An old joke in the newspaper world holds that The Wall Street Journal is read by the people who run the country, The New York Times by those who think they run the country, The Washington Post by those who think they ought to run the country and The Boston Globe by people whose parents used to run the country. Whether or not that is true, The Wall Street Journal does hold tremendous sway. It reaches one of the largest audiences and has some of the richest and most-powerful readers of any newspaper. I read it religiously. They have fun with the writing. It is one of the premier writing institutions in the country.
The Journal has a strong grasp on a group of readers who have the disposable income to spend on big-ticket items. It is the paper of record. Starkman said The Journal has lost some of its luster in recent years. Part of that is a general decline in newspaper readership and part of it is because The Journal is now focusing on more hard business news — inside baseball-type of coverage.
Part of that is because of the large staff that digs deeply into topics. Today, The Journal has a news staff of more than worldwide, according to Robert H. Christie, spokesman for the paper. Starkman said The Journal covers everything — from credit cards to banks to cars to the food supply. Not only does the paper cover business, but it also reviews wines, and is a leading voice on technology.
The paper has won 33 Pulitzer Prizes, including one awarded in to Joe Morgenstern for his film reviews. Who Reads the Newspapers. God knows where it came from originally. Two children detained by the Border Patrol in a holding cell in Nogales, Ariz. Passons sur la comparaison. Certains ont voulu critiquer la politique migratoire de Donald Trump en usant de photos datant de… Comment est-ce possible? Chaque mois, Si vous faites passer un enfant, nous vous poursuivrons. Le titre? Mais je ne pouvais pas.
Delphine Bernard-Bruls Le Monde Dans le Time, M. La plupart venaient du Honduras. Je suis actuellement de retour chez moi, dans le Connecticut. The crying Honduran girl on the cover of Time was not separated from her mother. Agents patted down the mother for less than two minutes, and she immediately picked up her daughter, who then stopped crying.
Is the kid okay? The revelation has prompted a round of media criticism from the White House and other conservatives. The separation here is from the facts. The heart-wrenching image, captured by award-winning Getty Images photographer John Moore , was spread across the front pages of international newspapers.
The girl was not carried away screaming by U. Border Patrol agents; her mother picked her up and the two were taken away together. Moore, the photographer, told The Post in an email that Time corrected the story after he made a request minutes after it was published. As a photojournalist, my job is to inform and report what is happening, but I also think it is important to humanize an issue that is often reported in statistics.
He knew only that they were from Honduras and had been on the road for about a month. Moore said the woman picked up her daughter, they walked into the van, and the van drove away. Yanela is turning 2 years old in July. After Sanchez left, Varela had no way to contact her or learn of her whereabouts. He heard that U. Donald Trump Jr. At least 2, migrant children have been separated from their parents at the border since May 5.
He hopes that U. The father of the Honduran girl who became the face of the family separation crisis has revealed that he still has not been in touch with his wife or daughter but was happy to learn they are safe. Denis Javier Varela Hernandez, 32, said that he had not heard from his wife Sandra, 32, who was with his two-year-old daughter Yanela Denise, for nearly three weeks until he saw the image of them being apprehended in Texas.
In an exclusive interview with DailyMail. It broke my heart. I asked her, why? Why would she want to put our little girl through that? But it was her decision at the end of the day. Denis, who works as a captain at a port on the coast of Puerto Cortes, explained that things back home were fine but not great, and that his wife was seeking political asylum. He said that Sandra set out on the 1,mile journey with the baby girl on June 3, at 6am, and he has not heard from her since. The couple has three other children, son Wesly, 14, and daughters Cindy, 11, and Brianna, six.
They know their mother and sister are safe now. But I thank God that I have a good job here. And I would never risk my life making that journey. Separating children from their parents is just wrong. They are suffering and are traumatized. Sandra was part of a group that were caught by Border Patrol agents after making their way across the Rio Grande river on a raft.
A photo of Yanela was used on the front cover of TIME magazine to show the devastating effect of the policy, which was brought in in April. But actually Yanela remained with her mother after she arrived in the US after making the perilous 1, mile journey North through Central America and Mexico,. Among those who have Tweeted DailyMail. She was not separated from her mom.
Moore, who has worked on the border with Mexico for years and has won a Pulitzer for his photography, has said the the image of Yanela was the last one he took that night. When I saw this little girl break down in tears I wanted to comfort this child. And tell a story that people would never see. The image was a major factor in pressuring Trump to do a U-turn on his immigration policy and sign an executive order allowing families to stay together. The climb down was a rare one from Trump, who almost never apologizes and rarely backs down.
But he had not choice when his policy created a wall of opposition between him and others, including his own wife Melania, Democrats, Republicans, every living former First Lady, Amnesty International and the United Nations. John Moore has been photographing immigrants and the hardship and heartbreak of crossing the U. The crying girl has become the face of the family separation policy, which has been criticized by Democrats and Republicans alike.
The father of three said his years of experience did not inoculate him from feeling intense emotions as he watched agents allowed the mother to pick up her child and loaded them both into a van. But, he said, he knew he had to keep photographing the scene. As soon as it was over, they were put into a van.
The Trump administration has said Border Patrol agents separate children from parents because children cannot be locked up for the crimes of their mothers and fathers. Moore has followed immigrant families and enforcement efforts since and recently published a book of some of his most stirring photographs, Undocumented: Immigration and the Militarization of the United States-Mexico Border.
He said despite the tough new policy, immigrants are not likely to lose the determination that drives them to make the dangerous journey to the United States. Footage released Monday of a detention facility where families arrested at the border and children taken from their parents are held echo a photo Moore took in of a Honduran child watching Casper in the same facility, alone except for a guard keeping watch. That photo, taken at the same detention center in McCallen, Texas where children are now being grouped inside cages, has stayed with Moore over the years.
While he is not sure if that boy was an unaccompanied minor or what happened to him, he said many of the other children at the facility were without their parents. Correction Posted June 19 : The original version of this story misstated what happened to the girl in the photo after she was taken from the scene. Border Patrol agents after he was abandoned on a border road in Arizona on Tuesday evening. The agents discovered the boy just north of the border west of Lukeville in temperatures over degrees.
Agents say the boy said he was on his way to see his mother in the U. They say that the child was found in good condition. He was taken to Tucson to be checked out and processed. It was unclear what would happen to him next. The Border Patrol says the incident highlights the dangers faced by migrants at the hands of smugglers. Children in particular are extremely vulnerable, not only to exploitation, but also to the elements in the environment. Ceux qui disent cela ne disent pas un seul mot de ce qui est en train de se passer par ailleurs aux Etats-Unis.
Elles sont encore trop nombreuses. Cela signifie-t-il un recul? Les enfants seront-ils dans de meilleures conditions? Ils ne seront pas dans des conditions plus mauvaises non plus. Des peines de prison suivront. Que nul ne soit dupe. Fake News. Pas si simple…. Et en hausse.
- Faire ses études aux Etats-Unis : Universités américaines : mode demploi (ED ORGANISATION) (French Edition)!
- Wikipédia:Le Bistro/février 2006.
- Star Wars: The New Jedi Order - Force Heretic III Reunion: Reunion v. 3.
- Rame dans la rame – Langue sauce piquante.
- Aïe Aïe Aïe !.
- Rame dans la rame.
The Gateway Pundit, a website that was most recently in the news for spreading conspiracies about the school shooting in Parkland, Fla. And as the president often does when immigration is at issue, he saw a reason for Americans to be afraid. Trump read. The coverage tends to play on the fears that hiding among mass groups of immigrants are many criminals, vectors of disease and agents of terror. And often the president, who announced his candidacy by blaming Mexico for sending rapists and drug dealers into the United States, acts as an accelerant to the hysteria.
The sensationalization of this story and others like it seems to serve a common purpose for Mr. Trump and other immigration hard-liners: to highlight the twin dangers of freely roving migrants — especially those from Muslim countries — and lax immigration laws that grant them easy entry into Western nations. The narrative on the right this week, for example, mostly omitted that many people in the caravan planned to resettle in Mexico, not the United States.
And it ignored how many of those who did intend to come here would probably go through the legal process of requesting asylum at a border checkpoint — something miles of new wall and battalions of additional border patrol would not have stopped. The coverage became so distorted that it prompted a reporter for Breitbart News who covers border migration, Brandon Darby, to push back. That is legal. In an interview, Mr. Darby said it was regrettable that the relatively routine occurrence of migrant caravans — which organizers rely on as a safety-in-numbers precaution against the violence that can happen along the trek — was being politicized.
As tends to be the case in these stories, the humanitarian aspects get glossed over as migrants are collapsed into one maligned category: hostile foreign invaders. In November, Mr. Trump touched off an international furor when he posted a series of videos on Twitter that purported to show the effects of mass Muslim migration in Europe. These items tend to metastasize irrespective of the facts, but contain powerful visual elements to which Mr.
Trump is known to viscerally respond. Last February, Mr. Trump insinuated that some kind of terror-related episode involving Muslim immigrants had taken place in Sweden. Like the caravan story, which apparently came to Mr. And he later had to clarify that he was referring to a Fox News segment on issues Sweden was having with migrants generally, not any particular event. When the president himself has not spread stories about immigration that were either misleading or turned out to be false, his White House aides have. Last year, the White House joined a pile-on by the conservative news media after it called attention to the account of a high school student in Montgomery County, Md.
The case became a national rallying cry on the right against permissive border policies and so-called sanctuary cities that treat undocumented immigrants more leniently. Fox News broadcast live outside the high school for days. The story of the caravan has been similarly exaggerated. The facts of the caravan are not as straightforward as Mr. Trump or many conservative pundits have portrayed them. The story initially gained widespread attention after BuzzFeed News reported last week that more than 1, Central American migrants, mostly from Honduras, were making their way north toward the United States border.
Yet the BuzzFeed article and other coverage pointed out that many in the group were planning to stay in Mexico. That did not stop Mr. The use of disinformation in immigration debates is hardly unique to the United States. Misleading crime statistics, speculation about sinister plots to undermine national sovereignty and Russian propaganda have all played a role in stirring up anti-immigrant sentiment in places like Britain, Germany and Hungary. Some of the more fantastical theories have involved a socialist conspiracy to import left-leaning voters and a scheme by the Hungarian-born Jewish philanthropist George Soros to create a borderless Europe.
One thousand Central American migrants are headed to the United States border. Detainees who passed their initial hearings often found themselves stranded in Artesia without bond. As the months ticked by in Artesia, many detainees began to wonder if they would ever be free again.
Fan-Art Kawaii: et un dernier pour la route ! | bouletcorp
In Honduras, Ana ran a small business selling trinkets and served on the P. Within days, they had escalated their threats, approaching Ana brazenly on the street. Four weeks later, in McAllen, Tex. Ana and her daughter entered Artesia in mid-July. In October they were still there.
The attorney next to me was crying, Ana was crying, her little girl started crying. I looked over at the bailiff, who actually ended up being my friend when I went back another time. He had tears in his eyes. Many of the volunteers in Artesia tell similar stories about the misery of life in the facility. This lackadaisical look. The detainees reported sleeping eight to a room, in violation of the Flores settlement, with little exercise or stimulation for the children. Many were under the age of 6 and had been raised on a diet of tortillas, rice and chicken bits.
Raised in a small town near Mount Hood, Sischo did not realize until high school that her parents brought her into the United States from Mexico as an infant without documentation. When Sischo learned that children arriving from Central America were being incarcerated in Artesia, she volunteered immediately.
She arrived a week after Christina Brown, and like Brown, she stayed. Brown recommended Sischo for the job of project coordinator. Brown and Sischo make an unlikely pair. Brown, who has a sturdy build and dark brown hair, has an inborn skepticism and a piercing wit. Sischo is six years younger and preternaturally easygoing. Until she discovered her own immigration background, she had little interest in political affairs and spent much of her time in Oregon as a competitive snowboarder. For both, Artesia was a jarring shift from life at home.
As they sat together one evening in December, they described a typical week. Officials for ICE say these accounts are exaggerated. But they declined multiple requests to visit the Artesia facility and took weeks to answer questions about its facilities. No one ever responded, to date, to my request. Visitors who did gain access to the facility have raised troubling questions about the ethics — and legality — of how it handled children.
The Flores settlement requires the government to provide regular schooling for juveniles in detention, but the mayor of Artesia, Phillip Burch, said that on several visits to the compound, the classrooms were always empty. And none of the tours that I made did I see the children actually in class. When one member asked why the building was empty, an ICE official replied that school was temporarily closed. Detainees have consistently told their lawyers that the school was never reliably open.
They recall a few weeks in October when classes were in session for an hour or two per day, then several weeks of closure through November, followed by another brief period of classes in December. Olavarria has a distinguished record as advocate for refugees and previously served as a top immigration adviser for Senator Edward M. She said that she was under the impression that attorneys in Artesia were granted access to the facility, and she could not explain why Brown was not.
She also believed that the meal service in Artesia was adapted to reflect the dietary norms of Central America and that medical care was adequate and available. After hearing what detainees, attorneys, faith advocates and elected officials described in Artesia, Olavarria promised to look into these issues and provide further documentation. Despite several attempts to elicit that documentation, she provided none. Attorneys for the Obama administration have argued in court, like the Bush administration previously, that the protections guaranteed by the Flores settlement do not apply to children in family detention.
Federal judges have consistently rejected this position. By mid-November, more than of the detained women and children were free on bond. Then on Nov. That announcement came at the very moment the president was delivering a live address on the new protections available to established immigrant families. Many of them were close to a bond release; in San Antonio, they might be detained for weeks or months longer. Brown pulled her car to the side of the highway and spent three hours arguing to delay the transfer. By mid-December, most of the Artesia detainees were in Karnes, and Brown and Sischo were scrambling to pack the contents of their home and office.
On the afternoon of Dec. The next morning, a law professor named Barbara Hines was also speeding into San Antonio. Hines is a wiry woman in her 60s with a burst of black curls and an aspect of bristling intensity. In the battle over refugee detention, she is something of a seminal figure for advocates like Brown and Sischo.
As co-director of the Immigration Law Clinic at the University of Texas, Hines helped lead the lawsuit against the Hutto facility, which brought about its closure in and the abolition of widespread family detention until last summer. When the Obama administration announced plans to resume the practice in Artesia, Hines was outraged; when officials opened the second facility in Karnes, just two hours from her home in Austin, Hines began to organize a pro bono project of her own.
But first, she had a client to represent. Hines pulled into a parking lot behind the immigration court in downtown San Antonio and rushed inside, up a clattering elevator to the third floor and down a long hallway to a cramped courtroom. At the front, behind a vast wooden desk, sat Judge Glenn McPhaul, a tidy man with slicked hair and a pencil mustache. He presided from an elevated platform, with a clerk to his right, an interpreter to his left, and a large television monitor in the corner.
These were just a few of the Karnes detainees, linked by video feed to the courtroom. Another women and children were in the compound with them. There was no legal distinction between their cases and those of the women in Artesia; they had simply been sent to a different facility, weeks or months earlier.
But the odds of release in Karnes were worse. Many of the volunteers at Karnes are friends and former students of Hines, who has been drafting every licensed lawyer she can find. As she slid down the long bench to a seat, she nodded to some of the attorneys in the room and stopped to whisper with another. On the television screen, her client, Juana, was stepping toward the camera at Karnes.
She was a young woman with a narrow face and deep eyes. Her hair was pulled back to reveal high cheekbones and a somber expression. McPhaul asked the stenographer to begin transcription, then he commenced with the ritualized exchange of detention proceedings, recording the names of the attorneys, the detainee and everyone on the bench. He noted the introduction of a series of legal documents and confirmed that Juana was still happy to be represented by Hines. There was a stream of legal jargon and a few perfunctory remarks about the status of the case, all of it in clipped judicial vernacular and a flat, indifferent tone.
As Hines stepped out of the courtroom, Juana was turning away from the camera to return to her children in Karnes. It was impossible to say how much of the hearing she understood, since none of the proceedings were translated into Spanish. Over the next two hours, the scene would repeat a dozen times. Each time McPhaul called a name, a new lawyer would step forward, taking a seat before the bench and proceeding through the verbal Kabuki. But the courtroom interpreter was not allowed to convey this news to the detainee, either. If the pro bono attorney spoke Spanish fluently, there might be a few minutes at the end of the session to explain what happened.
These, of course, were the lucky women with an attorney to represent them at all. Although the families in Artesia and Karnes have been detained in an environment that closely resembles incarceration, there is no requirement in American law to provide them with the sort of legal representation afforded to other defendants. Unlike the Artesia project, where the involvement of AILA brought in hundreds of volunteers from across the country, Hines could scrape together only so many friends and compatriots to lend their time.
The remaining refugees would proceed to court alone. They would understand little of what happened, and most would be deported. It was difficult for Hines to think about what might happen to those women next. The refugees who are returned to Central America can be subject to even greater harassment by gangs for having fled.
Hector Hernandez, a morgue operator in Honduras, has said that children who come back from U. This was her agenda for the first meeting with Christina Brown, which took place that afternoon in a sunlit conference room in the downtown offices of Akin Gump. Hines sat at the head of a long table, with Lauren Connell to her left and an attorney from Raices named Steven Walden to her right. After a few minutes, Brown appeared in the doorway.
Hines smiled sympathetically as they sat down. Hines laughed. Brown shook her head. Hines and Connell exchanged a look. Even if the Artesia lawyers could double or triple their workload, the number of detainees would soon overwhelm them. The day before, officials in Karnes had approved a plan to expand the detention facility from about beds to roughly 1, At the same time, two hours west of Karnes, in the little town of Dilley, the Department of Homeland Security was about to open another refugee camp for women and children.
It would be the largest detention facility in the country, with up to 2, beds. They decided to spend their first evening in Texas at a vegetarian restaurant downtown. Sischo nodded. They should be released. For Sischo, seeing the families struggle — families much like her own — was almost more than she could stand.
On visits to her parents in Oregon, she struggled to maintain composure. For Brown, by contrast, the same experiences seemed to have amplified her energy and commitment. As dinner came to an end, Brown and Sischo stepped outside into the night. Some will be released on bond to await their asylum hearing; others will remain in custody until their hearings are complete. Those without an attorney will most likely fail to articulate a reason for their claim in the appropriate jargon of the immigration courts and will be deported to face whatever horror they hoped to flee.
By late spring, the construction of the new facility at Dilley should be complete. It already represents a drastic departure from the refugee camp in Artesia. Managed by the Corrections Corporation of America, the largest private prison company in the country, the South Texas Family Residential Center has its own promotional website with promissory images of the spacious classrooms, libraries, play areas and lounges that will eventually be available to refugees in long-term detention.
Architectural drawings for the site show eight distinct neighborhoods on the campus, with dormitory housing, outdoor pavilions, a chapel and several playgrounds. How much of this will ultimately materialize remains to be seen. Last week, C. Esther Olavarria, the senior counselor for immigration issues at the Department of Homeland Security, acknowledged that there had been shortcomings in Artesia but described the Dilley facility as a correction. Many advocates have expressed concerns about the Dilley facility as well.
Its management company, C. In , federal investigators reported that conditions at a C. Two years ago, C. The state has now taken control of the facility. The management contract at Dilley was also created with unusual terms. In their hurry to open the new facility, officials for the Obama administration bypassed normal bidding procedures and established Dilley under an existing contract for the troubled C.
Eloy city officials say they do not expect to monitor, or even visit, the Dilley facility. Any new refugees who surrender this spring may spend more than a year in Dilley before their asylum hearings can be scheduled. Olavarria said that officials hope the process will move more quickly, but it will depend on the immigration courts in San Antonio, which fall under the Department of Justice. A study funded by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, of more than detainees between and , found that 93 percent will appear in court when placed in a monitoring program. Officials from the Department of Homeland Security say the facilities in Karnes and Dilley are still insufficient to house the detainees they expect to process in the coming year.
For now, the Artesia facility is closed, its bunk beds and hallways empty. Brown and Sischo remain in Texas; they rescued their U-Haul from an impound lot and found an apartment soon thereafter. That same week, an email from the mayor of Artesia, Phillip Burch, was circulating among city residents. Wil S. His complete archive is available on Longform. Much has been written — some of it either inaccurate or designed to obfuscate the issue ahead of the midterms for political purposes — about the border fiasco and the unfortunate separation of children from parents. The media outrage usually does not include examination of why the Trump administration is enforcing existing laws that it inherited from the Bush and Obama administrations that at any time could have been changed by both Democratic and Republican majorities in Congress; of the use of often dubious asylum claims as a way of obtaining entry otherwise denied to those without legal authorization — a gambit that injures or at least hampers thousands with legitimate claims of political persecution; of the seeming unconcern for the safety of children by some would-be asylum seekers who illegally cross the border, rather than first applying legally at a U.
A few other random thoughts. And it is mostly culpable for once again using illegal immigration and the lives of its own citizens — and allowing Central Americans unfettered transit through its country — as cynical tools of domestic and foreign policy. Illegal immigration, increasingly of mostly indigenous peoples, ensures an often racist Mexico City a steady stream of remittances now its greatest source of foreign exchange , without much worry about how its indigent abroad can scrimp to send such massive sums back to Mexico.
Facilitating illegal immigration also establishes and fosters a favorable expatriate demographic inside the U. And Mexico City also uses immigration as a policy irritant to the U. All of the above call into question whether Mexico is a NAFTA ally, a neutral, or a belligerent, a status that may become perhaps clearer during its upcoming presidential elections. So far, it assumes that the optics of this human tragedy facilitate its own political agendas, but it may be just as likely that its cynicism could fuel renewed calls for a wall and reexamination of the entire Mexican—U.
Finally, it is unfortunate that former CIA and NSA director Michael Hayden and former first lady Laura Bush have both demagogued the issue by respective grotesque and ignorant comparisons of current border shelters to the Auschwitz-Birkenau extermination camp and the forced Japanese internment during World War II. At its horrendous peak in August , the Auschwitz-Birkenau complex on some days exterminated 10, human beings and may have cumulatively murdered well over 1 million Jews, as well as Eastern Europeans and Russians. To suggest that a detainee center is anything similar to that industrial killing monstrosity is unhinged, abhorrent — and shameful.
It is an insult to current U. And it is a greater injury to the lost 6 million of the Holocaust when their fate is so cavalierly and ignorantly used for political advantage. He too often became the object of frequent and unfair comparisons to various Nazi allusions of the sort that he is now promulgating against the Trump administration. Moreover, we often forget that the forced relocation and internment was an unconstitutional and amoral act aimed at mostly Japanese-Americans citizens among them the parents and grandparents of my current neighboring farmers , along with some Japanese residents.
One can disagree with a current policy without stooping to distort history to smear an administration, especially when such tactics in the past have been used against those now employing them. Some economic migrants are using children as chits, but the problem is fixable — if Congress acts. The latest furor over Trump immigration policy involves the separation of children from parents at the border.
For the longest time, illegal immigration was driven by single males from Mexico. Over the last decade, the flow has shifted to women, children, and family units from Central America. Those remain the same. The past practice had been to give a free pass to an adult who is part of a family unit. The new Trump policy is to prosecute all adults. The idea is to send a signal that we are serious about our laws and to create a deterrent against re-entry.
Illegal entry is a misdemeanor, illegal re-entry a felony. When a migrant is prosecuted for illegal entry, he or she is taken into custody by the U. In no circumstance anywhere in the U. The child is taken into the custody of HHS, who cares for them at temporary shelters. The criminal proceedings are exceptionally short, assuming there is no aggravating factor such as a prior illegal entity or another crime. The migrants generally plead guilty, and they are then sentenced to time served, typically all in the same day, although practices vary along the border.
After this, they are returned to the custody of ICE. The adult should be reunited quickly with his or her child, and the family returned home as a unit. Where it becomes much more of an issue is if the adult files an asylum claim. In that scenario, the adults are almost certainly going to be detained longer than the government is allowed to hold their children.
It says that unaccompanied children can be held only 20 days. A ruling by the Ninth Circuit extended this day limit to children who come as part of family units. So even if we want to hold a family unit together, we are forbidden from doing so. The clock ticking on the time the government can hold a child will almost always run out before an asylum claim is settled. The migrant is allowed ten days to seek an attorney, and there may be continuances or other complications.
This creates the choice of either releasing the adults and children together into the country pending the ajudication of the asylum claim, or holding the adults and releasing the children. If the adult is held, HHS places the child with a responsible party in the U. ICE has only about 3, family spaces in shelters. It is also limited in its overall space at the border, which is overwhelmed by the ongoing influx. This means that — whatever the Trump administration would prefer to do — many adults are still swiftly released.
Why try to hold adults at all? First of all, if an asylum-seeker is detained, it means that the claim goes through the process much more quickly, a couple of months or less rather than years. Second, if an adult is released while the claim is pending, the chances of ever finding that person again once he or she is in the country are dicey, to say the least. It is tantamount to allowing the migrant to live here, no matter what the merits of the case.
The option that both honors our laws and keeps family units together is a swift return home after prosecution. But immigrant advocates hate it because they want the migrants to stay in the United States. How you view this question will depend a lot on how you view the motivation of the migrants and how seriously you take our laws and our border. Every indication is that the migrant flow to the United States is discretionary. It nearly dried up at the beginning of the Trump administration when migrants believed that they had no chance of getting into the United States.
This strongly suggests that the flow overwhelmingly consists of economic migrants who would prefer to live in the United States, rather than victims of persecution in their home country who have no option but to get out. Even if a migrant does have a credible fear of persecution, there is a legitimate way to pursue that claim, and it does not involve entering the United States illegally.
First, such people should make their asylum claim in the first country where they feel safe, i. Second, if for some reason they are threatened everywhere but the United States, they should show up at a port of entry and make their claim there rather than crossing the border illegally. There is obviously a moral cost to separating a parent from a child and almost everyone would prefer not to do it. But, under current policy and with the current resources, the only practical alternative is letting family units who show up at the border live in the country for the duration.
Not only does this make a mockery of our laws, it creates an incentive for people to keep bringing children with them. Needless to say, children should not be making this journey that is fraught with peril. But there is now a premium on bringing children because of how we have handled these cases. They are considered chits.
Some migrants have admitted they brought their children not only to remove them from danger in such places as Central America and Africa, but because they believed it would cause the authorities to release them from custody sooner. Others have admitted to posing falsely with children who are not their own, and Border Patrol officials say that such instances of fraud are increasing. According to azcentral. If someone is determined to come here illegally, the decent and safest thing would be to leave the child at home with a relative and send money back home.
Because we favor family units over single adults, we are creating an incentive to do the opposite and use children to cut deals with smugglers. Congress can change the rules so the Flores consent decree will no longer apply, and it can appropriate more money for family shelters at the border. This is an obvious thing to do that would eliminate the tension between enforcing our laws and keeping family units together. The Trump administration is throwing as many resources as it can at the border to expedite the process, and it desperately wants the Flores consent decree reversed.
Despite some mixed messages, if the administration had its druthers, family units would be kept together and their cases settled quickly. The missing piece here is Congress, but little outrage will be directed at it, and probably nothing will be done. And so our perverse system will remain in place and the crisis at the border will rumble on.
The hysteria over border-enforcement problems benefits Democrats — and gives them no incentive to fix the problem. T he illegal-immigration issue has always been one fraught with politicking. We always hear the same refrain from both sides: that people are suffering and living in the shadows; that we must find a solution for them as well as a way to solidify our border security.
And yet nothing ever gets done. The impression of some in the press seems to be that nothing gets done because of a lack of public pressure. If only they could somehow jar American sensibilities into solving this problem once and for all! For the last week, the attention has been nearly wall-to-wall — and the moral preening has hit an all-time apex. Instead, it achieves precisely the opposite. In this case, that manipulation has been particularly extreme.
But the truth is more complex: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that even accompanied immigrant minors must be released from custody within 20 days. That means that if their parents do not arrive at a point of entry to claim asylum, and instead violate the law by crossing the border illegally, they will be arrested — and their children must then be separated from them by the working of the law.
The only possible solution, without a change to the law itself, would involve releasing illegal-immigrant parents along with their children into the general population. Likely, some of that is true — although the stories from various sources conflict. But those facilities were overburdened for years before Trump took office; in fact, the media covered these same facilities and pointed out the problems therein during the Obama administration.
In reality, all of this could be solved with simple legislation. The House of Representatives is actually set to take up the issue of family separation in both versions of the immigration bill being presented in the House. The longer the Democrats prevent a solution from arising, the more they gain in the public-opinion polls. So they have little incentive to come to the table around an immigration solution — their better political option remains to wait Trump out and let the press inflict damage on him.
Better to let the problem fester for political gain than to attempt to solve it. Yes, Trump is enforcing the laws against crossing the border illegally more harshly than the Obama administration did. Yes, Trump has spoken with great passion in favor of stronger border controls.
Instead of using truth as a guide, however, the press continue to suggest that base animus animates conservative feelings on immigration. The only ones who lose out are the American people. Over the weekend, you may have seen a horrifying story: Almost 1, migrant children were missing, and feared to be in the hands of human traffickers. The Trump administration lost track of the children, the story went, after separating them from their parents at the border. The news spread across liberal social media — with the hashtag Wherearethechildren trending on Twitter — as people demanded immediate action.
The narrative had combined parts of two real events and wound up with a horror story that was at least partly a myth. The Trump administration does in fact have a new policy of prosecuting all undocumented border crossers, which involves separating parents from their children. But the 1, children whom the Department of Health and Human Services recently reported it cannot locate are not among those taken from their parents.
Many probably are not really missing.
Menu de navigation
The unanswered phone calls may warrant further welfare checks, but are not themselves a sign that something nefarious has happened. The Obama administration also detained immigrant families and children, as did other recent administrations. Some waved off this seeming contradiction, saying Mr. And it is true that even when using similar tactics, President Trump and President Obama have expressed very different attitudes toward immigration and espoused different goals.
Those arguments underscore the degree to which this controversy is animated as much by attitudes toward the president and the way he has made immigration a focus of partisan conflict as by specific policy preferences. Deadlock over immigration has meant that, for decades, politicians have turned to the same compromise: greater enforcement of immigration laws in exchange for more liberal policies. The Obama administration sharply increased deportations in his first term in the hope of building a case for comprehensive immigration reform.
That move did not pay off. Detained immigrant children have frequently been caught up in the enforcement side of that bargain. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Immigration and Naturalization Service before it have argued that immigration detention is an essential part of enforcement and deterrence, and have vigorously pursued detention of families and children throughout multiple presidential administrations. At the same time, as Lilliana Mason, a political scientist at the University of Maryland, writes in a new book , partisan identity has become an umbrella for other important identities, including those involving race, religion, geography and even educational background.
It has become a tribal identity itself, not merely a matter of policy preferences. Accurate news can serve that purpose. But fake news has an advantage. By adding in the missing children, the story manages to incorporate an incompetence angle as well. The rapid spread of this particular story also hints at the longer-term dangers of partisan polarization. That departure from norms has caused tremendous suffering for immigrants and their communities.
On a broader scale, it is revealing that the story of the missing children felt so true to so many people. It shows the ways that shattering norms also damages public trust. Research shows that the loss of this trust — particularly when combined with extreme polarization — can weaken support for democracy over time. In his farewell address as president Tuesday, Barack Obama warned of the dangers of uncontrolled partisanship. That seems a well-founded worry. Partisan bias now operates more like racism than mere political disagreement, academic research on the subject shows.
And this widespread prejudice could have serious consequences for American democracy. The partisan divide is easy to detect if you know where to look. Consider the thinly disguised sneer in most articles and editorials about so-called fake news. But the fake-news phenomenon is not the result of personal failings. And it is not limited to one end of the political spectrum. Partisan refraction has fueled the rise of fake news, according to researchers who study the phenomenon.
The power of partisan bias. In , Sean Westwood, then a Stanford Ph. He got annoyed with persistent squabbles among his friends, and he noticed that they seemed to be breaking along partisan lines, even when they concerned issues that ostensibly had nothing to do with politics. Westwood, now a professor at Dartmouth. He wondered if this was a sign that the role of partisanship in American life was changing. Previously, partisan conflict mostly applied to political issues like taxes or abortion. Now it seemed, among his acquaintances at least, to be operating more like racism or sexism, fueling negative or positive judgments on people themselves, based on nothing more than their party identification.
Curious, Mr. But starting in the s, Americans began to report increasingly negative opinions of their opposing party. Since then, that polarization has grown even stronger. The reasons for that are unclear. To find out more about the consequences of that polarization, Mr. Westwood, along with Shanto Iyengar, a Stanford professor who studies political communication, embarked on a series of experiments.
That is a sea change in the role of partisanship in public life, Mr. Westwood said. It was just an ancillary trait. But in the modern era we view party identity as something akin to gender, ethnicity or race — the core traits that we use to describe ourselves to others. That has made the personal political.
Iyengar said. And it has become more rare for children to have a different party affiliation from their parents. But it has also made the political personal. Today, political parties are no longer just the people who are supposed to govern the way you want. They are a team to support, and a tribe to feel a part of. How partisan bias fuels fake news. Partisan tribalism makes people more inclined to seek out and believe stories that justify their pre-existing partisan biases, whether or not they are true. And Clinton voters, he said, would be similarly drawn to stories that deride Mr.
Trump as a demagogue or a sexual predator. Social media provides a unique opportunity to publicly declare to the world what your beliefs are and how willing you are to denigrate the opposition and reinforce your own political candidates. Partisan bias fuels fake news because people of all partisan stripes are generally quite bad at figuring out what news stories to believe. Instead, they use trust as a shortcut.
Partisan bias strongly influences whom people perceive as trustworthy. One of the experiments that Mr. Westwood and Mr. Iyengar conducted demonstrated that people are much more likely to trust members of their party. Whatever that second player received would be multiplied, and he or she would then have a chance to return some of the cash to the original player.
How much confidence would the participant have that the other player would give some of the money back? They found that participants gave more money if they were told the other player supported the same political party as they did. Beyond fake news: how the partisan divide affects politics. Iyengar and Mr. Westwood find most worrying. That feeds partisan bias among the public by reinforcing the idea that the opposition is made up of bad or dangerous people, which then creates more demand for political extremism.
The result is an environment in which compromise and collaboration with the opposing party are seen as signs of weakness, and of being a bad member of the tribe. Whereas the Democrats are obviously motivated to seize upon that as a plausible account of what occurred. Westwood agreed. Already, partisan bias is undermining confidence in the last election. And you begin to view the outcome as somehow contaminated or tainted.
Westwood was even more pessimistic. I think this is the new normal. Current U. The policy of prosecuting immigrants for crossing the border illegally has been in place for multiple administrations. The Obama administration prosecuted half a million illegal immigrants and similarly separated families in the process. So did the Bush administration. Personal accounts from immigration lawyers tell a tale of Obama being equally concerned about unaccompanied minors traveling to the border and wanting to create a deterrent. Photos of border detention facilities from the Obama-era, taken during , look nearly identical to the ones taken during the Trump era.
You never see them, however. They have since been removed. In turn, as it unravels, America feels this loss of balance the hardest — it has always spent the most money and manpower to keep the system working. The Europeans have basically been free riders on the voyage, spending almost nothing on defense, and instead building vast social welfare systems at home and robust, well-protected export industries abroad. Rather than lash back at Mr.
Trump, they would do better to ask how we got to this place, and how to get out. The European Union, as an institution, is one of the prime drivers of this inequity.
At the Group of 7, for example, the constituent countries are described as all equals. The eurozone offers a similar unfair advantage. If it were not for the euro, Germany would long ago have had to appreciate its currency in line with its enormous export surplus. Sure, eurozone membership makes imports to Germany more expensive than they would be under the deutschemark; wage restraint has also helped maintain the competitiveness of German machinery. But how can the very same politicians and journalists who defended the euro bailout payments during the financial crisis, arguing that Germany profited disproportionately from the common currency, now go berserk when Mr.
Trump makes exactly this point? German manufacturers also have the advantage of operating in a common market with huge wage gaps. Bulgaria, one of the poorest member states, has a per capita gross domestic product roughly equal to that of Gabon , while even in Slovakia, Poland and Hungary — three relative success stories among the recent entrants to the union — that same measure is still roughly a third of what it is in Germany.
Under the European Union, German manufacturers can assemble their cars in low-wage countries and export them without worrying about tariffs or other trade barriers. Trump is not the first president to complain about the unfair burden sharing within NATO. Indeed, while his actions are shocking, the Europeans cannot say they are surprised. All those German politicians who oppose raising military spending from a meager 1.
When the door was opened, in , many in the West believed that a growing Chinese middle class, enriched by and engaged with the world economy, would eventually claim voice and suffrage, thereby democratizing China. The opposite has happened. China, which has grown wealthy in part by stealing intellectual property from the West, is turning into an online-era dictatorship, while still denying reciprocity in investment and trade relations. Volume 72 Issue Jan , pp. Volume 64 Issue Jan , pp. Volume 63 Issue Jan , pp. Volume 65 Issue Jan , pp. Volume 66 Issue Jan , pp.
Volume 67 Issue Jan , pp.
European Comic Art
Volume 60 Issue Jan , pp. Volume 59 Issue Jan , pp. Volume 58 Issue Jan , pp. Volume 62 Issue Jan , pp. Volume 61 Issue Jan , pp. Volume 53 Issue 4 Jan , pp. Volume 57 Issue Jan , pp. Volume 55 Issue Jan , pp. Volume 54 Issue Jan , pp. Volume 56 Issue Jan , pp. Volume 48 Issue Jan , pp. Volume 50 Issue Jan , pp.
Volume 51 Issue Jan , pp. Volume 49 Issue Jan , pp. Volume 52 Issue Jan , pp. Volume 44 Issue Jan , pp. Volume 47 Issue Jan , pp. Volume 43 Issue Jan , pp. Volume 45 Issue Jan , pp. Volume 46 Issue 1 Jan , pp. Volume 39 Issue Jan , pp. Volume 41 Issue Jan , pp. Volume 40 Issue Jan , pp. Volume 38 Issue Jan , pp. Volume 42 Issue 1 Jan , pp. Volume 36 Issue Jan , pp. Volume 35 Issue Jan , pp. Volume 37 Issue s1 Jan , pp. Volume 33 Issue Jan , pp. Volume 34 Issue Jan , pp.
Volume 29 Issue Jan , pp. Volume 32 Issue Jan , pp. Volume 31 Issue Jan , pp. Volume 30 Issue Jan , pp. Volume 28 Issue Jan , pp. Volume 27 Issue 4 Jan , pp. Volume 25 Issue Jan , pp. Volume 26 Issue Jan , pp. Volume 24 Issue Jan , pp. Volume 23 Issue Jan , pp. Volume 22 Issue Jan , pp. Volume 20 Issue Jan , pp. Volume 19 Issue Jan , pp. Volume 21 Issue Jan , pp. Volume 18 Issue 1 Jan , pp. Volume 16 Issue 4 Jan , pp. Volume 17 Issue 1 Jan , pp. Volume 15 Issue 3 Jan , pp.
Volume 14 Issue 2 Jan , pp. Volume 13 Issue 1 Jan , pp. Volume 10 Issue 2 Jan , pp. Volume 11 Issue 4 Jan , pp. Volume 12 Issue 1 Jan , pp. Volume 7 Issue 3 Jan , pp. Volume 8 Issue 3 Jan , pp. Volume 9 Issue 3 Jan , pp. Volume 5 Issue 4 Jan , pp. Volume 6 Issue 4 Jan , pp.