19 May 21
We Can't Do This Without Minimal Funding
We are able to produce Reader Supported News day in-day out, week in-week out on a (small) fraction of what commercial news agencies have to work with. After that the few donations that we need — must — be there. We are not getting those right now. We have to turn our full attention to finishing this funding drive at this time.
In Earnest,
Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News
If you would prefer to send a check:
Reader Supported News
PO Box 2043
Citrus Hts, CA 95611
19 May 21
It's Live on the HomePage Now:
Reader Supported News
NY AG: "We Are Now Actively Investigating the Trump Organization in a Criminal Capacity"
Charles Davis and Sarah Al-Arshani, Business Insider
Excerpt: "The New York Attorney General's office is now conducting a criminal probe into the Trump Organization."
he New York attorney general's office is now conducting a criminal probe into the Trump Organization, a spokesperson told CNN on Tuesday.
"We have informed the Trump Organization that our investigation into the Organization is no longer purely civil in nature," spokesperson Fabien Levy told the outlet. "We are now actively investigating the Trump Organization in a criminal capacity, along with the Manhattan DA."
The news comes weeks after it was revealed that Michael Cohen, former President Donald Trump's onetime personal attorney, had been interviewed multiple times by Manhattan's district attorney. The DA's criminal inquiry has focused on whether the Trump Organization - an umbrella company for the former president's business interests - engaged in tax and insurance fraud, among other crimes.
Speaking to Insider, Cohen said his former boss should expect more bad news.
"As more documents are reviewed by the NYAG and NYDA, it appears that the troubles for Donald Trump just keep on coming," he said. "Soon enough, Donald and associates will be held responsible for their actions."
Attorney General Letitia James's office had been working with Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance's office since 2019.
Vance is looking at documents such as Trump's tax returns to see if the former president's organization misled lenders about the value of their properties and paid appropriate taxes.
Last week, prosecutors from Vance's office subpoenaed Columbia Grammar & Preparatory School, an elite private school attended by Allen Weisselberg's grandchildren. Weisselberg is the chief financial officer of the Trump Organization.
The children's mother, Jennifer Weisselberg, previously told Insider that Trump would include school tuition in compensation packages to her husband, Barry Weisselberg.
Prosecutors are looking into whether including tuition in the compensation package allowed Barry or Allen Weisselberg to avoid paying taxes.
A spokesperson for the former president did not immediately return a request for comment.
Amy Coney Barrett. (photo: Diego M. Radzinschi/ALM)
Amy Coney Barrett Took Speaking Fees From a Group That Pushed Mississippi's Abortion Ban
Michelle Mark, Insider
Mark writes: "The Alliance Defending Freedom has boasted of its efforts to restrict abortions across the country, and took credit for the legislation passed in Mississippi."
hen the Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear a challenge to a Mississippi law banning most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, the news prompted renewed speculation about whether the court's conservative majority will overturn the precedent set by Roe v. Wade.
That speculation in part stems from the newest justice to join the bench, Amy Coney Barrett, having won near-universal praise from anti-abortion groups, including one that has claimed credit for the Mississippi law.
Judd Legum's Popular Information newsletter on Tuesday resurfaced Barrett's "ties to the group that wrote Mississippi's abortion ban," the Alliance Defending Freedom. The Christian legal advocacy group opposes abortion and same-sex marriage, and backs so-called "bathroom bills" that restrict transgender people's access to sex-segregated facilities.
The Southern Poverty Law Center has called the ADF an anti-LGBTQ hate group, though Barrett has previously noted that the SPLC's classification has been "a matter of public controversy."
Barrett spoke on five occasions at the Blackstone Legal Fellowship, a summer program run by the ADF, since 2011, according to tax filings reported by The Washington Post. One financial disclosure form from Barrett's 2017 Senate confirmation to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals showed she had received two $2,100 payments from ADF in 2015 and 2016.
The ADF has boasted of its efforts to restrict abortions across the country, and took credit for the legislation passed in Mississippi.
"I am happy to say the first 15-week limitation based on our model language was just introduced in the state of Mississippi this week," ADF's senior counsel, Denise Burke, said in 2018, according to the Jackson Free Press.
The group also congratulated Barrett when she was confirmed to the Supreme Court last year and expressed optimism that she would issue rulings favorable to them. The group issued a similar statement in 2018 when Justice Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed.
"We are hopeful that she with other justices will uphold Americans' fundamental freedoms, including free speech, religious freedom, parental rights, and the right to life from conception to natural death," ADF President and CEO Michael Farris said in a statement.
Barrett distanced herself from the group when Senate Democrats questioned her both in 2017 and 2020 about the speeches to the Blackstone Legal Fellowship, saying she hadn't immediately been aware that the program was run by ADF.
"I don't feel like affiliation with a group commits me to all of that group's policy positions," she told then-Sen. Al Franken in 2017.
Justices don't typically recuse themselves over speaking engagements
Louis Virelli III, a constitutional law expert at Stetson University and author of a book about Supreme Court recusals, told Insider there was almost no chance Barrett would recuse herself from the abortion case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, over the past speaking engagements.
"Justices regularly speak to groups like this - to groups that might have an interest in a case before the court," Virelli said. "I can't think of a case where simply having spoken to a group who then has an interest in a case before the court would trigger recusal."
The matter would be different if Barrett had spoken to the group specifically about Mississippi's Gestational Age Act, the law at issue in the upcoming case, Virelli said. But Barrett spoke to Blackstone about the judicial philosophy of originalism, not a specific abortion statute, according to a 24-page slideshow and four-page presentation handout she submitted to the Senate.
Virelli said justices do commonly recuse themselves from cases when there's a clear-cut financial conflict, such as stock ownership, or from cases they worked on before joining the Supreme Court.
Justice Elena Kagan, for instance, recused herself from more than 20 cases in her first year on the bench because she had worked on those cases during her previous role as US solicitor general.
If Democrats do push Barrett to recuse herself from the abortion case due to a conflict of interest, it wouldn't be the first time.
Just last month, Barrett ignored calls from Democrats to recuse herself from two cases involving the conservative Americans for Prosperity Foundation, run by David and Charles Koch. The group reportedly spent at least $1 million on ads advocating for Barrett's confirmation to the Supreme Court.
Unlike previous official calls for general strikes, this one was organized and pushed for by ordinary Palestinians. (photo: AFP)
Palestinians to Stage Nationwide General Strike as Air Raids Pummel Gaza
Shatha Hammad, Middle East Eye
Hammad writes: "Palestinians across the political divide have said a nationwide general strike will commence to protest Israel's continuing bombardment of the besieged Gaza Strip."
Strike will be held across occupied Palestinian territories as well as Palestinian towns inside Israel on Tuesday, as intense Israeli bombing shows no signs of abating
alestinians across the political divide have said a nationwide general strike will commence on Tuesday to protest Israel's continuing bombardment of the besieged Gaza Strip.
The strike, which will see the disruption of all economic and commercial establishments in Jerusalem, the occupied West Bank, Gaza and Palestinian communities inside Israel, comes as more than 200 people, including 61 children, have been killed in intense Israeli attacks on the besieged enclave of two million people.
The strike also comes amid plans to forcibly displace residents of the Palestinian neighbourhood of Sheikh Jarrah, and days of attacks at the al-Aqsa Mosque compound.
News of the initiative was welcomed by Palestinian political parties, unions, syndicates and institutions, which published statements confirming their commitment. Residents of the occupied Syrian Golan Heights have also declared that they would partake.
When the masses call, the establishment heeds
Unlike previous calls for general strikes, which have historically been made by political parties, unions or federations, Tuesday's strike was organised and pushed for by ordinary Palestinians.
The High Follow-Up Committee for Arab Citizens of Israel said in a statement that it had taken a decision to include all sectors in the strike, with private education being the only exclusion.
For its part, the Fatah Central Committee called for Palestinians across the West Bank to adhere to the general strike, and referred to it as a popular "day of rage."
The Palestinian National and Islamic Forces coalition also released a statement in support of the strike and urged mobilisations to take place at various places, including Israeli-manned checkpoints.
Palestinian prisoners also announced they would participate and said they would not communicate with Israeli prison administrators.
General strikes as a tool of popular resistance
The Palestinians have long used general strikes as a tool to express their rejection of Israeli practices.
The planned strike is reminiscent of a famous six-month strike that took place in 1936, which involved the whole country and was aimed at pressuring Britain to end policies that paved the way for the creation of Israel.
A general strike also took place during what is termed the "rocks intifada" of 1987-1993, when Palestinians responded to Israeli attacks by paralysing the economy and refusing to deal with the Israeli establishment in charge of affairs in the West Bank and Gaza, prior to the creation of the Palestinian Authority (PA).
During that intifada, Palestinians adhered to a general strike every week on Tuesday.
Sari Orabi, a Palestinian journalist and analyst, told Middle East Eye that strikes are a method of popular protest and rejection.
"Palestinians have a deep-rooted memory of popular struggle using strikes, since the British colonisation of Palestine, and in particular the famous strike of 1936," Orabi said.
He explained that during the rocks intifada, strikes were "an act of civil disobedience" against Israeli forces who maintained a presence in city centres and towns through their civil administration, a body answerable to the Israeli military, which controlled Palestinian civil affairs at the time.
"The occupation was attempting to end the strike by trying to force Palestinians to open their stores. Those who continued to adhere to the strike were punished by having their store doors destroyed," Orabi said.
Are strikes still effective?
Historically, general strikes were used to mobilise the masses, and unify merchants, workers and students. However, a significant shift was noticed after the arrival of the PA and the Oslo Accords.
"The arrival of the PA meant the presence of a local authority that manages the affairs of the Palestinians, both civil and security. The Israelis left the densely populated areas and there was no longer direct friction, which led to a decline in the effectiveness and impact of strikes," said Orabi.
While the impact of strikes has diminished, they continue to hold moral value in uniting Palestinians in a single expression of protest and rejection.
Orabi said he believes the upcoming strike would be successful if it comes as part of a new national context and acts as a prelude to a new form of struggle that encompasses all Palestinians.
Strikes as a milestone
Political analyst Bilal Shweiki told MEE that the measurable and material impact of the strike will be inside the 1948-occupied territories. By disrupting daily life and putting pressure on Israeli authorities, the impact will be stronger and clearer than in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
"Despite the weak impact of strikes in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, this does not negate their importance," he continued, explaining that during this political phase, they have a large moral effect.
Shweiki said the moral effect of the strike is represented by overcoming colonial divisions imposed on Palestine, including those stemming from the Oslo Accords.
"In this strike, Palestinians are emerging unified, regardless of the colonial space that they are permitted to exist in.
"The idea of a unified strike constitutes a lever for joint Palestinian national action. It is also a declaration of rejection against all agreements that divide the land."
The strike, he continued, constitutes a shift in unified political action, especially in the occupied territories, where the struggle for civil rights is transformed into a national struggle against settler colonialism.
"We are witnessing a turning point in Palestinian history, and this strike will constitute a turning point in our history."
A mobile billboard calling for higher taxes on the ultra-wealthy, to mark Tax Day, parked near the US Capitol on May 17. (photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
Seriously, Just Tax the Rich
Emily Stewart, Vox
Stewart writes: "What the debate about paying for infrastructure misses."
hether the government should tax rich people more to pay for spending priorities is a source of endless debate. Here’s another idea: Tax the rich because it’s the right thing to do.
Most recently, this debate has popped up around President Joe Biden’s aspirations to invest in infrastructure, jobs, child care, and other items. The White House and many Democrats in Congress are wondering how (and whether) to pay for it. Some are pushing to increase taxes on the wealthy and corporations, arguing that they at least need to raise some revenue if they want to send so much money out the door.
Others in the more progressive vein, however, question whether Democrats need to bother to come up with “pay-fors” at all. After all, Republicans didn’t worry much about the deficit when they passed a $1.5 trillion tax cut back in 2017. Plus, they note, concerns about the debt can be widely overblown; interest rates are low and may be for a while, so if there’s a moment to take on debt, it’s now. It’s a politically useful stance because some moderate Democrats are reportedly nervous about the idea of raising taxes.
Sometimes, the haggling and hemming and hawing over what to do about the debt overshadow a point that many Americans find obvious: It’s simply a good, fair idea to tax the wealthy. They have disproportionately reaped the benefits of economic growth and the stock market in recent years, contributing to increasing inequality in the United States. The divide has become even more obvious during the Covid-19 pandemic, during which billionaires have managed to add heaps of dollars to their wealth even as millions of people were knocked on their heels. Some ultra-rich people in the US keep getting richer no matter how much of their money they give away. They literally cannot stop adding to their coffers.
“The market has produced an increasingly unequal distribution of income, and tax policy — and spending as well — are the way that we use government policy to push back and restrain those market-driven increases in inequality,” said David Wessel, a senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution and the director of the Hutchins Center on Fiscal and Monetary Policy. “The fact is that the market forces producing more inequality seem to be growing, and the government’s willingness to use its power to push against that seems to be waning.”
The chips of the economy are stacked in rich people’s favor, and they’re getting handed more chips constantly. So why not take a few chips away?
The wealthy are grabbing a big share of prosperity. The government can grab it back.
Rich people have done very well in the economy in recent decades. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the share of before-tax income captured by the richest 20 percent of households increased from 46 percent in 1979 to 54 percent in 2016. For the top 1 percent, income share went from 9 percent to 16 percent — more than the entire income brought in by the bottom 40 percent of households. The 2017 tax cut bill disproportionately benefited rich people and corporations. During the pandemic, many high-income Americans say that their financial situation has improved over the past year. They saved money they would have ordinarily spent on vacations and going out to eat, and as the stock market soared, so did their net worth.
The wealthy are simply the group best able to afford to pay higher taxes. (Though to be sure, most people define the wealthy as “people who make more than me.”)
“We ought to start with the people who have benefited the most over the last couple of decades,” Wessel said.
The US tax code is already somewhat progressive, though several other rich countries have significantly higher top income tax rates, and the top income tax rate in the US used to be much higher, too. According to a recent report from the Joint Committee on Taxation, people making more than $1 million in 2018 paid an average tax rate of 31.5 percent, and those making upward of $500,000 paid an average rate of 28.9 percent, combining income, payroll, excise, and corporate taxes. Still, there are plenty of ways that the wealthy use the tax code to their advantage — an advantage the White House is seeking to cut off.
As it stands currently, long-term capital gains on investments such as stocks are taxed at a lower rate than income. In other words, if you make money off of the sale of a stock you’ve had for a while, it’s taxed at a lower rate than if you’d made the same amount of money through working. The Biden administration is eyeing overhauling the capital gains rate for people making $1 million or more, so that those gains would be taxed at the highest individual rate, which the president’s tax plan would put at 39.6 percent. (The 2017 tax bill lowered the highest rate to 37 percent). The White House is also pushing Congress to close the carried interest loophole that lets private equity and hedge fund managers have their gains taxed at a lower rate.
Democrats are also looking at changing how inherited wealth is taxed, including the “stepped-up basis” tax code provision. As it stands, if a rich person sees their wealth go up by $1 billion in, for example, stock, when they sell that investment, they’ll be taxed on their $1 billion gain. But if they never sell and the investment gets passed to their heirs when they die, their heirs are taxed at the baseline of what it’s worth when they get it. If and when they sell, they’re only taxed on new gains.
“We don’t collect as much as we ought to from rich guys because they could hold their stock until death, and then their heirs get a stepped-up basis, and all the gains, all the appreciation over their lifetimes, is simply income taxes avoided,” said Steve Rosenthal, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute’s Tax Policy Center.
Biden has also proposed trying to raise taxes on the wealthy without really touching the tax code and just trying to more fully collect what they already owe. He wants Congress to direct some $80 billion to the IRS over the next decade to try to beef up enforcement and close the “tax gap” — the difference between what the IRS gets in taxes versus what it is owed. IRS chief Charles Rettig has estimated that it could amount to $1 trillion every year.
A 2019 paper from Natasha Sarin, now deputy assistant secretary at the Treasury Department, and economist Larry Summers estimated that the tax gap would total $7.5 trillion from 2020 to 2029, with most benefits going to the wealthy. (Official IRS estimates from 2011 to 2013 put the tax gap at about $441 billion each year.)
In March this year, the Washington Center for Equitable Growth published a paper on tax evasion that estimated the top 1 percent of earners underreport about one-fifth of their income. The research suggested that collecting all unpaid federal income tax from the richest Americans would increase revenues by $175 billion each year. However, tax enforcement is difficult and takes a long time. (Remember Donald Trump’s taxes and endless audits?) IRS agents with the adequate experience and know-how to deal with complex audits can take years to train and replace. And even once the IRS is staffed up, it’s unlikely it will be able to capture all the money that’s owed.
Rosenthal has expressed concerns about the estimates from the Washington Center for Equitable Growth paper and says he believes the answer is to beef up the tax code with simpler laws that require additional reporting. It is true that the IRS could collect more in taxes, but rich people are pretty good at avoiding that. He prefers to raise taxes on corporations — Biden has proposed increasing the corporate tax rate from 21 percent to 28 percent — as a way to tax the rich. Wealthy people and foreigners disproportionately own stocks and benefit from slashes to the corporate tax rate.
“When we increase taxes on corporations, which falls on shareholders, it falls on those who have already benefited from Trump’s tax cuts and who have overwhelmingly benefited from the run-up in the stock market,” Rosenthal said.
Beyond what’s on the White House’s agenda, there is a plethora of proposals for taxing the wealthy. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) ran on a wealth tax, which would tax the fortunes of the super-rich, though Biden has not embraced it. Senate Budget Committee Chair Bernie Sanders (I-VT) recently rolled out his own proposal to tax corporations and the rich as well.
One challenge to making any changes to the tax law is making sure they are robust enough that people don’t just find a way to avoid them. “If you spend a lot of political capital on taxing the rich and you spend a lot of time setting up something … and then you discover the people you want to tax are extremely good at finding ways not to pay the tax, then have you really accomplished anything?” Wessel said.
Some Republicans and business leaders fear that if the US taxes rich people and companies too much, it will make the country less competitive, or the wealthy will flee. Democrats pushing to get rid of the cap on the state and local tax deduction — which generally impacts well-off people in blue states — argue that the cap will encourage wealthy people to go to lower-tax states. But there’s not a lot of evidence of millionaire migration from blue states to red states over the tax code. And many rich people and corporations prefer to live and do business in the US, even if it means a slightly higher tax liability.
“The Republicans think every time you tax someone who’s rich ... somehow, they’ll work less hard, invest less, and we’ll all suffer. And Democrats say that’s simply not true,” Wessel said. “I think the evidence is on the Democrats’ side, as long as you don’t overdo it.”
Taxing the rich makes the economy feel fairer
Lots of people right now say the economy seems unfair. It feels like the system is rigged in favor of the people who need help the least. And that makes many people lose faith in the economy — it’s easier to believe in America when you feel like America isn’t stacked for winners.
That’s part of why taxing rich people and corporations is so popular. Like, really, really popular. Eight in 10 Americans say they are bothered by some corporations and the wealthy not paying their fair share in taxes, according to Pew Research Center. A recent Morning Consult/Politico poll found that paying for infrastructure by increasing taxes on those groups made Biden’s infrastructure plan more popular, not less.
Taxing rich people can’t pay for everything Democrats would perhaps like to, but for many progressives, that’s beside the point.
“We do not have to tax to have nice things, we tax for predistribution and redistribution. In order to have nice things, we print money and we invest in the things that we need,” said Solana Rice, co-founder and co-executive director of Liberation in a Generation, which pushes for economic policies that reduce racial disparities. “We almost couldn’t tax enough to really pay for all the things that we need, so it’s a ruse.”
With money comes power, and taxing those who can afford it more fairly could result in a more even distribution of that. “When you have such a massive concentration of wealth in the hands of so few, that ultimately leads to a greater concentration of power in the hands of so few,” said Dana Bye, campaign director of the Tax March, a progressive tax group. Overhauling the tax code won’t fix all of the country’s issues, but it might not hurt, either, and could address some egregious imbalances. Billionaire investor Warren Buffett claimed to pay a lower tax rate than his secretary for years; former President Donald Trump bragged about his low tax liability.
What happens to revenue from potential tax increases matters — if Democrats want to tax the wealthy in order to help people at the bottom of the income spectrum or pay for infrastructure, it is important that they’re deliberate about that. And raising taxes is never easy: There are plenty of constituents, from business groups to lobbyists to voters, who push back.
“That’s why Congress has been doing all of these deficit spending bills,” Rosenthal said. “It’s hard to get anyone to agree on taxes.”
But just because it is hard to tax rich people doesn’t mean Democrats shouldn’t do it. Biden has promised to go big and bold on the economy and push the country in a more progressive, broadly beneficial direction. This is a way to help him get there.
These mothers from Nicaragua are trying to migrate to the U.S. with their daughters. They made it to Texas, but many are caught before they get across the border from Mexico. (photo: John Moore/Getty Images)
The Children Trapped at the US Border and Their Stories
Nicola Abé and Luis Chaparro, Der Spiegel
Excerpt: "Thousands of unaccompanied minors from Latin America are trying to make their way to the United States, where their parents have already arrived. But their dream often ends when they arrive at the border. Two children share the stories of their journey."
t’s a sad place – one where children’s dreams are shattered. The Noemi Alvarez Quillay shelter for unaccompanied immigrant minors is located in downtown Ciudad Juárez, near the border to the United States, a nondescript, flat concrete building with barred windows. More than 100 children between the ages of three and 16 are currently being held here. The parents of many of them have already made it to the United States.
The crisis at the border between Mexico and the U.S. has been coming to a head in recent months, with hundreds of children from Latin America currently arriving in Mexico every day. In March alone, the U.S. Border Patrol apprehended 19,000 unaccompanied minors on American soil – more than ever before in a single month - and the reception camps in the U.S. are overcrowded. But those who succeed in getting across the border at least have the hope of a new life. Currently, unaccompanied minors are not immediately deported from the U.S.
The situation is different when children arrive in the U.S. with their parents. Then, under an epidemic protection order issued under former President Donald Trump, the family is often transported back to Mexico within hours, without even being given the opportunity to apply for asylum. This has led many parents to separate from their children before they reach the border and send them off on their own.
But even that isn’t much of a guarantee. If the children get caught on the Mexican side by police or border guards – and this often happens at the last minute, just before they reach their destination – they end up in this shelter in Ciudad Juárez or somewhere similar. Most of the children here are now waiting to be deported back to their home countries.
"They are very strong,” says Claudia Villalobos, a psychologist at the shelter. "They don’t realize what a dangerous journey they have taken on.” In a way, this protects the children from trauma. "What really gets to them is the fact that the opportunity has passed, that they didn't make it. They feel like failures.”
It can take months before the children are finally deported – a time in which they are neither allowed to leave the compound nor go to school. There are activities like painting, chess, sports, a courtyard and a TV room where they can watch things like "The Lion King.” The children sleep in bunk beds. The toilets at the shelter can’t be locked from the inside to prevent suicides.
DER SPIEGEL contributor Luis Chaparro was able to speak to children at the shelter. Here, two of those children tell their stories from their point of view. Their experiences are similar to those of many refugees and migrants. To protect the children, we have changed their names. Their real names are only known to the reporters.
"I thought I was going to die,” Juliana Fernandez, 10, from Honduras
"I miss my mommy. She went to the U.S. five years ago and works as a maid in a hotel in Kansas City. She planned to bring me there a little while later. But then she told me on the phone that it wasn’t a good time for me to go because of the president at the time. I ended up staying with my father in Honduras. But he was getting worse and worse. He came home drunk every day. We argued because he kept the money my mom sent for me.
I called my mom in January and told her everything. She told me to come to her. Then, one day, my aunt came and told me it was time to go. I took a backpack with a few clothes. My aunt and I joined a caravan. There were maybe 300 people. We walked across the border into Mexico.
In Mexico, we had to ride in the trunks of cars. Once, we were in a big truck with a lot of other people and I was terrified. I felt like I couldn’t breathe. I thought I was going to die.
My aunt took me as far as the city of Puebla, where she then headed back to Honduras. I miss her. I don’t know where she is now. I continued traveling with other families until I reached the border in Ciudad Juárez (which is located around 2,000 kilometers away from Puebla). Then a man told me to walk across the riverbed and then contact the U.S. border police. But when I set off, a policeman stopped me and I was brought here.
I am allowed to talk to my mom on the phone once a week. I called her when I first got here. She was happy because she thought I was in the U.S. Then she was very sad when I told her I didn’t make it. She cried.
The lawyers say my case is very difficult. I have to wait now until a decision is made about whether I can go to my mom. I know that this former president, Donald Trump, hated migrants and built a wall, but he is gone now. I could go to school in the U.S. and learn English, and I’m sure I would make friends there. I can’t go home. I don’t miss home. I want to be with my mom.”
"I’m ashamed because I didn’t make it,” José Lopez, 14, from Guatemala
"I left because I wanted to help my family. We come from a poor village in Guatemala. We grew corn and coffee, but two hurricanes destroyed our entire crop. My dad is too old to work. My mother is ill. It was my dream to help them because I’m the oldest.
After the hurricanes, we had to beg. Then we decided as a family that I should go to the U.S. to work. I don’t know how much money my parents paid the smugglers. But it must have been a lot, because we sold our land.
In February, a man from the village told us that now was a good time to leave because there was a new president in power in the U.S. who had opened the doors for all of us. The man took my father and me to the border between Guatemala and Mexico and we continued by bus. Another man welcomed us in the city of San Luis PotosÃ. We had a code word, but it was the wrong one. So we had to pay the man money again and we were given a new code word.
The smugglers told us it would be better if my father stayed there, and I continued my journey alone. He said that if the police arrested me alone, they wouldn’t send me back, but they would if I were together with my dad. We waited a few days. The smugglers said it was our decision, but warned that we would be wasting a lot of money if my father came along.
So, I went on my own. We said our goodbyes and my father told me to take care of myself and to call him when I arrived in the U.S. I didn’t feel good about it. I tried to think of the U.S. My plan was to work at a construction site in Virginia. Then I could have sent money home.
The smuggler and I continued on different buses. They said that if anyone asked me, I should say the smuggler was my uncle. In Ciudad Juárez, they put me in a trunk. I was afraid. I know that many migrants are kidnapped and killed in Mexico. I was taken to a house with many people. We stayed there for about a week. Then we were in a hotel room.
Then one day, the smuggler said it was time. He took a girl and me and brought us to the border. We tried to run across, but Mexican soldiers stopped us. That was the worst moment, because I knew I had now wasted all my family’s money and would come back with nothing. I miss my father and mother, but I am ashamed because I didn’t make it.
I don’t know what is going to happen to me now. Either my father will pick me up here or I will have to wait until they take me back to Guatemala by plane. I speak to my mother by phone once a week. We don’t know where my father is and we can’t reach him. Maybe he doesn’t have a phone anymore.
I don’t think I can try this again. It costs a lot of money. Where are we supposed to get the money? I heard that the new American president is supposed to be good to migrants. But I don’t know if that’s true. Is it true?"
Migrants resting after arriving in the Spanish territory on Tuesday. (photo: Javier Fergo/AP)
50 Migrants Die After Dinghy Sinks in the Mediterranean Sea
teleSUR
Excerpt: "The International Organization for Migration on Tuesday reported that at least 50 people drowned off the coast of Tunisia when the dinghy carrying them to Europe capsized."
The boat departed from Libya on Sunday and sank due to overweight and weather conditions such as continuous rain, strong winds, and high waves.
he International Organization for Migration (IOM) on Tuesday reported that at least 50 people drowned off the coast of Tunisia when the dinghy carrying them to Europe capsized.
The boat departed from Libya on Sunday and sank due to overweight and weather conditions such as continuous rain, strong winds, and high waves.
About 30 African migrants were rescued by coast guard units and taken to Tunisia, according to IOM spokesperson Safa Msahli.
This would be the deadliest deadly shipwreck so far in 2021 off the coast of Tunisia after 41 people were shipwrecked on April 14.
On May 14, the Red Crescent also reported the disappearance at sea of at least 17 migrants from sub-Saharan and Sahelian countries. They were drifting in a dinghy that had left one of the beaches surrounding the Libyan city of Zawiya.
According to the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR), around 23,500 African migrants have reached the coasts of Italy and Spain.
Approximately 633 people have disappeared at sea, mostly on the route from Tunisia and Libya to Italy, which is considered one of the deadliest routes in the world. So far this year, over 7,000 migrants have been intercepted by patrol boats and returned to Libya.
Roughly 30 people affiliated with People's Rights Oregon gathered at Klamath Irrigation District headquarters in Klamath Falls, Ore., on Thursday. (photo: Alex Schwartz/The Herald And News/AP)
Critically Endangered Salmon Left to Die As Drought Worsens in Oregon
Gillian Flaccus, Associated Press
Flaccus writes: "The water crisis along the California-Oregon border went from dire to catastrophic this week as federal regulators shut off irrigation water to farmers from a critical reservoir and said they would not send extra water to dying salmon downstream or to a half-dozen wildlife refuges that harbor millions of migrating birds each year."
he water crisis along the California-Oregon border went from dire to catastrophic this week as federal regulators shut off irrigation water to farmers from a critical reservoir and said they would not send extra water to dying salmon downstream or to a half-dozen wildlife refuges that harbor millions of migrating birds each year.
In what is shaping up to be the worst water crisis in generations, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation said it will not release water this season into the main canal that feeds the bulk of the massive Klamath Reclamation Project, marking a first for the 114-year-old irrigation system. The agency announced last month that hundreds of irrigators would get dramatically less water than usual, but a worsening drought picture means water will be completely shut off instead.
The entire region is in extreme or exceptional drought, according to federal monitoring reports, and Oregon’s Klamath County is experiencing its driest year in 127 years.
“This year’s drought conditions are bringing unprecedented hardship to the communities of the Klamath Basin,” said Reclamation Deputy Commissioner Camille Calimlim Touton, calling the decision one of “historic consequence.” “Reclamation is dedicated to working with our water users, tribes and partners to get through this difficult year and developing long-term solutions for the basin.”
The canal, a major component of the federally operated Klamath Reclamation Project, funnels Klamath River water from the Upper Klamath Lake just north of the Oregon-California border to more than 130,000 acres (52,600 hectares), where generations of ranchers and farmers have grown hay, alfalfa and potatoes and grazed cattle.
Only one irrigation district within the 200,000-acre (80,940-hectare) project will receive any water from the Klamath River system this growing season, and it will have a severely limited supply, the Klamath Water Users Association said in a statement. Some other farmers rely on water from a different river, and they will also have a limited supply.
“This just couldn’t be worse,” said Klamath Irrigation District president Ty Kliewer. “The impacts to our family farms and these rural communities will be off the scale.”
At the same time, the agency said it would not release any so-called “flushing flows” from the same dam on the Upper Klamath Lake to bolster water levels downstream in the lower Klamath River. The river is key to the survival of coho salmon, which are listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. In better water years the pulses of water help keep the river cool and turbulent — conditions that help the fragile species. The fish are central to the diet and culture of the Yurok Tribe, California’s largest federally recognized tribe.
The tribe said this week that low flows from drought and from previous mismanagement of the river by the federal agency was causing a die-off of juvenile salmon from a bacterial disease that flourishes when water levels are low. Yurok fish biologists who have been testing the baby salmon in the lower Klamath River are finding that 70% of the fish are already dead in the traps used to collect them and 97% are infected by the bacteria known as C. shasta.
“Right now, the Klamath River is full of dead and dying fish on the Yurok Reservation,” said Frankie Myers, vice chairman of the Yurok Tribe. “This disease will kill most of the baby salmon in the Klamath, which will impact fish runs for many years to come. For salmon people, a juvenile fish kill is an absolute worst-case scenario.”
Irrigators, meanwhile, reacted with disbelief as the news of a water shut-off in the canals spread. A newsletter published by the Klamath Water Users Association, which represents many of the region’s farmers, blared the headline, “Worst Day in the History of the Klamath Project.” Farmers reported already seeing dust storms that obscured vision for 100 yards (91 meters), and they worried about their wells running dry.
About 30 protesters showed up Thursday at the head gates of the main dam to protest the shut-off and ask the irrigation district to defy federal orders and divert the water. The Herald and News reported that they were with a group called People’s Rights, a far-right organization founded by anti-government activist Ammon Bundy.
Oregon Gov. Kate Brown and California Gov. Gavin Newsom, both Democrats, have declared drought emergencies in the region, and the Bureau of Reclamation has set aside $15 million in immediate aid for irrigators. Another $10 million will be available for drought assistance from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Ben DuVal, president of the Klamath Water Users Association, urged his members to remain peaceful and not let the water crisis “be hijacked for other causes.”
The seasonal allocations are the region’s most dramatic development since irrigation water was all but cut off to hundreds of farmers in 2001 amid another severe drought — the first time farmers’ interests took a backseat to fish and tribes.
The crisis made the rural farming region hundreds of miles from any major city a national political flashpoint and became a touchstone for Republicans who used the crisis to take aim at the Endangered Species Act, with one GOP lawmaker calling the irrigation shutoff a “poster child” for why changes were needed. A “bucket brigade” protest attracted 15,000 people who scooped water from the Klamath River and passed it, hand over hand, to a parched irrigation canal.
The situation in the Klamath Basin was set in motion more than a century ago, when the U.S. government began draining a network of shallow lakes and marshlands, redirecting the natural flow of water and constructing hundreds of miles of canals and drainage channels to create farmland. Homesteads were offered by lottery to World War II veterans.
The project turned the region into an agricultural powerhouse — some of its potato farmers supply In ’N Out burger — but permanently altered an intricate water system that spans hundreds of miles and from southern Oregon to Northern California.
In 1988, two species of sucker fish were listed as endangered under federal law. Less than a decade later, coho salmon that spawn downstream from the reclamation project, in the lower Klamath River, were listed as threatened.
The water necessary to sustain the coho salmon downstream comes from Upper Klamath Lake — the main holding tank for the farmers’ irrigation system. At the same time, the sucker fish in the lake need at least 1 to 2 feet (30 to 60 centimeters) of water covering the gravel beds they use as spawning grounds.
The drought also means farmers this summer will not flush irrigation water into a network of six national wildlife refuges that are collectively called the Klamath National Wildlife Refuge Complex. The refuges, nicknamed the Everglades of the West, support up to 80% of the birds that migrate on the Pacific Flyway. The refuges also support the largest concentrations of wintering Bald Eagles in the lower 48 states.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.