Blog de ArturoDiazF

White House Bars Times and Other News Outlets From Briefing

Image: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/24/us/politics/white-house-sean-spicer-briefing.html?_r=0

WASHINGTON — Journalists from The New York Times and several other news organizations were prohibited from attending a briefing by President Trump’s press secretary on Friday, a highly unusual breach of relations between the White House and its press corps.

Reporters from The Times, BuzzFeed News, CNN, The Los Angeles Times and Politico were not allowed to enter the West Wing office of the press secretary, Sean M. Spicer, for the scheduled briefing. Aides to Mr. Spicer only allowed in reporters from a handpicked group of news organizations that, the White House said, had been previously confirmed.

Those organizations included Breitbart News, the One America News Network and The Washington Times, all with conservative leanings. Journalists from ABC, CBS, The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, and Fox News also attended.

Reporters from Time magazine and The Associated Press, who were set to be allowed in, chose not to attend the briefing in protest of the White House’s actions.

“Nothing like this has ever happened at the White House in our long history of covering multiple administrations of different parties,” Dean Baquet, the executive editor of The Times, said in a statement. “We strongly protest the exclusion of The New York Times and the other news organizations. Free media access to a transparent government is obviously of crucial national interest.”

The White House Correspondents’ Association, which represents the press corps, quickly rebuked the White House’s actions.

“The W.H.C.A. board is protesting strongly against how today’s gaggle is being handled by the White House,” the association president, Jeff Mason, said in a statement. “We encourage the organizations that were allowed in to share the material with others in the press corps who were not. The board will be discussing this further with White House staff.”

The White House move came hours after Mr. Trump delivered a slashing attack on the news media in a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference. The president denounced news organizations as “dishonest” purveyors of “fake news” and mocked journalists for claiming free speech rights.

“They always bring up the First Amendment,” Mr. Trump said to cheers.

A White House spokeswoman, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, played down the events in an email on Friday afternoon.

“We invited the pool so everyone was represented,” Ms. Sanders wrote. “We decided to add a couple of additional people beyond the pool. Nothing more than that.”

Mr. Spicer’s small-group Friday session, known as a gaggle, was scheduled as a no-camera event, less formal than his usual briefings that are carried live on cable news. But past administrations have not hand-selected outlets that can attend such sessions.

“It was clear that they let in a lot of news outlets with less reach who are Trump-friendly,” said Noah Bierman, a White House reporter for The Los Angeles Times, who was barred. “They let in almost every network but CNN. That’s concerning, the handpicking aspect of it.”

Two of the barred outlets, CNN and The Times, have been a particular focus of Mr. Trump’s ire. And during the presidential campaign, some journalists from BuzzFeed News and Politico were prohibited from attending Trump rallies.

Representatives of the barred news organizations made clear that they believed the White House’s actions on Friday were punitive.

“Apparently this is how they retaliate when you report facts they don’t like,” CNN said in a statement.

Ben Smith, editor in chief of BuzzFeed, called it “the White House’s apparent attempt to punish news outlets whose coverage it does not like.”

In: nytimes 

Subsidio por maternidad

Imagen: http://m1.paperblog.com/i/375/3750244/embarazo-trabajo-proteccion-laboral-maternida-L-2wKaDX.jpeg

En relación al pago de las prestaciones económicas por maternidad (Decreto Supremo N° 002-2016-TR), SERVIR comunica a los jefes y responsables o al que haga sus veces de las Oficinas de Recursos Humanos en el Estado lo siguiente:

  • El artículo 2º del Decreto Supremo modifica el primer párrafo del artículo 16º del Reglamento de la Ley Nº 26790, Ley de Modernización de la Seguridad Social en Salud, aprobado por Decreto Supremo Nº 009-97-SA, disponiendo que las prestaciones económicas (subsidios) por maternidad se otorguen por noventa y ocho (98) días, los cuales pueden distribuirse en los períodos inmediatamente anteriores o posteriores al parto, conforme lo elija la madre, con la condición de que durante esos períodos no realice trabajo remunerado.
  • El Seguro Social de Salud del Perú (ESSALUD), a través de la Carta Circular Nº 015-GCSPE-ESSALUD-2016, ha señalado que las condiciones para el otorgamiento de las prestaciones económicas (subsidios) por maternidad, en lo que refiere a los 8 días adicionales, son las siguientes:
    a. El alumbramiento se haya producido a partir del 10 de marzo del presente año inclusive; o
    b. La fecha probable de parto sea a partir del 10 de marzo del presente año (y el alumbramiento no se haya producido).
  • En ese orden, la carta circular estipula que los Certificados de Incapacidad Temporal por Maternidad se emiten por noventa y ocho (98) días. Asimismo, a los certificados emitidos por noventa (90) días, con anterioridad a la vigencia del Decreto Supremo Nº 002-2016-TR, y que cumplan con las condiciones antes indicadas, se les adicionará un Certificado por ocho (08) días en el periodo de post-parto.

Lima, 31 de marzo de 2016

Gerencia de Desarrollo del Sistema de Recursos Humanos

En: servir.gob.pe

Supreme Court To Decide If Mexican Nationals May Sue For Border Shooting

The cellphone video is vivid. A border patrol agent aims his gun at an unarmed 15-year-old some 60 feet away, across the border with Mexico, and shoots him dead.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments in a case testing whether the family of the dead boy can sue the agent for damages in the U.S.

Between 2005 and 2013, there were 42 such cross-border shootings, a dramatic increase over earlier times.

The shooting took place on the border between El Paso, Texas, and Juárez, Mexico.

The area is about 180 feet across. Eighty feet one way leads to a steep incline and an 18-foot fence on the U.S. side — part of the so-called border wall that has already been built. An almost equal distance the other way is another steep incline leading to a wall topped by a guardrail on the Mexican side.

In between is a the dry bed of the Rio Grande with an invisible line in the middle that separates the U.S. and Mexico. Overhead is a railroad bridge with huge columns supporting it, connecting the two countries.

In June 2010, Sergio Hernández and his friends were playing chicken, daring each other to run up the incline on the U.S. side and touch the fence, according briefs filed by lawyers for the Hernández family.

At some point U.S. border agent Jesus Mesa, patrolling the culvert, arrived on a bicycle, grabbed one of the kids at the fence on the U.S. side, and the others scampered away. Fifteen-year-old Sergio ran past Mesa and hid behind a pillar beneath the bridge on the Mexican side.

As the boy peeked out, Agent Mesa, 60 feet or so away on the U.S. side, drew his gun, aimed it at the boy, and fired three times, the last shot hitting the boy in the head.

Although agents quickly swarmed the scene, they are forbidden to cross the border. They did not offer medical aid, and soon left on their bikes, according to lawyers for the family.

A day after the shooting, the FBI’s El Paso office issued a press release asserting that agent Mesa fired his gun after being “surrounded” by suspected illegal aliens who “continued to throw rocks at him.”

Two days later, cell phone videos surfaced contradicting that account. In one video the boy’s small figure can be seen edging out from behind the column; Mesa fires, and the boy falls to the ground.

“The statement literally says he was surrounded by these boys, which is just objectively false,” says Bob Hilliard, who represents the family. Pointing to the cell phone video, he says it is “clear that nobody was near ” agent Mesa.

In one video, a woman’s voice is heard saying that some of the boys had been throwing rocks, but the video does not show that, and by the time the shooting takes place, nobody is surrounding agent Mesa.

The U.S. Department of Justice decided not to prosecute Mesa. Among other things, the department concluded that it did not have jurisdiction because the boy was not on U.S. soil when he was killed.

Mexico charged the agent with murder, but when the U.S. refused to extradite him, no prosecution could go forward.

U.S. Customs and Border Patrol did not discipline agent Mesa—a fact that critics, including high-ranking former agency officials, say reflects a pattern inside the agency.

The parents of the slain boy, however, have sued Mesa for damages, contending that the killing violated the U.S. Constitution by depriving Sergio Hernández of his life.

“I can’t believe that this is allowed to happen – that a border patrol agent is allowed to kill someone on the Mexican side, and nothing happens,” Sergio’s mother, Maria Guadalupe Güereca Betancour, says through an interpreter.

As the case comes to the Supreme Court, there has been no trial yet and no court finding of facts. Mesa continues to maintain that he shot the boy in self-defense after being surrounded by rock-throwing kids.

That’s a scenario that Mesa’s lawyers say is borne out by other videos from stationary cameras that have not been released to the public.

“It was clear that Agent Mesa was in an area that is wrought with narcotics trafficking and human trafficking,” asserts Randolph Ortega, who represents Mesa on behalf of the border patrol agents union. “And it’s clear that, in my opinion, he was defending himself.”

The only question before the Supreme Court centers on whether the Hernández family has the right to sue. A divided panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that no reasonable officer would have done what Agent Mesa did, and that therefore the family could sue.

However, the full court of appeals reversed that judgment, ruling that because the Hernández boy was standing on the Mexico side of the border and was a Mexican citizen with no ties to the United States, his family could not sue for a violation of the U.S. Constitution. Moreover, the appeals court said that even if the facts as alleged by the Hernández family are true, Mesa is entitled to qualified immunity, meaning he cannot be sued because there is no clearly established body of law barring his conduct.

Lawyers for the Hernández family counter that Supreme Court precedents establish a practical approach in determining whether there is a right to sue for the use of excessive force in circumstances like these. Lawyer Hilliard says yes, the boy was across the border when the shots were fired, but by just 60 feet.

“This is a domestic action by a domestic police officer standing in El Paso, Texas, who is to be constrained by this country’s constitution,” Hilliard contends. “There’s a U.S. Supreme Court case that says a law enforcement officer cannot seize an individual by shooting him dead, which is what happened in this case.”

Hilliard argues that if you follow the border patrol’s argument to its necessary conclusion, “it means that a law enforcement officer is immune to the Constitution when exercising deadly force across the border.

“He could stand on the border and target practice with the kids inside the culvert,” Hilliard warns.

But lawyer Ortega replies that’s not true, and asks how the court should draw the line.

“How far does it extend? Does it extend 40 feet? As far as the bullet can travel? All of Juárez, Mexico? All of (the state of) Chihuahua, Mexico? Where does the line end?”

Backed by the federal government, he suggests that a ruling in favor of the Hernández family would mean foreigners could sue over a drone attack.

Now it’s up to the Supreme Court to decide where to draw the line.

In: npr

Trump and the Republicans Are Redefining “Religious Freedom” to Favor Christians

They want to turn religious belief into a license to discriminate, and to tear down the wall separating church and state.

Image: http://dvau.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/a-christian-nation1.jpg

BY GRAHAM VYSE
February 16, 2017

As foreshadowed by his campaign, Donald Trump has spent his presidency fear-mongering over imaginary or exaggerated problems, toward sinister ends. Trump claims of widespread voter fraud are a pretext for cracking down on voters who favor Democrats. He invents crime statistics to lay the groundwork for authoritarian law-and-order policies. And he routinely calls the mainstream media “FAKE NEWS” to delegitimize accurate reporting that makes him look bad.

Republicans in Congress haven’t joined Trump on these particular crusades, but on Thursday, they will take up an issue where they and the president are equally unmoored from reality: Religious freedom.

The House Judiciary Committee is holding a hearing Thursday on “The State of Religious Liberty in America,” featuring three GOP witnesses: Kim Colby, director of the Center for Law and Religious Freedom at the Christian Legal Society, which in 2010 argued unsuccessfully at the Supreme Court that one of its public law school chapters should receive university recognition and funding while excluding gay students; Hannah Smith, senior counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which The American Prospect dubbed “the leading advocate for corporations’ religious rights” after its central work on the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby case; and Casey Mattox, senior counsel for the Center for Academic Freedom at the Alliance Defending Freedom, whose leading legal role in a host of socially conservative causes over the decades led Think Progress to call it “The 800-Pound Gorilla Of The Christian Right.”

Given this lineup, it’s safe to assume the hearing will resemble previous ones on the subject, where Republicans have argued that religious freedom is under unprecedented attack in the United States. What they’ll really be arguing for, though, is the right to use religious beliefs as a license to discriminate, and to provide special protections for Christians that fly in the face of the First Amendment.

Trump, a declared Presbyterian, may not be a man of deep faith. But after winning the GOP nomination, he won over the religious right and now, he’s delivering on his promises with the help of Republicans on Capitol Hill. In doing so, these supposed defenders of religious freedom are instead waging a war on it, further blurring the separation of church and state in America.

When the House Judiciary Committee held a religious liberty hearing in 2014, Representative Trent Franks from Arizona accused the Obama administration of “flippant willingness to fundamentally abrogate America’s priceless religious freedom in the name of leftist social engineering,” citing Obamacare’s birth control mandate. Franks added that “every individual has the right to religious freedom and First Amendment expression so long as they do not deny the constitutional rights of another.”

But as that hearing wore on, it became clear that Republicans and their conservative witnesses did, in fact, want to impinge on the rights of others. They argued that, for religious reasons, companies should be allowed to deny their employees contraception coverage and wedding photographers should be allowed to turn away same-sex couples. Matthew Staver, founder of the conservative Christian law firm Liberty Counsel, even defended the legality of counseling “to reduce or eliminate same-sex sexual attractions, behavior, or identity”—otherwise known as conversion therapy.

Barry Lynn—a Democratic witness and the executive director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State—argued in his testimony, “Ironically, the single greatest threat to religious freedom comes from a radical redefinition of the idea itself…I think the Framers of the Constitution would be appalled at the radical revisionism of the First Amendment being advocated by some. More importantly, I think the America of the future will look askance at efforts to elevate majority faiths or subject not so traditional believers to the status of an orphan class to be denied genuinely equal treatment in this diverse country.”

If Lynn was concerned about Republicans’ redefinition of religious liberty three years ago, he’s more worried today, now that the GOP controls Congress and the presidency.

Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court, appeals court judge Neil Gorsuch, is an anti-choice arch-conservative who sidedwith Hobby Lobby in the (ultimately successful) lawsuit against the aforementioned birth control mandate. Trump has tappedLiberty University President Jerry Falwell Jr. to head an education task force. He wants to enact a $20 billion school voucher program that would use taxpayer dollars to fund religious education. He’s pledged to “totally destroy” the Johnson Amendment, a 1954 law banning churches from political campaigning. And his ban on immigration from seven majority-Muslim countries was halted by a federal judge for discriminating based on religion.

“When you take vouchers, politicking from the pulpit, the trumping of laws by claims of religion, and the immigration order, that is just a smorgasbord of terrible ideas,” Lynn said in an interview this week.

There’s more. As Michelle Goldberg wrote in The New York Times last month, Trump is “assembling a near-theocratic administration, his cabinet full of avowed enemies of church-state separation.” Vice President Mike Pence believes school should be allowed to teach creationism, that condoms provide “very poor protection,” and has argued that federal AIDS funding should go to organizations that “provide assistance to those seeking to change their sexual behavior.” Attorney General Jeff Sessions has said church-state separation is “unhistorical and unconstitutional.” Education Secretary Betsy DeVos supports taxpayer-funded vouchers for public school students to attend religious schools. And so on.

Meanwhile, congressional Republicans are readying to reintroduce Trump-endorsed legislation that “would limit the federal government’s ability to punish individuals and organizations who oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds,” according to PBS NewsHour. Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, told PBS that the bill, as first introduced in 2015, “is very radical, and would startle and scare middle-of-the-road Republicans”:

Olson argued that the law, as it was originally written, would protect people like Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who grabbed headlines in 2015 when she denied a marriage license to a same-sex couple. The bill also extended protection to pharmacists who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions for unmarried women if they cite that “sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.”

“Everything we hold as being real constitutional freedoms and protections is under assault right now,” Larry Decker, executive director of the Secular Coalition For America, said in an interview.

In addition to legitimizing discrimination under the guise of religious freedom, Trump is further enhancing the privilege of Christianity in America. He’s pledged to prioritize Christian refugees, drawing condemnation from Christian leaders who rightly see the idea as discriminatory. More fundamentally, he’s advancing the politically expedient lie that Christianity itself is somehow under attack in the United States. “Christianity is under tremendous siege,” he said on the campaign trail last year.

“They don’t have a damn clue what religious freedom means. They have bastardized the expression and the definition of it.”

Though Christians face legitimate religious persecution and slaughter for their beliefs around the world, America retains a “dizzying level of religious freedom for Christians,” Lynn told me. Much of Trump’s most passionate campaign rhetoric on this issue last year revolved around his pledge to bring back “Merry Christmas,” the seasonal greeting supposedly endangered by the rise of “Happy Holidays.” This is classic conservative Christian grievance politics, revealing that the religious right’s anxiety is not that their faith is genuinely threatened, but that it no long occupies a privileged place in an increasingly multicultural society.

“They don’t have a damn clue what religious freedom means,” Decker of the Secular Coalition said. “They have bastardized the expression and the definition of it to suggest the only thing that creates real religious freedom is privileging Christianity in this country.”

Deep down, Trump probably regards the religious right with only slightly more esteem than your average Manhattanite. But conservative Christians, evangelicals especially, are a key part of his political coalition, and he’s clearly willing to do almost anything to keep them in his column. He’ll worship them so long as they worship him, happy to politicize religion if it serves his needs.

Decker said it wasn’t for him to question Trump’s faith, but joked that Trump clearly believes in one deity above all. “I do believe that Donald Trump probably is a believer,” he said. “I think he’s a believer in Donald Trump.”

El controversial corto del Super Bowl: 84 Lumber Super Bowl Commercial – The Entire Journey

Si pudiste ver el Super Bowl el ultimo domingo, seguramente habras notado un comercial que ha tocado al tema de la inmigracion desde Mexico a los Estados Unidos producido por la empresa maderera “Lumber 84”, la cual, al finalizar, le pedia a los espectadores ir a su website para “completar el viaje”. El tema es que mucha gente penso para que ir al website para terminar un comercial? Transmitanlo completamente! No me hagan trabajar por una companhia de la que nunca he oido hablar!

Lo que paso es que “Lumber 84” habia planeado transmitir todo el comercial pero la cadena televisiva Fox puso el grito en el cielo. El broadcaster considero el comercial como muy “controversial” como para ser transmitido durante el evento televisivo mas visto del pais y por ello “Lumber 84” fue forzado a cortar el comercial y remover parte de la cinta considerada ofensiva.

El comercial es la historia simbolica de una madre y su pequenha hija ralizando un arduo y largo viaje a los Estados Unidos de Norteamerica. En el video que no se pudo ver en el Super Bowl, ellas llegan a la frontera solo para ser recibidas por una gran muralla de concreto. Pero ahi no acaba la cosa.

Esta es un gran corto con un mensaje poderoso y claro: Las oportunidades estan siendo vapuleadas (algo contradictorio en el “pais de las oprtunidades”).

Fox es una empresa con fines de lucro, por lo que tienen el derecho de elegir lo que hacen y no hacen con sus ondas, pero se ve ridículo que la misma red que no dice nada respecto de las gráficas torturas de “24” encuentren la imagen de una pared fronteriza demasiado “polémica”.

Traducido al espanhol de: collider.com

Tildes omitidas intencionalmente.

President Trump’s Immigration Order, Annotated

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Friday afternoon approved a sweeping executive order that suspended entry of all refugees to the United States for 120 days, barred Syrian refugees indefinitely, and blocked entry into the United States for 90 days for citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. It also barred green card holders from those countries from re-entering the United States, the Department of Homeland Security said, though the administration said exemptions could be granted.

Here are some major excerpts from the executive order, with comments by The New York Times. The full text of the order is available here.

It invokes the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001

The visa-issuance process plays a crucial role in detecting individuals with terrorist ties and stopping them from entering the United States. Perhaps in no instance was that more apparent than the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, when State Department policy prevented consular officers from properly scrutinizing the visa applications of several of the 19 foreign nationals who went on to murder nearly 3,000 Americans.

Most of the 19 hijackers on the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Shanksville, Pa., were from Saudi Arabia. The rest were from the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Lebanon. None of those countries are on Mr. Trump’s visa ban list.

America’s founders were pro-immigration

In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles.

The nation’s founding principles, as reflected in the Declaration of Independence, included dissatisfaction with what were said to be overly restrictive immigration practices.

It defines what non-U.S. citizens should believe

The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law.

“There is no statutory requirement that noncitizens entering the United States support the Constitution,” said Peter J. Spiro, a law professor at Temple University. “The executive order seems to suggest that even temporary visitors like tourists and students should support the U.S. Constitution, which doesn’t make a lot of sense.”

Does Mr. Trump have the power to do this?

To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period described in subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) . . .

This provision is the key to the power Mr. Trump claims. It says: “Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

The provision “gives the president capacious authority to deny entry to any alien or class of aliens,” Professor Spiro said. “No court has ever reversed a presidential order under it.”

But he added, “In terms of the number of prospective immigrants involved, this is by far the most significant use of the power by any president.”

Some critics say the order runs afoul of a later law that bars discrimination “in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence.”

The tension between the two laws has not been definitively resolved by the courts. Jennifer Chacon, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine, said that a challenge to the executive order based on the later law’s equal-protection principles was the most promising line of attack.

In an opinion article in The New York Times, David J. Bier, an immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute, a libertarian group, said Mr. Trump had at least violated the spirit of the later law.

“Even if courts do find wiggle room here, discretion can be taken too far,” Mr. Bier wrote. “If Mr. Trump can legally ban an entire region of the world, he would render Congress’s vision of unbiased legal immigration a dead letter.”

It targets 7 countries

. . . I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order . . .

The countries are Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen.

Some people are exempt

. . . (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).

These exceptions are mostly for diplomats, people traveling to the United Nations in New York, and others involved in international organizations.

The order has room to grow

The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall submit to the President a list of countries recommended for inclusion on a Presidential proclamation that would prohibit the entry of foreign nationals.

The initial list may soon change and expand.

But it also extends beyond the 7 countries

The Secretary of State shall suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days.

This provision suspends all admissions of refugees, not limited to the seven countries.

The order prioritizes Christian refugees

Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality.

As a general matter, this will give priority to Christian refugees over Muslim ones. Though framed in a neutral way, this part of the order may raise questions of religion-based discrimination. Mr. Trump has said that he means to favor Christian refugees.

That violates the First Amendment’s ban on government establishment of religion, according to David Cole, the legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union. “One of the critical questions with respect to the validity of executive action challenged under the Establishment Clause is its intent and effect,” he wrote in a blog post. “If intended to disfavor a particular religion, it violates the Establishment Clause.”

Syrians are ‘detrimental’ to U.S. interests, it says

Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.

This effectively expands the ban on immigrants from Syria.

How it restricts all refugees

(d) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of more than 50,000 refugees in fiscal year 2017 would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I determine that additional admissions would be in the national interest.

This cuts the cap on refugees in half.

In: nytimes 

Refugees Detained at U.S. Airports; Trump Immigration Order Is Challenged

By NICHOLAS KULISH and MANNY FERNANDEZ / JAN. 28, 2017

President Trump’s executive order closing the nation’s borders to refugees was put into immediate effect on Friday night. Refugees who were airborne on flights on the way to the United States when the order was signed were stopped and detained at airports.

The detentions prompted legal challenges as lawyers representing two Iraqis held at Kennedy Airport filed a writ of habeas corpus early Saturday in the Eastern District of New York seeking to have their clients released. At the same time, they filed a motion for class certification, in an effort to represent all refugees and immigrants who they said were being unlawfully detained at ports of entry.

Mr. Trump’s order, which suspends entry for all refugees for 120 days, created a legal limbo for people on their way to the United States and panic for families who were awaiting their arrival.

The president’s order also blocks the admission of refugees from Syria indefinitely, and bars entry into the United States for 90 days from seven predominantly Muslim countries linked to concerns about terrorism. Those countries are Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

It was unclear how many refugees and immigrants were being held nationwide in the aftermath of the executive order. The complaints were filed by a prominent group including the American Civil Liberties Union, the International Refugee Assistance Project at the Urban Justice Center, the National Immigration Law Center, Yale Law School’s Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization and the firm Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton.

The lawyers said that one of the Iraqis detained at Kennedy Airport, Hameed Khalid Darweesh, had worked on behalf of the United States government in Iraq for 10 years. The other, Haider Sameer Abdulkhaleq Alshawi, was coming to the United States to join his wife, who had worked for an American contractor, and young son, the lawyers said. They said both men had been detained at the airport on Friday night after arriving on separate flights.

The lawyers said they had not been allowed to meet with their clients, and there were tense moments as they tried to reach them.

“Who is the person we need to talk to?” asked one of the lawyers, Mark Doss, a supervising attorney at the International Refugee Assistance Project.

“Mr. President,” said a Customs and Border Protection agent, who declined to identify himself. “Call Mr. Trump.”

The executive order, which Mr. Trump said was part of an extreme vetting plan to keep out “radical Islamic terrorists,” also established a religious test for refugees from Muslim nations: He ordered that Christians and others from minority religions be granted priority over Muslims.

In the arrivals hall at Terminal 4 of Kennedy Airport, Mr. Doss and two other lawyers fought fatigue as they tried to learn the status of their clients on the other side of the security perimeter.

“We’ve never had an issue once one of our clients was at a port of entry in the United States,” Mr. Doss said. “To see people being detained indefinitely in the country that’s supposed to welcome them is a total shock.”

“These are people with valid visas and legitimate refugee claims who have already been determined by the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security to be admissible and to be allowed to enter the U.S. and now are being unlawfully detained,” Mr. Doss said.

A supervisor for Customs and Border Protection at Kennedy Airport declined to comment, referring questions to public affairs officials. Calls to officials in Washington and New York were not returned early Saturday.

According to the filing, Mr. Darweesh was granted a special immigrant visa on Jan. 20, the same day Mr. Trump was sworn in as president. Mr. Darweesh worked with the United States in Iraq in a variety of jobs — as an interpreter, engineer and contractor — over the course of roughly a decade.

Mr. Darweesh worked as an interpreter for the Army’s 101st Airborne Division in Baghdad and Mosul starting shortly after the invasion of Iraq on April 1, 2003. The filing said he had been directly targeted twice for working with the United States military.

A husband and father of three, he arrived at Kennedy Airport on Friday evening with his family. Mr. Darweesh’s wife and children made it through passport control and customs, but agents of Customs and Border Protection stopped and detained him.

Brandon Friedman, who worked with Mr. Darweesh as an infantry lieutenant with the 101st Airborne, praised Mr. Darweesh’s work. “This is a guy that this country owes a debt of gratitude to,” Mr. Friedman said. “There are not many Americans who have done as much for this country as he has. He’s put himself on the line. He’s put his family on the line to help U.S. soldiers in combat, and it is astonishing to me that this country would suddenly not allow people like that in.”

Mr. Friedman, who is the chief executive of the McPherson Square Group, a communications firm in Washington, added, “We have a moral obligation to protect and repay these people who risked their lives for U.S. troops.”

He also said he feared for America’s military. “This not only endangers troops in the future, it endangers troops who are in combat now in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, wherever,“ Mr. Friedman said. “If those interpreters and those fixers hear that the United States is not going to protect them, then they don’t have any incentive to work with U.S. troops, and there’s no way that we can operate without their support and assistance.”

“He is a brave individual, and he cares about Iraq and he cares about the U.S.,” he said of Mr. Darweesh.

Mr. Alshawi was supposed to be reunited with his wife, who has been living in Texas. The wife, who asked to be identified by her first initial, D., out of concern for her family’s safety, wiped away tears as she sat on a couch in her sister’s house early Saturday in a Houston suburb.

The woman, a 32-year-old who was born in Iraq, met her husband when both were students at a Baghdad college. The couple has one child, a 7-year-old son who is in first grade. The boy was asleep in the house at 3 a.m. Eastern time Saturday, unaware that his father was in the United States but under detention and at risk of being returned to Iraq.

Relatives crowded the living room in their pajamas and slippers, making and receiving phone calls to and from other relatives and the refugee’s lawyers. At times, D. was so emotional that she had trouble speaking about her husband’s predicament.

She pulled out her cellphone and flipped through her pictures. She wanted to show a reporter a picture she had taken of her son’s letter to Santa Claus. In November, at a Macy’s Santa-letter display at a nearby mall, the boy wrote out his wish: “Dear Santa: Can you bring my Dad from Sweden pls.” He has not seen his father in three years.

“I’m really breaking down, because I don’t know what to do,” she said. “It’s not fair.”

She and her relatives had not told her son that his father was finally coming to Houston and that the son’s wish to Santa was about to come true. “It was a surprise for him,” she said.

Earlier on Friday, she had watched news coverage about Mr. Trump’s executive order. “My husband was already on the airplane,” she said. “He got to the airplane at 11 o’clock in Houston time.” At that point, she grew worried about what effect the order would have on her husband, but she assumed it would not take effect immediately.

D., along with her brother and her sister, asked that their full names not be used because they were concerned that publicity about the case would lead to harassment.

At about 2:30 a.m. Eastern time Saturday, Mr. Alshawi called his wife on her cellphone. They spoke for about five minutes, and D. put the call on speaker so the rest of the family gathered at the house could hear. It was the first time D. and her husband had spoken since he arrived at the airport in New York at about 8:30 p.m. Eastern time on Friday, she said. He had flown from Stockholm to New York, and was supposed to then fly to Houston.

“He gave his package and his passport to an airport officer, and they didn’t talk to him, they just put him in a room,” she said. “He told me that they forced him to get back to Iraq. He asked for his lawyer and to apply for an asylum case. And they told him, ‘You can’t do that. You need to go back to your country.’”

She said the authorities at the airport had told him that the president’s signing of the executive order was the reason he could not proceed to Houston.

“They told him it’s the president’s decision,” she said.

D.’s brother added of the phone call with his brother-in-law, “He’s very calm but he’s desperate. He said, ‘They are sending me there, they are sending me there,’” referring to Iraq.

In: nytimes

El régimen de periodistas del Duce

Periodista + poder = dictador. No necesariamente esta ecuación tendría que dar siempre tan tremendo resultado. Pero en el caso de Benito Mussolini (1883-1945) esa suma es, en efecto, de una precisión matemática.

Imagen: http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1306648-el-regimen-de-periodistas-del-duce

Imagen: http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1306648-el-regimen-de-periodistas-del-duce

El de Mussolini fue un régimen de periodistas que no sólo influiría fuertemente sobre futuros gobiernos derechistas en la manera de manipular a la prensa, sino también en administraciones de signo supuestamente progresista. Una influencia que, lamentablemente, aún no ha cesado y cuyos aires nos resultan desafortunadamente familiares. Es curioso: el fascismo goza de muy mala prensa, pero hasta algunos que se creen sus detractores no se cansan de practicarlo y no de manera tan solapada.

Hijo de padre izquierdista y madre católica, Benito -por Benito Juárez, el revolucionario mexicano- sufrirá sucesivas y sísmicas mutaciones políticas a lo largo del tiempo.

“Del anarquismo al socialismo, el nacionalismo extremo y, finalmente, el fascismo”, sintetiza el historiador Peter Neville en Mussolini , una biografía que presta atención a las circunstancias que pesaron en su formación. A pesar de haber trabajado como albañil y varias veces como maestro, el periodismo captó el centro de su atención muy recurrentemente como colaborador de periódicos socialistas, tarea que alternaba con sus incursiones como agitador y orador de causas siempre inflamadas. “La experiencia como periodista -señala Neville- sería invaluable en su carrera política.”

La inclinación hacia las letras efímeras -qué otra cosa es después de todo el periodismo- le venía por la sangre: si bien su padre fue herrero, en cierta época escribió un par de notas, en tanto que su hermano Arnaldo ( ghostwriter de ” il Duce “, en Mi autobiografía ) y su sobrino Vito se dedicaron de lleno al periodismo.

El mismo Benito tenía pasta para aporrear las máquinas de escribir y llegó a ser director del periódico Lucha de clases , de Forli, en 1909. En 1912, al borde de los 30 años, ya era editor de Avanti! y, dos años más tarde, fundaba Il Popolo d´Italia . “Mussolini -apunta Neville- produjo gran cantidad de escritos, y aunque están plagados de egotismo y dogmatismo, permiten comprender ciertos aspectos de su personalidad.”

La figura del dictador italiano viene a cuento porque en las últimas semanas se estrenó en la Argentina Vincere , el apreciado film de Marco Bellocchio que supo reflejar con dramatismo las tortuosas aristas de su compleja relación amorosa con Ida Dalser, a la que se propuso borrar del mapa en cuanto comenzó a incomodarlo. Y lo mismo con el hijo que ambos tuvieron, que llevaba su propio nombre. Mussolini prefirió, en cambio, inclinarse por otra mujer, Rachele Guidi, su esposa oficial, con quien tuvo tres hijos: Edda, Vittorio y Bruno.

Peleó en la Primera Guerra Mundial y tuvo un temprano cargo político (secretario de la Cámara de Trabajo de Trentino, en 1909). Fueron años de agitación y turbulencias que desembocaron en una voltereta ideológica que lo llevó de un extremo del arco político al otro, en 1921, cuando creó el Partido Fascista y resultó electo para ocupar una banca en el parlamento. Fue 1922 el año de su consagración, al ser designado primer ministro, y sus “camisas negras” marcharon sobre Roma.

Pronto contempló con agrado el crepitar de hogueras alimentadas con libros y con periódicos opositores.

El nuevo pontífice de la extrema ideología italiana sentenciaba por entonces en La Doctrina Fascista (Vallechi Editore Firenze, Florencia, 1935) que “todo permanece en el Estado y nada fuera de él”. ¿Y qué pensaba del periodismo? “La prensa es un elemento del régimen, una fuerza al servicio del Estado”, decretó.

Así, los que no supieron encolumnarse rápidamente fueron hostigados y presionados de distintas maneras, hasta que con la excusa de un atentado frustrado contra Mussolini, el Gran Consejo Fascista resolvió la suspensión, por tiempo indeterminado, de todas las publicaciones que no fueran totalmente favorables al régimen.

El silencio caracteriza a las dictaduras, pero en una dictadura encabezada por un ex periodista, rodeado de ex periodistas amigos, lo que imperó fue el parloteo, tan caro, por otra parte, a la idiosincrasia peninsular. Su menú era sencillo y no apto para estómagos delicados: malversación de la verdad, relectura constante de la historia y el presente en función de las necesidades del régimen en cada momento, aderezados por continuas consignas machacadas una y otra vez hasta el hartazgo para mantener en alto la “épica” discursiva del régimen.

“La prensa diaria -diagnostica Edward R. Tannenbaum en La experiencia fascista – fue el medio de comunicación más natural de los fascistas. En ninguna otra dictadura hubo tantos periodistas que hablaran tanto sobre tantas cosas. El Duce marcaba el tono del régimen con su continuo interés periodístico y este tono influía también en el Ministerio de Cultura Popular.”

Italiano hasta la médula, el fascismo lució siempre una exuberancia y desorden de los que careció el nazismo, su monolítico e implacable aliado.

“Goebbels y Rosenberg -agrega Tannenbaum- habían preparado listas negras de cientos de libros, obras teatrales, cuadros, películas y de sus creadores. En Italia, las listas negras y otras formas de control cultural no fueron tan amplias como en Alemania y nunca se cumplieron tan estrictamente. El régimen fascista permitió un limitado criticismo en cuestiones concretas, con una actitud política conocida posteriormente como «tolerancia represiva»”.

Mientras en Alemania un tercio de la prensa total fue absorbida por la maquinaria estatal; en Italia sólo lo fue en un diez por ciento. De todos modos, cualquier atisbo de crítica desapareció de la totalidad de la prensa después de 1926.

“La prensa más libre del mundo -se regodeaba Mussolini- es la prensa italiana. En otros países, los periódicos están a las órdenes de grupos plutócratas, de partidos, de individuos; en otras partes están reducidos a los bajos menesteres de la compra y venta de noticias excitantes, cuya lectura reiterada acaba por determinar en el público una especie de saturación estupefacta con síntomas de atonía e imbecibilidad; en otras partes, los diarios están reunidos en manos de poquísimos individuos, que consideran los periódicos como una verdadera industria, como la del hierro o la del acero. El periodismo italiano es libre porque sirve solamente a una causa y a un régimen; es libre porque dentro de las leyes puede ejercer y ejercita funciones de control, de crítica, de propulsión.”

En los tiempos en que el gran Consejo Fascista terminó destituyendo a Mussolini, en 1943, aquí en la Argentina los militares del Grupo de Oficiales Unidos (GOU), que habían desalojado del poder a los conservadores del “fraude patriótico” dieron precisas instrucciones para que la caída del Duce fuera suministrada con cautela por los diarios y los informativos de la radio.

La creación, el 21 de octubre de 1943, de la Subsecretaría de Informaciones y Prensa seguirá el modelo italiano al centralizar y coordinar la información oficial y organizará, por primera vez de manera sistemática y persistente, la propaganda estatal. Tres años más tarde, capitalizará ese esquema Juan Domingo Perón, quien, en 1939, enviado a Europa en misión de estudio, había asistido a cursos en Italia donde quedó muy impresionado con la experiencia fascista.

El 27 de marzo de 1945, un mes antes del fusilamiento de Mussolini por los partisanos y del suicidio de Hitler, en su búnker, cuando los soviéticos ya estaban a las puertas de Berlín, la dictadura militar argentina le declaraba la guerra al Eje, en reacción tardía. La semilla fascista, de todos modos, terminaría germinando nuevamente.

© LA NACION

En: lanacion.com.ar 

1 11 12 13 14 15 18