Categoría: discriminacion

La generación Z alemana y el holocausto – Una clase de historia

Deje un comentario

¿Qué vincula a los escolares alemanes de hoy en día con el Holocausto? La generación Z alemana, nacida entre 1996 y 2009 se enfrenta en la clase de historia con un tema que, aunque les resulta muy lejano, no deja de conmoverles.

Video: DW

Video: TheIHRA

La Jaula Invisible en que Vivimos

Deje un comentario

“[. . .] y esto solo conlleva a la creación de burbujas y cámaras de eco donde los usuarios navegan sin encontrarse resultados, contenidos o personas con una visión opuesta a la suya, o si se la llegan a encontrar la ven tan lejana, tan ajena, que será muy raro que logren generar algún tipo de empatía o de punto en común entre ellos.

Por esto es lógico que ante la hostilidad y la constante radicalización se dé una búsqueda de aislamiento y se tenga cada vez menos una menor resistencia a las personas con ideas diferentes, o lo que es lo mismo, esto no soluciona nada, solo empeora el problema generando tribus y radicalismos sociales por doquier. En esto no son dos redes sociales, es el internet entero, y también lo que está fuera de la pantalla donde se materializa el gobierno de la satisfacción.

Y la lucha no para. Incluso más allá de redes sociales. Por eso se busca nuevas formas de captar más, y más, y más, y más datos. Y no sólo eso, de nuevas formas de procesarlos, por eso decía, que no necesitas cámaras ni micrófonos para espiar a alguien. Existe algo que se llama publicidad predictiva que básicamente es observación predictiva del comportamiento con base a unos pequeños puntos, de unas pequeñas informaciones sobre ti que se pueden entrecruzar entre diferentes bases de datos, lo cual es totalmente normal en internet, se pueden saber cuestiones tuyas que aún no ocurren como, por ejemplo, que vas a estar embarazada o, por ejemplo, que te vas a pelear y separar
de tu pareja, u otras tantas cosas más. Todo eso se ha estado usando para publicidad pero, en serio hay que hacer la pregunta: Si un Estado tiene la posibilidad de simplemente replicar lo que ya hace una empresa, por qué no?

Por ejemplo, el Foro Económico Mundial considera la posibilidad de que en un futuro un algoritmo como el que ya elige las películas de Netflix elija la ropa que la gente va a vestir pues, en teoría, la ropa ya solo se contrataría así como un Uber. Todo esto con un modelo donde no hay estrellas o puntuaciones. Directamente el algoritmo como Netflix decide que cosa probablemente te va a gustar. No piensa en sí tal o cual película tiene tales o cuales galardones, o si es importante en tal contexto, o en la historia de cuál cine. No. Simplemente piensa en la coincidencia: “Piensa sólo en ti”. Solo va generando un súper individuo aislado de todo. Es básicamente la instrumentalización del súper individualismo, llevarlo a un nivel que aún no se ha visto, y a lo que, en opinión de varios expertos, será una sociedad con lazos más debilitados y una política menos democrática y más mecanizada. Pues básicamente la sociedad se estaría convirtiendo lentamente hasta en los puntos más frívolos y banales en un montón de burbujas aisladas entre ellas llamadas individuos, reitero, no como los que tenemos ahora sino a otro nivel.

Así que al mismo tiempo que somos cada vez más complacidos, también tenemos la mejor capacidad de ser controlados. No digo que eso busquen los gobiernos pero está ahí la posibilidad. Esto ya no es ciencia ficción.

Hey! pero esto podría ayudar a muchísimas cosas, no? Digo básicamente orden y control social. Podríamos decir entonces que vamos a una utopía manejada por los datos? No exactamente: Los bots, los softwares, los algoritmos, etc pueden chocar entre ellos como ya lo habíamos mencionado en el caso de Wikipedia, y curiosamente no es nada inesperado que nos den resultados inesperados. Además, como lo destacan ingenieros especialistas, matemáticos, y consultores en seguridad, estamos creando algoritmos que cada vez entendemos menos y por tanto no sabremos a dónde nos pueden llevar o por qué nos llevan a dónde nos llevan.

Como los autos Tesla arrollando robots, los algoritmos ya mencionados para los juicios que llegan a desproporcionar sentencias, basados en sesgos informativos softwares de reconocimiento facial que llegan a confundir congresistas con gente que ya está en prisión, o hasta los programas de alta frecuencia de la bolsa de valores, que en esta década casi causan una crisis económica sólo por seguir su programación.

Caramba! lo que estoy tratando de decir aquí es un principio básico de la ingeniería: Que la máquina, la herramienta, y otras tantas cosas más no cumplen deseos sino cumplen funciones. Pero tal como dice Jure Leskovec, “La caja negra”, refiriéndose al algoritmo, “es la verdad, si funciona funciona, no debemos siquiera intentar analizar que escupe la máquina, la máquina ve patrones que no conocemos”, y luego sentencia que “para muchos y su pensamiento acrítico frente al asunto: ‘Dios es la Máquina'”.

Estamos llegando a la sociedad de la caja negra donde no podemos entender ni conocer todos esos elementos que nos gobiernan, influencian, y categorizan, así como también van creando e hiper-formando nuestra realidad, porque esto de que tu celular te escucha y te de publicidad muy descarada no solo tiene una tendencia de volverse en lo normal, sino a llegar a estar tan pulido en un futuro, que no podremos darnos cuenta de la publicidad, mensajes, propaganda, e ideología que nos puedan llegar.

Simplemente sentirnos satisfechos porque siempre nos sale un anuncio de lo que necesitamos. Simplemente nos sentiríamos satisfechos porque ya seríamos una parte integral más de un gigantesco bucle de satisfacción en el cual ya no seríamos exactamente usuarios de las redes, sino que en parte las redes serían usuarias de nosotros [. . .]”

Video: Esquizofrenia Natural

Victoria Democrata: La Suprema Corte de North Carolina Declara el Gerrymandering Inconstitucional

Deje un comentario

Image: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/win-democrats-n-c-supreme-court-strikes-down-redistricting-maps-n1288689

En una decision dividida, la Corte Suprema de Carolina del Norte anuló los nuevos mapas estatales que representan a los escaños del Congreso y de la Asamblea General del estado, asimismo, declaró que los tribunales estatales tenían autoridad para invalidar los límites diseñados por el partido republicano que tenían por finalidad asegurar una ventaja republicana de largo plazo en un estado que, al contrario, se encuentra altamente dividido.

A través de una decisión de 4-3, la Corte Suprema ordenó a la legislatura, controlada por el Partido Republicano, que rediseñe los planos antes del 18 de febrero y que explique cómo fue que calcularon la equidad partidista de estos nuevos límites. Cualquier mapa de reemplazo aún se puede utilizar para las elecciones primarias del 17 de mayo.

La decisión de la corte suprema revocó el fallo emitido en enero 2022 por un panel de tres jueces de primera instancia. La decision en mayoría declaró que la manipulación partidista en la redistribución de distritos aprobada por la legislatura en noviembre del año pasado violaba varias disposiciones de la Constitución de Carolina del Norte, entre ellos, el derecho a elecciones libres, libertad de expresión y protección igualitaria de los ciudadanos (protección igualitaria significa que una legislación que discrimina debe tener una base racional para hacerlo).

Los jueces de primera instancia habían encontrado amplia evidencia que demostraba que la legislatura había aprobado mapas que fueron “el resultado de una redistribución de distritos partidista pro-republicana realizada de manera intencional”. A pesar de ello, declararon que cuando se trataba de cuestionar la equidad partidista de estos planos y mapas, no le correspondía al poder judicial intervenir en su elaboración, ya que este deber le correspondía a la legislatura. Los jueces consideraron a este proceso de redistribución de distritos como algo inherentemente político y dijeron que muchas de estas demandas quedaban fuera del alcance de algún remedio legal.

Sin embargo, la mayoría en la Corte Suprema no estuvo de acuerdo con ellos, y dijo que es una obligación del poder judicial intervenir para bloquear los limites que sesgan el control de un partido en detrimento de aquellos con puntos de vista opuestos. Es posible que los candidatos anunciados para los puestos en los distritos tengan que reconsiderar su decision si se vuelven a trazar los límites de los distritos.

Esta decisión significa una gran victoria para los demócratas estatales, nacionales y también para sus aliados, quienes pusieron mucho esfuerzo y recursos en anular estos mapas y así bloquear los avances republicanos para la próxima década. Esto también podría dificultar que los republicanos retomen el control de la Cámara de Representantes este otoño. Un grupo asociado con el Comité Nacional Democrático de Redistribución de Distritos, encabezado por el ex-fiscal general de los Estados Unidos, Eric Holder, apoyó al  bloque de votantes que presentó esta demanda.

Las demandas presentadas por los votantes y grupos de defensa fueron respaldadas por matemáticos e investigadores electorales quienes presentaron evidencia de su análisis sobre trillones de simulaciones de mapas. Estos especialistas testificaron que era muy probable que las nuevos limites le otorguen al Partido Republicano 10 de los 14 escaños de la Cámara de Representantes de EE.UU., así como mayorías en la Cámara y el Senado del estado en casi cualquier contexto político. Los republicanos actualmente tienen una ventaja de 8 frente a 5 escaños. Carolina del Norte esta en el puesto 14 en cuanto al  crecimiento de la población según el censo.

Los demandantes argumentaron que los mapas aprobados por los legisladores republicanos habían frustrado la voluntad del pueblo de Carolina del Norte y que los límites deberían producir resultados políticos más acordes con los niveles de competitividad mostradas en elecciones estatales de la última década.

Los legisladores republicanos pretendían que se mantuviera el fallo de los jueces de primera instancia, cuando citaron que un fallo de la Corte Suprema de Carolina del Norte  de principios de la década de 2000 decía que una ventaja partidista podia derivarse de la elaboración de mapas electorales. Ellos alegaron que el proceso de redistribución de distritos fue transparente y se prohibió el uso de datos raciales y políticos.

El presidente de la Corte Suprema, Paul Newby (de tendencia republicana), expresó en su voto singular que la mayoría de la corte pretendía “ocultar su sesgo partidista” a través de su decisión.

“Al optar por sostener que el gerrymandering partidista viola la Constitución de Carolina del Norte y al crear sus propios remedios, parece no haber límite para el poder de este tribunal”, escribió Newby.

Traducido de: NBC News: In a win for Democrats, N.C. Supreme Court strikes down redistricting maps

Video: Washington Post

Video: CrashCourse

Video: TED-Ed

Video: NPR

Gomillion v. Lightfoot

Deje un comentario

Gomillion v. Lightfoot,
364 U.S. 339
Supreme Court of the United States
1960

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion of the Court.

This litigation challenges the validity, under the United States Constitution, of Local Act No. 140, passed by the Legislature of Alabama in 1957, redefining the boundaries of the City of Tuskegee. Petitioners, Negro citizens of Alabama who were, at the time of this redistricting measure, residents of the City of Tuskegee, brought an action in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama for a declaratory judgment that Act 140 is unconstitutional, and for an injunction to restrain the Mayor and officers of Tuskegee and the officials of Macon County, Alabama, from enforcing the Act against them and other Negroes similarly situated. Petitioners’ claim is that enforcement of the statute, which alters the shape of Tuskegee from a square to an uncouth twenty-eight-sided figure, will constitute a discrimination against them in violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution and will deny them the right to vote in defiance of the Fifteenth Amendment.

The respondents moved for dismissal of the action for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and for lack of jurisdiction of the District Court.

The court granted the motion, stating, “This Court has no control over, no supervision over, and no power to change any boundaries of municipal corporations fixed by a duly convened and elected legislative body, acting for the people in the State of Alabama.” 167 F.Supp. 405, 410. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, affirmed the judgment, one judge dissenting. 270 F.2d 594. We brought the case here since serious questions were raised concerning the power of a State over its municipalities in relation to the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. 362 U.S. 916.

At this stage of the litigation we are not concerned with the truth of the allegations, that is, the ability of petitioners to sustain their allegations by proof. The sole question is whether the allegations entitle them to make good on their claim that they are being denied rights under the United States Constitution. The complaint, charging that Act 140 is a device to disenfranchise Negro citizens, alleges the following facts: Prior to Act 140 the City of Tuskegee was square in shape; the Act transformed it into a strangely irregular twenty-eight-sided figure as indicated in the diagram appended to this opinion. The essential inevitable effect of this redefinition of Tuskegee’s boundaries is to remove from the city all save only four or five of its 400 Negro voters while not removing a single white voter or resident. The result of the Act is to deprive the Negro petitioners discriminatorily of the benefits of residence in Tuskegee, including, inter alia, the right to vote in municipal elections.

These allegations, if proven, would abundantly establish that Act 140 was not an ordinary geographic redistricting measure even within familiar abuses of gerrymandering. If these allegations upon a trial remained uncontradicted or unqualified, the conclusion would be irresistible, tantamount (be equivalent for) for all practical purposes to a mathematical demonstration, that the legislation is solely concerned with segregating white and colored voters by fencing Negro citizens out of town so as to deprive them of their pre-existing municipal vote.

It is difficult to appreciate what stands in the way of adjudging a statute having this inevitable effect invalid in light of the principles by which this Court must judge, and uniformly has judged, statutes that, howsoever speciously defined, obviously discriminate against colored citizens. “The [Fifteenth] Amendment nullifies sophisticated as well as simple-minded modes of discrimination.” Lane v. Wilson, 307 U. S. 268, 307 U. S. 275.

The complaint amply alleges a claim of racial discrimination. Against this claim the respondents have never suggested, either in their brief or in oral argument, any countervailing municipal function which Act 140 is designed to serve. The respondents invoke generalities expressing the State’s unrestricted power — unlimited, that is, by the United States Constitution — to establish, destroy, or reorganize by contraction or expansion its political subdivisions, to-wit, cities, counties, and other local units. We freely recognize the breadth (amplitud) and importance of this aspect of the State’s political power. To exalt this power into an absolute is to misconceive the reach and rule of this Court’s decisions in the leading case of Hunter v. Pittsburgh, 207 U. S. 161, and related cases relied upon by respondents.

The Hunter case involved a claim by citizens of Allegheny, Pennsylvania, that the General Assembly of that State could not direct a consolidation of their city and Pittsburgh over the objection of a majority of the Allegheny voters. It was alleged that, while Allegheny already had made numerous civic improvements, Pittsburgh was only then planning to undertake such improvements, and that the annexation would therefore greatly increase the tax burden on Allegheny residents. All that the case held was (1) that there is no implied contract between a city and its residents that their taxes will be spent solely for the benefit of that city, and (2) that a citizen of one municipality is not deprived of property without due process of law by being subjected to increased tax burdens as a result of the consolidation of his city with another. Related cases upon which the respondents also rely, such as Trenton v. New Jersey, 262 U. S. 182; Pawhuska v. Pawhuska Oil & Gas Co., 250 U. S. 394, and Laramie County v. Albany County, 92 U. S. 307, are far off the mark. They are authority only for the principle that no constitutionally protected contractual obligation arises between a State and its subordinate governmental entities solely as a result of their relationship.

In short, the cases that have come before this Court regarding legislation by States dealing with their political subdivisions fall into two classes:

(1) those in which it is claimed that the State, by virtue of the prohibition against impairment of the obligation of contract (Art. I, § 10) and of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, is without power to extinguish, or alter the boundaries of, an existing municipality; and

(2) in which it is claimed that the State has no power to change the identity of a municipality whereby citizens of a preexisting municipality suffer serious economic disadvantage.

Neither of these claims is supported by such a specific limitation upon State power as confines the States under the Fifteenth Amendment.

As to the first category, it is obvious that the creation of municipalities — clearly a political act — does not come within the conception of a contract under the Dartmouth College Case, 4 Wheat. 518.

As to the second, if one principle clearly emerges from the numerous decisions of this Court dealing with taxation, it is that the Due Process Clause affords no immunity against mere inequalities in tax burdens, nor does it afford protection against their increase as an indirect consequence of a State’s exercise of its political powers.

Particularly in dealing with claims under broad provisions of the Constitution, which derive content by an interpretive process of inclusion and exclusion, it is imperative that generalizations, based on and qualified by the concrete situations that gave rise to them, must not be applied out of context in disregard of variant controlling facts. Thus, a correct reading of the seemingly unconfined dicta of Hunter and kindred cases is not that the State has plenary power to manipulate in every conceivable way, for every conceivable purpose, the affairs of its municipal corporations, but rather that the State’s authority is unrestrained by the particular prohibitions of the Constitution considered in those cases.

The Hunter opinion itself intimates that a state legislature may not be omnipotent even as to the disposition of some types of property owned by municipal corporations, 207 U.S. at 207 U. S. 178-181. Further, other cases in this Court have refused to allow a State to abolish a municipality, or alter its boundaries, or merge it with another city, without preserving to the creditors of the old city some effective recourse for the collection of debts owed them. Shapleigh v. San Angelo, 167 U. S. 646; Mobile v. Watson, 116 U. S. 289; Mount Pleasant v. Beckwith, 100 U. S. 514; Broughton v. Pensacola, 93 U. S. 266. For example, in Mobile v. Watson, the Court said:

“Where the resource for the payment of the bonds of a municipal corporation is the power of taxation existing when the bonds were issued, any law which withdraws or limits the taxing power, and leaves no adequate means for the payment of the bonds, is forbidden by the constitution of the United States, and is null and void.” Mobile v. Watson, supra, at 116 U. S. 305.

This line of authority conclusively shows that the Court has never acknowledged that the States have power to do as they will with municipal corporations regardless of consequences. Legislative control of municipalities, no less than other state power, lies within the scope of relevant limitations imposed by the United States Constitution. The observation in Graham v. Folsom, 200 U. S. 248, 200 U. S. 253, becomes relevant: “The power of the state to alter or destroy its corporations is not greater than the power of the state to repeal its legislation.” In that case, which involved the attempt by state officials to evade the collection of taxes to discharge the obligations of an extinguished township, Mr. Justice McKenna, writing for the Court, went on to point out, with reference to the Mount Pleasant and Mobile cases:

“It was argued in those cases, as it is argued in this, that such alteration or destruction of the subordinate governmental divisions was a proper exercise of legislative power, to which creditors had to submit. The argument did not prevail. It was answered, as we now answer it, that such power, extensive though it is, is met and overcome by the provision of the Constitution of the United States which forbids a state from passing any law impairing the obligation of contracts. . . .” 200 U.S. at 200 U. S. 253-254.

If all this is so in regard to the constitutional protection of contracts, it should be equally true that, to paraphrase, such power, extensive though it is, is met and overcome by the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a State from passing any law which deprives a citizen of his vote because of his race. The opposite conclusion, urged upon us by respondents, would sanction the achievement by a State of any impairment of voting rights whatever, so long as it was cloaked in the garb of the realignment of political subdivisions. “It is inconceivable that guaranties embedded in the Constitution of the United States may thus be manipulated out of existence.” Frost & Frost Trucking Co. v. Railroad Commission of California, 271 U. S. 583, 271 U. S. 594.

The respondents find another barrier to the trial of this case in Colegrove v. Green, 328 U. S. 549. In that case, the Court passed on an Illinois law governing the arrangement of congressional districts within that State. The complaint rested upon the disparity of population between the different districts which rendered the effectiveness of each individual’s vote in some districts far less than in others. This disparity came to pass solely through shifts in population between 1901, when Illinois organized its congressional districts, and 1946, when the complaint was lodged. During this entire period, elections were held under the districting scheme devised in 1901. The Court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that it presented a subject not meet for adjudication. * The decisive facts in this case, which at this stage must be taken as proved, are wholly different from the considerations found controlling in Colegrove.

That case involved a complaint of discriminatory apportionment of congressional districts. The appellants in Colegrove complained only of a dilution of the strength of their votes as a result of legislative inaction over a course of many years. The petitioners here complain that affirmative legislative action deprives them of their votes and the consequent advantages that the ballot affords. When a legislature thus singles out a readily isolated segment of a racial minority for special discriminatory treatment, it violates the Fifteenth Amendment. In no case involving unequal weight in voting distribution that has come before the Court did the decision sanction a differentiation on racial lines whereby approval was given to unequivocal withdrawal of the vote solely from colored citizens. Apart from all else, these considerations lift this controversy out of the so-called “political” arena and into the conventional sphere of constitutional litigation.

In sum, as Mr. Justice Holmes remarked when dealing with a related situation in Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U. S. 536, 273 U. S. 540, “Of course the petition concerns political action,” but “[t]he objection that the subject matter of the suit is political is little more than a play upon words.” A statute which is alleged to have worked unconstitutional deprivations of petitioners’ rights is not immune to attack simply because the mechanism employed by the legislature is a redefinition of municipal boundaries. According to the allegations here made, the Alabama Legislature has not merely redrawn the Tuskegee city limits with incidental inconvenience to the petitioners; it is more accurate to say that it has deprived the petitioners of the municipal franchise and consequent rights, and, to that end, it has incidentally changed the city’s boundaries. While in form this is merely an act redefining metes and bounds (land boundaries/limites), if the allegations are established, the inescapable human effect of this essay in geometry and geography is to despoil colored citizens, and only colored citizens, of their theretofore enjoyed voting rights. That was no Colegrove v. Green.

When a State exercises power wholly (completamente) within the domain of state interest, it is insulated from federal judicial review. But such insulation is not carried over when state power is used as an instrument for circumventing a federally protected right. This principle has had many applications. It has long been recognized in cases which have prohibited a State from exploiting a power acknowledged to be absolute in an isolated context to justify the imposition of an “unconstitutional condition.” What the Court has said in those cases is equally applicable here, viz. (namely; in other words), that “Acts generally lawful may become unlawful when done to accomplish an unlawful end, United States v. Reading Co., 226 U. S. 324, 226 U. S. 357, and a constitutional power cannot be used by way of condition to attain an unconstitutional result.” Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Foster, 247 U. S. 105, 247 U. S. 114. The petitioners are entitled to prove their allegations at trial.

For these reasons, the principal conclusions of the District Court and the Court of Appeals are clearly erroneous, and the decision below must be reversed.

Reversed.

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, while joining the opinion of the Court, adheres to the dissents in Colegrove v. Green, 328 U. S. 549, and South v. Peters, 339 U. S. 276.

* Soon after the decision in the Colegrove case, Governor Dwight H. Green of Illinois, in his 1947 biennial message to the legislature, recommended a reapportionment. The legislature immediately responded, Ill.Sess.Laws 1947, p. 879, and, in 1951, redistricted again. Ill.Sess.Laws 1951, p. 1924.

APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT.

CHART SHOWING TUSKEGGEE, ALABAMA,

BEFORE AND AFTER ACT 140

The U.S. Supreme Court overturns a redistricting plan enacted by the Alabama legislature, which redrew the boundaries of the City of Tuskegee. The court found that the plan — which changed the city’s shape from a square to a 28-sided border (click on image to enlarge) — violated the 15th Amendment to the Constitution and was done expressly to exclude black voters from city elections. Image from: http://the60sat50.blogspot.com/2010/11/monday-november-14-1960-gomillion-v.html

(The entire area of the square comprised of the City prior to Act 140. The irregular black-bordered figure within the square represents the post-enactment city.)

MR. JUSTICE WHITTAKER, concurring.

I concur in the Court’s judgment, but not in the whole of its opinion. It seems to me that the decision should be rested not on the Fifteenth Amendment, but rather on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. I am doubtful that the averments of the complaint, taken for present purposes to be true, show a purpose by Act No. 140 to abridge petitioners’ “right . . . to vote” in the Fifteenth Amendment sense. It seems to me that the “right . . . to vote” that is guaranteed by the Fifteenth Amendment is but the same right to vote as is enjoyed by all others within the same election precinct, ward or other political division. And, inasmuch as no one has the right to vote in a political division, or in a local election concerning only an area in which he does not reside, it would seem to follow that one’s right to vote in Division A is not abridged by a redistricting that places his residence in Division B if he there enjoys the same voting privileges as all others in that Division, even though the redistricting was done by the State for the purpose of placing a racial group of citizens in Division B, rather than A.

But it does seem clear to me that accomplishment of a State’s purpose — to use the Court’s phrase — of “fencing Negro citizens out of” Division A and into Division B is an unlawful segregation of races of citizens, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483; Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U. S. 1, and, as stated, I would think the decision should be rested on that ground — which, incidentally, clearly would not involve, just as the cited cases did not involve, the Colegrove problem.

In: justia.com

* 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
The 15th Amendment to the Constitution granted African American men the right to vote by declaring that the “right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” Although ratified on February 3, 1870, the promise of the 15th Amendment would not be fully realized for almost a century. Through the use of poll taxes, literacy tests and other means, Southern states were able to effectively disenfranchise African Americans. It would take the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 before the majority of African Americans in the South were registered to vote.

In: loc.gov

¿Cuál es el problema con la Política Migratoria de Donald Trump al Separar Familias en la Frontera con México?

Deje un comentario

A view of inside U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) detention facility shows children at Rio Grande Valley Centralized Processing Center in Rio Grande City, Texas, U.S., June 17, 2018. Picture taken on June 17, 2018. Courtesy CBP/Handout via REUTERS ATTENTION EDITORS – THIS IMAGE HAS BEEN SUPPLIED BY A THIRD PARTY. – RC174C9B4E40

Una injusta e inhumana aplicación de las leyes migratorias en los Estados Unidos ha desatado la indignación de un gran sector de la ciudadana estadounidense y mundial durante estas últimas dos semanas. Y no es para menos, ya que la Custom and Border Protection (CBP), agencia que es parte del Department of Homeland Security a cargo de Kirstjen Nielsen , decidió ejecutar una política migratoria antojadiza que separa las familias de aquellos inmigrantes ilegales o de personas que buscan asilo en los Estados Unidos.

Cabe señalar que muchas de estas personas que llegan desde diversos países de Centroamerica y Mexico, escapan de la violencia y amenazas contra su vida y la de sus familias en sus países de origen.

Donal Trump, el presidente de los Estados Unidos, ha declarado que esta política migratoria es producto de las lagunas legales en la legislación migratoria y que son únicamente los demócratas quienes cargan con la responsabilidad de este problema y que su administración esta solamente “aplicando la ley, porque la ley es la ley”.

Sin embargo, lo cierto es que ninguna ley federal señala que los las familias detenidas o que buscan asilo deban ser separadas y menos aun que los hijos menores de edad sean separados de sus padres mientras dure el proceso de deportación o asilo.

Lo mas indignante es que funcionarios de la administración de Trump salieron al frente a declarar su apoyo a esta política que ha sido considerada por muchos como “inhumana” y contraria a los valores de un país que es percibido como defensor de la libertad y los derechos como lo es los Estados Unidos de América.

Por ejemplo, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Secretaria de Prensa de la Administración de Trump tuvo que recibir las criticas de un sector de la prensa americana que había hecho su investigación y descubierto que la política migratoria de separación de familias era un capricho y solo una manera de disuadir a los inmigrantes de no tocar mas las puertas de los Estados Unidos en busca de asilo, porque de hacerlo, les sucedería lo mismo que a estos inmigrantes y “asylum seekers” durante estas semanas, es decir, tomar a sus hijos y llevarlos a establecimientos alejados de ellos.

Cabe señalar que estos establecimientos eran totalmente inadecuados para albergar menores de edad ya que estos eran mantenidos bajo condiciones tan inadecuadas como estar rodeados por rejas como si fueran animales, o dormir cubiertos solo con “space blankets” sobre colchones tirados en el piso, y ni que decir de su exposición a diversos peligros que podrían atentar contra su integridad física, emocional y psicológica (trafico de personas, tocamientos indebidos, abuso sexual, violencia verbal, etc). Al respecto leer el siguiente informe: Neglect and Abuse of Unaccompanied Immigrant Children by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

En medio de esta indignación generalizada, la hija de Donald Trump, Ivanka Trump, colgó una foto de ella con su hijo en Twitter, lo cual desato la furia de muchos ciudadanos quienes la criticaron por su indiferencia y falta de empatía en relación con los efectos de la aplicación de la política migratoria de su padre.

Otro funcionario que recibió las peores criticas ha sido el Fiscal General Jeff Sessions (un equivalente a Ministro de Justicia) quien justificó el trato inhumano recibido por las familias de inmigrantes y personas que buscan asilo con pasajes de la Biblia. La opinión publica comenzaba a indignarse aun mas por su parcializada lectura de la Biblia. Asimismo, su nefasta frase “La ley es la ley y nosotros solo la aplicamos” es el resumen de una irresponsabilidad por solucionar un problema tan grave de una manera mas creativa, eficiente y que respete los derechos de todos los involucrados en el problema.

Asimismo, tenemos la declaración de la Secretaria del Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Kirstjen Nielsen. La cabeza de este Departamento trató de justificar la separación de las familias alegando que no hay ningún problema en llevar a los niños a estos establecimientos que pueden compararse con “summer camps” o campamentos de verano temporales para ellos, o que “hay una vía legal abierta para todos los que quieran ingresar al país”. Esto último no convenció a muchos y las criticas no tardaron en llegar por parte de todo el mundo señalando que si dichas instalaciones eran como un “summer camp”, ella debería enviar a sus hijos a pasar un fin de semana bajo esas mismas condiciones.

Por último, en la cumbre de la indignación tenemos a un tipo que fue ex-asistente de Donald Trump llamado Corey Lewandowski, quien en una entrevista en Fox News utilizo una expresión de burla (“Womp, womp”) cuando se le indicaba sobre el caso de una niña inmigrante con síndrome de Down afectada por la política de inmigración de “cero tolerancia” de la administración Trump. Ese tipo de expresiones no se hacen, no hay justificación para ello. Eso es simplemente deprimente y bajo.

Mi posición sobre este problema:

1. En cuanto a las declaraciones de Jeff Sessions, considero que esta política de separar familias por el simple hecho de cruzar la frontera o para solicitar asilo es inhumana, sin justificación legal y solo demuestra una falta de creatividad del gobierno de Trump para solucionar el problema. Están metiendo en el mismo saco a inmigrantes ilegales y aquellos que buscan asilo en el país porque igual los separan de sus hijos mientras dure su procedimiento. Y para dejarnos estupefactos, el Fiscal General de los EE.UU.  ha señalado que la Biblia justifica este trato inhumano contra quienes quiebran las leyes migratorias de los EE.UU. Personalmente, creo que el Fiscal General esta tergiversando a su beneficio lo que sea que la biblia diga. Esto no es una cuestión de religión o enseñanzas de la biblia, sino una cuestión moral con claras guías de solución.

2. Mas allá de las posiciones políticas que enfrentan a republicanos y conservadores, existen reglas éticas básicas que al revisarlas nos indican claramente que es es erróneo utilizar niños como elemento punitivo para ejecutar una ley o política pública. Eso simplemente no se hace. Lo peor de todo es que las políticas americanas siempre tienen eco en otros países. Me preocupa mucho el impacto que este tipo de política conservadora y autoritaria basada en una lectura religiosa pudiera ser peligrosamente considerada el Perú en unos años. Recordemos quien lleva las de ganar en las próximas elecciones presidenciales en el Perú, pero peor aún, quienes apoyan su candidatura (grupos ultraconservadores y homofóbicos). Espero que nunca ocurra eso y que la religión no sea jamás la base o justificación para decidir los derechos de las personas.

3. Por otro lado, es incierto el futuro de muchos niños que han sido colocados en las mencionadas instalaciones donde, según el gobierno, son bien acogidos y alimentados. Sin embargo, eso no quita que continúen viviendo en condiciones infrahumanas encerrados en celdas, llorando y preguntando en todo momento por sus padres, ni que decir de su exposición a peligros contra su integridad física y emocional.

4. Entre muchos de esos migrantes existen personas que están solicitando asilo. ¿Por qué? Los motivos son diversos pero muchos de ellos provienen de Centro América. En algunos países de esa región existe violencia de todo tipo (doméstica, urbana, criminal, política). Muchos están escapando de situaciones que son peligrosas para su vida y la de sus familias, por ejemplo, violencia domestica, la violencia de la MS-13, pandillas, trabajo forzado, abusos sexuales, carteles de la droga que te hacen trabajar para ellos y dejar de lado tus planes, conscripción obligatoria a grupos paramilitares, pago de cupos para vivir tranquilo. Muchos padres no quieren seguir en esa situación y menos quieren ese futuro para sus hijos. En los EEUU muchos republicanos critican a estas personas de la siguiente manera: “Por que vienen acá! si saben que los van a separar de sus hijos! como los exponen! Oh por Dios!”. Lo que mas indigna es que lo hacen desde la comodidad de sus hogares, sin darse cuenta que son privilegiados, cuentan con seguro social, con ciudadanía, con un trabajo, con un sueldo y seguridad económica, sin mayores amenazas contra su vida. Ellos jamas han pasado por lo que estos migrantes están viviendo, y no se les pasa por la cabeza pensar que estas personas prefieren probar suerte de esta manera que seguir viviendo en sus lugares de origen bajo esas condiciones de amenaza contra sus vidas y la de sus familias. Es cierto que existe inmigración ilegal y esta debe ser sancionada. Sin embargo utilizar a niños como elemento punitivo es algo erróneo. Simplemente esta mal. Eso no se hace.

5. La declaración de Kirstjen Nielsen: “Hay una forma legal de ingresar al país” es indignante porque es una media verdad debido a que no señala cuán caro y lento es el proceso de residencia o asilo Si, medias verdades. No todos los inmigrantes y solicitantes de asilo tienen los mismos antecedentes.

No todos son miembros del MS-13, o inmigrantes ilegales que llegan a los EE.UU. con la intención de dañar a las personas en este país o recibir bienes y servicios de forma gratuita, es decir, vivir de la ayuda del gobierno. No. Hay personas que vienen a los Estados Unidos desde sus países por diferentes motivos, como salir de purgas, violencia de pandillas, actividades forzadas a pandillas, cárteles de drogas, trabajos forzados, participación en grupos paramilitares, violación sexual, narcotráfico, pago de cuotas a delincuentes a cambio de vivir en paz. Algunos de ellos solo buscan seguridad pero a cambio están recibiendo un tratamiento inhumano.

6. Es necesario un análisis con mayor detalle con relación a los principales agentes de este problema: Los niños. Una serie de matices existen entre ellos y es necesario tomarlos en cuenta para que aquellos que apoyan la política migratoria de separación de familias puedan entender los difícil que es separar a una madre de su hijo, a saber, existen niños con problemas de salud, síndrome de down, habilidades especiales, asperger, depresión, problemas de conducta, etc. Como dije lineas arriba, es un error garrafal utilizar niños como elemento punitivo con tal de hacer cumplir cualquier ley o política migratoria.

7.  Toda persona goza de derechos inherentes a su condición humana y estos derechos deben ser respetados. Los derechos humanos siempre estarán por encima de la ley o política publica de cualquier país y deben ser estrictamente respetados bajo responsabilidad y sanción de aquellos que se atrevan a vulnerarlos.

8. El hecho de que seas un contribuyente y votante registrado no te da el derecho a decirle a otros que hacer, que no hacer, o como pensar. Para muestra, pueden escuchar al tipo llamado “Tony” que interviene en este podcast en 23:31 – NPR: Your Feelings On Family Separations At The Border.

9. Siempre es bueno colocarse en los zapatos del otro. Pensar siempre en el concepto de “alteridad” para derribar prejuicios que solo llevan a situaciones tan nefastas como esta. Tomar en cuenta los detalles, los matices y los motivos de toda decisión que haga una persona nos podrá hacer ver mas allá de las ideas que fundamentan escollos del desarrollo humano como son la xenofobia, el racismo, y la injusticia.

Conclusiones:

  • La política de separación de familias en la frontera con México es a todas luces una táctica que utiliza el miedo y la incertidumbre como elemento disuasivo para aquellos que crucen la frontera ilegalmente o para aquellos que buscan asilo en los Estados Unidos. Es una política antojadiza de la administración de Donald Trump que envía la siguiente advertencia: “Si tocas nuestra puerta o ingresas ilegalmente, te sucederá lo mismo”.
  • La inmigración ilegal debe ser sancionada, pero utilizar a los niños y hasta bebes como elemento punitivo contra los padres es un error muy grande. El solo hecho de afectar negativamente la libertad, los derechos parentales y el interés superior del niño en pro de la ejecución de una política migratoria irregular es una decisión equivocada e inconstitucional.
  • La religión y la Biblia nunca deben ser utilizados para justificar un trato inhumano o injusto. Creas o no creas en ella, la separación de familias no es una cuestión de religión o lectura de pasajes de la biblia, sino de moralidad.
  • La ética parlamentaria debe de estar por encima de cualquier enfrentamiento político, especialmente en asuntos donde esta involucrada la protección del interés superior del niño.

arturodiazf

 

Protesters riot in Madrid’s Lavapiés after immigrant street vendor death

Deje un comentario

Protesters clashed with security forces in the multicultural Madrid neighbourhood of Lavapiés on Thursday following the death of a Senegalese man whom they said was chased through the streets by police.

Riot police and firefighters were deployed to Lavapiés, a district in the centre of the Spanish capital with a large immigrant population, as angry protesters set fire to dustbins and a motorbike, and threw stones at security forces.

Demonstrators told AFP they were protesting in support of Mmame Mbage, a street vendor in his mid-thirties from Senegal, who arrived in Spain by boat 12 years ago.

Emergency services said Mbage was found unconscious on a street in Lavapiés by police on patrol.

“They were busy trying to revive him” when emergency workers arrived, a spokeswoman said. However he died of cardiac arrest.

She did not know what had happened to Mbage before he collapsed, but several other street vendors who were with him said he had been chased by police from Puerta del Sol.

“Municipal police arrived and chased him from Sol to Lavapiés with a motorbike,” said Modou, a 25-year-old vendor from Senegal who refused to give his surname.

“At the end he died here,” Modou told AFP, with others confirming the account.

Mbage worked as an illegal vendor and sent some money back to his family, one of thousands of migrants who have reached Spain over the years in search of a better life.

Spain is the third busiest gateway for migrants coming to Europe, with close to 23,000 arrivals in 2017. Hundreds have died along the way.

Information from: thelocal.es

Compañeros violan a alumna y profesores le piden que no denuncie

Deje un comentario

Imagen: http://www.desysa.net/webescuela/15dtv0093d/15dtv0093d_01.jpg

Maestros le dijeron a la víctima “que era su culpa, porque a la escuela se va a estudiar no a putear”.

Una adolescente de 14 años fue violada por tres de sus compañeros en la telesecundaria “Jaime Torres Bodet”, de la localidad de Calatepec en el municipio de Tlatlauquitepec, en Puebla, México. Increíblemente, los profesores de la menor la amenazaron para que no informara de lo ocurrido.

Periódico Central de Puebla detalla que fue la madre de la menor quien denunció la agresión sexual en contra de su hija. Los hechos ocurrieron el pasado 3 de mayo durante los ensayos del festival del Día de la Madre.

Se sabe que tres alumnos ingresaron al salón donde estaba la joven, la tiraron sobre una butaca lo que la dejó inconsciente por unos momentos. Cuando volvió en sí, uno de los agresores le sujetaba las manos, otro le quitaba la ropa y el tercero grababa y tomaba fotografías, detalla el diario de Puebla.

De acuerdo al acta presentada por la madre de la menor a la Secretaría de Educación Pública (SEP), tanto la maestra del grupo como el director le pidieron a la escolar no decir nada.

Continue leyendo: peru21

Trump Moves to End DACA and Calls on Congress to Act

Un comentario

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Tuesday ordered an end to the Obama-era program that shields young undocumented immigrants from deportation, calling it an “amnesty-first approach” and urging Congress to pass a replacement before he begins phasing out its protections in six months.

As early as March, officials said, some of the 800,000 young adults brought to the United States illegally as children who qualify for the program, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, will become eligible for deportation. The five-year-old policy allows them to remain without fear of immediate removal from the country and gives them the right to work legally.

Mr. Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who announced the change at the Justice Department, both used the aggrieved language of anti-immigrant activists, arguing that those in the country illegally are lawbreakers who hurt native-born Americans by usurping their jobs and pushing down wages.

Mr. Trump said in a statement that he was driven by a concern for “the millions of Americans victimized by this unfair system.” Mr. Sessions said the program had “denied jobs to hundreds of thousands of Americans by allowing those same illegal aliens to take those jobs.”

Protests broke out in front of the White House and the Justice Department and in cities across the country soon after Mr. Sessions’s announcement. Democrats and some Republicans, business executives, college presidents and immigration activists condemned the move as a coldhearted and shortsighted effort that was unfair to the young immigrants and could harm the economy.

“This is a sad day for our country,” Mark Zuckerberg, the Facebook founder, wrote on his personal page. “It is particularly cruel to offer young people the American dream, encourage them to come out of the shadows and trust our government, and then punish them for it.”

Former President Barack Obama, who had warned that any threat to the program would prompt him to speak out, called his successor’s decision “wrong,” “self-defeating” and “cruel.”

“Whatever concerns or complaints Americans may have about immigration in general, we shouldn’t threaten the future of this group of young people who are here through no fault of their own, who pose no threat, who are not taking away anything from the rest of us,” Mr. Obama wrote on Facebook.

Both he and Mr. Trump said the onus was now on lawmakers to protect the young immigrants as part of a broader overhaul of the immigration system that would also toughen enforcement.

But despite broad and longstanding bipartisan support for measures to legalize unauthorized immigrants brought to the United States as children, the odds of a sweeping immigration deal in a deeply divided Congress appeared long. Legislation to protect the “dreamers” has also repeatedly died in Congress.

Just hours after the angry reaction to Mr. Trump’s decision, the president appeared to have second thoughts. In a late-evening tweet, Mr. Trump specifically called on Congress to “legalize DACA,” something his administration’s officials had declined to do earlier in the day.

Mr. Trump also warned lawmakers that if they do not legislate a program similar to the one Mr. Obama created through executive authority, he will “revisit this issue!” — a statement sure to inject more uncertainty into the ultimate fate of the young, undocumented immigrants who have been benefiting from the program since 2012.

Conservatives praised Mr. Trump’s move, though some expressed frustration that he had taken so long to rescind the program and that the gradual phaseout could mean that some immigrants retained protection from deportation until October 2019.

The White House portrayed the decision as a matter of legal necessity, given that nine Republican state attorneys general had threatened to sue to halt the program immediately if Mr. Trump did not act.

Months of internal White House debate preceded the move, as did the president’s public display of his own conflicted feelings. He once referred to DACA recipients as “incredible kids.”

The president’s wavering was reflected in a day of conflicting messages from him and his team. Hours after his statement was released, Mr. Trump told reporters that he had “great love” for the beneficiaries of the program he had just ended.

“I have a love for these people, and hopefully now Congress will be able to help them and do it properly,” he said. But he notably did not endorse bipartisan legislation to codify the program’s protections, leaving it unclear whether he would back such a solution.

Mr. Trump’s aides were negotiating late into Monday evening with one another about precisely how the plan to wind down the program would be executed. Until Tuesday morning, some aides believed the president had settled on a plan that would be more generous, giving more of the program’s recipients the option to renew their protections.

But even taking into account Mr. Trump’s contradictory language, the rollout of his decision was smoother than his early moves to crack down on immigration, particularly the botched execution in January of his ban on travelers from seven predominantly Muslim countries.

In addition to the public statement from Mr. Sessions and a White House question-and-answer session, the president was ready on Tuesday with the lengthy written statement, and officials at the Justice and Homeland Security Departments provided detailed briefings and distributed information to reporters in advance.

Mr. Trump sought to portray his move as a compassionate effort to head off the expected legal challenge that White House officials said would have forced an immediate and highly disruptive end to the program. But he also denounced the policy, saying it helped spark a “massive surge” of immigrants from Central America, some of whom went on to become members of violent gangs like MS-13. Some immigration critics contend that programs like DACA, started under Mr. Obama, encouraged Central Americans to enter the United States, hoping to stay permanently. Tens of thousands of migrants surged across America’s southern border in the summer of 2014, many of them children fleeing dangerous gangs.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, indicated that Mr. Trump would support legislation to “fix” the DACA program, as long as Congress passed it as part of a broader immigration overhaul to strengthen the border, protect American jobs and enhance enforcement.

“The president wants to see responsible immigration reform, and he wants that to be part of it,” Ms. Sanders said, referring to a permanent solution for the young immigrants. “Something needs to be done. It’s Congress’s job to do that. And we want to be part of that process.”

Later on Tuesday, Marc Short, Mr. Trump’s top legislative official, told reporters on Capitol Hill that the White House would release principles for such a plan in the coming days, input that at least one key member of Congress indicated would be crucial.

“It is important that the White House clearly outline what kind of legislation the president is willing to sign,” Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, said in a statement. “We have no time to waste on ideas that do not have the votes to pass or that the president won’t sign.”

The announcement was an effort by Mr. Trump to honor the law-and-order message of his campaign, which included a repeated pledge to end Mr. Obama’s immigration policy, while seeking to avoid the emotionally charged and politically perilous consequences of targeting a sympathetic group of immigrants.

Mr. Trump’s decision came less than two weeks after he pardoned Joe Arpaio, the former Arizona sheriff who drew intense criticism for his aggressive pursuit of unauthorized immigrants, which earned him a criminal contempt conviction.

The blame-averse president told a confidante over the past few days that he realized that he had gotten himself into a politically untenable position. As late as one hour before the decision was to be announced, administration officials privately expressed concern that Mr. Trump might not fully grasp the details of the steps he was about to take, and when he discovered their full impact, would change his mind, according to a person familiar with their thinking who was not authorized to comment on it and spoke on condition of anonymity.

But ultimately, the president followed through on his campaign pledge at the urging of Mr. Sessions and other hard-line members inside his White House, including Stephen Miller, his top domestic policy adviser.

The announcement started the clock on revoking legal status from those protected under the program.

Officials said DACA recipients whose legal status expires on or before March 5 would be able to renew their two-year period of legal status as long as they apply by Oct. 5. But the announcement means that if Congress fails to act, immigrants who were brought to the United States illegally as children could face deportation as early as March 6 to countries where many left at such young ages that they have no memory of them.

Immigration officials said they did not intend to actively target the young immigrants as priorities for deportation, though without the program’s protection, they would be considered subject to removal from the United States and would no longer be able to work legally.

Officials said some of the young immigrants could be prevented from returning to the United States if they traveled abroad.

Immigration advocates took little comfort from the administration’s assurances, describing the president’s decision as deeply disturbing and vowing to shift their demands for protections to Capitol Hill.

Marielena Hincapié, the executive director of the National Immigration Law Center, called Mr. Trump’s decision “nothing short of hypocrisy, cruelty and cowardice.” Maria Praeli, a recipient of protection under the program, criticized Mr. Sessions and Mr. Trump for talking “about us as if we don’t matter and as if this isn’t our home.”

The Mexican foreign ministry issued a statement saying the “Mexican government deeply regrets” Mr. Trump’s decision.

As recently as July, Mr. Trump expressed skepticism about the prospect of a broad legislative deal.

“What I’d like to do is a comprehensive immigration plan,” he told reporters. “But our country and political forces are not ready yet.”

As for DACA, he said: “There are two sides of a story. It’s always tough.”

In: nytimes

1 2 3 4