Categoría: Educacion

Publicado en por Nortencio
  • Deje un comentario

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

    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

     

    Publicado en por Nortencio
  • Deje un comentario

    • Nawal El Saadawi on feminism, fiction and the illusion of democracy / Nawal El Saadawi sobre el Feminismo, la ficción y la ilusión de la Democracia

    La revolucionaria feminista egipcia Nawal El Saadawi conversa con Krishnan Guru-Murthy sobre la injusticia del patriarcado, lo que la inspira a escribir y por qué cree que la democracia no existe.

    Video: 4NEws

    Publicado en por Nortencio
  • Deje un comentario

    • Pantalla roja falsa advertencia de virus: Scam, Estafa en internet. Solo quitalo con el Administrador de Tareas

    Cuando estes navegando en una pagina web y de pronto te aparezca un mensaje en rojo, o de la policia, o incluso del FBI que indica que te estan rastreando y que has sido detectado por ingresar a una pagina “prohibida”, cuando en realidad estas viendo una receta para preparar una torta, no te asustes, es una advertencia pero sobre un falso virus.

    La pagina te puede estar indicando en un audio que se repite incesantemente que hay un virus en tu PC o laptop y debes, tienes que llamar a cierto numero de telefono. No lo hagas. No llames a nadie, es solo un scam, una estafa. Si llamas a ese numero seguramente te robaran informacion y la usaran para obtener tus claves, cuentas de banco, emails, etc. La finalidad de estas paginas es robar tu identidad en internet para cometer actos ilicitos en otros lugares del mundo en tu nombre. Ten cuidado, no llames a ese numero.

    Si bien no puedes cerrar la pagina o realizar otra accion, no te desesperes. La solucion es simple: solo presiona Ctrl+Alt+Del y se abrira el administrador de tareas. Una vez que aparece el administrador de tareas, tienes que buscar la referencia de la pagina que te esta causando problemas y que puede estar bajo la firma de Microsoft o Google o Firefox. Lo importante es simplemente “terminar la tarea” de esa pagina haciendo click en ella en el administrador de tareas. Luego de ello, puedes borrar tu historial, buscar los cookies y borrarlos tambien. Listo.

    Publicado en por Nortencio
  • Deje un comentario

    • INVULNERABLES: Siroko con Nacho Vidal y Sor Lucía

    “Con una consigna clara de no dejarse ‘llevar por personajes ni etiquetas’ el actor porno Nacho Vidal mantiene una conversación con una de las mojas más reconocidas en argentina, sor Lucía Caram. En el video de cuatro minutos y medio los dos personajes hablan de la fundación “Invulnerables”, que maneja la famosa religiosa, que tiene un programa de televisión, y de algunos aspectos de la vida de Nacho Vidal.”

    Leer mas en: La curiosa entrevista de Nacho Vidal con una monja argentina

    Publicado en por Nortencio
  • Deje un comentario

    • ‘‘Promoting Real Opportunity, Success, and Prosperity through Education Reform Act’’ (‘‘PROSPER Act’’) Structure

    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
    Ms. FOXX (for herself and Mr. GUTHRIE) introduced the following bill; which
    was referred to the Committee on

    A BILL

    To support students in completing an affordable postsecondary education that will prepare them to enter the workforce with the skills they need for lifelong success.

    1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-

    2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

    3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

    4 (a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the

    5 ‘‘Promoting Real Opportunity, Success, and Prosperity

    6 through Education Reform Act’’ or the ‘‘PROSPER Act’’.

    7 (b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents for

    8 this Act is as follows:

     

    Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

    Sec. 2. References.

    Sec. 3. General effective date.

    TITLE I—GENERAL PROVISIONS

    PART A—DEFINITIONS

    Sec. 101. Definition of institution of higher education.

    Sec. 102. Institutions outside the United States.

    Sec. 103. Additional definitions.

    Sec. 104. Regulatory relief.

    PART B—ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

    Sec. 111. Free speech protections.

    Sec. 112. National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity.

    Sec. 113. Repeal of certain reporting requirements.

    Sec. 114. Programs on drug and alcohol abuse prevention.

    Sec. 115. Campus access for religious groups.

    Sec. 116. Secretarial prohibitions.

    Sec. 117. Ensuring equal treatment by governmental entities.

    PART C—COST OF HIGHER EDUCATION

    Sec. 121. College Dashboard website.

    Sec. 122. Net price calculators.

    Sec. 123. Text book information.

    PART D—ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS FOR DELIVERY OF STUDENT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

    Sec. 131. Performance-based organization for the delivery of Federal student financial assistance.

    Sec. 132. Administrative data transparency.

    PART E—LENDER AND INSTITUTION REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO EDUCATION LOANS

    Sec. 141. Modification of preferred lender arrangements.

    PART F—ADDRESSING SEXUAL ASSAULT

    Sec. 151. Addressing sexual assault.

    TITLE II—EXPANDING ACCESS TO IN-DEMAND APPRENTICESHIPS

    Sec. 201. Repeal.

    Sec. 202. Grants for access to high-demand careers.

    TITLE III—INSTITUTIONAL AID

    Sec. 301. Strengthening institutions.

    Sec. 302. Strengthening historically Black colleges and universities.

    Sec. 303. Historically Black college and university capital financing.

    Sec. 304. Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program.

    Sec. 305. Strengthening historically Black colleges and universities and other minority-serving institutions.

    Sec. 306. General provisions.

    TITLE IV—STUDENT ASSISTANCE

    PART A—GRANTS TO STUDENTS IN ATTENDANCE AT INSTITUTIONS OF

    HIGHER EDUCATION

    Sec. 401. Federal Pell Grants.

    Sec. 402. Federal TRIO programs.

    Sec. 403. Gaining early awareness and readiness for undergraduate programs.

    Sec. 404. Special programs for students whose families are engaged in migrant

    and seasonal farmwork.

    Sec. 405. Child care access means parents in school.

    Sec. 406. Repeals.

    Sec. 407. Sunset of TEACH grants.

    PART B—FEDERAL FAMILY EDUCATION LOAN PROGRAM

    Sec. 421. Federal Direct Consolidation Loans.

    Sec. 422. Loan rehabilitation.

    Sec. 423. Loan forgiveness for teachers.

    Sec. 424. Loan forgiveness for service in areas of national need.

    Sec. 425. Loan repayment for civil legal assistance attorneys.

    Sec. 426. Sunset of cohort default rate and other conforming changes.

    Sec. 427. Closed school and other discharges.

    PART C—FEDERAL WORK-STUDY PROGRAMS

    Sec. 441. Purpose; authorization of appropriations.

    Sec. 442. Allocation formula.

    Sec. 443. Grants for Federal work-study programs.

    Sec. 444. Flexible use of funds.

    Sec. 445. Job location and development programs.

    Sec. 446. Community service.

    Sec. 447. Work colleges.

    PART D—FEDERAL DIRECT STUDENT LOAN PROGRAM

    Sec. 451. Termination of Federal Direct Loan Program under part D and other conforming amendments.

    Sec. 452. Borrower defenses.

    Sec. 453. Administrative expenses.

    Sec. 454. Loan cancellation for teachers.

    PART E—FEDERAL ONE LOANS

    Sec. 461. Wind-down of Federal Perkins Loan Program.

    Sec. 462. Federal ONE Loan program.

    PART F—NEED ANALYSIS

    Sec. 471. Cost of attendance.

    Sec. 472. Simplified needs test.

    Sec. 473. Discretion of student financial aid administrators.

    Sec. 474. Definitions of total income and assets.

    PART G—GENERAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO STUDENT ASSISTANCE

    Sec. 481. Definitions of academic year and eligible program.

    Sec. 482. Programmatic loan repayment rates.

    Sec. 483. Master calendar.

    Sec. 484. FAFSA Simplification.

    Sec. 485. Student eligibility.

    Sec. 486. Statute of limitations.

    Sec. 487. Institutional refunds.

    Sec. 488. Information disseminated to prospective and enrolled students.

    Sec. 489. Early awareness of financial aid eligibility.

    Sec. 490. Distance education demonstration programs.

    Sec. 491. Contents of program participation agreements.

    Sec. 492. Regulatory relief and improvement.

    Sec. 493. Transfer of allotments.

    Sec. 494. Administrative expenses.

    Sec. 494A. Repeal of advisory committee.

    Sec. 494B. Regional meetings and negotiated rulemaking.

    Sec. 494C. Deferral of loan repayment following active duty.

    Sec. 494D. Contracts; matching program.

    PART H—PROGRAM INTEGRITY

    Sec. 495. Repeal of and prohibition on State authorization regulations.

    Sec. 496. Recognition of accrediting agency or association.

    Sec. 497. Eligibility and certification procedures.

    TITLE V—DEVELOPING INSTITUTIONS

    Sec. 501. Hispanic-serving institutions.

    Sec. 502. Promoting postbaccalaureate opportunities for Hispanic Americans.

    Sec. 503. General provisions.

    TITLE VI—INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

    Sec. 601. International and foreign language studies.

    Sec. 602. Business and international education programs.

    Sec. 603. Repeal of assistance program for Institute for International Public

    Policy.

    Sec. 604. General provisions.

    TITLE VII—GRADUATE AND POSTSECONDARY IMPROVEMENT

    PROGRAMS

    Sec. 701. Graduate education programs.

    Sec. 702. Repeal of Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education.

    Sec. 703. Programs for students with disabilities.

    Sec. 704. Repeal of college access challenge grant program.

    TITLE VIII—OTHER REPEALS

    Sec. 801. Repeal of additional programs.

    TITLE IX—AMENDMENTS TO OTHER LAWS

    PART A—EDUCATION OF THE DEAF ACT OF 1986

    Sec. 901. Education of the Deaf Act of 1986.

    PART B—TRIBALLY CONTROLLED COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES ASSISTANCE

    ACT OF 1978; DINE′ COLLEGE ACT

    Sec. 911. Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities Assistance Act of 1978.

    Sec. 912. Dine′ College Act.

     

    Taken from: edworkforce.house.gov

    See: Republican-proposed bill could overhaul student loan process

    Publicado en por Nortencio
  • Deje un comentario

    • Estados Unidos anuncia su salida de la Unesco

    Image: http://www.dw.com/image/16103251_303.jpg

    Estados Unidos anunció su retiro de la Organización de Naciones Unidas para la Educación, la Ciencia y la Cultura (Unesco, por sus siglas en inglés).

    La medida, que fue comunicada este jueves a la directora general de la organización, Irinia Bukova, se hará efectiva a partir del 31 de diciembre.

    Según el Departamento de Estado estadounidense, la intención de EE.UU. es establecerse como “observador permanente” de Unesco.

    Mayor información en: bbc

    Read more at: reuters

    Publicado en por Nortencio
  • Deje un comentario

    • Women With Opioid Addiction Live With Daily Fear Of Assault, Rape

    In Cambridge, Mass., a woman named Kristin sits down on a stone bench to talk about a common but rarely discussed injury that’s starting to grow along with the opioid epidemic: rape.

    We’ve agreed to use just Kristin’s first name because she’s a victim of this crime. Kristin says she, like many women who live on the streets, cope with the daily fear of an attack that they are too sedated to fend off, or of waking up to find their pants pulled down, bruises, and other signs of an assault.

    It’s an assault active drug users often don’t report out of shame, distrust of police, or fear they’ll be labeled a “cop caller” and have trouble buying heroin. It’s an injury women say they can’t figure out how to prevent. And it’s one few doctors think to ask about, and thus rarely treat.

    The road to trouble starts many mornings, says Kristin, when she wakes up, sick and desperate for heroin but afraid to shoplift, sell the goods, and seek a dealer on her own. So she finds a male buddy, someone she calls a running partner.

    “It’s just safer. People are less likely to beat you, rob you, sell you fake drugs if you’ve got a strong, well-known man with a reputation — a good reputation —you know,” says Kristin, 32, who still has the lanky body of a high school backstroke champion. She’s been addicted to opioids since she was 13 when they were prescribed to relieve pain after a shoulder surgery.

    But sometimes that strong man with a good reputation turns out to be another danger. Kristin cringes at the memory of falling into a drug-induced sleep near a running partner she’d come to trust.

    “I woke up to him on top of me, with my pants off, pretty much demanding that we have sex,” Kristin says, the emotion draining from her voice. “I’m weak because of the drugs I’ve taken, so I’m trying to push him off. I can’t do it. I grab my phone and just kind of barrel roll off the bed, pull my pants up, and run outside.”

    That time Kristin got away. In two other attacks, she did not. She has story after story of unwanted kissing and groping. She says that for many women, there is steady pressure from those they partner with to perform sexual favors. After the attempted rape, Kristin pressed charges. Shortly before trial, the man died of a drug-related heart infection.

    Other women interviewed for this story say they rarely seek help from police because they are worried investigators will turn on them and seek drug charges. Sometimes women are alert and recognize or can recall their assailant. Other times they only realize they’ve been raped because their clothes are torn, they have cuts or bruises and a sore vagina.

    To prevent attacks, some women travel in pairs, but some say that doesn’t protect them from gang rape. They may arrange to ride out a high in view of a security camera, hoping someone would see and stop an assault.

    After each assault, Kristin would try going solo on the streets. But then she’d get robbed or sold fake drugs and decide to find a new running partner. Kristin says she still attaches herself to men she knows are not safe. The drug addiction, she says, overpowers fear and common sense warnings.

    “In hindsight, it’s like crazy, you look back and you’re like, ‘red flag, red flag, red flag,’ ” Kristin says. “I’m even noticing it in real time and pushing it aside because there’s a high waiting for me at the end.”

    Two women who were sitting with Kristin and nodding while she spoke have drifted away. She glances over her shoulder when I ask if her experience is unusual.

    “Between the other two women that were sitting here with me and the few that are across the street, combined, we probably have about 20 to 25 assaults or rapes,” Kristin says, her voice rising in anger. “It’s almost become normalized, and that’s messed up.”

    While there’s lots of data on the connections between substance abuse and sexual violence in general, there’s little information about sexual assault stemming from the opioid epidemic.

    Gina Scaramella, director of the Boston Area Rape Crisis Center, says she isn’t surprised by Kristin’s account. “I would almost be surprised if that wasn’t the case, to be 100 percent honest,” Scaramella says.

    That’s because some assailants actually seek women and men whom they expect will be unconscious or semiconscious. Drug users may already be hiding from public view, and many have lost connections that might offer protection, “[l]ike a job, stable housing — people that know where they are and care where they are,” Scaramella says. “The isolation piece is a huge vulnerability for sexual violence because the offender will see that as an opportunity.”

    One of Scaramella’s staff members is taking a course in substance use intervention as the center tries to address rape during the opioid epidemic.

    Researchers are just beginning to document the problem. One study, published two years ago, asked 164 young adults in New York with an addiction to opioids about their experience with sexual violence. Forty-one percent of women and 11 percent of men said they had been forced to have sex while using drugs.

    Authors urge more focus on prevention, but not just for potential victims.

    “A lot of the focus is on telling people how to be safer when they are using or not impairing their judgment, but what we found was that there were people who were actively seeking out drug users, and more focus needs to be on them,” says study author Lauren Jessell.

    One Boston physician says virtually all of her patients, mostly homeless women, have stories about sexual assaults.

    “I wasn’t aware of this until more recently but I’m just struck by how common it is. In fact, it seems ubiquitous,” says Dr. Jessie Gaeta, medical director at the Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program.

    Gaeta oversees the only clinic in the state where drug users can ride out a high in comfortable chairs with medical staff monitoring their conditions and safety.

    Gaeta says women often pull her aside as they return to full consciousness, to ask if she’ll look at infections, cuts or swelling around their genitals.

    “The stories are just so heart wrenching about the worst possible kind of sexual trauma,” Gaeta says.

    Few emergency room doctors routinely ask overdose patients if they’ve been raped. Gaeta says this is understandable in the chaos of trying to save a life, stabilize the person, and persuade them to consider treatment.

    But she says screening must become routine, because there are many reasons to worry about a patient who’s been raped.

    “There’s unintended pregnancy, sexually transmitted illness, even physical injuries, lacerations we’ve seen around the rectum or around the vagina,” Gaeta says.

    Doctors could be prescribing drugs to help patients avoid HIV and antibiotics to stop infections and treat wounds, but this rarely happens.

    And there are the mental injuries that fester with rape. Kristin still blames herself for the attempted assault.

    “I can’t believe that I put myself in that situation, I know better,” she wails as friends rub her back.

    After the assault, Kristin checked in to detox and then rehab for the first time. She didn’t finish the program.

    “I was like, ‘Oh my God, my life’s gotten out of control,’ ” she says, hands gripping her head. “I am getting raped, I’m overdosing on the regular, something’s got to change.”

    Kristin pauses and looks up, her face calms.

    “I have these moments of clarity … like, this has got to stop. I know better, I’m smarter than this, I’m going to die. But then there’s this very apathetic, I don’t care attitude to what happens to me. And I think the reason I’m able to get up and go on is … ” Kristin doesn’t finish the sentence.

    She struggles for words and then begins again.

    “I didn’t let the rape define me. For me it’s easier to completely detach myself from it, put it in a box, throw it away, don’t think about it,” Kristin says in a firm tone.

    Except, she acknowledges, the sexual assaults, and fear of more, become one more pain she numbs with heroin, one more reason she clings to the drug for escape.

    This story is part of a reporting partnership with NPR, WBUR and Kaiser Health News.

    In: npr

    Publicado en por Nortencio
  • Deje un comentario

    • Estos son los nuevos ministros de PPK, luego de la cuestión de confianza denegada a Zavala por parte del Congreso Fujimorista

    • Mercedes Aráoz es la Jefa del Consejo de Ministros.
    • José Manuel Hernández es ratificado como ministro de Agricultura.
    • Fernando D’Alessio, juramenta como nuevo ministro de Salud. 
    • Idel Vexler, Nuevo ministro de Educación. (posibles modificaciones en la Nueva Ley Universitaria, vinculo con la USMP, y erradicación del enfoque de genero en la educación escolar peruana)
    • Enrique Mendoza, juramenta como nuevo ministro de Justicia. (posibilidad de indulto a Alberto Fujimori)
    • Carlos Basombrío juramenta y se mantiene en la cartera del Ministerio del Interior.
    • Claudia Cooper, nueva ministra de Economía y Finanzas reemplaza a Fernando Zavala.
    • Jorge Nieto Montesinos es ratificado en el Ministerio de Defensa.
    • Ricardo Luna juramenta y se mantiene como ministro de Relaciones Exteriores.
    • Alfonso Grados se mantiene en la cartera del Ministerio de Trabajo y Promoción del Empleo.
    • Pedro Olaechea, congresista de Peruanos por el Kambio, es ratificado en el Ministerio de la Producción.
    • Eduardo Ferreyros se mantiene como ministro de Comercio Exterior y Turismo.
    • Cayetana Aljovin se mantiene en el Ministerio de Energía y Minas.
    • Carlos Bruce Montes de Oca, nuevo Ministro de Vivienda Construcción y Saneamiento.
    • Bruno Giuffra, se mantiene a la cabeza del Ministerio de Transportes y Comunicaciones.
    • Ana María Choquehuanca se mantiene como ministra de la Mujer y Poblaciones Vulnerables.
    • Elsa Galarza juramenta como ministra de Ambiente.
    • Salvador del Solar se mantiene en el Ministerio de Cultura.

    Leer: ¿Por qué causa polémica Idel Vexler en el ministerio de Educación?

    Publicado en por Nortencio
  • Deje un comentario

    • Trump Moves to End DACA and Calls on Congress to Act

    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

    Publicado en por Nortencio
  • Deje un comentario

    • What’s Keeping Asian-American Lawyers From Ascending The Legal Ranks?

    While the number of Asian-American lawyers and law students increased greatly in recent decades, there are still few Asian-American lawyers in top positions in the legal field. Tawatdchai Muelae/Getty Images/iStockphoto

    In 1872, 13-year-old Hong Yen Chang came to the U.S. to be groomed as a diplomat. He earned degrees from Yale University and Columbia University’s law school, and passed the bar exam.

    He became the first Chinese-American lawyer in the U.S. in 1888, when he was admitted to the New York bar. But not all states were as welcoming. When Chang applied for a California law license in 1892, the state’s Supreme Court denied his application citing bar association rules, which precluded noncitizens from joining. Chang was unable to become a citizen because of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.

    More than a century later, Chang’s descendants petitioned for their relative to be granted posthumous bar admission and brought the case before the California Supreme Court.

    In 2015, the California Supreme Court reversed the ruling. “Even if we cannot undo history, we can acknowledge it and, in doing so, accord a full measure of recognition to Chang’s path-breaking efforts to become the first lawyer of Chinese descent in the United States,” the judges wrote in their decision.

    “That case got me thinking about the fact that Asian-Americans have been formally excluded from the legal profession as Chang was, and of course, [with] all the informal barriers,” says California Supreme Court justice Goodwin Liu, who reviewed the case. He said he realized he hadn’t seen a comprehensive study of how Asian-Americans came into the legal profession — so he took it upon himself to lead one.

    In the study, Liu shows that though Asian-Americans are the fastest-growing minority group in the legal field, there’s still a stark lack of Asian-American lawyers in top positions in this country.

    In 2015, 10 percent of graduates at the top-30 law schools were Asian-American, according to the study. Yet they only comprised about 6 percent of federal law clerks and 4 percent of state law clerks. Compare that to white students, and you’ll see a striking contrast: 58 percent of students from top-30 schools were white, but still landed 82 percent of all federal clerkships and 80 percent of all state clerkships.

    Liu and his co-researchers also found that while Asian-Americans comprise 5 percent of lawyers in the U.S. and 7 percent of law students, only 3 percent of federal judges are Asian-American, and three out of 94 U.S. Attorneys last year were Asian-American.

    The study noted that some obstacles Asian-Americans face include a lack of access to mentors, as well as stereotypes of Asians as being unable to assimilate or socially awkward.

    “Whereas Asian Americans are regarded as having the ‘hard skills’ required for lawyerly competence, they are regarded as lacking many important ‘soft skills,’ ” the researchers wrote.

    The study also pointed out that there’s a dearth of Asian-American lawyers in public service roles:

    “It is notable that few Asian Americans appear motivated to pursue law in order to gain a pathway into government or politics. … Greater penetration into these public leadership roles is critical if the increasing number of Asian American attorneys is to translate into increasing influence of Asian Americans in the legal profession and throughout society. A major challenge is to encourage Asian American lawyers to pursue public service roles and to eliminate barriers for those who do.”

    When asked to break out the data further by ethnicity, Xiaonan Hu, one of the researchers, told NPR that she noticed Filipino-American and Indian-American respondents were more likely to say they enrolled in law school to work in government or politics than, say, Japanese-American or Korean-American respondents. Two percent of respondents who were Japanese-American and 3 percent of Korean-Americans ranked the entry into government or politics as a top motivator for going to law school, compared to 11 percent of Filipino-Americans and 5 percent of Indian-Americans.

    So what could account for this?

    “It doesn’t seem like it’s as much about those groups [being] MORE interested in government and politics, but less averse to it,” Karthick Ramakrishnan, a professor of political science at the University of California, Riverside, wrote in an email.

    “For Filipino Americans, many of them made advancements in government and local politics in California and Hawaii, where they have large populations and there were relatively long-standing Filipino communities,” Ramakrishnan, who also runs the project AAPI DATA, said.

    “Indian Americans, by comparison, are much more recently arrived in the United States (with their population booming in the last 2 decades). That normally would mean that we would not expect them to be involved in politics. But, past research indicates that prior experience with democracy and high English proficiency tend to mean greater political participation.”

    And while there are rampant structural issues that need to be addressed, Chris Kang, former National Director of the National Council of Asian Pacific Americans, said that emphasizing role models can sometimes be powerful.

    When Kang was working with the Obama administration as Pres. Obama’s Deputy Counsel, he helped appoint federal judges. Kang said he and his team tried to highlight each new justice’s ethnicity and gender.

    “It wasn’t just, ‘the first Asian-American judge in the district,’ but we really went and highlighted ‘the first Vietnamese-American, the first Filipino-American,’ ” Kang told NPR.

    “If there’s someone of your particular ethnicity — or an Asian-American woman, [where there’s] only been two to the federal bench before — seeing now a dozen of them starts to make a difference,” Kang said, “and you start to think as you’re going into law school or you’re a lawyer considering what’s next for you, that a judgeship might be possible.”

    In: npr