The NAACP has responded to Missouri‘s recent legislation on discrimination by issuing a travel warning for the state. The advisory calls for travelers to utilize “extreme caution” in the state due to the likelihood of “discrimination and harassment,” CBS NewsreportedTuesday. Rod Chapel Jr., president of the state’s NAACP chapter, has described Republican Governor Eric Greitens’ recent legislation as “the Jim Crow bill,” a reference to the segregation tactics of the South.
The state’s legislation will make lawsuits alleging discrimination much more difficult to win, as victims will now have to present proof that discrimination was the main reason for a defendant’s actions. Previously, suits required proof that bias was a contributing factor. The bill also bars employees from suing any individual for discrimination, meaning only the company itself can be named in a suit.
“The advisory means each individual should pay special attention while in the state of Missouri and certainly if contemplating spending time in Missouri,” the NAACP said in a statement. The NAACP added that the advisory was put into place to make Missourians and visitors aware of “looming danger” in the state, which has a “long history of race, gender, and color-based crimes.” The travel advisory will be sent to the national NAACP board for ratification in October after being voted into adoption last week.
According to a report from the Kansas City Star, the advisory is the first of its kind from the civil rights group. “People need to be ready, whether it’s bringing bail money with them, or letting relatives know they are traveling through the state,” Chapel said. In 2015 alone, 100 hate crimes were reported in Missouri.
The NAACP highlighted a number of recent and troubling incidents in their statement, including the death of Tory Sanders in May. Sanders, a Tennessee resident, ran out of fuel in Charleston, Missouri after taking a drive to “clear his head.” The 28-year-old father of eight called his mother and asked if police could help him, the Riverfront Timesreported in May.
Ultimately, Sanders’ interaction with cops included what they characterized as a “mental break.” Sanders’ aunt, Natasha Nance, said he told his mother on a phone call from jail that officers were “trying to kill” him. Sanders reportedly collapsed while officers attempted to restrain him and was later pronounced dead at a nearby hospital.
Read the NAACP’s (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) full statement on the Missouri travel advisory here.
Wednesday’s White House news briefing began not with press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders but with senior adviser Stephen Miller, whose nationalist immigration positions have been highly influential in the administration. Miller was at the lectern to discuss the Raise Act, legislation crafted by Sens. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and David Perdue (R-Ga.) and introduced by President Trump earlier in the day.
During his brief stint addressing the White House press corps, Miller got into two serious arguments with reporters, an impressive if not surprising accomplishment. One, with CNN’s Jim Acosta, included accusations of Acosta having a “cosmopolitan bias” in his thinking about immigration. (Worth noting: Acosta is the son of immigrants.) But the other, a dust-up with the New York Times’ Glenn Thrush, was more significant.
Before getting into that, though, it’s worth isolating part of Miller’s introduction to the topic, the sentence that formed the crux of his rhetoric in defense of a bill that will slice legal immigration in half if it is enacted into law.
“You’ve seen over time as a result of this historic flow of unskilled immigration,” Miller said, “a shift in wealth from the working class to wealthier corporations and businesses, and it’s been very unfair for American workers, but especially for immigrant workers, African American workers and Hispanic workers, and blue-collar workers in general across the country.”
That line does two things that are essential to Miller’s sales pitch. First, it blames income inequality — assuming that money headed to “wealthier corporations” means to those corporations’ owners — on increased immigration. Second, it highlights the effects on black, Hispanic and immigrant workers in particular.
There has been research that links increased income inequality to immigration. A 2015 paper by a trio of researchers found just such a link. But assuming that link, it’s clearly not the only — or even the primary — driver of income inequality. A graph created by those researchers makes clear that the inequality (as measured with the Gini coefficient) would be nearly as high without the effects of immigration.
The effect of immigrants, the researchers say, is “modest.” But Miller presents the “shift in wealth” as being a “result” of the flow of unskilled immigrants. In other analyses of that increased gap, immigration isn’t mentioned.
Miller’s suggestion that those most affected by this shift are other communities of color, meanwhile, is a classic tactic aimed at appealing to working-class Americans and nonwhite voters by blaming immigrants for their problems. (Hillary Clinton did something similarduring a debate in the 2008 primaries.)
When Miller began to take questions, Thrush asked him very specifically for data to back up his points.
THRUSH: First of all, let’s have some statistics. There have been a lot of studies out there that don’t show a correlation between low-skilled immigration and the loss of jobs for native workers. Cite for me, if you could, one or two studies with specific numbers that prove the correlation between those two things, because your entire policy is based on that. …
MILLER: I think the most recent study I would point to is the study from George Borjas that he just did about the Mariel Boatlift. And he went back and reexamined and opened up the old data and talked about how it actually did reduce wages for workers who were living there at the time.
And Borjas has, of course, done enormous amounts of research on this, as has the — Peter Kirsanow on the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, as has Steve Camarota at the Center for Immigration Studies, and so on and so on.
We’ll jump in here first to note that Miller offered no statistics but did point to one study.
That study from Borjas looked at the migration of more than 100,000 Cubans into Florida in 1980. Borjas found that wages among the least-educated workers in Miami dropped 10 to 30 percent as a result of the influx. Borjas’s study was a direct rebuttal to a 1990 study by David Card, which found “virtually no effect” on wages or unemployment rates, even among the Cuban immigrant community that was already in the area.
Borjas’s study was itself soon rebutted, as the National Review noted, with researchers pointing out that he didn’t account for other demographic shifts in the area that may have had a significant effect on wages.
Miller also notes two other individuals, one of whom works for the staunchly anti-immigration Center for Immigration Studies — and then implies a surfeit of other data with a casual “and so on, and so on.”
THRUSH: What about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine? …
MILLER: One recent study said that as much as $300 billion a year may be lost as a result of our current immigration system, in terms of folks drawing more public benefits than they’re paying in.
Thrush raises a recent study showing that immigrants don’t take the jobs of native-born Americans, with the exception of teenagers who didn’t finish high school, who saw a drop in hours of work.
Miller responds by noting that the study also found that new immigrants cost nearly $300 billion a year more in government spending than they pay in taxes — though that’s the far end of a spectrum of estimates that starts at $43 billion. By the second generation, immigrant families add a net of $30 billion a year.
Then things got tense.
MILLER: But let’s also use common sense here, folks. At the end of the day, why do special interests want to bring in more low-skill workers? And why, historically …
THRUSH: I’m not asking for common sense. I’m asking for specific statistical data. How many …
MILLER: Well, I think it’s very clear, Glenn, that you’re not asking for common sense. But if I could just answer — if I could just answer your question …
THRUSH: Common sense is fungible, statistics are not.
MILLER: … I named — I named — I named the studies, Glenn.
THRUSH: Let me just finish the question …
MILLER: Glenn. Glenn.
THRUSH: Tell me the …
MILLER: I named the studies. I named the studies.
Again: He named one study. At this point, it got personal.
THRUSH: I asked you for a statistic. Can you tell me how many — how many …
MILLER: Glenn. The — maybe we’ll make a carve-out in the bill that says the New York Times can hire all the low-skilled, less-paid workers they want from other countries and see how you feel then about low-wage substitution. …
You know, maybe it’s time we had compassion, Glenn, for American workers. President Trump has met with American workers who have been replaced by foreign workers.
THRUSH: Stephen, I’m not questioning any of that. I’m asking …
MILLER: And ask them — ask them how this has affected their lives.
The exchange went on in this vein for a while, with Miller ultimately pointing not to statistical data showing a need for the policy but to general statistics about unemployment.
Ultimately, Miller again asked Thrush to set aside his request for data and to consider common sense.
“The reality is that if you just use common sense — and, yes, I will use common sense,” Miller said, “the reason why some companies want to bring in more unskilled labor is because they know that it drives down wages and reduces labor costs. Our question as a government is, to whom is our duty? Our duty is to U.S. citizens and U.S. workers, to promote rising wages for them.”
That raised an obvious question, which other reporters subsequently jumped on: Why do Trump’s private businesses continue to seek visas allowing them to hire immigrants for low-wage jobs?
“I’ll just refer everyone here today back to the president’s comments during the primary, when this was raised in a debate,” Miller replied, “and he said: ‘My job as a businessman is to follow the laws of the United States. And my job as president is to create an immigration system that works for American workers.’ ”
It’s just common sense.
Emma Lazarus Poem at Statue of Liberty. Image: http://patriotretort.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Only-a-poem.jpg
Propuesta del oficialismo, enviada al Congreso, plantea que el Consejo Nacional de la Magistratura tenga un representante del Ejecutivo y otro del Parlamento.
Duberli Rodriguez, Presidente del Poder Judicial. Imagen: http://presets.larepublica.pe/720×405/larepublica/imagen/2017/08/01/noticia-duberli.png
“Se corre el riesgo de la politización en el nombramiento de los jueces y fiscales de todos los niveles en el país. Si hay dos poderes del Estado (Ejecutivo y Legislativo) que son políticos y van a designar a dos consejeros, y el Poder Judicial designa a uno, y luego entre los tres vamos a designar a otro; entonces, hay que tomar en cuenta que los dos poderes políticos tendrán mayoría en este trío. Ellos podrían ponerse de acuerdo con un sistema de cuotas partidarias que sería terrible para la independencia del PJ”, advierte.
El titular de la Corte Suprema, sin embargo, dijo en diálogo con Correo que no hay que alarmarse por esta iniciativa, ya que es una propuesta más de las que ya existen para recomponer el CNM.
“Entiendo que el Congreso de la República le dará el trámite que corresponde y luego ya se verá, porque para esta propuesta se requiere una reforma en la Constitución”, explicó.
Cuestionó que el proyecto no se haya discutido en el Acuerdo Nacional por Justicia, que lidera la ministra de Justicia, Marisol Pérez Tello. “No nos parece muy pertinente que se haya presentado directamente al Congreso”, refirió.
Para Rodríguez Tineo, es necesario cambios en el organismo, pero dijo que hubiera preferido que la propuesta de reforma haya salido del propio CNM. “Al propio presidente del CNM (Guido Águila) le parece que no ha sido oportuna una propuesta desde fuera”, remarcó.
Este proyecto, anunciado por el presidente Pedro Pablo Kuczynski en su mensaje del 28 de julio, plantea cambiar la conformación del CNM. El proyecto de ley, que entregó al mismo titular del Congreso, Luis Galarreta, busca que el Consejo tenga cinco representantes: uno del gobierno, uno del Parlamento, otro del Poder Judicial, otro de la fiscalía y un quinto elegido por los cuatro mencionados.
El estilo crítico y profundo de Rosa María Palacios para analizar los hechos que marcan la agenda nacional, en Sin Guion.
Rosa María Palacios opinó este miércoles sobre la elección de jueces y el proyecto de ley presentado por el Ejecutivo sobre la reforma en el Consejo Nacional de la Magistratura (CNM).
En su programa Sin Guion, la conductora cuestionó el proyecto del Gobierno, pues aseguró que se le daría poder al fujimorismo para elegir jueces en el país.
“El CNM debe ser la institución más opaca del Estado peruano, no se ve; sin embargo, es vital”, expresó.
“El presidente presenta un proyecto que es volver a la Constitución del 79 pero peor, mucho peor. Significa entregarle al fujimorismo la elección de jueces, tienen los votos”, dijo.
El diario brasileño O Globo informó este miércoles que la empresa Odebrecht donó dinero a la campaña de la ex candidata a la presidencia, Keiko Fujimori.
El medio indicó que tuvo acceso a documentos con el testimonio de Marcelo Odebrecht, exdirector de la constructora brasileña.
“Contra Keiko Fujimori, la primogénita del expresidente y dictador Alberto Fujimori, el más robusto de los documentos a los que el GLOBO tuvo acceso es el testimonio de Marcelo Odebrecht de mayo pasado. Él habla explícitamente que donó en la caja dos a Keiko, que encarna el discurso de defensa de la ética en la política”, se lee en el diario.
Cabe señalar que el nombre de la lideresa de Fuerza Popular, Keiko Fujimori, aparece en las agendas de Marcelo Odebrecht, según dio a conocer IDL Reporteros. De acuerdo al documento al que tuvieron acceso, se aprecia un monto que correspondería a una transacción.
En la anotación se visualiza lo siguiente: “Aumentar Keiko para 500 e eu fazer visita (ex Venez)”. A este párrafo también acompaña las denominaciones AG y Humala mientras el informe periodístico precisa que el documento no muestra una fecha concreta.
Esta información, incautada por la Policía Federal de Brasil, se incorporó al proceso de delación premiada de Odebrecht. Se presume que habría sido escrito entre finales del 2010 y comienzos del 2011.
Ex-presidente Toledo negociou pagamento em reunião no Rio de Janeiro, dizem delatores
Keiko Fujimori, PPK, Mercedes Arroz y Alejandro Toledo
Se a política peruana fosse um jogo de boliche, a delação de executivos da Odebrecht poderia, sem exageros, ser comparada a um strike. A imagem resume bem o efeito do que ocorreu no país vizinho desde dezembro de 2016, quando a gigantesca colaboração foi assinada. Foram, em maior ou menor grau, envolvidos na Lava-Jato o atual presidente, Pedro Pablo Kuczynski, o PPK, sua vice, Mercedes Arioza, os ex-presidentes Ollanta Humala e Alejandro Toledo, e a candidata a presidente derrotada Keiko Fujimori.
Humala, atualmente no presídio Barbadillo, em Lima, pode não ser o único a ser preso. Os delatores entregam detalhes de um enredo de pagamentos de caixa dois feitos pelo Setor de Operações Estruturadas semelhante ao de seus adversários políticos, hoje também sob investigação. O caso com mais detalhes, entretanto, envolve bem mais do que caixa dois.
O ex-presidente Alejandro Toledo, hoje foragido nos Estados Unidos, já tem uma ordem de prisão expedida em decorrência da Lava-Jato, sob a acusação de ter negociado propina numa reunião no Rio de Janeiro. Os delatores afirmam que, em contrapartida por criar condições que permitissem a empresa ganhar a licitação da rodovia Interoceânica, que ligaria o Brasil ao Oceano Pacífico, Toledo recebeu de suborno US$ 20 milhões entre 2006 e 2008.
A propina teria sido depositada em contas de empresas do grupo empresarial Josef Maiman, um dos principais financiadores da campanha de Toledo.
Na delação, há ainda relatos de pagamentos de propina para que a Odebrecht conquistasse, além de dois trechos da Interoceânica, a linha um do metrô de Lima, o trecho no estado Callao da estrada Vía Costa Verde, uma estrada em Cusco, na região dos Andes, e outra no estrado Carhuaz.
DEPOIMENTO DE MARCELO ODEBRECHT
Contra Keiko Fujimori, a primogênita do ex-presidente e ditador Alberto Fujimori, o mais robusto dentre os documentos a que o GLOBO teve acesso é o depoimento de Marcelo Odebrecht de maio passado. Ele fala explicitamente que doou em caixa dois para Keiko, que encarna o discurso de defesa da ética na política. Pelo Twitter, ela negou a acusação: “Eu não conheço o senhor Marcelo Odebrecht”.
Em depoimento, Odebrecht ainda revelou que o ex-ministro da Fazenda Antonio Palocci, preso pela Lava-Jato e negociando um acordo de delação, teria tido papel decisivo em pagamentos ilícitos ao ex-presidente Ollanta Humala.
“Todos grandes candidatos esperavam de certa maneira que nós doássemos. A atuação do Antonio Palocci foi decisiva para doarmos para o Ollanta Humala, mas todos esperavam”, afirmou Marcelo Odebrecht em seu depoimento de maio.
Se a versão peruana da Lava-Jato avançar, o atual presidente, PPK, e sua vice, Mercedes Arraoz, também podem ter problemas. Contra ela, paira a acusação de ter recebido caixa dois na campanha presidencial de 2011 — o que ela nega.
Já PPK vive em meio ao fantasma da Interoceânica, a mesma que pode levar Toledo à cadeia. O atual presidente era ministro da Economia no governo Toledo, que tinha na rodovia uma de suas maiores peças de propaganda. Embora a quebra do sigilo bancário de PPK não tenha apontado nenhum recurso vindo das construtoras brasileiras, uma investigação da Justiça peruana ainda apura se PPK beneficiou a Odebrecht. O presidente nega as acusações.
WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump plans to join with two Republican senators to unveil legislation that would place new limits on legal immigration. It would seek an immigration system based on merit and jobs skills instead of family connections.
Trump was appearing with Republican Sens. David Perdue of Georgia and Tom Cotton of Arkansas at the White House on Wednesday to discuss the bill. The president said at an Ohio rally last month that he was working with the conservative senators to “create a new immigration system for America.”
Trump has made cracking down on illegal immigration a hallmark of his administration and has tried to slash federal grants for cities that refuse to comply with federal efforts to detain and deport those living in the country illegally.
His involvement will put him at the centre of efforts to make changes to the legal immigration system. Previewing the event, White House officials said the bill would aim to create a skills-based immigration system to make the U.S. more competitive, raise wages and create jobs.
The White House said that only 1 in 15 immigrants comes to the U.S. because of their skills, and the current system fails to place a priority on highly skilled immigrants.
Perdue and Cotton introduced the legislation in February that would change the 1965 law to reduce the number of legal immigrants, limiting the number of people able to obtain green cards to join families already in the United States.
The bill would also aim to slash the number of refugees in half and eliminate a program that provides visas to countries with low rates of immigration.
Trump’s appearance was aimed at bringing attention to the bill, which has been largely ignored in the Senate, with no other lawmaker signing on as a co-sponsor. GOP leaders have showed no inclination to vote on immigration this year.
Some immigrant advocates have criticized the proposal, saying that slashing legal immigration would hurt industries like agriculture and harm the economy.
“Our system is broken, but the response should be to modernize it, not take a sledgehammer to it,” said Jeremy Robbins, executive director of New American Economy, a group of business leaders, mayors and others backed by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg that advocates for comprehensive immigration reform.
Letrado Pedro Angulo dice que modificación planteada por el Ejecutivo atenta contra independencia y autonomía de jueces y fiscales.
Poder del Estado y Organismo Constitucionalmente Autónomo. Composición: http://www.elpolitico.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/comgreso-peru.jpg y http://cde.peru21.pe/ima/0/0/2/4/2/242341.jpg
El proyecto de ley para reformar la conformación del Consejo Nacional de la Magistratura (CNM), presentado por el presidente Pedro Pablo Kuczynski ante el Congreso, ha causado preocupación en algunas instituciones, como los colegios de abogados.
“Este proyecto, que coincide con otro que había presentado el legislador Gilbert Violeta, nos causa gran preocupación, pues se está proponiendo la eliminación de los representantes del colegio de abogados y de los demás colegios profesionales en el CNM”, dijo el decano del Colegio de Abogados de Lima, Pedro Angulo.
El letrado recalcó que se pretende hacer una modificación constitucional, que, según él, afectaría la actual conformación del CNM establecida en la Carta Magna y que violentaría su autonomía. “Lo que se está buscando es que el Ejecutivo y el Legislativo sean los que designen a los miembros del CNM, y eso pondría en una situación de precariedad la independencia y autonomía de los jueces y fiscales. Eso es lo que más nos preocupa”, manifestó a este Diario.
Adelantó que los decanos de los colegios de abogados del país se reunirán en Lima la próxima semana para expresar públicamente su discrepancia con el proyecto y exhortar al Ejecutivo a evaluar bien el asunto.
En el CNM, los colegios de abogados tienen un representante, mientras que el resto de colegios profesionales tienen dos.
El primero en salir a cuestionar el proyecto fue el presidente del CNM, Guido Aguila, quien manifestó a El Comercio que dicha propuesta es un riesgo que acabaría politizando la justicia. “El proyecto propone que los siete miembros del CNM se reduzcan a cinco y que, de esos cinco, uno sea nombrado por el Ejecutivo y el otro por el Congreso. Así, el 40% del CNM tendría un tinte político”, dijo.
Lamentó que el proyecto no se haya conversado en el Acuerdo Nacional por la Justicia, en el que se ha venido trabajando la reforma del CNM. “Ha sido una sorpresa conocer ese proyecto en el mensaje”, subrayó.
