rushed and confusing process where they have only 72 hours to decide whether to apply for asylum there. One Guatemalan official described the policy’s implementation thus far as a “total disaster.”

The ACLU filed suit on Jan. 15 in U.T. vs. Barr challenging the changes to asylum regulations that allow the ACAs — also known as “safe third country” agreements — to go into effect. The suit claims the policy violates U.S. and international law by failing to protect asylum-seekers from being exposed to harm in the three countries, which are among the most dangerous in the world.

One of the plaintiffs in the ACLU’s suit, identified as U.T., is a gay man from El Salvador who was disowned by his parents and threatened by an MS-13 gang member who solicited sex from him. After fleeing to the U.S. to claim asylum, he was instead deported to Guatemala, where he says officials told him it wasn’t safe for gay people and advised him to go to Mexico.

The ACLU’s complaint details how it is now nearly impossible for anyone subjected to an ACA to have their asylum claims heard in a U.S. court. The Trump administration has issued new rules that govern how someone is treated when they show up at the border and ask for asylum. Now, rather than being given a chance to convince an immigration judge that they should be given asylum in the U.S., they can be funneled into a separate process designed to quickly remove them to one of the countries that has signed an ACA.

In 2017, 3,741 El Salvadorans and 2,048 Hondurans won asylum in the U.S. The new rules make it all but certain that number will plummet as removals under the Guatemala ACA continue.

For those deported to Guatemala so far, the combination of danger and the prospect of navigating a confusing process with little help has already forced many to take their chances elsewhere. There are no restrictions on movement between the three countries, meaning that asylum-seekers who fled persecution in one can be easily reached by a person or group that tracks them down in another.

The ACLU’s suit was filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.

“The United States has an obligation to ensure asylum seekers have access to a safe haven from persecution,” said Katrina Eiland of the ACLU. “This policy does the exact opposite, sending them to a country that can’t adequately protect them through an absurd and illegal process.”



Published January 28, 2020 at 10:23PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/2GrLTiN

ACLU: Asylum-Seekers are Being Shipped to Guatemala in a New Policy Officials Call a “Total Disaster”

Asylum-Seekers are Being Shipped to Guatemala in a New Policy Officials Call a “Total Disaster”

In late November, U.S. immigration authorities began deporting some Central American asylum-seekers to Guatemala under a new policy that makes it nearly impossible for them to seek asylum in the U.S.

But Guatemalan human rights workers say that their country’s asylum system isn’t capable of handling even the relatively small numbers that have been sent there so far, and that asylum seekers’ precarious status in the country has already pushed many to leave.

“They’re preferring to move on rather than staying here in a dangerous country,” said Rebeca Sanchez-Ralda, a Guatemalan attorney working with the U.S.-based organization Justice in Motion.

According to Sanchez-Ralda, insecurity in Guatemala and the low capacity of the government to process an influx of asylum applications means the new arrivals are faced with an impossible choice: stay, and face a new set of risks, or set off towards more familiar ones.

“They don’t have all the personnel to do the interviews or the shelters to put people,” she said. “I don’t think it’s going to be possible at all.”

The policy is the latest of the Trump administration’s attempts to block asylum at the Southern U.S. border. Now, people who show up looking for protection in the U.S. can be shipped to Guatemala and told to apply for asylum there instead. But the U.N. has called Guatemala’s asylum process “nascent,” and advocates familiar with it say that nearly all the applications in the system right now have been stuck in a bureaucratic limbo for years.

“Over 500 asylum petitions have been pending for more than two years now,” said Amílcar Vásquez, a Project Director with Pastoral de Movilidad Humana, a Catholic group that works with the UN to provide services to migrants.

Vásquez says that asylum-seekers are given no support from the Guatemalan government while their applications are being processed.

“They’re going to become desperate without any guarantee of help or assistance from the state.”

The Wall Street Journal reports that as of mid-January 158 people had been sent to Guatemala under the new policy. So far, only Honduran and El Salvadoran nationals have been subjected to the new policy, including families with young children.

The three countries — collectively known as the Northern Triangle — are struggling with record levels of violence and instability. Decades of civil conflicts that were inflamed by covert U.S. involvement in the region, along with a street gang crisis that traces its origins to a wave of deportations from Los Angeles in the 1990s, have made them some of the most dangerous in the world.

Guatemala had the twenty-sixth-highest overall homicide rate in the world in 2017, along with the seventh-highest for females. Honduras has struggled with political violence since a 2009 military coup, and El Salvador now has the highest murder rate in the world, driven primarily by street gangs that have spread to neighboring countries.

“Violence is common here, including extortion and other types of crimes that exist in El Salvador and Honduras as well,” said Sanchez-Ralda. “We have kidnappings, killing of women, and hatred towards LGBTQ people.”

To enable the new deportations, the Trump administration signed an Asylum Cooperative Agreement (ACA) with former Guatemalan president Jimmy Morales last July. Similar agreements have also been signed with the governments of Honduras and El Salvador. U.S. officials have indicated that the program will soon be expanded to include asylum-seekers from other countries.

This means people fleeing persecution from any country in the world could be sent to Central America rather than have the opportunity to seek asylum in the U.S.

Upon arrival in Guatemala, disoriented asylum-seekers encounter a rushed and confusing process where they have only 72 hours to decide whether to apply for asylum there. One Guatemalan official described the policy’s implementation thus far as a “total disaster.”

The ACLU filed suit on Jan. 15 in U.T. vs. Barr challenging the changes to asylum regulations that allow the ACAs — also known as “safe third country” agreements — to go into effect. The suit claims the policy violates U.S. and international law by failing to protect asylum-seekers from being exposed to harm in the three countries, which are among the most dangerous in the world.

One of the plaintiffs in the ACLU’s suit, identified as U.T., is a gay man from El Salvador who was disowned by his parents and threatened by an MS-13 gang member who solicited sex from him. After fleeing to the U.S. to claim asylum, he was instead deported to Guatemala, where he says officials told him it wasn’t safe for gay people and advised him to go to Mexico.

The ACLU’s complaint details how it is now nearly impossible for anyone subjected to an ACA to have their asylum claims heard in a U.S. court. The Trump administration has issued new rules that govern how someone is treated when they show up at the border and ask for asylum. Now, rather than being given a chance to convince an immigration judge that they should be given asylum in the U.S., they can be funneled into a separate process designed to quickly remove them to one of the countries that has signed an ACA.

In 2017, 3,741 El Salvadorans and 2,048 Hondurans won asylum in the U.S. The new rules make it all but certain that number will plummet as removals under the Guatemala ACA continue.

For those deported to Guatemala so far, the combination of danger and the prospect of navigating a confusing process with little help has already forced many to take their chances elsewhere. There are no restrictions on movement between the three countries, meaning that asylum-seekers who fled persecution in one can be easily reached by a person or group that tracks them down in another.

The ACLU’s suit was filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.

“The United States has an obligation to ensure asylum seekers have access to a safe haven from persecution,” said Katrina Eiland of the ACLU. “This policy does the exact opposite, sending them to a country that can’t adequately protect them through an absurd and illegal process.”



Published January 28, 2020 at 04:53PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/2GrLTiN

ACLU: What You Need to Know About the Coronavirus Outbreak: A Civil Liberties Perspective

What You Need to Know About the Coronavirus Outbreak: A Civil Liberties Perspective

The world is watching anxiously to see what happens with the coronavirus that originated in Wuhan, China. As scientists and public health officials in the United States learn more about the virus, and as we all see how bad the outbreak turns out to be, it is important that public policymaking remain firmly centered around science.

Unfortunately, our history of reactions to infectious disease outbreaks suggests that if this outbreak becomes severe, we’re likely to see strong pressure to the contrary. In particular, we can expect three things:

We can expect some to panic.

Unfortunately, there tends to be disproportionate hysteria and exaggerated fear around infectious diseases — especially when they are new. In 2009, the appearance of the H1N1 (aka “swine flu”) virus prompted some to call for measures like closing the U.S.-Mexico border, an enormously disruptive measure that, among other things, would have led to billions of dollars in lost economic activity. The H1N1 turned out to be a normal strain of the seasonal flu virus. In late 2014, many panicked over the Ebola outbreak ravaging West Africa, including a number of U.S. governors who imposed politically-motivated quarantines on health care workers and others returning from West Africa. Those quarantines were completely unjustified by science. (In 2015 the ACLU, the Yale School of Public Health, and Yale Law School released a major report analyzing the response to Ebola.)

Every disease is different and merits different public health responses. A person infected with Ebola, for example, is not contagious until after fever and other symptoms begin. That appears not to be the case with the coronavirus, and scientists’ recommendations will no doubt differ as a result. But no matter how bad any disease outbreak may get, responding in ways that are not supported by science is never the right thing to do.

We can expect pressure for counterproductive responses.

Most panicky responses to disease outbreaks, according to epidemiologists and other experts, only make things worse. In particular, law enforcement-type approaches to stopping the spread of communicable disease such as quarantine and forced treatment are, as three preeminent public health experts put it, “generally acknowledged by experts to be either completely ineffective or only potentially marginally effective” in slowing the spread of disease.

Public panic will predictably spark calls for “tough,” even draconian measures that treat the problem like a law enforcement or national security issue rather than a public health matter. We at the ACLU have always acknowledged that civil liberties must sometimes give way when it comes to fighting a communicable disease — but only in ways that are scientifically justified. And the public health community has learned over time that treating sick people like potential enemies only spurs them to “go underground” and avoid the authorities, which exacerbates the spread of disease. The evidence is clear that travel bans and quarantines are not the solution. Also counterproductive are the targeting and stigmatization of vulnerable populations, another historically frequent response to frightening epidemics.

We can expect that Trump will lead the panic, not calm it.

In previous disease scares, Donald Trump has been among the most panicky and scientifically ungrounded public voices in the United States. During the West African Ebola outbreak in 2014-15, he opposed allowing American doctors infected with the disease to be airlifted back to the United States for lifesaving treatment (tweeting, “KEEP THEM OUT OF HERE”). He also called for blocking all air traffic from West Africa.

As one expert advised in 2015, “Officials should avoid unrealistic reassurances or taking unnecessarily stringent measures so as to appear decisive.” Even in the earliest stages of the present outbreak, President Trump managed to violate the first half of that guidance, rashly and unrealistically telling the nation of the Wuhan virus, “We have it totally under control.” If things get worse, history suggests he’ll violate the second half as well and react with theatrical, counterproductive “toughness.”

The job of our political leaders is to solicit and follow the guidance of public health experts in crafting a calm and rational response to an outbreak, to help the public understand the scientific facts of this disease, and to present an honest and mature appraisal of risk and the limits of human power to curb nature. Unfortunately, Trump and his administration have a terrible record when it comes to listening to scientists.

We don’t know how bad this outbreak will be. If this one is not severe, another one probably will be in the future. And the more dangerous an actual outbreak, the more important it is that our authorities respond with cool heads and based on science, and not intrude any more than strictly necessary on people’s civil liberties. 



Published January 28, 2020 at 03:19PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/3aSdHdV

ACLU: What You Need to Know About the Coronavirus Outbreak: A Civil Liberties Perspective

What You Need to Know About the Coronavirus Outbreak: A Civil Liberties Perspective

The world is watching anxiously to see what happens with the coronavirus that originated in Wuhan, China. As scientists and public health officials in the United States learn more about the virus, and as we all see how bad the outbreak turns out to be, it is important that public policymaking remain firmly centered around science.

Unfortunately, our history of reactions to infectious disease outbreaks suggests that if this outbreak becomes severe, we’re likely to see strong pressure to the contrary. In particular, we can expect three things:

We can expect some to panic.

Unfortunately, there tends to be disproportionate hysteria and exaggerated fear around infectious diseases — especially when they are new. In 2009, the appearance of the H1N1 (aka “swine flu”) virus prompted some to call for measures like closing the U.S.-Mexico border, an enormously disruptive measure that, among other things, would have led to billions of dollars in lost economic activity. The H1N1 turned out to be a normal strain of the seasonal flu virus. In late 2014, many panicked over the Ebola outbreak ravaging West Africa, including a number of U.S. governors who imposed politically-motivated quarantines on health care workers and others returning from West Africa. Those quarantines were completely unjustified by science. (In 2015 the ACLU, the Yale School of Public Health, and Yale Law School released a major report analyzing the response to Ebola.)

Every disease is different and merits different public health responses. A person infected with Ebola, for example, is not contagious until after fever and other symptoms begin. That appears not to be the case with the coronavirus, and scientists’ recommendations will no doubt differ as a result. But no matter how bad any disease outbreak may get, responding in ways that are not supported by science is never the right thing to do.

We can expect pressure for counterproductive responses.

Most panicky responses to disease outbreaks, according to epidemiologists and other experts, only make things worse. In particular, law enforcement-type approaches to stopping the spread of communicable disease such as quarantine and forced treatment are, as three preeminent public health experts put it, “generally acknowledged by experts to be either completely ineffective or only potentially marginally effective” in slowing the spread of disease.

Public panic will predictably spark calls for “tough,” even draconian measures that treat the problem like a law enforcement or national security issue rather than a public health matter. We at the ACLU have always acknowledged that civil liberties must sometimes give way when it comes to fighting a communicable disease — but only in ways that are scientifically justified. And the public health community has learned over time that treating sick people like potential enemies only spurs them to “go underground” and avoid the authorities, which exacerbates the spread of disease. The evidence is clear that travel bans and quarantines are not the solution. Also counterproductive are the targeting and stigmatization of vulnerable populations, another historically frequent response to frightening epidemics.

We can expect that Trump will lead the panic, not calm it.

In previous disease scares, Donald Trump has been among the most panicky and scientifically ungrounded public voices in the United States. During the West African Ebola outbreak in 2014-15, he opposed allowing American doctors infected with the disease to be airlifted back to the United States for lifesaving treatment (tweeting, “KEEP THEM OUT OF HERE”). He also called for blocking all air traffic from West Africa.

As one expert advised in 2015, “Officials should avoid unrealistic reassurances or taking unnecessarily stringent measures so as to appear decisive.” Even in the earliest stages of the present outbreak, President Trump managed to violate the first half of that guidance, rashly and unrealistically telling the nation of the Wuhan virus, “We have it totally under control.” If things get worse, history suggests he’ll violate the second half as well and react with theatrical, counterproductive “toughness.”

The job of our political leaders is to solicit and follow the guidance of public health experts in crafting a calm and rational response to an outbreak, to help the public understand the scientific facts of this disease, and to present an honest and mature appraisal of risk and the limits of human power to curb nature. Unfortunately, Trump and his administration have a terrible record when it comes to listening to scientists.

We don’t know how bad this outbreak will be. If this one is not severe, another one probably will be in the future. And the more dangerous an actual outbreak, the more important it is that our authorities respond with cool heads and based on science, and not intrude any more than strictly necessary on people’s civil liberties. 



Published January 28, 2020 at 08:49PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/3aSdHdV