Kingdom of the Netherlands-Curaçao and Sint Maarten: Technical Assistance Report-Implementation of Risk-Based Supervision
Published March 25, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Thursday, 31 March 2022
Tuesday, 29 March 2022
ACLU: Title 42 Isn’t Supported By Science — The CDC Must End it Now
Title 42 Isn’t Supported By Science — The CDC Must End it Now
Published March 29, 2022 at 08:05PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/dcSVTmE
This week, the Centers for Disease Control will decide whether or not to finally end a policy that has shut down asylum at the Southern border for two years. The Trump White House reportedly pushed the CDC to use its public health authorities — Title 42 — to enact the shutdown, over CDC experts’ objections. Since taking office, the Biden administration has kept the policy in place, despite increasing condemnation from public health officials as well as the loosening of COVID-19 restrictions across the country.
Under the Title 42 order, the Biden administration has repeatedly denied people fleeing violence and persecution the right to seek protection and has sent them directly back into harm’s way, subjecting Black and LGBTQ+ asylum seekers to particular risks. Human rights organizations have documented nearly ten thousand heartbreaking instances of people being kidnapped, tortured, sexually assaulted, and murdered as a result.
These mass expulsions to danger fly in the face of American values and U.S. legal commitments. They are also an affront to the basic humanity of people seeking safe sanctuary and lack a public health rationale.
In early March, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit court issued a unanimous ruling in a case brought by the ACLU and partners challenging Title 42 expulsions. The filings detail horrific experiences suffered by people seeking protection, including the account of a Honduran woman who was expelled with her young daughter by border officials at night. After she exited the international bridge into Reynosa, several armed men grabbed her and covered her face with a black hat and forced her into a car. While being held, she was raped multiple times as she begged her captors not to harm her daughter. Tragically, their experience mirrors those of countless other people expelled under Title 42.
The D.C. Appeals Court recognized the grave dangers faced by those subject to Title 42, and ruled that it is unlawful for the government to expel people without first ensuring they will not be returned to torture or persecution. The court also questioned the policy’s public health justification, noting that it “looks in certain respects like a relic from an era with no vaccines, scarce testing, few therapeutics, and little certainty.”
Though Title 42 has been misused as a border enforcement tool, it actually falls under the authority of the CDC. Senior Trump officials reportedly pushed the agency to implement the policy, and Biden White House officials are thought to be far more involved in decisions over its continuation than they let on.
To date, no career CDC scientist has publicly expressed public support for the use of Title 42 — we have heard only from political appointees.
The CDC recently issued an order terminating Title 42 as it applies to children who arrive at the border alone. CDC Director Rochelle Walensky correctly found no public health justification for expelling unaccompanied children from the U.S.
Dr. Walensky said the CDC will complete a new review of Title 42 by March 30 to decide whether to end it entirely. Public health experts have demanded it does so. Indeed, the core of Dr. Walensky’s analysis — that we have entered a “different phase” of the pandemic — applies equally to unaccompanied children, families, and adults. She cited widespread vaccination and infection-induced immunity, the availability of other mitigation tools (such as testing and treatments), dramatically higher vaccination rates around the world, and new plans to detect and quickly combat future variants. Accordingly, COVID-related restrictions have been lifted in most U.S. jurisdictions, including border communities.
Keeping this extraordinary policy in place as so many other restrictions are eliminated would lay bare the truth of Title 42: It was always a way to illegally restrict access to asylum, and not about public health.
Our government has the tools it needs to safely screen people at the border, as our laws require, to determine whether they qualify for asylum or other humanitarian protections. The CDC should resist any political interference from the White House and end Title 42 in its entirety.
If the agency continues a policy that lacks a public health rationale, it will signal to the American public that the CDC cannot maintain scientific integrity and independence in the face of political pressure and further erode trust in the agency. It also risks that its legacy will be sending vulnerable people into danger, rather than saving lives as it was created to do.
Published March 29, 2022 at 08:05PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/dcSVTmE
ACLU: Title 42 Isn’t Supported By Science — The CDC Must End it Now
Title 42 Isn’t Supported By Science — The CDC Must End it Now
Published March 30, 2022 at 12:35AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/dcSVTmE
This week, the Centers for Disease Control will decide whether or not to finally end a policy that has shut down asylum at the Southern border for two years. The Trump White House reportedly pushed the CDC to use its public health authorities — Title 42 — to enact the shutdown, over CDC experts’ objections. Since taking office, the Biden administration has kept the policy in place, despite increasing condemnation from public health officials as well as the loosening of COVID-19 restrictions across the country.
Under the Title 42 order, the Biden administration has repeatedly denied people fleeing violence and persecution the right to seek protection and has sent them directly back into harm’s way, subjecting Black and LGBTQ+ asylum seekers to particular risks. Human rights organizations have documented nearly ten thousand heartbreaking instances of people being kidnapped, tortured, sexually assaulted, and murdered as a result.
These mass expulsions to danger fly in the face of American values and U.S. legal commitments. They are also an affront to the basic humanity of people seeking safe sanctuary and lack a public health rationale.
In early March, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit court issued a unanimous ruling in a case brought by the ACLU and partners challenging Title 42 expulsions. The filings detail horrific experiences suffered by people seeking protection, including the account of a Honduran woman who was expelled with her young daughter by border officials at night. After she exited the international bridge into Reynosa, several armed men grabbed her and covered her face with a black hat and forced her into a car. While being held, she was raped multiple times as she begged her captors not to harm her daughter. Tragically, their experience mirrors those of countless other people expelled under Title 42.
The D.C. Appeals Court recognized the grave dangers faced by those subject to Title 42, and ruled that it is unlawful for the government to expel people without first ensuring they will not be returned to torture or persecution. The court also questioned the policy’s public health justification, noting that it “looks in certain respects like a relic from an era with no vaccines, scarce testing, few therapeutics, and little certainty.”
Though Title 42 has been misused as a border enforcement tool, it actually falls under the authority of the CDC. Senior Trump officials reportedly pushed the agency to implement the policy, and Biden White House officials are thought to be far more involved in decisions over its continuation than they let on.
To date, no career CDC scientist has publicly expressed public support for the use of Title 42 — we have heard only from political appointees.
The CDC recently issued an order terminating Title 42 as it applies to children who arrive at the border alone. CDC Director Rochelle Walensky correctly found no public health justification for expelling unaccompanied children from the U.S.
Dr. Walensky said the CDC will complete a new review of Title 42 by March 30 to decide whether to end it entirely. Public health experts have demanded it does so. Indeed, the core of Dr. Walensky’s analysis — that we have entered a “different phase” of the pandemic — applies equally to unaccompanied children, families, and adults. She cited widespread vaccination and infection-induced immunity, the availability of other mitigation tools (such as testing and treatments), dramatically higher vaccination rates around the world, and new plans to detect and quickly combat future variants. Accordingly, COVID-related restrictions have been lifted in most U.S. jurisdictions, including border communities.
Keeping this extraordinary policy in place as so many other restrictions are eliminated would lay bare the truth of Title 42: It was always a way to illegally restrict access to asylum, and not about public health.
Our government has the tools it needs to safely screen people at the border, as our laws require, to determine whether they qualify for asylum or other humanitarian protections. The CDC should resist any political interference from the White House and end Title 42 in its entirety.
If the agency continues a policy that lacks a public health rationale, it will signal to the American public that the CDC cannot maintain scientific integrity and independence in the face of political pressure and further erode trust in the agency. It also risks that its legacy will be sending vulnerable people into danger, rather than saving lives as it was created to do.
Published March 30, 2022 at 12:35AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/dcSVTmE
Monday, 28 March 2022
Republic of Korea: 2022 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; Staff Statement; and Statement by the Executive Director for the Republic of Korea
Republic of Korea: 2022 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; Staff Statement; and Statement by the Executive Director for the Republic of Korea
Published March 28, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published March 28, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Kuwait: 2021 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Kuwait
Kuwait: 2021 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Kuwait
Published March 28, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published March 28, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Friday, 25 March 2022
Costa Rica: First and Second Reviews Under the Extended Arrangement Under the Extended Fund Facility, Request for Extension of the Arrangement, and Rephasing of Purchases-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Costa Rica
Costa Rica: First and Second Reviews Under the Extended Arrangement Under the Extended Fund Facility, Request for Extension of the Arrangement, and Rephasing of Purchases-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Costa Rica
Published March 25, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published March 25, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Sri Lanka: 2021 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka: 2021 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Sri Lanka
Published March 25, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published March 25, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Peru: Technical Assistance Report—Proposals for the 2022 Tax Reform: Mining Sector Fiscal Regime, Capital Gains, and IGV on Digital Services
Peru: Technical Assistance Report—Proposals for the 2022 Tax Reform: Mining Sector Fiscal Regime, Capital Gains, and IGV on Digital Services
Published March 25, 2022 at 11:00PM
Read more at imf.org
Published March 25, 2022 at 11:00PM
Read more at imf.org
ACLU: What You Need to Know About Cash Bail and Crime Rates
What You Need to Know About Cash Bail and Crime Rates
Published March 25, 2022 at 10:47PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/ElxKi7J
If you follow major news outlets, you probably keep hearing about a “crime wave” caused by bail reform. It’s a false narrative. Bail reform is a success — releasing more people from jail by minimizing or eliminating cash bail works. More people get out of jail and get home to their families, without any jump people skipping town, and without any jump in crime.
There is a serious, newsworthy issue that warrants attention: an increase in homicide rates. This issue deserves an adult conversation that we’re not getting from major media outlets. Instead, reporters rely primarily on police sources who point to bail reform as the explanation for increased homicide rates. Article after article parrots this claim as fact — with no evidence whatsoever. With frustrating frequency, government officials and reporters assume that crime is a monolithic problem and jailing people fixes it. This narrative is false and irresponsible. Here are the facts:
There is not a “crime wave.” Homicide rates increased in 2020, at the same time that other crimes declined and remain at historic lows. Recent reports of a spike in shoplifting are largely unsupported. The real question is why there is a short-term increase in homicides while other crimes continue to decline. Responsible discourse would focus on how nationwide changes that began in 2020 — like social and financial disruption from the pandemic, or significant increases in gun purchases — may have contributed to this universal increase in homicides.
Cash bail doesn’t lower homicide rates. Most places in the country still rely heavily on cash bail, including places that led the pack in increasing homicide rates. The few places that have reduced reliance on cash bail did so did so for years before 2020 without an increase in crime, including homicide.
Incarceration doesn’t lower homicide rates. We can’t jail our way to a lower homicide rate. Increasing incarceration in the United States for more than two decades did not reduce violent crime. We remain, by far, the world’s leading incarcerator, but that status did not prevent an uptick in homicides. If anything, incarceration is so destabilizing that it increases the risk that people will commit a violent offense when they come home.
Local investment does lower homicide rates. Although homicide rates rose across the country, homicides remain concentrated in a handful of neighborhoods. Public discourse should center the needs of people who live in these neighborhoods, not leverage violence as a talking point to advance a political agenda. Locally guided investments in physical attributes like streetlights, parks, and public transportation; economic opportunity like youth summer employment; and social connections like violence interruption programs are all associated with drops in homicide and violence.
The false narrative that bail reform increases crime is also borne of poor reporting on what “bail reform” actually means. Bail reform policies ensure that judges appoint a defense lawyer, hold a bail hearing, and jail people only if evidence shows that it’s necessary. The idea is that judges should have good reasons to detain people, rather than picking a bail amount and leaving it to chance whether people can afford to pay for their release. We’re talking about basic constitutional safeguards against arbitrary detention that destroys lives. It’s not exactly radical.
When judges take these reforms seriously, the result is that many more people are released — without any negative effect on public safety. Releasing more people actually has a positive effect on public safety, because the faster that people reconnect with their families and fulfill their everyday responsibilities, the less likely they are to be rearrested. Releasing people from jail also alleviates the risk of death and severe illness — and the certainty of suffering — imposed on people incarcerated in our local jails. Reporting that scapegoats bail reform acts with callous disregard for the human cost of relying on cash bail. At a minimum, fair and accurate reporting should critically examine the assumptions that officials make about crime rates and their link to incarceration.
Published March 25, 2022 at 10:47PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/ElxKi7J
ACLU: What You Need to Know About Cash Bail and Crime Rates
What You Need to Know About Cash Bail and Crime Rates
Published March 25, 2022 at 05:17PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/ElxKi7J
If you follow major news outlets, you probably keep hearing about a “crime wave” caused by bail reform. It’s a false narrative. Bail reform is a success — releasing more people from jail by minimizing or eliminating cash bail works. More people get out of jail and get home to their families, without any jump people skipping town, and without any jump in crime.
There is a serious, newsworthy issue that warrants attention: an increase in homicide rates. This issue deserves an adult conversation that we’re not getting from major media outlets. Instead, reporters rely primarily on police sources who point to bail reform as the explanation for increased homicide rates. Article after article parrots this claim as fact — with no evidence whatsoever. With frustrating frequency, government officials and reporters assume that crime is a monolithic problem and jailing people fixes it. This narrative is false and irresponsible. Here are the facts:
There is not a “crime wave.” Homicide rates increased in 2020, at the same time that other crimes declined and remain at historic lows. Recent reports of a spike in shoplifting are largely unsupported. The real question is why there is a short-term increase in homicides while other crimes continue to decline. Responsible discourse would focus on how nationwide changes that began in 2020 — like social and financial disruption from the pandemic, or significant increases in gun purchases — may have contributed to this universal increase in homicides.
Cash bail doesn’t lower homicide rates. Most places in the country still rely heavily on cash bail, including places that led the pack in increasing homicide rates. The few places that have reduced reliance on cash bail did so did so for years before 2020 without an increase in crime, including homicide.
Incarceration doesn’t lower homicide rates. We can’t jail our way to a lower homicide rate. Increasing incarceration in the United States for more than two decades did not reduce violent crime. We remain, by far, the world’s leading incarcerator, but that status did not prevent an uptick in homicides. If anything, incarceration is so destabilizing that it increases the risk that people will commit a violent offense when they come home.
Local investment does lower homicide rates. Although homicide rates rose across the country, homicides remain concentrated in a handful of neighborhoods. Public discourse should center the needs of people who live in these neighborhoods, not leverage violence as a talking point to advance a political agenda. Locally guided investments in physical attributes like streetlights, parks, and public transportation; economic opportunity like youth summer employment; and social connections like violence interruption programs are all associated with drops in homicide and violence.
The false narrative that bail reform increases crime is also borne of poor reporting on what “bail reform” actually means. Bail reform policies ensure that judges appoint a defense lawyer, hold a bail hearing, and jail people only if evidence shows that it’s necessary. The idea is that judges should have good reasons to detain people, rather than picking a bail amount and leaving it to chance whether people can afford to pay for their release. We’re talking about basic constitutional safeguards against arbitrary detention that destroys lives. It’s not exactly radical.
When judges take these reforms seriously, the result is that many more people are released — without any negative effect on public safety. Releasing more people actually has a positive effect on public safety, because the faster that people reconnect with their families and fulfill their everyday responsibilities, the less likely they are to be rearrested. Releasing people from jail also alleviates the risk of death and severe illness — and the certainty of suffering — imposed on people incarcerated in our local jails. Reporting that scapegoats bail reform acts with callous disregard for the human cost of relying on cash bail. At a minimum, fair and accurate reporting should critically examine the assumptions that officials make about crime rates and their link to incarceration.
Published March 25, 2022 at 05:17PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/ElxKi7J
Kingdom of Lesotho: Technical Assistance Report-Government Finance Statistics
Kingdom of Lesotho: Technical Assistance Report-Government Finance Statistics
Published March 24, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published March 24, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Wednesday, 23 March 2022
ACLU: The Coast Guard Destroyed Their Livelihoods. Will the Supreme Court Hear Their Case?
The Coast Guard Destroyed Their Livelihoods. Will the Supreme Court Hear Their Case?
Published March 24, 2022 at 12:45AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/yZ46L91
Robert Weir and his crew were on an overnight fishing trip to the Morant Cays in the Caribbean Sea off the coast of Jamaica in September 2017 when a storm hit and blew their boat off course. Hopelessly lost and trying to find their way home, Robert steered the boat toward Haiti, thinking it was Jamaica. As he did so, they were approached by a vessel flying a U.S. flag.
Little did they know then that their lives were about to be turned upside down, and that it would be nearly a year before they saw their homes and families again.
As the U.S.-flagged boat approached, the men on board identified themselves as U.S. Coast Guard officers and forcibly stopped the fishermen’s boat at gunpoint. One of the officers asked Robert what he and his crew were doing, and after telling the officer that they were on a fishing trip but were lost and trying to find their way home, two of the officers boarded the boat and searched it and the men for drugs. They didn’t find any. Yet, instead of helping the crew find their way home, the Coast Guard detained the men, transferred them to a Coast Guard cutter that had pulled up alongside, and later, as the four men sat chained to the deck of that cutter, destroyed their fishing boat.
Robert and his crew then spent more than a month chained to the decks of the Coast Guard cutter and three other boats, as the Coast Guard sailed the Caribbean Sea, making stops at Guantánamo Bay, St. Thomas, and Puerto Rico. Chained to the open decks, the men were exposed to the elements, even as the second cutter set sail as Hurricane Maria hit the Caribbean. They were denied access to shelter, basic sanitation, proper food, and medical care. The men’s skin burned and blistered in the sun, and they were drenched and chilled by rain and sea water.
Back in Jamaica, some of the men’s families presumed they had died at sea when they didn’t return as scheduled. Knowing that their families would be concerned for their safety, the men pleaded repeatedly with their Coast Guard captors to allow them to make calls to their families, but were refused each time they did so.
The Coast Guard detained the men at sea for more than 30 days, without charging them with a crime, before delivering them to the custody of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration in Miami.
There, the United States initially charged the men with drug trafficking offenses, but ultimately abandoned those charges, admitting to the federal district court during the men’s sentencing hearing that it “would have required a miracle” to prove those charges. Instead, the government charged the men with violating a little-known U.S. law, which makes it a crime to lie to a federal officer about one’s destination on the high seas. Because the men had told the Coast Guard that they’d planned to fish in Jamaican waters, but were in fact heading to Haiti (because they were lost), the men each pleaded guilty. The federal court sentenced them each to 10 months’ imprisonment.
After serving their sentences, the Department of Homeland Security held the men in immigration detention for two more months before removing them from the United States to Jamaica, almost a year after their encounter with the Coast Guard in the Caribbean. The men returned home to their families in August 2018, their livelihoods destroyed and financially ruined.
Now, more than four years after the men embarked on their fishing trip, we’re asking the Supreme Court to hear their case to ensure that the United States will be held accountable for violating their rights — and to ensure others don’t meet similar fates.
The Coast Guard stopped Robert and his crew as part of a drug interdiction program under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act, a relic of the failed war on drugs that directs the Coast Guard to prosecute people suspected of drug smuggling in international waters, even if the vessel flies a foreign flag and there is no proof the vessel is intended for U.S. shores. Under the auspices of the MDLEA, the U.S. Coast Guard apprehends crews from vessels suspected of carrying drugs on the high seas, charges them with crimes in the United States, and often subjects them to prolonged detention in inhumane conditions.
In the case of Robert and his crew, even though there were no drugs on board, they faced nightmarish conditions and prolonged detention at sea. Countless other people have suffered at the hands of the Coast Guard under this policy.
According to the men’s plea agreement, the men claimed their destination was the waters near the coast of Jamaica, when they were actually destined for Haiti. But at issue in this case is not whether the men lied to the Coast Guard. This case is about Congress’ authority to criminalize conduct on the high seas, including lying to a Coast Guard officer about one’s destination, that has no effect whatsoever on the United States.
At the time of our nation’s founding, the Constitution made a distinction between two different types of crimes on the high seas: piracy other felonies. The framers gave Congress the power to define and punish piracy, and a separate power to define and punish felonies. At the time, and today, international law allowed nations to criminalize piracy on the high seas, regardless of the connection to the country prosecuting. But piracy was the exception to the rule; in the case of other felonies, it was widely accepted, including by James Madison, that Congress could only punish felonies on the high seas if those acts had a nexus to the United States — if the defendant was a citizen, the boat was flying under a U.S. flag, or the conduct was directed at the United States.
In this case, there is no dispute that neither the crew nor their conduct had any connection to the United States. Robert and his crew are Jamaican nationals who were stopped in international waters on a vessel flying the Jamaican flag. They were not engaged in any conduct directed at the United States. In our petition to the Supreme Court, we argue that under the original understanding of the Constitution, Congress cannot criminalize the conduct of Robert and his crew because they had no connection to the U.S.
In upholding the men’s convictions, the lower court ignored the well-established nexus requirement, allowing Congress virtually unlimited authority to criminalize any conduct by anyone on the high seas. But this interpretation flies in the face of Supreme Court precedent and the original intent of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has an opportunity to correct this injustice. Nobody should again face the same cruelty as Robert and his crew.
Stay informed about our work
Sign upPublished March 24, 2022 at 12:45AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/yZ46L91
ACLU: The Coast Guard Destroyed Their Livelihoods. Will the Supreme Court Hear Their Case?
The Coast Guard Destroyed Their Livelihoods. Will the Supreme Court Hear Their Case?
Published March 23, 2022 at 07:15PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/yZ46L91
Robert Weir and his crew were on an overnight fishing trip to the Morant Cays in the Caribbean Sea off the coast of Jamaica in September 2017 when a storm hit and blew their boat off course. Hopelessly lost and trying to find their way home, Robert steered the boat toward Haiti, thinking it was Jamaica. As he did so, they were approached by a vessel flying a U.S. flag.
Little did they know then that their lives were about to be turned upside down, and that it would be nearly a year before they saw their homes and families again.
As the U.S.-flagged boat approached, the men on board identified themselves as U.S. Coast Guard officers and forcibly stopped the fishermen’s boat at gunpoint. One of the officers asked Robert what he and his crew were doing, and after telling the officer that they were on a fishing trip but were lost and trying to find their way home, two of the officers boarded the boat and searched it and the men for drugs. They didn’t find any. Yet, instead of helping the crew find their way home, the Coast Guard detained the men, transferred them to a Coast Guard cutter that had pulled up alongside, and later, as the four men sat chained to the deck of that cutter, destroyed their fishing boat.
Robert and his crew then spent more than a month chained to the decks of the Coast Guard cutter and three other boats, as the Coast Guard sailed the Caribbean Sea, making stops at Guantánamo Bay, St. Thomas, and Puerto Rico. Chained to the open decks, the men were exposed to the elements, even as the second cutter set sail as Hurricane Maria hit the Caribbean. They were denied access to shelter, basic sanitation, proper food, and medical care. The men’s skin burned and blistered in the sun, and they were drenched and chilled by rain and sea water.
Back in Jamaica, some of the men’s families presumed they had died at sea when they didn’t return as scheduled. Knowing that their families would be concerned for their safety, the men pleaded repeatedly with their Coast Guard captors to allow them to make calls to their families, but were refused each time they did so.
The Coast Guard detained the men at sea for more than 30 days, without charging them with a crime, before delivering them to the custody of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration in Miami.
There, the United States initially charged the men with drug trafficking offenses, but ultimately abandoned those charges, admitting to the federal district court during the men’s sentencing hearing that it “would have required a miracle” to prove those charges. Instead, the government charged the men with violating a little-known U.S. law, which makes it a crime to lie to a federal officer about one’s destination on the high seas. Because the men had told the Coast Guard that they’d planned to fish in Jamaican waters, but were in fact heading to Haiti (because they were lost), the men each pleaded guilty. The federal court sentenced them each to 10 months’ imprisonment.
After serving their sentences, the Department of Homeland Security held the men in immigration detention for two more months before removing them from the United States to Jamaica, almost a year after their encounter with the Coast Guard in the Caribbean. The men returned home to their families in August 2018, their livelihoods destroyed and financially ruined.
Now, more than four years after the men embarked on their fishing trip, we’re asking the Supreme Court to hear their case to ensure that the United States will be held accountable for violating their rights — and to ensure others don’t meet similar fates.
The Coast Guard stopped Robert and his crew as part of a drug interdiction program under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act, a relic of the failed war on drugs that directs the Coast Guard to prosecute people suspected of drug smuggling in international waters, even if the vessel flies a foreign flag and there is no proof the vessel is intended for U.S. shores. Under the auspices of the MDLEA, the U.S. Coast Guard apprehends crews from vessels suspected of carrying drugs on the high seas, charges them with crimes in the United States, and often subjects them to prolonged detention in inhumane conditions.
In the case of Robert and his crew, even though there were no drugs on board, they faced nightmarish conditions and prolonged detention at sea. Countless other people have suffered at the hands of the Coast Guard under this policy.
According to the men’s plea agreement, the men claimed their destination was the waters near the coast of Jamaica, when they were actually destined for Haiti. But at issue in this case is not whether the men lied to the Coast Guard. This case is about Congress’ authority to criminalize conduct on the high seas, including lying to a Coast Guard officer about one’s destination, that has no effect whatsoever on the United States.
At the time of our nation’s founding, the Constitution made a distinction between two different types of crimes on the high seas: piracy other felonies. The framers gave Congress the power to define and punish piracy, and a separate power to define and punish felonies. At the time, and today, international law allowed nations to criminalize piracy on the high seas, regardless of the connection to the country prosecuting. But piracy was the exception to the rule; in the case of other felonies, it was widely accepted, including by James Madison, that Congress could only punish felonies on the high seas if those acts had a nexus to the United States — if the defendant was a citizen, the boat was flying under a U.S. flag, or the conduct was directed at the United States.
In this case, there is no dispute that neither the crew nor their conduct had any connection to the United States. Robert and his crew are Jamaican nationals who were stopped in international waters on a vessel flying the Jamaican flag. They were not engaged in any conduct directed at the United States. In our petition to the Supreme Court, we argue that under the original understanding of the Constitution, Congress cannot criminalize the conduct of Robert and his crew because they had no connection to the U.S.
In upholding the men’s convictions, the lower court ignored the well-established nexus requirement, allowing Congress virtually unlimited authority to criminalize any conduct by anyone on the high seas. But this interpretation flies in the face of Supreme Court precedent and the original intent of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has an opportunity to correct this injustice. Nobody should again face the same cruelty as Robert and his crew.
Stay informed about our work
Sign upPublished March 23, 2022 at 07:15PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/yZ46L91
Samoa: Technical Assistance Report—Climate Macroeconomic Assessment Program
Samoa: Technical Assistance Report—Climate Macroeconomic Assessment Program
Published March 21, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published March 21, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Tuesday, 22 March 2022
Indonesia: 2022 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; Staff Statement; and Statement by the Executive Director for Indonesia
Indonesia: 2022 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; Staff Statement; and Statement by the Executive Director for Indonesia
Published March 23, 2022 at 04:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published March 23, 2022 at 04:00AM
Read more at imf.org
ACLU: Five Things to Know About the Title 42 Immigrant Expulsion Policy
Five Things to Know About the Title 42 Immigrant Expulsion Policy
Published March 22, 2022 at 06:18PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/4Nx8Fom
At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, senior officials under former President Donald Trump seized upon an obscure public health rule as their latest tool for achieving an objective they had been trying for years to accomplish: shutting down the asylum system. On March 20, 2020, under pressure from the White House, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a mass migrant expulsion order under a legal provision that came to be known as “Title 42.” The order told border officials that they could expel people seeking safety in the United States without giving them any opportunity to explain their fears, even though U.S. law guarantees the right to seek asylum, and prohibits sending people to places they will be persecuted or tortured.
In the two years it’s been in effect, Title 42 has had a devastating impact on people seeking safety in this country. Since March 2020, the government has misused the health order to kick out people seeking asylum more than 1.7 million times.
The CDC is set to again determine by March 30 if it will extend Title 42 or if the health order, never justified by science and in constantly-increasing tension with the Biden administration’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, will finally expire.
Here’s what you need to know about Title 42:
1. It’s not really about COVID-19 — it’s about stopping people seeking refuge in the U.S.
COVID-19 was not the first time the Trump administration explored using public health as an excuse to shut down legal migration. Stephen Miller, Trump’s advisor who has pushed white nationalist stories and ideas, first suggested a shutdown of migration for health reasons in 2018. He floated the idea again in 2019 during a mumps outbreak.
He finally got his way in 2020 over the objections of many top scientists at the CDC, who according to the Associated Press saw “no valid public health reason to issue” the order.
The policy, nicknamed the “Stephen Miller special” by a former Trump administration official, has been criticized by leading epidemiologists and public health experts from the start. Earlier this year, a group of experts called on the Biden administration to “end its use of the scientifically-baseless Title 42 policy” which, they said, does not help prevent the spread of COVID-19 and “if anything, makes matters worse.”
“We are profoundly disappointed that the Biden administration continues to disregard science in favor of a cruel and discriminatory policy that does nothing to safeguard public health,” Dr. Michele Heisler, medical director of Physicians for Human Rights, said in a statement.
Even Dr. Anthony Fauci, one of the country’s leading COVID-19 experts, has said that expelling migrants “is not the solution to an outbreak.”
2. Title 42 has made it impossible for people seeking asylum to do so in a safe and orderly way.
Under Title 42’s mass expulsion policy, people seeking safety can be immediately removed from the United States with no consideration of their claims for protection. Depending on their nationality, they are either simply sent back across the border to Mexico — as has happened to thousands of Haitians — or they are sent back to their countries of origin.
People expelled to Mexico are stranded in unfamiliar cities, far from family, friends, and support networks in the U.S., relying on overburdened shelters and migrant aid organizations. Organized criminal groups, seeing the vulnerabilities of people cast adrift by the U.S. Border Patrol, often prey on them.
Under the Biden administration, the nonprofit Human Rights First has documented nearly 10,000 cases in which people blocked from seeking asyum by Title 42 in the U.S. have been kidnapped, tortured, raped and violently attacked in Mexico. Many more cases go unreported and untracked.
Under the Biden administration, nearly 14,000 Haitians have been expelled under Title 42, according to the human rights organization WOLA. They’ve arrived to a country still reeling from devastating earthquakes and political turmoil — a country the U.S. knows is in no position to safely receive them.
3. The U.S. government can take steps now to prepare to handle asylum requests when the policy is lifted
Some people who need asylum but were turned away under Title 42 will likely try to again seek safety and asylum in the U.S. when the policy is lifted. This is a predictable response to the U.S. government creating a backlog of people at the border seeking protection who were blocked from doing so for years through Title 42 and other restrictive policies.
Even while it has kept Title 42 in place, the Biden administration has claimed that it remains committed to rebuilding the asylum system. Officials have had more than a year to put in place the infrastructure necessary to efficiently and humanely process people seeking safety at our borders. That includes staffing and training asylum officers as needed. CBP officers should not be involved in the early screenings to assess a person’s fear of returning to their home country or their intent to apply for asylum. And, to the extent more work remains to be done, it can and should be a priority for the government to complete it.
4. CBP is capable of processing people seeking asylum in the U.S.
The Department of Homeland Security has a multi-billion dollar budget. Its border agency just got a billion-dollar increase to enhance its processing capacity. It has the resources needed to fulfill its responsibilities and process people who seek asylum at the border.
To be clear, CBP shouldn’t simply go back to its old methods when Title 42 ends. That would be both cruel and wasteful. For example, instead of holding vulnerable people seeking protection in inhumane conditions for periods well beyond the time limits set by the agency’s own guidelines, the agency can and should only hold people for the few hours it takes for processing.
The agency can also, as it did in 2019, issue its own release paperwork without waiting on partner agencies to do so, further decreasing the time people are held in CBP facilities. Allowing people seeking asylum to stay with family, friends, and other sponsors while their immigration cases are processed avoids needless detention, gives people a fairer shot at making their asylum case, and makes the entire system work more smoothly and efficiently.
5. Title 42 has been declared unlawful by the courts — and by one of the government’s top lawyers.
In early March, a federal court in D.C. issued a unanimous ruling in a case brought by the ACLU and partners challenging Title 42 expulsions. The court recognized the grave dangers faced by those subject to Title 42 and ruled that it is unlawful for the government to expel people without first ensuring they will not be returned to torture or persecution.
The court also forcefully questioned the policy’s public health justification, noting that it “looks in certain respects like a relic from an era with no vaccines, scarce testing, few therapeutics, and little certainty.”
At least one top legal official in the Biden administration has also condemned the “Stephen Miller Special” as unlawful. Shortly before leaving the administration, Harold Koh, a senior adviser in the State Department, wrote a memo dated Oct. 2 calling the use of Title 42 to expel people “illegal” and “inhumane.” He emphasized that “lawful, more humane alternatives plainly exist.”
The order runs counter to U.S. laws governing the fair and orderly processing of people seeking asylum in the country. It also runs counter to the letter and spirit of treaties and international agreements made by the U.S. in the aftermath of the horrors of World War II.
Published March 22, 2022 at 06:18PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/4Nx8Fom
ACLU: Five Things to Know About the Title 42 Immigrant Expulsion Policy
Five Things to Know About the Title 42 Immigrant Expulsion Policy
Published March 22, 2022 at 12:48PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/4Nx8Fom
At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, senior officials under former President Donald Trump seized upon an obscure public health rule as their latest tool for achieving an objective they had been trying for years to accomplish: shutting down the asylum system. On March 20, 2020, under pressure from the White House, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a mass migrant expulsion order under a legal provision that came to be known as “Title 42.” The order told border officials that they could expel people seeking safety in the United States without giving them any opportunity to explain their fears, even though U.S. law guarantees the right to seek asylum, and prohibits sending people to places they will be persecuted or tortured.
In the two years it’s been in effect, Title 42 has had a devastating impact on people seeking safety in this country. Since March 2020, the government has misused the health order to kick out people seeking asylum more than 1.7 million times.
The CDC is set to again determine by March 30 if it will extend Title 42 or if the health order, never justified by science and in constantly-increasing tension with the Biden administration’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, will finally expire.
Here’s what you need to know about Title 42:
1. It’s not really about COVID-19 — it’s about stopping people seeking refuge in the U.S.
COVID-19 was not the first time the Trump administration explored using public health as an excuse to shut down legal migration. Stephen Miller, Trump’s advisor who has pushed white nationalist stories and ideas, first suggested a shutdown of migration for health reasons in 2018. He floated the idea again in 2019 during a mumps outbreak.
He finally got his way in 2020 over the objections of many top scientists at the CDC, who according to the Associated Press saw “no valid public health reason to issue” the order.
The policy, nicknamed the “Stephen Miller special” by a former Trump administration official, has been criticized by leading epidemiologists and public health experts from the start. Earlier this year, a group of experts called on the Biden administration to “end its use of the scientifically-baseless Title 42 policy” which, they said, does not help prevent the spread of COVID-19 and “if anything, makes matters worse.”
“We are profoundly disappointed that the Biden administration continues to disregard science in favor of a cruel and discriminatory policy that does nothing to safeguard public health,” Dr. Michele Heisler, medical director of Physicians for Human Rights, said in a statement.
Even Dr. Anthony Fauci, one of the country’s leading COVID-19 experts, has said that expelling migrants “is not the solution to an outbreak.”
2. Title 42 has made it impossible for people seeking asylum to do so in a safe and orderly way.
Under Title 42’s mass expulsion policy, people seeking safety can be immediately removed from the United States with no consideration of their claims for protection. Depending on their nationality, they are either simply sent back across the border to Mexico — as has happened to thousands of Haitians — or they are sent back to their countries of origin.
People expelled to Mexico are stranded in unfamiliar cities, far from family, friends, and support networks in the U.S., relying on overburdened shelters and migrant aid organizations. Organized criminal groups, seeing the vulnerabilities of people cast adrift by the U.S. Border Patrol, often prey on them.
Under the Biden administration, the nonprofit Human Rights First has documented nearly 10,000 cases in which people blocked from seeking asyum by Title 42 in the U.S. have been kidnapped, tortured, raped and violently attacked in Mexico. Many more cases go unreported and untracked.
Under the Biden administration, nearly 14,000 Haitians have been expelled under Title 42, according to the human rights organization WOLA. They’ve arrived to a country still reeling from devastating earthquakes and political turmoil — a country the U.S. knows is in no position to safely receive them.
3. The U.S. government can take steps now to prepare to handle asylum requests when the policy is lifted
Some people who need asylum but were turned away under Title 42 will likely try to again seek safety and asylum in the U.S. when the policy is lifted. This is a predictable response to the U.S. government creating a backlog of people at the border seeking protection who were blocked from doing so for years through Title 42 and other restrictive policies.
Even while it has kept Title 42 in place, the Biden administration has claimed that it remains committed to rebuilding the asylum system. Officials have had more than a year to put in place the infrastructure necessary to efficiently and humanely process people seeking safety at our borders. That includes staffing and training asylum officers as needed. CBP officers should not be involved in the early screenings to assess a person’s fear of returning to their home country or their intent to apply for asylum. And, to the extent more work remains to be done, it can and should be a priority for the government to complete it.
4. CBP is capable of processing people seeking asylum in the U.S.
The Department of Homeland Security has a multi-billion dollar budget. Its border agency just got a billion-dollar increase to enhance its processing capacity. It has the resources needed to fulfill its responsibilities and process people who seek asylum at the border.
To be clear, CBP shouldn’t simply go back to its old methods when Title 42 ends. That would be both cruel and wasteful. For example, instead of holding vulnerable people seeking protection in inhumane conditions for periods well beyond the time limits set by the agency’s own guidelines, the agency can and should only hold people for the few hours it takes for processing.
The agency can also, as it did in 2019, issue its own release paperwork without waiting on partner agencies to do so, further decreasing the time people are held in CBP facilities. Allowing people seeking asylum to stay with family, friends, and other sponsors while their immigration cases are processed avoids needless detention, gives people a fairer shot at making their asylum case, and makes the entire system work more smoothly and efficiently.
5. Title 42 has been declared unlawful by the courts — and by one of the government’s top lawyers.
In early March, a federal court in D.C. issued a unanimous ruling in a case brought by the ACLU and partners challenging Title 42 expulsions. The court recognized the grave dangers faced by those subject to Title 42 and ruled that it is unlawful for the government to expel people without first ensuring they will not be returned to torture or persecution.
The court also forcefully questioned the policy’s public health justification, noting that it “looks in certain respects like a relic from an era with no vaccines, scarce testing, few therapeutics, and little certainty.”
At least one top legal official in the Biden administration has also condemned the “Stephen Miller Special” as unlawful. Shortly before leaving the administration, Harold Koh, a senior adviser in the State Department, wrote a memo dated Oct. 2 calling the use of Title 42 to expel people “illegal” and “inhumane.” He emphasized that “lawful, more humane alternatives plainly exist.”
The order runs counter to U.S. laws governing the fair and orderly processing of people seeking asylum in the country. It also runs counter to the letter and spirit of treaties and international agreements made by the U.S. in the aftermath of the horrors of World War II.
Published March 22, 2022 at 12:48PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/4Nx8Fom
Monday, 21 March 2022
Israel: 2022 Article IV Consultation-Press Release and Staff Report
Israel: 2022 Article IV Consultation-Press Release and Staff Report
Published March 21, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published March 21, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Thursday, 17 March 2022
ACLU: Texas’ Bounty Hunter Abortion Ban is a Dire Warning of What Lays Ahead for Our Reproductive Rights
Texas’ Bounty Hunter Abortion Ban is a Dire Warning of What Lays Ahead for Our Reproductive Rights
Published March 17, 2022 at 05:44PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/2dkTQj9
For more than six months, people in Texas have been unable to access abortion in the state beyond the earliest weeks of pregnancy. The state’s extreme, privately-enforced abortion ban, SB 8, has cut off health care for millions — but it didn’t have to be this way. Before the law took effect, we helped Texas abortion providers and abortion support networks bring a legal challenge in federal court that presented the U.S. Supreme Court with the opportunity to protect pregnant Texans and their families by exercising its power to block SB 8. Instead, the court refused to act, allowing the law to take effect while the litigation proceeded. Subsequent decisions by both the U.S. Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of Texas have ended the possibility of any relief from our lawsuit. Unfortunately, this means that SB 8 will likely remain in effect for the foreseeable future.
On the ground, SB 8 is wreaking havoc. Although the law has prohibited access to most abortions in the state, Texans continue to need and seek abortion care. Those with the resources to do so have been forced to flee the state. Individuals with the means to take time off work, find childcare, and pay for transportation have made long journeys to clinics in other states in order to access abortion. Providers thousands of miles away now report seeing Texas patients, and neighboring states — such as Louisiana, Arkansas, and Oklahoma — are overwhelmed with Texas patients. The influx of patients has caused weeks-long wait times in appointments for both traveling Texans and local patients alike. Even for those who are able to access care, SB 8’s delays from travel and wait times are pushing them later into pregnancy. Although abortion is very safe, and much safer than childbirth, each week of unnecessary delay increases the risks of the procedure.
For pregnant Texans beyond six weeks’ gestation who cannot overcome the difficult and costly barriers to leaving the state, SB 8 forecloses access to legal abortion and forces them to continue their pregnancies. The devastating impacts of forced pregnancy will be felt most by already marginalized communities, including people of color and low-income families. For example, undocumented immigrants in South Texas may fear interstate travel due to internal immigration checkpoints, and young people may be unable to take time away from school to get medical care far from home. And it is Black women who will suffer the brunt of the sometimes-deadly effects of forced pregnancy: Texas has a severe maternal mortality crisis, and Black women are three times more likely than white women to die during pregnancy or as a result of childbirth. Abortion bans hurt pregnant people and their families.
To help individuals avoid state-imposed forced pregnancy, abortion providers, funds, and practical support networks have stepped up to assist as many Texans as possible in accessing care in state before six weeks or traveling out of state. Clinics have expanded hours to offer more appointments, abortion funds have increased financial support to help cover the cost of more abortions, and practical support networks have ramped up helping individuals with the costs and logistics of travel, lodging, and childcare.
While these efforts are nothing short of heroic, they are not necessarily sustainable long-term or on a larger scale. Conservative legislatures in other states have been emboldened by the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court allowed SB 8 to take effect, and many are now considering passing their own versions of the Texas law. This could immediately stop some or all abortion access in other states, potentially including neighboring Oklahoma — hurting more individuals and families by not only cutting off care in those states but also eliminating places for Texans to travel for care and pushing people of those states into travel or forced pregnancy.
Unfortunately, SB 8 is only the beginning: What is happening in Texas is not an anomaly, but a harbinger of what may come for reproductive rights in the United States. The Supreme Court recently heard Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a case about Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban where the state asked the court to overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark decision that recognized abortion as a constitutional right. A decision is expected in a few short months, and many have taken the court’s inaction on Texas’s SB 8 as a sign that the court will gut or completely eliminate the constitutional right to abortion.
The court could allow states to ban abortion after 15-weeks of pregnancy, which would cut off weeks of legal care in various states, including in states like Tennessee and Arkansas where challenges are pending to abortion bans at different points in pregnancy, and in states like Arizona and Florida that will likely enact 15-week bans this legislative session. Or the court could eliminate the federal constitutional right to abortion entirely, which would mean that about half the states in the country would likely ban abortion altogether, leaving 36 million people without access. This would be disastrous, enlarging the abortion deserts that already exist, and forcing people across the country to carry pregnancies against their will. As with SB 8, the effects of this patchwork landscape would be felt the most by those who are already marginalized.
No matter what the Supreme Court does with Roe, the court already let SB 8 take effect, which means that for Texans the right to abortion currently exists largely in name only. The inability to access abortion beyond the earliest weeks of pregnancy has been and will continue to be devastating for pregnant people in Texas and their families. Sadly, that is precisely the intent of SB 8’s architects and supporters, and whether through copycat bills, 15-week bans, or total abortion bans, courts and legislatures appear prepared to release this devastation on countless more people. But we won’t give up the fight — we will do everything we can to protect the right to abortion, rebuild the right if the Supreme Court dismantles it, and ensure that people can get the care they need.
We need you with us to keep fighting
Donate todayPublished March 17, 2022 at 05:44PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/2dkTQj9
ACLU: Texas’ Bounty Hunter Abortion Ban is a Dire Warning of What Lays Ahead for Our Reproductive Rights
Texas’ Bounty Hunter Abortion Ban is a Dire Warning of What Lays Ahead for Our Reproductive Rights
Published March 17, 2022 at 11:14PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/2dkTQj9
For more than six months, people in Texas have been unable to access abortion in the state beyond the earliest weeks of pregnancy. The state’s extreme, privately-enforced abortion ban, SB 8, has cut off health care for millions — but it didn’t have to be this way. Before the law took effect, we helped Texas abortion providers and abortion support networks bring a legal challenge in federal court that presented the U.S. Supreme Court with the opportunity to protect pregnant Texans and their families by exercising its power to block SB 8. Instead, the court refused to act, allowing the law to take effect while the litigation proceeded. Subsequent decisions by both the U.S. Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of Texas have ended the possibility of any relief from our lawsuit. Unfortunately, this means that SB 8 will likely remain in effect for the foreseeable future.
On the ground, SB 8 is wreaking havoc. Although the law has prohibited access to most abortions in the state, Texans continue to need and seek abortion care. Those with the resources to do so have been forced to flee the state. Individuals with the means to take time off work, find childcare, and pay for transportation have made long journeys to clinics in other states in order to access abortion. Providers thousands of miles away now report seeing Texas patients, and neighboring states — such as Louisiana, Arkansas, and Oklahoma — are overwhelmed with Texas patients. The influx of patients has caused weeks-long wait times in appointments for both traveling Texans and local patients alike. Even for those who are able to access care, SB 8’s delays from travel and wait times are pushing them later into pregnancy. Although abortion is very safe, and much safer than childbirth, each week of unnecessary delay increases the risks of the procedure.
For pregnant Texans beyond six weeks’ gestation who cannot overcome the difficult and costly barriers to leaving the state, SB 8 forecloses access to legal abortion and forces them to continue their pregnancies. The devastating impacts of forced pregnancy will be felt most by already marginalized communities, including people of color and low-income families. For example, undocumented immigrants in South Texas may fear interstate travel due to internal immigration checkpoints, and young people may be unable to take time away from school to get medical care far from home. And it is Black women who will suffer the brunt of the sometimes-deadly effects of forced pregnancy: Texas has a severe maternal mortality crisis, and Black women are three times more likely than white women to die during pregnancy or as a result of childbirth. Abortion bans hurt pregnant people and their families.
To help individuals avoid state-imposed forced pregnancy, abortion providers, funds, and practical support networks have stepped up to assist as many Texans as possible in accessing care in state before six weeks or traveling out of state. Clinics have expanded hours to offer more appointments, abortion funds have increased financial support to help cover the cost of more abortions, and practical support networks have ramped up helping individuals with the costs and logistics of travel, lodging, and childcare.
While these efforts are nothing short of heroic, they are not necessarily sustainable long-term or on a larger scale. Conservative legislatures in other states have been emboldened by the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court allowed SB 8 to take effect, and many are now considering passing their own versions of the Texas law. This could immediately stop some or all abortion access in other states, potentially including neighboring Oklahoma — hurting more individuals and families by not only cutting off care in those states but also eliminating places for Texans to travel for care and pushing people of those states into travel or forced pregnancy.
Unfortunately, SB 8 is only the beginning: What is happening in Texas is not an anomaly, but a harbinger of what may come for reproductive rights in the United States. The Supreme Court recently heard Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a case about Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban where the state asked the court to overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark decision that recognized abortion as a constitutional right. A decision is expected in a few short months, and many have taken the court’s inaction on Texas’s SB 8 as a sign that the court will gut or completely eliminate the constitutional right to abortion.
The court could allow states to ban abortion after 15-weeks of pregnancy, which would cut off weeks of legal care in various states, including in states like Tennessee and Arkansas where challenges are pending to abortion bans at different points in pregnancy, and in states like Arizona and Florida that will likely enact 15-week bans this legislative session. Or the court could eliminate the federal constitutional right to abortion entirely, which would mean that about half the states in the country would likely ban abortion altogether, leaving 36 million people without access. This would be disastrous, enlarging the abortion deserts that already exist, and forcing people across the country to carry pregnancies against their will. As with SB 8, the effects of this patchwork landscape would be felt the most by those who are already marginalized.
No matter what the Supreme Court does with Roe, the court already let SB 8 take effect, which means that for Texans the right to abortion currently exists largely in name only. The inability to access abortion beyond the earliest weeks of pregnancy has been and will continue to be devastating for pregnant people in Texas and their families. Sadly, that is precisely the intent of SB 8’s architects and supporters, and whether through copycat bills, 15-week bans, or total abortion bans, courts and legislatures appear prepared to release this devastation on countless more people. But we won’t give up the fight — we will do everything we can to protect the right to abortion, rebuild the right if the Supreme Court dismantles it, and ensure that people can get the care they need.
We need you with us to keep fighting
Donate todayPublished March 17, 2022 at 11:14PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/2dkTQj9
Wednesday, 16 March 2022
Republic of Madagascar: First Review Under the Extended Credit Facility Arrangement-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Republic of Madagascar
Republic of Madagascar: First Review Under the Extended Credit Facility Arrangement-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Republic of Madagascar
Published March 16, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published March 16, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Tuesday, 15 March 2022
Uganda: 2021 Article IV Consultation and First Review under the Extended Credit Facility Arrangement and Requests for Modifications of Performance Criteria-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Uganda
Uganda: 2021 Article IV Consultation and First Review under the Extended Credit Facility Arrangement and Requests for Modifications of Performance Criteria-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Uganda
Published March 15, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published March 15, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
ACLU: Calling 911 Shouldn’t Lead to an Eviction
Calling 911 Shouldn’t Lead to an Eviction
Published March 15, 2022 at 11:15PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/JfcwUrH
Last week, the federal government took a major step toward ending policies that disproportionately result in the eviction of domestic violence survivors, families of color, and people with disabilities — simply because they place a call to 911 for help.
The latest reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) guarantees the right to report 911 emergencies from one’s home. This means that cities cannot require or threaten evictions or lease non-renewals, impose criminal penalties or fines, refuse to issue rental licenses, or close properties when residents exercise their rights to seek assistance.
The legislation responds to municipal policies that are widespread but usually operate with minimal community awareness or oversight. Cities have enacted local “nuisance” ordinances or adopted “crime-free” housing programs that punish residents who call 911 or who simply live in properties where criminal activities occur, regardless of whether the tenant is at fault. Police departments are typically charged with enforcing these policies, often pressuring landlords to evict families or bear heavy fines or other consequences. They generally provide no notice or process for tenants to contest alleged violations. Tenants find themselves faced with a horrible dilemma: stop seeking help or risk losing their homes.
Research shows that these policies particularly harm communities of color, low-income households, people with disabilities, and domestic violence survivors. For example, a study of Milwaukee, Wisconsin’s ordinance found that properties in Black neighborhoods had the highest likelihood of being deemed “nuisances,” that property owners took steps to discourage tenants from calling 911, and that nearly one third of all nuisance citations arose from domestic violence incidents, resulting in survivors’ evictions. Another study of the effect of Ohio nuisance ordinances showed similar results on survivors of domestic violence, people of color, and people with disabilities.
An ACLU report found that domestic violence made up the single largest category of ordinance enforcement in Binghamton and Fulton, New York and that in Binghamton, landlords’ most common response to a nuisance property warning was pursuing eviction against the tenants who were the subject of police response. And an investigation in Peoria, Illinois revealed that the city concentrated its nuisance ordinance enforcement against buildings with predominantly Black tenants in predominantly Black neighborhoods.
For the last decade, the ACLU, with its state affiliates and many partners, have fought these policies. We have challenged them in court, bringing multiple federal lawsuits on behalf of domestic violence survivors as well as organizations advocating for fair housing and people of color, asserting First Amendment, due process, and Fair Housing Act claims. We also have advocated for state legislation protecting residents from these local policies, enacting new laws in 10 states, as well as calling on numerous cities to refuse to enact or to repeal existing ordinances and programs. Our work succeeded in eliminating many of these harmful policies and procuring relief for tenants who experienced their devastating effects. But these efforts have tackled the issue city by city, state by state.
With the reauthorization of VAWA, all local or state governments that receive federal funding through the Community Development Block Grant Program, which disbursed more than $3 billion last year, must now comply with the new protections once they become effective on October 1. Residents whose rights are violated will also be able to seek remedies, and all governmental grantees will be required to report any policies they have in place to HUD and certify the steps they will take to come into compliance.
Home is not just an address. It is central to all of life’s opportunities — what services, health care, jobs, schools, and transportation people can access, and where we build community with other families. For survivors of domestic violence, secure housing is key to leading lives of dignity. The enactment of these federal protections will ensure that residents can seek emergency assistance without fear of losing their homes.
Stay informed about our work
Sign upPublished March 15, 2022 at 11:15PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/JfcwUrH
ACLU: Calling 911 Shouldn’t Lead to an Eviction
Calling 911 Shouldn’t Lead to an Eviction
Published March 15, 2022 at 05:45PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/JfcwUrH
Last week, the federal government took a major step toward ending policies that disproportionately result in the eviction of domestic violence survivors, families of color, and people with disabilities — simply because they place a call to 911 for help.
The latest reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) guarantees the right to report 911 emergencies from one’s home. This means that cities cannot require or threaten evictions or lease non-renewals, impose criminal penalties or fines, refuse to issue rental licenses, or close properties when residents exercise their rights to seek assistance.
The legislation responds to municipal policies that are widespread but usually operate with minimal community awareness or oversight. Cities have enacted local “nuisance” ordinances or adopted “crime-free” housing programs that punish residents who call 911 or who simply live in properties where criminal activities occur, regardless of whether the tenant is at fault. Police departments are typically charged with enforcing these policies, often pressuring landlords to evict families or bear heavy fines or other consequences. They generally provide no notice or process for tenants to contest alleged violations. Tenants find themselves faced with a horrible dilemma: stop seeking help or risk losing their homes.
Research shows that these policies particularly harm communities of color, low-income households, people with disabilities, and domestic violence survivors. For example, a study of Milwaukee, Wisconsin’s ordinance found that properties in Black neighborhoods had the highest likelihood of being deemed “nuisances,” that property owners took steps to discourage tenants from calling 911, and that nearly one third of all nuisance citations arose from domestic violence incidents, resulting in survivors’ evictions. Another study of the effect of Ohio nuisance ordinances showed similar results on survivors of domestic violence, people of color, and people with disabilities.
An ACLU report found that domestic violence made up the single largest category of ordinance enforcement in Binghamton and Fulton, New York and that in Binghamton, landlords’ most common response to a nuisance property warning was pursuing eviction against the tenants who were the subject of police response. And an investigation in Peoria, Illinois revealed that the city concentrated its nuisance ordinance enforcement against buildings with predominantly Black tenants in predominantly Black neighborhoods.
For the last decade, the ACLU, with its state affiliates and many partners, have fought these policies. We have challenged them in court, bringing multiple federal lawsuits on behalf of domestic violence survivors as well as organizations advocating for fair housing and people of color, asserting First Amendment, due process, and Fair Housing Act claims. We also have advocated for state legislation protecting residents from these local policies, enacting new laws in 10 states, as well as calling on numerous cities to refuse to enact or to repeal existing ordinances and programs. Our work succeeded in eliminating many of these harmful policies and procuring relief for tenants who experienced their devastating effects. But these efforts have tackled the issue city by city, state by state.
With the reauthorization of VAWA, all local or state governments that receive federal funding through the Community Development Block Grant Program, which disbursed more than $3 billion last year, must now comply with the new protections once they become effective on October 1. Residents whose rights are violated will also be able to seek remedies, and all governmental grantees will be required to report any policies they have in place to HUD and certify the steps they will take to come into compliance.
Home is not just an address. It is central to all of life’s opportunities — what services, health care, jobs, schools, and transportation people can access, and where we build community with other families. For survivors of domestic violence, secure housing is key to leading lives of dignity. The enactment of these federal protections will ensure that residents can seek emergency assistance without fear of losing their homes.
Stay informed about our work
Sign upPublished March 15, 2022 at 05:45PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/JfcwUrH
Monday, 14 March 2022
ACLU: Three Artists Explain and Visualize What Black Joy Means to Them
Three Artists Explain and Visualize What Black Joy Means to Them
Published March 15, 2022 at 01:04AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/FMfo39E
We asked three artists to help us visualize what Black joy could look like after we achieve systemic equality — the joy that can exist in an inclusive and equitable world. Learn more about each artist and their work below.
https://infogram.com/1pd3yyg3jneplnumv1nzgwjk2mckg65g7vv?live
Octavia Ink
Black joy is freedom. Black joy is radical. The Black joy to come from systemic equality would change the world. For my personal journey as an artist I’ve been given opportunities I never imagined with the help for my community, family, and friends. Black joy leads to liberation and the freedom of self expression. With this type of community and access to resources I’m starting to paint my canvas; I get to paint my future. Every Black artist deserves that freedom. Finding your identity comes when one is given access to knowledge without boundaries.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSmdNcl5Tjk
Octavia “Ink” Mingerink is a local illustrator, printmaker, and graphic designer. She believes in art as a form of expression, using her art to represent those who are underrepresented while bringing social justice issues to the forefront. As an illustrator, Octavia is driven and inspired by Black women. She’s set out to push forward those who are severely underrepresented and even excluded from the art industry. She wants to see women that look like her at the helm and she reflects that in her art. Constantly utilizing bright colors and dynamic movement in each piece, Octavia loves to incorporate flowers throughout her work. Pushing the message that we should give ourselves our flowers and celebrate growth and joy.
Eliana Rodgers
With this piece, I wanted to focus on the act of freedom. Freedom to laugh, freedom to dance, freedom to create, freedom to thrive in a world without policies and social structures attempting to curtail — even end — your very existence. Within this freedom lives unbridled joy, happiness from your head to your toes, flowing into the earth and into those around you. I see my figure as the embodiment of this joy, a joy so unrestricted and celebrated that it radiates out from her physical being and nourishes the world around her.
Black people are resilient — we’ve created so much already. It is truly intoxicating to think about what we could do with full access and opportunity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSGTqVOzpKs
Eliana Rodgers is a Black biracial illustrator and textile artist based in Brooklyn, New York. In her illustrative work, she creates worlds full of beauty and goods, bright colors and optimism, and individuals who celebrate humanity in all forms. Her illustrations can be found in various national publications such as The New York Times and The Washington Post. She recently illustrated her first children’s picture book, “Ray Ray Paints a Self-Portrait,” about a biracial kindergarten girl who learns to love her curly hair. Eliana graduated from Columbia University in 2018 with a Bachelor’s degree in Visual Arts.
Thaddeus Coates
Visualizing Black joy after systemic equality, for me as a Black creative, means to free ourselves from societal norms and preconceived notions about blackness. Blackness is not a monolith, we are many things, much more than our agony and much more than our pain. We are light, we are the embodiment of excellence. It is important to know that everyday is Black history; we are cultivating a legacy that lives beyond 28 days, we are Black 24/7 and 25/8, we are monumental and it is important to pour into us and we have poured into so many. Black joy is eternal forever and ever. We are infinite.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBhPnpMuf2g
Thaddeus aka Hippy Potter is a NYC-based artist who creates bright and thought-provoking illustrations centered around amplifying Black voices while also focusing on diverse representation, Black queer joy and other important topics. Using vibrant technicolor hues and expressive shapes. His inspiring compositions simultaneously evoke powerful and playful emotions. A common thread of optimism runs strongly throughout his work creating empowering and personal moments between the artist and his viewers. Blending the aesthetics of 80s-era Japanese City Pop and Future Funk with the spirit of 90s-era cartoons, Thaddeus has shaped his own style of illustration that is filled with energy and personality.
Published March 15, 2022 at 01:04AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/FMfo39E
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)