POPULARITY
6 episodes with northern triangle
5 episodes with northern triangle
2 episodes with northern triangle
2 episodes with northern triangle
2 episodes with northern triangle
4 episodes with northern triangle
4 episodes with northern triangle
2 episodes with northern triangle
2 episodes with northern triangle
What are the long-term, intended and unintended consequences of the USAID funding freeze? How the suspension of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, the reinstatement of the Global Gag Rule, and other executive orders from the new Trump Administration related to the US-Mexico border and the End of the Sensitive Zones Policy will impact the rights, safety, and lives of refugee women and girls in the U.S. and worldwide? In this interview with Devon Cone, Senior Advocate for Women and Girls at Refugees International, we explored the factors behind the growing disinterest in the protection of migrants' human rights and we examined how these measures will disproportionately affect women and girls fleeing violent conflict in Afghanistan, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Mexico, and countries in the Northern Triangle of Central America. Join us in this exploration and subscribe to our podcast newsletter community here.Listen to related episodes: 91. Dr. Paul Slovic & Dr. Scott Slovic on the Science Behind the Limits of Compassion112. Devon Cone on COVID-19 Impact on Migration & Humanitarian Crises179. Marta Saiz on Human Rights Journalism & Foreign Affairs190. Dr. William T. Armaline on The Crisis of Human Rights in the Age of Global CapitalismRecommended links to this episode:Refugees International Official WebsiteWhat Do President Trump's Week One Actions Mean for Refugees International's Global Advocacy?No Model of Refuge: Sudanese Refugees in EgyptThe Nuba Mountains: A Window into the Sudan CrisisGaza Dispatches: Hunger and Siege“They Left Us Without Any Support”: Afghans in Pakistan Waiting for SolutionsIn Apparent Quid Pro Quo Deal, Panama and Costa Rica Facilitating U.S.-Sponsored Human Rights Violations of Asylum Seekers Tell Your Member of Congress: Save USAID, Save Lives
Dr. William Marcy, a lecturer at Buffalo State University, has authored two books: “The Politics of Cocaine,” and his most recent “Narcostates.” He highlights the scope of the Narcostates and the significance of the Central American crisis in expanding the cocaine trade in North America. Mexico's permanent campaign against narcotics trafficking on Mexican cartels was directly affected after the Mexican economic crisis, the Zapatista Rebellion, and the Salinas administration's corruption, all which worsened the situation in Mexico. Also discussed are details of various programs such as the War on Drugs, the Merida Initiative, Kingpin Strategy and CARSI. Cryptocurrency is a popular way to launder money through false invoicing, money transfers and others. America has apparently lost interest in Latin America and is mostly known for decades of benign neglect and gunboat diplomacy. Recommendations to Trump and Scheinbaum Administrations is cooperate, root out corruption, develop infrastructure and education, and curtail recidivism.
Illegal immigration is becoming an increasingly important issue to Americans around the country. As the United States grapples with the complex issue, an unexpected solution may lie in the realm of trade policy. Recent efforts to address the root causes of migration from Central America have highlighted the potential for economic development to stem the tide of undocumented immigrants. Christine McDaniel from the Mercatus Center shares that by leveraging trade tools and fostering economic opportunities in the Northern Triangle countries, the next administration could make significant strides in addressing this pressing concern.
The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 2: A new poll from The New York Times/Sienna College shows that regardless of race, age, or gender more voters believe that former President Donald Trump's policies benefited them than did President Joe Biden's policies—40% to 18%. Perhaps most concerning for Biden, 43% of voters claim Biden's policies actively hurt them personally—only 25% said the same about Trump. You can read the full article, from Ruth Igielnik and Camille Baker, here: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/04/us/politics/trump-biden-policies-help-hurt.html While appearing on Fox News with Maria Bartiromo, Senator J.D. Vance (R-OH) said that President Joe Biden's 2021 executive orders “opened the flood gates” at the U.S. Southern border. President Joe Biden continues to insist that he has no control over the influx of migrants crossing the U.S. Southern border unlawfully. But as Rich Lowry notes in his most recent article for National Review, “Joe Biden was inaugurated on January 20, 2021. Less than two weeks later, on February 2, he issued the executive order that began the unraveling at the border in earnest. The border crisis isn't something that happened to President Biden. It's not a product of circumstances or understandable policy mistakes made under duress. No, he sought it and created it, on principle and as a matter of urgency.” Lowry continues: “The February 2 action… put on the chopping block numerous Trump policies that had helped establish order at the border, from Trump's expansion of expedited removal, to his termination of a parole program for Central American minors, to his memorandum urging the relevant departments to work toward ending ‘catch and release.' Most importantly, it went after two of the pillars of Trump's success at the border: the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), or so-called Remain in Mexico, and the safe-third-country agreements with the Northern Triangle countries that allowed us to divert asylum-seekers to Central American countries other than their own, where they could make asylum claims.” You can read the full article here: https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/02/the-day-joe-biden-blew-up-the-border/ According to the cross-tabs portion of a recent New York Times/Sienna Poll, Donald Trump is projected to win the Hispanic vote outright—45% to 43%. Equally surprising, the poll indicates that if the election were held today, Trump would win 20% of the Black vote—he won only 12% in the 2020 presidential election. Philadelphia Eagles Center—and future NFL Hall of Famer—Jason Kelce announced his retirement on Monday. Kelce played 13 seasons in the NFL, earning 6 All-Pro selections and winning Super Bowl LII. In a new editorial in The Wall Street Journal, Micahel Buschbacher and Taylor Meyers write: “The Biden administration is reviewing California's plan to ban the sale of new gasoline-powered cars by 2035. To get federal approval, California claims it ‘needs' this ban to prevent harm to public health from particulate matter—airborne particles like dust, dirt and soot. But banning gasoline cars would do little to reduce particulate emissions, and it could even increase them. That's because new gasoline cars are very clean. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, cars emit only about 1% of all direct fine particulate matter in California, and most of those emissions come from older models. The newer gasoline cars that California wants to ban will often have particulate filters that reduce emissions to below one 1/1,000th of a gram per mile driven. Where do most particulate emissions attributed to cars come from? California speaks as if their primary source is the tailpipe. That was true in the past. But today most vehicle-related particulate matter comes from tire wear. Cars are heavy, and as their tires rub against the road, they degrade and release tiny, often toxic particles. According to measurements by an emission-analytics firm, in gasoline cars equipped with a particle filter, airborne tire-wear emissions are more than 400 times as great as direct exhaust particulate emissions.” You can read the full editorial here: https://www.wsj.com/articles/electric-cars-emit-more-soot-california-ban-gas-powered-vehicles-521b29e3?mod=opinion_lead_pos7
The Rich Zeoli Show- Full Episode (03/04/2024): 3:05pm- In a unanimous 9-0 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states cannot bar Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump from participating in the 2024 election—and, consequently, he cannot be removed from state ballots. Only Congress, according to the Court, is capable of enforcing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, barring an individual guilty of participating in an insurrection from holding elected office. In the main opinion, the Justices write that “the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates…The Constitution empowers Congress to prescribe how those determinations should be made. The relevant provision is Section 5, which enables Congress, subject of course to judicial review, to pass ‘appropriate legislation' to ‘enforce' the Fourteenth Amendment…The ‘patchwork' that would likely result from state enforcement would ‘sever the direct link that the Framers found so critical between the National Government and the people of the United States' as a whole.” You can read the court's full decision here: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/03/04/us/supreme-court-ruling-trump-colorado.html 3:15pm- After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states cannot bar Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump from appearing on ballots, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) appeared on CNN announcing that—with the help of Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA)—he is working on a new strategy to bar Trump from 2024 ballots. 3:20pm- Charlie Savage of The New York Times writes: “In criticizing the majority for unnecessarily dismissing other potential ways federal officials might enforce Section 3 besides a congressional statute, the three liberal justices [Sonya Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson] do not specify what those alternative methods might be. But when it comes to presidents, one obvious alternative would be that when Congress meets to certify electoral college votes on the Jan. 6 after an election, lawmakers could refuse to count electoral college votes won by a candidate they deemed disqualified under Section 3—even without a statute. Justice [Amy Coney] Barrett, in her separate opinion, also says it was enough to rule that states lack the power to enforce Section 3 against presidential candidates and there was no need ‘to address the complicated question whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced.'” You can read more: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/03/04/us/trump-supreme-court-colorado-ballot/31379f62-f91f-57f7-a33e-37959bc68452?smid=url-share 3:30pm- While appearing on MSNBC following the Supreme Court's ruling in favor of Donald Trump, Colorado Secretary of State Jenna Griswold said that she was disappointed by the decision and that “it'll be up to the American voters to save our democracy in November.” Colorado's State Supreme Court had ruled that Trump was barred from holding office for his role in the riot at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. 3:40pm- Zack Smith—Legal Fellow and Manager of the Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy Program in the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that states cannot bar Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump from state ballots. 4:05pm- A new poll from The New York Times/Sienna College shows that regardless of race, age, or gender more voters believe that former President Donald Trump's policies benefited them than did President Joe Biden's policies—40% to 18%. Perhaps most concerning for Biden, 43% of voters claim Biden's policies actively hurt them personally—only 25% said the same about Trump. You can read the full article, from Ruth Igielnik and Camille Baker, here: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/04/us/politics/trump-biden-policies-help-hurt.html 4:20pm- While appearing on Fox News with Maria Bartiromo, Senator J.D. Vance (R-OH) said that President Joe Biden's 2021 executive orders “opened the flood gates” at the U.S. Southern border. 4:25pm- President Joe Biden continues to insist that he has no control over the influx of migrants crossing the U.S. Southern border unlawfully. But as Rich Lowry notes in his most recent article for National Review, “Joe Biden was inaugurated on January 20, 2021. Less than two weeks later, on February 2, he issued the executive order that began the unraveling at the border in earnest. The border crisis isn't something that happened to President Biden. It's not a product of circumstances or understandable policy mistakes made under duress. No, he sought it and created it, on principle and as a matter of urgency.” Lowry continues: “The February 2 action… put on the chopping block numerous Trump policies that had helped establish order at the border, from Trump's expansion of expedited removal, to his termination of a parole program for Central American minors, to his memorandum urging the relevant departments to work toward ending ‘catch and release.' Most importantly, it went after two of the pillars of Trump's success at the border: the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), or so-called Remain in Mexico, and the safe-third-country agreements with the Northern Triangle countries that allowed us to divert asylum-seekers to Central American countries other than their own, where they could make asylum claims.” You can read the full article here: https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/02/the-day-joe-biden-blew-up-the-border/ 4:30pm- According to the cross-tabs portion of a recent New York Times/Sienna Poll, Donald Trump is projected to win the Hispanic vote outright—45% to 43%. Equally surprising, the poll indicates that if the election were held today, Trump would win 20% of the Black vote—he won only 12% in the 2020 presidential election. 4:40pm- Philadelphia Eagles Center—and future NFL Hall of Famer—Jason Kelce announced his retirement on Monday. Kelce played 13 seasons in the NFL, earning 6 All-Pro selections and winning Super Bowl LII. 4:50pm- In a new editorial in The Wall Street Journal, Micahel Buschbacher and Taylor Meyers write: “The Biden administration is reviewing California's plan to ban the sale of new gasoline-powered cars by 2035. To get federal approval, California claims it ‘needs' this ban to prevent harm to public health from particulate matter—airborne particles like dust, dirt and soot. But banning gasoline cars would do little to reduce particulate emissions, and it could even increase them. That's because new gasoline cars are very clean. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, cars emit only about 1% of all direct fine particulate matter in California, and most of those emissions come from older models. The newer gasoline cars that California wants to ban will often have particulate filters that reduce emissions to below one 1/1,000th of a gram per mile driven. Where do most particulate emissions attributed to cars come from? California speaks as if their primary source is the tailpipe. That was true in the past. But today most vehicle-related particulate matter comes from tire wear. Cars are heavy, and as their tires rub against the road, they degrade and release tiny, often toxic particles. According to measurements by an emission-analytics firm, in gasoline cars equipped with a particle filter, airborne tire-wear emissions are more than 400 times as great as direct exhaust particulate emissions.” You can read the full editorial here: https://www.wsj.com/articles/electric-cars-emit-more-soot-california-ban-gas-powered-vehicles-521b29e3?mod=opinion_lead_pos7 5:00pm- J. Christian Adams—President of the Public Interest Legal Foundation—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss the U.S. Supreme Court's unanimous decision preventing state's from barring Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump from state ballots. Adams and the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) filed a brief in the case. You can learn more about PILF here: https://publicinterestlegal.org/about/ 5:15pm- In a unanimous 9-0 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states cannot bar Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump from participating in the 2024 election—and, consequently, he cannot be removed from state ballots. Only Congress, according to the Court, is capable of enforcing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, barring an individual guilty of participating in an insurrection from holding elected office. In the main opinion, the Justices write that “the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates…The Constitution empowers Congress to prescribe how those determinations should be made. The relevant provision is Section 5, which enables Congress, subject of course to judicial review, to pass ‘appropriate legislation' to ‘enforce' the Fourteenth Amendment…The ‘patchwork' that would likely result from state enforcement would ‘sever the direct link that the Framers found so critical between the National Government and the people of the United States' as a whole.” You can read the court's full decision here: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/03/04/us/supreme-court-ruling-trump-colorado.html 5:20pm- Charlie Savage of The New York Times writes: “In criticizing the majority for unnecessarily dismissing other potential ways federal officials might enforce Section 3 besides a congressional statute, the three liberal justices [Sonya Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson] do not specify what those alternative methods might be. But when it comes to presidents, one obvious alternative would be that when Congress meets to certify electoral college votes on the Jan. 6 after an election, lawmakers could refuse to count electoral college votes won by a candidate they deemed disqualified under Section 3—even without a statute. Justice [Amy Coney] Barrett, in her separate opinion, also says it was enough to rule that states lack the power to enforce Section 3 against presidential candidates and there was no need ‘to address the complicated question whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced.'” You can read more: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/03/04/us/trump-supreme-court-colorado-ballot/31379f62-f91f-57f7-a33e-37959bc68452?smid=url-share 5:30pm- On Meet the Press with Kristen Welker, NBC elections analyst Steve Kornacki said to expect Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley to get buried in a “delegate avalanche” on Super Tuesday—as frontrunner Donald Trump, according to all available polling, is expected to continue his run of electoral dominance. 5:40pm- While appearing on Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas refused to confirm there was “a breakdown in the system” which prevented New York City from notifying the federal government of the previously arrested undocumented migrant who went on to murder 22-year-old nursing student Laken Riley in Athens, Georgia. 6:05pm- Rich has an event to attend and, consequently, “America's Radio Guest Host” Mike Opelka hosts the 4th hour of the show! 6:10pm- In a unanimous 9-0 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states cannot bar Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump from participating in the 2024 election—and, consequently, he cannot be removed from state ballots. Only Congress, according to the Court, is capable of enforcing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, barring an individual guilty of participating in an insurrection from holding elected office. In the main opinion, the Justices write that “the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates…The Constitution empowers Congress to prescribe how those determinations should be made. The relevant provision is Section 5, which enables Congress, subject of course to judicial review, to pass ‘appropriate legislation' to ‘enforce' the Fourteenth Amendment…The ‘patchwork' that would likely result from state enforcement would ‘sever the direct link that the Framers found so critical between the National Government and the people of the United States' as a whole.” You can read the court's full decision here: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/03/04/us/supreme-court-ruling-trump-colorado.html 6:15pm- While appearing on MSNBC following the Supreme Court's ruling in favor of Donald Trump, Colorado Secretary of State Jenna Griswold said that she was disappointed by the decision and that “it'll be up to the American voters to save our democracy in November.” Colorado's State Supreme Court had ruled that Trump was barred from holding office for his role in the riot at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. 6:20pm- On Sunday, Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley won her first primary contest—Washington D.C. Though she earned nearly 63% of the vote, Opelka notes that she received less than 1,300 votes total. 6:40pm- While speaking at event in Selma, Alabama marking the 59th anniversary of Bloody Sunday, Vice President Kamala Harris called on Israel and Hamas to agree upon a ceasefire immediately.
The Rich Zeoli Show- Full Episode (02/29/2024): 3:05pm- On Wednesday, during a speech from the Senate floor, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) announced that he would be stepping down from his leadership position at the end of the term in November. Though, he does not plan to resign from the Senate. McConnell, now 82-years-old, has served in the U.S. Senate for nearly 40-years and has been the leader of the Senate Republican Conference since 2007. So, who will replace McConnell in November? Audrey Fahlberg of National Review writes: “November may be a long way off, but the shadow race to succeed McConnell is now coming into public view after unfolding behind closed doors for months. Leading the race are the ‘three Johns'—Senate GOP whip John Thune of South Dakota, conference chair John Barrasso of Wyoming, and former whip John Cornyn of Texas—all of whom have spent the past year or so privately signaling to colleagues that they would be eager to fill the role when the time came for McConnell to step aside.” You can read more here: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/with-mcconnells-announcement-the-race-for-senate-gop-leader-emerges-from-behind-closed-doors/ 3:15pm- In a recently published article for The Washington Post, Danielle Paquette writes about how Republicans have become growingly reluctant to send tens-of-billions of dollars in additional aid to Ukraine. Paquette blames partisan politics, but could it be that the hesitancy stems from the lack of a coherent plan to end the war between Russia and Ukraine—coupled with the Biden Administration's refusal to spend money to secure the U.S. Southern border? You can read Paquette's article here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/02/29/ukraine-support-alabama-political-divide/# 3:35pm- On Thursday, President Joe Biden and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump are visiting the U.S. Southern border in two separate trips. President Biden will be visiting Brownsville, Texas. During an interview with Fox News, President of the National Border Patrol Council Brandon Judd criticized Biden's selection of Brownsville, explaining: “he's not going to any location where he's going to be able to evaluate what he needs to do.” Meanwhile, Trump's visit will take place in Eagle Pass, Texas—a city impacted by massive amounts of migrants crossing the border unlawfully. 3:40pm- In an interview with NewsNation, Democrat Congressman Rep. Henry Cuellar (TX) told viewers that President Joe Biden should speak out against cities that embrace “Sanctuary City” status. 3:45pm- President Joe Biden continues to insist that he has no control over the influx of migrants crossing the U.S. Southern border unlawfully. But as Rich Lowry notes in his most recent article for National Review, “Joe Biden was inaugurated on January 20, 2021. Less than two weeks later, on February 2, he issued the executive order that began the unraveling at the border in earnest. The border crisis isn't something that happened to President Biden. It's not a product of circumstances or understandable policy mistakes made under duress. No, he sought it and created it, on principle and as a matter of urgency.” Lowry continues: “The February 2 action… put on the chopping block numerous Trump policies that had helped establish order at the border, from Trump's expansion of expedited removal, to his termination of a parole program for Central American minors, to his memorandum urging the relevant departments to work toward ending ‘catch and release.' Most importantly, it went after two of the pillars of Trump's success at the border: the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), or so-called Remain in Mexico, and the safe-third-country agreements with the Northern Triangle countries that allowed us to divert asylum-seekers to Central American countries other than their own, where they could make asylum claims.” You can read the full article here: https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/02/the-day-joe-biden-blew-up-the-border/ 3:55pm- The Rich Zeoli Show has won the 2024 Pennsylvania Association of Broadcasters award for Outstanding Radio Personality/Team. The show also won the award last year. Rich wonders why Matt hasn't submitted a package for a Marconi Award…and a Nobel Prize? 4:05pm- While speaking with Charlamagne Tha God, Dr. Phil claimed that Facebook and Instagram suppressed a recent video he posted documenting chaos at the U.S. Southern border. 4:10pm- MSNBC legal analyst and University of Michigan law professor Barbara McQuade told Rachel Maddow that the First Amendment's protection of free speech makes America vulnerable to misinformation. McQuade insisted that no one is endorsing a weakening of the First Amendment—right before she hinted that regulating speech might be beneficial. 4:25pm- While speaking from Eagle Pass, Texas, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said that he met with the parents of Laken Riley—a 22-year-old University of Georgia student who was murdered by an undocumented migrant last Thursday. Trump stated, “[President] Joe Biden will never say Laken Riley's name, but we will…We're not going to forget her.” He went on to explain that undocumented migrants are pouring across the U.S. Southern border unchecked as part of the “Joe Biden invasion.” During his visit to Eagle Pass, Trump was accompanied by Texas Governor Greg Abbott (R) who, similarly, called on President Biden to use executive action to halt the ongoing chaos at the border. 4:45pm- While speaking from Brownsville, Texas, President Joe Biden said this administration—as well as local Texas officials—are working hard to create a “safe, secure border.” Biden then emphatically stated “it is time to act,” calling on Congress to pass legislation that will guarantee border officials have the resources they need while drastically increasing the number of judges available to process the asylum claims of migrants entering the country. But wouldn't expediting asylum claims potentially encourage more migrants to flood the U.S. Southern border? 5:05pm- While speaking from Eagle Pass, Texas, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said that he met with the parents of Laken Riley—a 22-year-old University of Georgia student who was murdered by an undocumented migrant last Thursday. Trump stated, “[President] Joe Biden will never say Laken Riley's name, but we will…We're not going to forget her.” He went on to explain that undocumented migrants are pouring across the U.S. Southern border unchecked as part of the “Joe Biden invasion.” During his visit to Eagle Pass, Trump was accompanied by Texas Governor Greg Abbott (R) who, similarly, called on President Biden to use executive action to halt the ongoing chaos at the border. Meanwhile, speaking from Brownsville, Texas, President Biden said this administration—as well as local Texas officials—are working hard to create a “safe secure border.” Biden then emphatically stated “it is time to act,” calling on Congress to pass legislation that will guarantee border officials have the resources they need while drastically increasing the number of judges available to process the asylum claims of migrants entering the country. But wouldn't expediting asylum claims potentially encourage more migrants to flood the U.S. Southern border? 5:10pm- President Joe Biden continues to insist that he has no control over the influx of migrants crossing the U.S. Southern border unlawfully. But as Rich Lowry notes in his most recent article for National Review, “Joe Biden was inaugurated on January 20, 2021. Less than two weeks later, on February 2, he issued the executive order that began the unraveling at the border in earnest. The border crisis isn't something that happened to President Biden. It's not a product of circumstances or understandable policy mistakes made under duress. No, he sought it and created it, on principle and as a matter of urgency.” Lowry continues: “The February 2 action… put on the chopping block numerous Trump policies that had helped establish order at the border, from Trump's expansion of expedited removal, to his termination of a parole program for Central American minors, to his memorandum urging the relevant departments to work toward ending ‘catch and release.' Most importantly, it went after two of the pillars of Trump's success at the border: the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), or so-called Remain in Mexico, and the safe-third-country agreements with the Northern Triangle countries that allowed us to divert asylum-seekers to Central American countries other than their own, where they could make asylum claims.” You can read the full article here: https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/02/the-day-joe-biden-blew-up-the-border/ 5:25pm- On Wednesday the U.S. Supreme Court announced it will hear Donald Trump's claim that, as president, he had presidential immunity and, consequently, cannot be criminally prosecuted for allegedly plotting to overturn the 2020 election. On MSNBC, Rachel Maddow told her audience that if the court rules in Trump's favor he may never leave the White House—and will be president forever. “Professor” Rich Zeoli provides the audience with an incredibly hilarious (though, perhaps not entirely accurate) history lesson that you won't soon forget! 5:50pm- Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal writes: “The Supreme Court agreed to consider whether Donald Trump must stand trial on charges he plotted to overturn the 2020 election, after lower courts rejected his claim that he is entitled to absolute immunity because he was president at the time. The court's move means it will have final say on an issue the judiciary never confronted before Trump. But it also means the former president has bought himself more months before any trial, which had been scheduled to start in early March before the immunity battle scuttled those plans. The court scheduled oral arguments for the week of April 22. A decision is likely before July.” You can read the full article here: https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/supreme-court-to-say-if-donald-trump-must-stand-trial-in-2020-election-conspiracy-case-1b7f4e3f?mod=hp_lead_pos1 6:05pm- While speaking from Eagle Pass, Texas, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said that he met with the parents of Laken Riley—a 22-year-old University of Georgia student who was murdered by an undocumented migrant last Thursday. Trump stated, “[President] Joe Biden will never say Laken Riley's name, but we will…We're not going to forget her.” He went on to explain that undocumented migrants are pouring across the U.S. Southern border unchecked as part of the “Joe Biden invasion.” During his visit to Eagle Pass, Trump was accompanied by Texas Governor Greg Abbott (R) who, similarly, called on President Biden to use executive action to halt the ongoing chaos at the border. Meanwhile, speaking from Brownsville, Texas, President Biden said this administration—as well as local Texas officials—are working hard to create a “safe secure border.” Biden then emphatically stated “it is time to act,” calling on Congress to pass legislation that will guarantee border officials have the resources they need while drastically increasing the number of judges available to process the asylum claims of migrants entering the country. But wouldn't expediting asylum claims potentially encourage more migrants to flood the U.S. Southern border? 6:10pm- Chief National Correspondent for The Daily Caller Henry Rodgers writes: “Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic Chairman Brad Wenstrup sent a letter Thursday to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Robert Califf regarding an investigation into possible political interference on the accelerated approval of Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine. The Daily Caller first obtained a copy of the letter, which mentions a recent Select Subcommittee hearing where Dr. Peter Marks' testimony suggested that the FDA's approval of the COVID-19 vaccine may have been rushed in order to meet timing set by government entities. On the day immediately following the FDA's approval of the vaccine, the Biden Administration called for COVID-19 vaccine mandates.” You can read the full report here: https://dailycaller.com/2024/02/29/exclusive-covid-committee-food-drug-administration-fda-rushed-vaccine-approval/ 6:15pm- Flashback: Congressman Jamie Raskin (D-MD) ridiculously suggested that if Donald Trump's presidential immunity claims are proven to be valid, then the sitting president would be incentivized to assassinate political rivals to avoid impeachment. 6:35pm- During a House hearing on Thursday, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin revealed that he sometimes goes several days without communicating with President Joe Biden. 6:50pm- What's worse: a Leap Year birthday or a birthday on Christmas?
The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 1: On Wednesday, during a speech from the Senate floor, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) announced that he would be stepping down from his leadership position at the end of the term in November. Though, he does not plan to resign from the Senate. McConnell, now 82-years-old, has served in the U.S. Senate for nearly 40-years and has been the leader of the Senate Republican Conference since 2007. So, who will replace McConnell in November? Audrey Fahlberg of National Review writes: “November may be a long way off, but the shadow race to succeed McConnell is now coming into public view after unfolding behind closed doors for months. Leading the race are the ‘three Johns'—Senate GOP whip John Thune of South Dakota, conference chair John Barrasso of Wyoming, and former whip John Cornyn of Texas—all of whom have spent the past year or so privately signaling to colleagues that they would be eager to fill the role when the time came for McConnell to step aside.” You can read more here: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/with-mcconnells-announcement-the-race-for-senate-gop-leader-emerges-from-behind-closed-doors/ In a recently published article for The Washington Post, Danielle Paquette writes about how Republicans have become growingly reluctant to send tens-of-billions of dollars in additional aid to Ukraine. Paquette blames partisan politics, but could it be that the hesitancy stems from the lack of a coherent plan to end the war between Russia and Ukraine—coupled with the Biden Administration's refusal to spend money to secure the U.S. Southern border? You can read Paquette's article here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/02/29/ukraine-support-alabama-political-divide/# On Thursday, President Joe Biden and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump are visiting the U.S. Southern border in two separate trips. President Biden will be visiting Brownsville, Texas. During an interview with Fox News, President of the National Border Patrol Council Brandon Judd criticized Biden's selection of Brownsville, explaining: “he's not going to any location where he's going to be able to evaluate what he needs to do.” Meanwhile, Trump's visit will take place in Eagle Pass, Texas—a city impacted by massive amounts of migrants crossing the border unlawfully. In an interview with NewsNation, Democrat Congressman Rep. Henry Cuellar (TX) told viewers that President Joe Biden should speak out against cities that embrace “Sanctuary City” status. President Joe Biden continues to insist that he has no control over the influx of migrants crossing the U.S. Southern border unlawfully. But as Rich Lowry notes in his most recent article for National Review, “Joe Biden was inaugurated on January 20, 2021. Less than two weeks later, on February 2, he issued the executive order that began the unraveling at the border in earnest. The border crisis isn't something that happened to President Biden. It's not a product of circumstances or understandable policy mistakes made under duress. No, he sought it and created it, on principle and as a matter of urgency.” Lowry continues: “The February 2 action… put on the chopping block numerous Trump policies that had helped establish order at the border, from Trump's expansion of expedited removal, to his termination of a parole program for Central American minors, to his memorandum urging the relevant departments to work toward ending ‘catch and release.' Most importantly, it went after two of the pillars of Trump's success at the border: the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), or so-called Remain in Mexico, and the safe-third-country agreements with the Northern Triangle countries that allowed us to divert asylum-seekers to Central American countries other than their own, where they could make asylum claims.” You can read the full article here: https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/02/the-day-joe-biden-blew-up-the-border/ The Rich Zeoli Show has won the 2024 Pennsylvania Association of Broadcasters award for Outstanding Radio Personality/Team. The show also won the award last year. Rich wonders why Matt hasn't submitted a package for a Marconi Award…and a Nobel Prize?
The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 3: While speaking from Eagle Pass, Texas, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said that he met with the parents of Laken Riley—a 22-year-old University of Georgia student who was murdered by an undocumented migrant last Thursday. Trump stated, “[President] Joe Biden will never say Laken Riley's name, but we will…We're not going to forget her.” He went on to explain that undocumented migrants are pouring across the U.S. Southern border unchecked as part of the “Joe Biden invasion.” During his visit to Eagle Pass, Trump was accompanied by Texas Governor Greg Abbott (R) who, similarly, called on President Biden to use executive action to halt the ongoing chaos at the border. Meanwhile, speaking from Brownsville, Texas, President Biden said this administration—as well as local Texas officials—are working hard to create a “safe secure border.” Biden then emphatically stated “it is time to act,” calling on Congress to pass legislation that will guarantee border officials have the resources they need while drastically increasing the number of judges available to process the asylum claims of migrants entering the country. But wouldn't expediting asylum claims potentially encourage more migrants to flood the U.S. Southern border? President Joe Biden continues to insist that he has no control over the influx of migrants crossing the U.S. Southern border unlawfully. But as Rich Lowry notes in his most recent article for National Review, “Joe Biden was inaugurated on January 20, 2021. Less than two weeks later, on February 2, he issued the executive order that began the unraveling at the border in earnest. The border crisis isn't something that happened to President Biden. It's not a product of circumstances or understandable policy mistakes made under duress. No, he sought it and created it, on principle and as a matter of urgency.” Lowry continues: “The February 2 action… put on the chopping block numerous Trump policies that had helped establish order at the border, from Trump's expansion of expedited removal, to his termination of a parole program for Central American minors, to his memorandum urging the relevant departments to work toward ending ‘catch and release.' Most importantly, it went after two of the pillars of Trump's success at the border: the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), or so-called Remain in Mexico, and the safe-third-country agreements with the Northern Triangle countries that allowed us to divert asylum-seekers to Central American countries other than their own, where they could make asylum claims.” You can read the full article here: https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/02/the-day-joe-biden-blew-up-the-border/ On Wednesday the U.S. Supreme Court announced it will hear Donald Trump's claim that, as president, he had presidential immunity and, consequently, cannot be criminally prosecuted for allegedly plotting to overturn the 2020 election. On MSNBC, Rachel Maddow told her audience that if the court rules in Trump's favor he may never leave the White House—and will be president forever. “Professor” Rich Zeoli provides the audience with an incredibly hilarious (though, perhaps not entirely accurate) history lesson that you won't soon forget! Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal writes: “The Supreme Court agreed to consider whether Donald Trump must stand trial on charges he plotted to overturn the 2020 election, after lower courts rejected his claim that he is entitled to absolute immunity because he was president at the time. The court's move means it will have final say on an issue the judiciary never confronted before Trump. But it also means the former president has bought himself more months before any trial, which had been scheduled to start in early March before the immunity battle scuttled those plans. The court scheduled oral arguments for the week of April 22. A decision is likely before July.” You can read the full article here: https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/supreme-court-to-say-if-donald-trump-must-stand-trial-in-2020-election-conspiracy-case-1b7f4e3f?mod=hp_lead_pos1
It's Valentine's Day, Wednesday, February 14th, A.D. 2024. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard at www.TheWorldview.com. I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Jonathan Clark and Adam McManus The persecution of Christians in Yemen Open Doors reports that Christians in Yemen are facing increased persecution after the latest Israel-Hamas conflict broke out four months ago. Since then, the Houthis, a Muslim terrorist group in Yemen, have supported Hamas by attacking commercial ships headed to Israel. Christians in Yemen have become scapegoats for the group's anger over the Israel-Hamas conflict. Samuel, a Christian convert from the country, said, “With the international situation with Israel, life for Christians in Yemen will become so much harder. ... People will tell Houthis who the Christians are to make them happy. Then, they will start to punish the Christians to make the people happy.” Yemen is ranked fifth on the Open Doors' World Watch List of nations where it is most difficult to be a Christian. House impeached Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas On February 13th, House Republicans successfully impeached Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas —the first cabinet official to be impeached in nearly 150 years, reports The Epoch Times. He became only the second presidential cabinet member ever to be impeached in the 236-year history of the United States government. Mayorkas, who was appointed by President Joe Biden and confirmed by the Democratic Senate in 2021, was impeached on two counts relating to his handling of the border crisis by a vote of 214–213, with all but three Republicans voting in favor and all Democrats opposing the action. Former Secretary of War George Belknap resigned in 1876 after the House passed five counts of impeachment against him. However, the Senate failed to convict Belknap, who was appointed by President Ulysses S. Grant. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-Louisiana), who was absent from the vote last week due to being treated for blood cancer, cast the deciding vote yesterday. The three Republicans who opposed the impeachment resolution last week opposed it the second time around. The trio includes Rep. Ken Buck of Colorado, Rep. Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin, and Rep. Tom McLintock of California. You can express your frustration with those three Republicans by calling their offices through special links in our transcript today at www.TheWorldview.com. The 20-page Impeachment Resolution contained two articles with multiple examples of laws that Mayorkas is alleged to have ignored or refused to enforce and illustrations of his blocking congressional oversight, including not producing requested copies of documents. Senator Kennedy vs. Secretary Mayorkas on southern border In a March 28, 2023 House Judiciary Committee hearing, Republican Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana expressed frustration with DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. Listen. KENNEDY: “Did you just parachute in from another planet, Mr. Secretary? Because you're the only person in the Milky Way who believes that we're not having massive, massive illegal immigration into America?” MAYORKAS: “Senator, you're putting words into my mouth.” KENNEDY: “No sir. I am accurately describing the situation.” MAYORKAS: “There is no question that we have a very serious challenge at our southern border.” KENNEDY: “We can agree on that. Let me ask you another question. Why don't you just declare a new policy that, other than children, if you present at the southern border, you claim political asylum, and you haven't claimed political asylum at the first safe country, then you can't come in. It would work. If you're coming from Venezuela, and you come through Mexico, if you didn't claim asylum in Mexico, you can't come here. You have to leave. Why don't you just do that?” MAYORKAS: “Well, Senator, let me give you an example with respect to Mexico. A Safe Third Country Agreement …” KENNEDY: “You don't have to have an agreement with Mexico.” MAYORKAS: “Yes, you do.” KENNEDY: “No, you don't.” MAYORKAS: “I believe you do, Senator.” KENNEDY: “You don't. That would stop all the folks from the Northern Triangle countries [of Central America], all the folks from Venezuela, all the folks from Cuba, all the folks from the Middle East from coming into our country. You have to seek it in Mexico, or the other first safe third country, or you can't come in. Period. Done. End of story. Why don't you do that?” MAYORKAS: “I don't think that we have the unilateral authority…” KENNEDY: “Sure you do. Other countries do it.” MAYORKAS: “Number one. Number two …” KENNEDY: “Try sneaking into China. … You don't want to do it, Mr. Secretary. That's what it's beginning to look like because you think our borders ought to be open. And it would be more intellectually honest if you just say that.” MAYORKAS: “That is false.” KENNEDY: “I don't agree with you. You have to watch, up here, what people do, not what they say, and everything else is just cottage cheese!” Town officials upset with pastor for helping the homeless City officials in Ohio agreed to drop charges against a pastor who took action to care for the homeless. Pastor Chris Avell of “Dad's Place” in Bryan, Ohio started helping the vulnerable last year. He noticed the city's homeless shelter was often full. In response, city officials ordered Avell to not allow overnight guests and then filed nearly 20 criminal charges against him. First Liberty represented Avell in his case against the city. He said, “The ministry of the church is not confined to Sunday morning. ... We welcome anyone to experience the love and truth of Jesus, regardless of the time of day. … Bryan is my home. I am eager to continue to serve God, my community, and the people I love.” 1 John 3:17-18 asks, “If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person? Dear children, let us not love with words or speech, but with actions and in truth." Valentine's Day birthed through Christian martyr's death And finally, have you ever wondered why we celebrate Valentine's Day on February 14th? Well, Pastor Valentine or Valentinus was a clergyman in the Roman Empire who lived during the reign of Claudius Gothicus or Claudius II. Because the Emperor was having difficulty getting young men to volunteer to serve in the army to fight his wars, he prohibited marriage which would further hurt the conscription rate. Pastor Valentine, who celebrated God's love and Biblical love between husband and wife, secretly married Christian couples in the forest which ultimately led to his arrest and imprisonment. While Claudius took a liking to Pastor Valentinus, the bold preacher tried to convert the Emperor which resulted in a sentence of death. In Romans 10:14, the Apostle Paul asks, "How, then, can they call on the One they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the One of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?” Valentine was beaten with clubs and stones. And when that failed to kill him, Valentine was beheaded on February 14, A.D. 269. And now you know the rest of the story. Close And that's The Worldview in 5 Minutes on this Valentine's Day, Wednesday, February 14th in the year of our Lord 2024. Subscribe by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com. Or get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.
#NewWorldReport: The US Southern Border and the Northern Triangle. Joseph Humire @JMHumire @SecureFreeSoc. Ernesto Araujo, Former Foreign Minister Republic of Brazil. #NewWorldReportHumire https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/us-senate-republicans-mull-border-deal-house-counterparts-urge-rejection/ar-BB1hOQ0X 1908 Fort Worth
This episode is part one of two of our conversation on U.S. migration. Over the past few decades, migration from Central America's Northern Triangle has more than tripled. Millions in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras are in the process of uprooting their lives to take on the dangerous journey to the U.S. in the hope of a better life. Despite President Biden's early commitment, submitting a $4 billion plan on his first day in office to tackle the root causes of migration, the approval of this plan still hangs in the balance two years later. What factors drive this growing migration? What are the global ramifications of the crisis, and what solutions might address its deep-seated origins? How have both Washington and local governments navigated the complex landscape to alleviate the crisis?Our distinguished speakers for this discussion include Diego de Sola, President and CEO of De Sola Group and Co-founder of Glasswing International; Adam Isacson, Director for Defense Oversight program at WOLA; and Dr. Elizabeth Oglesby, Associate Professor in the School of Geography and Development, and Latin American Studies at the University of Arizona. This is the first event in a two-part series looking at the dynamics of migration from Latin America to the United States. The second will look at the migration crisis from the perspective of New York City.Music by Aleksey Chistilin and Yrii Semchyshyn from PixabayFollow us at:Network2020.orgTwitter: @Network2020LinkedIn: Network 20/20Facebook: @network2020Instagram: @network_2020
Tommy and Ben discuss the latest news out of Gaza, including a potential ceasefire deal that would include a two month stop in fighting in exchange for hostages, a look back at Bibi's rejection of a two-state solution throughout his political career, and the news that the Biden administration is preparing for a sustained military campaign in Yemen. They also talk about the UAE funneling weapons to Sudan, mass protests in Germany against the far-right ADF party, British conservative's continuing attempts to send asylum seekers to Rwanda, Elon Musk's visit to Auschwitz, and an odd auction item belonging to Winston Churchill. Then Ben speaks with Ricardo Zuniga, the former US Special Envoy to the Northern Triangle and Senior Advisor at the US Institute of Peace about the spiraling gang violence in Ecuador. For a closed-captioned version of this episode, click here. For a transcript of this episode, please email transcripts@crooked.com and include the name of the podcast.
We are happy to welcome back The Children's International Rescue Foundation to the Podcast! This time we are joined by one of the co-founders of the group, Walt. He also serves at the director of operations. Walt details his journey working undercover, why relationships are so vital, some what real undercover investigations look like vs. how they may be portrayed on other media outlets. This conversation is vital as there is much confusion and misrepresentation on undercover work in general. Walt is a highly skilled investigator dedicated to combating transnational criminal organizations involved in child trafficking. His expertise encompasses investigative fieldwork, hostage rescue, fugitive apprehension, and small unit leadership. Walt has had the privilege of briefing Vice Presidents of Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, as well as U.S. Ambassador Popp on behalf of NGOs fighting human trafficking in the Northern Triangle. He has also conducted extensive ground investigations in Colombia and Ecuador, collaborating with National Police agencies to infiltrate criminal networks. In 2021, Walt played a pivotal role in an award-winning Colombian human trafficking investigation.Throughout his career, Walt has held positions such as S.W.A.T Master Operator, U.S. Marshal Service Task Force Officer, Police Sergeant, and U.S. Marine Corps Platoon Sergeant. Walt emphasizes the importance of continuous training, operational planning, and international partnerships between law enforcement, financial institutions, and NGOs in combating the human trafficking crisis in Latin America. Walt's language abilities in Spanish and Portuguese, along with his cross-cultural experiences, including a two-year Christian mission in Brazil and teaching the English Connect program in Ecuador, further enrich his perspective. Above all, Walt considers his greatest success to be his enduring marriage of over 20 years and the joy of raising children with his wife.Here is the link to their website-https://www.childrensinternationalrescuefoundation.org/Here is the link to some of their recent cases-https://www.childrensinternationalrescuefoundation.org/post/2-csam-web-studios-eliminatedHere is the link to the Libertas International website- libertasfreedom.org
WEEKLY WISDOM & INSIGHTS 12/13/23 SPIRITUALLY GUIDED TRANSFORMATION & EMPOWERMENT POWERFUL - POWERFUL EPISODE MAIN THEME: BREAKTHROUGHS
Episode Summary This week on Live Like the World is Dying, Inmn is joined by Sophie and Parker from No More Deaths to talk about the militarization of the US-Mexico border and the most recent installment of the "Disappeared" report series "Separate & Deadly." Guest Info The Disappeared report can be found at www.thedisappearedreport.org. No More Deaths can be found at nomoredeaths.org, on Instagram @nomoredeaths_nomasmuertes, or on Twitter @nomoredeaths. Host Info Inmn can be found on Instagram @shadowtail.artificery Publisher Info This show is published by Strangers in A Tangled Wilderness. We can be found at www.tangledwilderness.org, or on Twitter @TangledWild and Instagram @Tangled_Wilderness. You can support the show on Patreon at www.patreon.com/strangersinatangledwilderness. Transcript No More Death on The “Disappeared” Reports & Border Militarization Pt. I **Inmn ** 00:14 Hello, and welcome to Live Like the World is Dying, your podcasts for what feels like the end times. I'm your host today, Inmn, and today we have some folks coming on that I've really wanted to get on the podcast for a while because I think that the work that they do is just really incredible and I want more people to know about it. So we have two folks from No More Deaths, or No Mas Muertes, coming on. And No More Deaths is a humanitarian aid group whose goal is to, you know, prevent death and suffering in the borderlands. And they work primarily in southern Arizona in response to rampant border militarization. And I'm really excited that they have this new report coming out in their series of reports called the "Disappeared" series. And their new report, "Separate & Deadly", just came out. And we'll have links in the show notes to where to find it to read the whole thing. And I'm really excited to have folks from, specifically, the abuse doc, or abuse documentation, working group, coming on because I think a lot of focus gets put on the physical doing, the putting out water, and all of that, and that stuff is really important, you know, obviously, but I also think it's great to really highlight the work that a lot of people have been doing to document the reason and the need and the reactions from Border Patrol and other governmental bodies in response to this humanitarian aid. And so yeah, I don't know, I'm really excited to highlight this particular aspect of that work. But before we get to that, we are a proud member of the Channel Zero Network of anarchist podcasts. And here's a jingle from another show on that network. Doo doo doo. **Inmn ** 03:19 And we're back. Thanks, y'all so much for coming on the show today to talk about this thing. Could y'all introduce yourselves with your name, pronouns, and I guess what your role is with No More Deaths and this report? **Parker ** 03:37 Yeah, I can go first. My name is Parker. I use she/her pronouns. I have been involved with No More Deaths since about 2015. I came down and started volunteering in the desert. Moved to Tucson a little bit after that. So I've been involved with desert aid and then also involved with the abuse documentation working group producing the Disappeared report that we're going to talk about. Sophie and I were co-coordinators for several years working on that project and then have both been involved as volunteers. **Sophie ** 04:10 Hi, my name is Sophie and I use she/they pronouns. And I've been a volunteer with No More Deaths since 2011, volunteering with desert aid and also with community-based search and rescue and I'm a co-author for the Disappeared report series and co-coordinated with Parker on this report. **Inmn ** 04:29 Cool. And for folks who don't know, what is No More Deaths? What does No More Deaths do? **Parker ** 04:49 No More Deaths is a humanitarian aid organization whose mission is to end death and suffering in the borderlands. No More Deaths was formed in 2004 in response to rising deaths of people crossing the border. There's a number of different working groups and projects under the No More Deaths umbrella. So Sophie and I have been a part of the abuse documentation working group, documenting the kinds of things we're seeing in the course of the work. There's desert aid. They do water drops, where we bring out water and food and leave them on migrant trails in the remote borderlands. We maintain a humanitarian aid camp where people can come and get food and water and respite. We do a community-based search and rescue project where there's a hotline and we get reports of people who have gone missing while crossing the border and can send out volunteers to do search and rescue. We also do some support in Northern Mexico for post-deportation or pre-departure support. Yeah, so there's a lot of different projects under this umbrella but all for humanitarian aid trying to provide support for people who are crossing the border in southern Arizona. **Inmn ** 05:59 Cool. Yeah, y'all do so many different things. And I've been wanting to get someone from the group to come talk about stuff for a while now. I used to volunteer with y'all and I reference border-aid stuff on the podcast a lot. So I'm just really stoked to have you all here to talk about this. And the new report was a great opportunity to wrangle some folks into coming on. I was wondering, though, if y'all could share a little bit about like the...I guess the context of the border and, specifically, border militarization and Border Patrol's role in that to kind of build a little foundation for what we're going to talk about today. **Sophie ** 06:51 Yeah, so, when talking about the militarization of the US-Mexico border, usually, we're kind of looking at a time period of the last 30 years or so starting in 1994--which certainly wasn't the start of border militarization--but was a signal year in terms of the enforcement strategy on the border really shifting gears. So in 1994--many people remember that year because it was the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which had really huge consequences for migration. We know that NAFTA contained neoliberal economic reforms that took away tariffs and barriers to trade and lead things like US subsidized corn to flood the market in Mexico which drove down prices and then spiked this labor-driven migration of people who had historically been able to make ends meet through farming heritage corn and no longer could compete. So we know that NAFTA sparked this labor-division migration. We know that's not the first time that US policy has sparked migrations across the border. But what was different in 1994 was at the same time the US Border Patrol came together to come up with a policing strategy of how they were going to control the border given this expected rise in labor-driven migration from south to north. And so Border Patrol met with security heads from the Department of Defense, who are versed in conducting regime change and low intensity conflict doctrine throughout Latin America in the 80s. And they produced a new strategy for how they're going to police the 2000 mile southern border. The strategy that they came up with is called Prevention Through Deterrence, which is kind of a technical and clunky title for a really nefarious strategy. So the theory was that the southern border couldn't be sealed off entirely despite all the rhetoric we see about, you know, border walls, sealing the southern border. The Border Patrol observed that the border couldn't actually be sealed from migration, but that the flow of migration across the border could be controlled. And so Border Patrol sought to concentrate enforcement resources--so, personnel, vehicles, infrastructure like walls, surveillance technology--in and around ports of entry in urban areas along the border where migration had historically flowed as a mechanism that would then push people attempting across the southern border without official permission out into remote areas along the border between ports of entry between cities. so especially huge expanses of desert along the border. And the strategy document--which is public, you can look at it online--specifically says that the strategy intends to push people out into remote areas where they can find themselves in mortal danger as a consequence of being exposed to the elements without access to food, water, or rescue. And the belief was that by pushing people into these remote areas, a certain number of people would not make it. They would be deterred, either having to turn back or they would perish and that this would then dissuade others from attempting the journey. It would prevent rising levels of migration. This was the theory, Prevention Through Deterrence, that by making the border as deadly, as costly as possible to cross, that this would deter others...it would prevent others from attempting the journey. And so what happens is that Border Patrol puts up walls, installs surveillance technology in and around ports of entry in places like El Paso/Juarez, in places like Nogales, in places like San Diego/Tijuana, all at the end of the 1990s. And indeed, this shifts patterns of migration, undocumented migration, out into these really remote regions of the desert, where people are having to undertake multi-day journeys on foot through really rugged geography. And immediately we start to see hundreds of remains, human remains, recovered from remote areas of the border by 2000, 2001, and 2002 as a result of this policy, people who are dying from things like exposure to the elements or whose death cause is actually not able to be determined because their remains have decomposed so much before they've been located because they're perishing in such remote areas. So this humanitarian crisis opens up on the border in the early 2000s. And this is what humanitarian groups like No More Deaths and others start attempting to respond to. And this is still the policy that we see on the southern border. Of course, it's been bolstered by things like the 2006 Secure Fence Act, which really increased the number of Border Patrol agents on the line dramatically and allowed agents to start to patrol remote areas and rural communities in addition to being stationed in cities, to push people out into the desert, and also extended funding for walls. We also have seen more recent walls go up under the Trump administration. And now Biden's also funding that, But this is still the strategy under which Border Patrol is policing the southern border. And, again, this was never a strategy to close the border but to try to control the rate of crossing by making it as deadly or dangerous as possible. And so the thing about Prevention Through Deterrence is that it's been incredibly successful in pushing people out into remote areas where they find themselves in mortal danger, that that, indeed, was a prediction that that did come to pass. We know that the remains of at least 10,000 people have been recovered from the southern border. And experts estimate that the true number of deaths are probably three to ten times higher than that number, because so many people are perishing in such remote areas that their remains are never found or if they're found they're never identifiable. So we call this a crisis of death and disappearance on the border due to that phenomenon. But we also know that Prevention Through Deterrence has been a real failure in terms of preventing undocumented crossing on the southern border. This policy has coincided with a lot of measures to cut off legal paths of entry, shrink asylum programs, refugee programs, and further criminalize migration. And as a consequence, more and more populations are being caught up into this system. And more and more families are moving to the US permanently rather than risk multiple crossings to migrate seasonally for work or things like that. So this is the same system under which a lot of people fleeing conditions in the Northern Triangle as a consequence of US policy in the hemisphere, they're being caught up in this system of migration too. And we know that there's at least 13 million people now residing in the US who don't have documentation or full status or protection or rights as a consequence of this. So this is really the context in which humanitarian groups are trying to respond by providing food, water, and even improvised emergency medical services in these remote areas. And it's also a context in which, in terms of abuse documentation, there's a real need for witnessing and documentation of what's happening on the ground out in the back country where Border Patrol agents are operating daily with no witnesses and virtual impunity. So this was really kind of the context that gave rise to the abuse documentation project in general and these reports more specifically, **Inmn ** 15:38 Cool.... Or I mean, you know, not "cool," but thank you for walking us through that. I've heard a lot...you know, over the years, I've heard a lot of...been to a lot of trainings where there's like a border militarization context and I don't know that I've ever heard it put so succinctly and neatly. So that's...that is incredible. And, yeah, it's funny, because when I was putting together notes for the show today, I had like a little note, like, "Oh, make sure to talk about the Deterrence Through Death strategy." And then I was like, "Wait, is that what it's called?" And then I couldn't remember if that's like, what it was officially called, or not. And then, yeah...remembering that it was maybe not called that-- **Parker ** 16:33 No, that's just what it is. **Inmn ** 16:34 Yeah. That's just what it is. Okay, well, could y'all, I guess, maybe with that foundation, what is the abuse doc working group then do? And like how did the "Disappeared" report series come to be? **Parker ** 16:52 Yeah, the abuse documentation working group, it's been, you know, around through a number of different projects with different volunteers leading them. A lot of the earlier reports that No More Deaths was putting out were focused on detention. So we put out a report called "Culture of Cruelty" that really focused on really inhumane conditions, abusive conditions, within Border Patrol custody--so short term Border Patrol custody before people are deported or turned over to ICE--and focusing on things such as denial of food and water, denial of medical care, psychological abuse.... Just yeah, really horrible conditions, people being held longer than they're legally supposed to without being given phone calls and things like that. So that report primarily was done through interviews with people who had been deported and just kind of arose out of the conversations people were having with people through our support work at shelters there and hearing the conditions that they were being held under. So "Culture of Cruelty" was one of our earlier reports. We put out "Shakedown," which focuses on Border Patrol's, seizing up people's belongings when people are in Border Patrol custody without returning it. And both of those reports really focused on advocacy and trying to, you know, push for policy changes in response to these patterns that we were documenting. And I think people sort of had the experience of, you know, providing really clear documentation and then seeing that Border Patrol is still just denying the same things that, you know, we're showing proof of and not seeing the changes that they wanted to see come out of those reports. The "Disappeared" series, I think was a shift, organizationally, in wanting to really document what's happening in these remote borderlands areas and really push our messaging to call for the abolition of Border Patrol and really just say what we wanted to say politically and document things that there was really no documentation of at that time. So the "Disappeared" report series, it's focusing on the actions of Border Patrol in remote borderlands areas where there's, you know, there's no transparency whatsoever about what's happening, because there has been this intentional push to push migration into wilderness areas and really focusing on Prevention Through Deterrence but also the way that the day-to-day actions of Border Patrol agents are consistent with this logic of increasing the risk of death to people who are migrating in the ways that that logic is carried out on the ground. And it was a collaborative project. So the "Disappeared" report series started as a collaboration between No More Deaths and another organization called La Coalición de Derechos Humanos, who has been really vocal against militarization from the very beginning. At the time Derechos Humanos, they were operating a missing migrant crisis line, similar to what No More Deaths operates now, so they were receiving this huge volume of calls from family members reporting their loved ones who were missing. And No More Deaths started to collaborate with them with doing search and rescue in the field when they received a call where there was a viable possibility that that person was still alive and could be rescued. So that collaboration led to the "Disappeared" report series. And, yeah, so we've put out, this is the fourth installment of the "Disappeared" report series. **Inmn ** 20:32 So what have the other parts of the "Disappeared" reports explored? **Parker ** 20:37 Um, yeah, so the first report focuses on deadly apprehension methods, particularly on the practice of Chase and Scatter in the wilderness. So this is documenting a practice that, you know, we see and hear about every day in the course of this work, where Border Patrol chases groups of migrating people causing them to scatter and become separated from each other in the remote wilderness, often not detaining a lot of the people who have become separated. And this is really the beginning of a cycle of death and disappearance because when people are scattered in the wilderness like this, they can become injured in the chase, they become separated from their group, which may include family members that they were traveling with, separated from a guide, they become lost and disoriented, you know, people are crossing in this area that have no familiarity with the landscape. So a lot of the time when we encounter people who are, you know, in a life threatening situation, it's because they've been chased and scattered by Border Patrol. And so they're now lost and alone in the wilderness. People lose their belongings in the chase, lose their food, water. And so this is something that, you know, with the hotline where we receive calls from family members, a lot of the time they're saying, you know, "My loved one was chased by Border Patrol. They don't know where they are. They're separated from their group. They need to be rescued." This is so routine Border Patrol really doesn't see it as an abuse. They see it as the way that they are enforcing the border. But it is an extremely dangerous enforcement practice. **Sophie ** 22:10 In the practice of chase and scatter that we examined in part one, we looked at surveys conducted in Nogales as well as the Derechos hotline cases and found that chase and scatter by Border Patrol agents is incredibly common, as Parker was saying, that we found that 40% of people who had been chased by Border Patrol became injured or even killed through the process of that chase. 40% of people who had been chased and scattered became lost. And 35% of the emergency cases that we looked at that involved chase and scatter ended in the disappearance of the person who came into distress after that enforcement context. So it's really a way in which Border Patrol's daily activities are reinforcing the strategy of Prevention Through Deterrence on the ground by sending helicopters and vehicles and agents on foot and dogs after people in remote areas who run in every direction often late at night when Border Patrol agents have night vision goggles. And, you know, we looked at the way in which they've actually documented this activity themselves on the Cops-style reality show, Border Wars, that has many scenes of chase and scatter. So we looked at some of that in which Border Patrol is actually documenting their own crimes and using it as propaganda for the agency. **Inmn ** 23:55 I didn't know that that TV show existed. That's...yeah...that's absurd. **Sophie ** 24:02 I don't recommend it. But it was helpful in kind of...you know, we're interested in the way in which these agencies are providing evidence of their own abuses. **Inmn ** 24:20 Yeah, and I like for.... I guess, for the chase and scatter protocol, like, you know, not that I would prefer that people get apprehended, but why.... I guess, why do the chase and scatter thing instead of apprehending people, which seems to be what Border Patrol like tells the public they're trying to do versus like what they actually do. **Sophie ** 24:48 I mean, I think that chase and scatter is part of a more general pattern where we're seeing migrating people being treated as enemy combatants, enemies of the state, against whom it's somehow appropriate to deploy all the weapons of war. And I think watching Border Wars, you really do see this as war games to an extent. And I think that, you know, the other piece of that, beyond just wanting to, you know, use the kind of military-style equipment that they're given--and we're talking about this, by the way, in the context of like, we're on US soil where this is happening. This is like anywhere from the border line all the way to 100 miles within the US interior is the terrain in which Border Patrol is operating. And when you look at death maps, you can see recovered remains kind of scattered far into the US interior. But really, you know, from Border Patrol's perspective, whether they apprehend a person or they scatter them so that they become lost, disoriented, and in harm's way, either of those outcomes reinforce the strategy of Prevention Through Deterrence, right? On the one hand, you have increased apprehensions as a way to, you know, in their minds, deter others from attempting the journey. And on the other, you have injury and death as a way to build up that deterrent. Again, we see that that deterrence ultimately doesn't work when measured against the conditions that people are leaving or fleeing from in order to cross the border. But both outcomes absolutely serve the overall strategy of Prevention Through Deterrence. And I think it's just another way in which we see people's lives, who are crossing the border, being treated as disposable and not deserving of the kinds of protections afforded to us, right, that it's not important to them whether they apprehend everyone, whether people become lost, and those people are not even counted. So I think that that sort of a deeper structural violence at play in these scenarios. **Parker ** 26:56 Was gonna say the same thing. I think there's sort of just like an institutionalized lack of concern for the outcomes that people face, especially because the outcome of someone potentially dying is baked into the strategy. I remember one of our co-authors talking about when they released the "Chase and Scatter" report, talking to a Border Patrol agent, who I think at the time was the head of they're Missing Migrant Initiative, just saying, you know, "Oh, yeah, I never even thought about what happened to people after we chased them." So, you know, they scatter a group, they arrest a couple people, they call it a day. They don't think about it, and if that person is lost and alone and doesn't have water, well, that's consistent with their enforcement anyways. **Sophie ** 27:37 Right. And the border is just a kind of erratic and contradictory zone where on the one hand, the US-Mexico border zone is one of the most heavily surveilled places on Earth, right, in which enforcement can consolidate in these moments and become incredibly violent. You can be, you know, killed by a heavily armed agent with all these weapons of war, treated as this enemy combatant, on the one hand. On the other hand, you can die of exposure and dehydration and, you know, being in an area where you don't see another person for days at a time. So there's sort of these two forces of, you know, militarism and direct violence, on the one hand, these kinds of really violent kind of events, and then on the other, the forces of abandonment, right, where there's no one to help you. And these things work together. Which is sort of difficult to grasp when you're in that zone, right? If you're circulating in the border zone--and I mean, all of us know this from volunteering--you can see no one the whole day and then suddenly come up upon a heavily armed agent who wants to point their AK47 at you. You know, both of these kinds of forces of indirect violence, of abandonment, and direct violence exist in this geography. **Inmn ** 28:56 Yeah. I know this is maybe a little outside the scope of what we're going to talk about today but I was wondering if y'all could briefly just talk a little bit about the legal systems that people are facing when they are apprehended? Like what is the process of like being...going from like being apprehended to being deported look like? **Parker ** 29:22 Yeah, well, so people are, when they're detained in the field, they're held in short term Border Patrol custody, where, you know, like I was mentioning before, we've documented all kinds of abuses that people face in custody. I remember early on in Trump's presidency, there was this really high-profile news story about a seven year old who died in Border Patrol custody, who, you know, hadn't received water or medical care. And I remember us, you know, just calling attention to the fact that we've been documenting that same pattern for, you know, like over a decade. So people are held in Border Patrol custody, which is supposed to not be any longer than three days maximum. It's supposed to be shorter. Some people at that point are rapidly deported. And then we also saw, you know, these last few years, under Title 42 people being just rapidly deported immediately upon being detained in the field without any sort of legal process. And then other times, you know, people are held in ICE custody or they're held in detention centers. And then there's also Operation Streamline where people are--some people--are given criminal charges. And then they are, you know, fed into our regular criminal justice system. But they have, you know, it's this total farce of justice where they call it Operation Streamline and they'll bring 70 people a day and just charge them all at once. And that's for Criminal Entry or Re-entry. And people just have to, essentially, plead guilty to the lower charge of Criminal Entry instead of Re-entry so that they can face six months instead of two years. So we're also just feeding people into our prison system as well as into the ICE detention system. **Inmn ** 31:02 And do charges like that preclude someone from being able to apply for asylum or other kind legal processes for documented immigration. **Parker ** 31:16 Yeah, I imagine they do. I don't think it's really my or Sophie's wheelhouse, the legal immigration system. I do know that, you know, theoretically, people who are detained by Border Patrol could request asylum, but there's a lot of documentation of Border Patrol, you know, not asking or ignoring people when they do say that they want to make an asylum claim after detaining people in the desert. **Inmn ** 31:35 Yeah, yeah. Um, I guess to shift a little bit more into the current report, I was wondering if y'all could talk a little bit about, I guess, like the third report "Left to Die" as a prelude to what we're going to talk about today? **Sophie ** 32:00 Should we talk about Part Two really quick before? **Inmn ** 32:05 Oh, yeah. Yeah, there's Part Two. Sorry, we skipped Part Two. Yeah, what happened? What happened in Part Two? **Parker ** 32:11 Part Two documented interference with humanitarian aid. So pretty early on, when No More Deaths started to do water drops, we started to find that our water drops would sometimes be vandalized or destroyed. People would stab water gallons, dump them out. We put out cans of beans. People would dump those out or stab them so that they rot. And we anecdotally believed that Border Patrol was responsible for at least some amount of this destruction, just from seeing them near the drops and then finding them vandalized or just the drops being out in areas where Border Patrol is the only other person out there. But to document this, we started to put out game cameras on a lot of the drops that were regularly vandalized and trying to capture footage, which is pretty difficult. The game cameras, like they turn on anytime, you know, the wind blows and the grass moves. So a lot of the time we would come and find the battery dead, but the drop had been vandalized, but we didn't get any footage. But over the years, we did collect footage. And we got several instances of Border Patrol on camera destroying these water drops, stabbing them with knives, things like that. So we wanted to document this pattern in that report. So in addition to that footage, we did an analysis of all of the logs that we keep from every water drop that we go to, where we mark instances of vandalization and just kind of looked at the scope of it, if there were any patterns and where it was happening and when it was happening. And Sophie, do you have some of those findings handy? **Sophie ** 33:47 So just for context, the main part of No More Deaths' work over the years has been mapping migration trails. People undertake anywhere from three days to over a week of a journey through the deserts through really labyrinthian topography, especially in southern Arizona. It's high desert. So it's really mountainous with a system of canyons and there's just thousands of trail systems that have been created over time in the back country that are routes that people are taking across into the United States. So we've located, you know, certain areas of high concentration where we'll place drops of water and food and other supplies, like Parker was mentioning, to try to mitigate death and suffering in those areas. So we looked at the records that were kept by No More Deaths volunteers over three years in which over 30,000 gallons of water were left in the backcountry. And within that we were seeing that 86% of the water that we put out does get used, that this is a really important harm reduction measure to support life in the backcountry as people are on their journey. But we also found that at least 3,586 gallons of water, so over 3000 gallons of water, had been vandalized or destroyed in at least 415 different destruction events. And as Parker was mentioning, you know, really early on we got footage of Border Patrol destroying water. There's kind of an infamous video that we put out of a Border Patrol agent kicking gallons of water that had been put out at a water drop. We got more footage and, you know, have a lot of anecdotal evidence reinforcing this. And that report also then looked at Border Patrol action on humanitarian aid stations, attempts to repress or prosecute volunteers with non-governmental organizations like No More Deaths and others doing this kind of harm reduction work. And so that report looked at a series of attempted prosecutions. There were cases in which volunteers are given littering tickets for putting out water on migration trails as if water is somehow trash in the desert among other cases. I don't know if Parker wants to speak to that more directly. But we're looking at kind of that as, you know, both the destruction of water and the charging...the attempted criminalization of volunteers trying to prevent loss of life as kind of a repressive campaign that Border Patrol is leading against humanitarians coincident with the agency really trying to up its PR and branding as itself, somehow, a humanitarian actor on the border. So this report was being written at the same time that Border Patrol is doing things like publishing the number of border deaths, according to them, versus the number of "rescues" that they apparently conducted. And we'll get more into it in part three, but really trying to say...make these claims that overall, somehow, they're humanitarian actors in this gauntlet of their own making. So that was sort of some of the spirit behind that report was to provide evidence, direct evidence, to the contrary. **Parker ** 37:31 Yeah, I guess just to the interference with humanitarian aid, the interference with volunteer humanitarian aid, one thing that we do focus on in that report too is the raids of our humanitarian aid camp. So I mentioned we maintain a constant presence in the desert at our humanitarian aid camp. And Border Patrol has a history of conducting raids at this camp. So coming and surrounding it, providing a lot of like intimidation, as well as a few times when they have entered the camp and arrested people who were there receiving care. So really just like creating this atmosphere of intimidation, specifically at a humanitarian aid camp. And in one of those raids, they mentioned that they had tracked people for 18 miles until they got to the camp, at which point they surrounded the camp for multiple days until they came in and arrested people. So directly interfering with the provision of humanitarian aid. The charging of volunteers, actually, a note about the timing of that is that this report actually came out before a lot of criminal charges were filed against our volunteers. And in fact, the day that this report came out and the day that we released this footage of Border Patrol destroying water gallons, Scott Warren, one of our volunteers, was arrested six hours later that same day, **Inmn ** 38:45 Which spawned like a multi-year legal battle, right? **Parker ** 38:50 It did result in him being acquitted by a jury. **Sophie ** 38:55 Yes, Scott Warren was charged with multiple felonies, felony harboring and smuggling, for volunteering at a No More Deaths aid station in the area of Ajo, Arizona, where he provided first aid and care to patients who had sought help at that aid station. Right. And that, you know, was a huge court process. There were multiple trials. The first one ended in a hung jury and the second one he was acquitted on all charges. But there is a lot of discussion in court as to, you know, to what extent was his arrest retaliation for the releasing of our second report. There was evidence that Border Patrol agents had knowledge of the report that morning. So we really saw that as retaliatory. But at the same time, his acquittal then provided, you know, important case law within the district to provide a certain, you know, measure of protection for providing humanitarian care to people in the borderlands. So it was really important ,kind of, instruction to us regarding the legality of our work, the kind of defense that can be waged in support of volunteers. So ultimately, it was a victory that really kind of reinforced the foundations of our work in that way. There was a huge effort, huge struggle for Scott personally and, you know, really aimed to have a chilling effect on the work in the desert overall. **Inmn ** 40:27 Yeah, that trial was...that trial was crazy. Like, I don't know, I went to the...like, I attended a couple of days of the court process and I just remember listening to the prosecutor try to make absolutely absurd claims in court, that drinking water might be harmful to someone as like a reason for why humanitarian aid organizations shouldn't leave water in the desert for people. And I was like, this is like a highly paid criminal prosecutor who's trying to argue, and like get doctors to agree with, the absurd claim that drinking water might be harmful to someone who's experiencing dehydration. And I'm just like...this is a farce. **Sophie ** 41:24 Some of them were so bizarre. Well, and the smuggling charge was only based on him being seen, not heard, outside of the aid station, seen pointing to the mountains while talking to the patients. And because he was pointing north, that was considered an act of smuggling, which I thought was incredible. And there was this really powerful moment where Scott did take the stand and said "I was saying, 'There's one highway going through this huge expanse of incredibly deadly desert. And so don't walk towards those mountains because there's no help if you come into harm's way to the east. To the west, it's another 20 miles before you'll hit another major road. If you're in trouble, find the highway, right?'" So given, you know, knowing that these two patients were planning to reenter the back country and trying to give, you know, life saving information was considered to be an act of smuggling. And then I also remember the prosecutor in his closing arguments on the last day, putting up a picture that had been taken of volunteers with the patients after they'd recovered to a certain degree, where they were smiling and claiming that these patients were basically on vacation in the United States, who had gone through, you know, life or death, kind of, harrowing circumstances traveling through one of the most deadly corridors along the whole border. And they were so lucky to be alive by the time they reached Ajo. And somehow, the prosecutor wanted the jury to believe that they were just hamming it up and having a great time on vacation. And it was incredible at that trial to sit in on and relieving to see that those arguments didn't really hold water in the end. **Inmn ** 43:23 Yeah, and...but also, I don't know, it's frightening to see what the legal system can bring charges to bear on someone where they have absolutely no evidence and that it can then take multiple years and obscene amounts of community resources to defend these charges. I don't know. It's...which I don't know, is maybe maybe purposeful by them. I don't know. Just...this is also a little bit outside of the scope, but I feel like people are a little...or might be a little curious...if.... Like, under the law, like what...for people who live in the borderlands, if someone comes to your door what aid can you offer people without legal complications? **Sophie ** 44:25 Yeah. **Inmn ** 44:28 Or, I guess, like, what does the law define as aiding and abetting or smuggling or human trafficking, right, as we've seen people get charged with? **Sophie ** 44:38 I mean, I'll say that I'm not a lawyer. Parker is on the way to becoming one. But I can say to--and I think Parker will have something to add to this--but first of all, under US law, there's no obligation of any citizen to report on the status of anyone else to law enforcement. So if I know that someone is undocumented, there's no law that says I must report their status to the authorities. So there's that to begin with, that if someone comes to your door who you know is crossing through the desert, you don't have any obligation to report them to law enforcement under the law. And then, I mean, this is interesting because there's the kind of word of the law and then there's its interpretation, right? And a lot of what we.... I think what Scott's case provided is some really important interpretation of the law. So we know that, you know, there's a specification that it's illegal to further someone's illegal presence in the country. That's the language. Which means that, you know, things like food, water, shelter, medical care, rest, meals, clothing, none of that's actually furthering that person's presence in the country. So there's kind of a wide range of harm reduction that you can provide perfectly legally, right? And I think I've heard a lawyer once be like, you know, "Is taking your friend to dinner furthering their presence in the country? You know? No." So really, we get into issues of like, are you actually attempting to conceal that person from law enforcement? Are you hosting them as a guest? You know, what is the intent behind your actions? And in any felony case, it's not just simply that you're...you can't be convicted.... Part of the conviction of a felony involves your mens rea, it's your mental state when committing whatever act you committed. So it's not just that you, you know, invited someone into your house. It's what was the intent behind you inviting them into your house? And so a lot of these cases hone in on, were you hiding someone in your basement? Or were you having them in your guest room? Right? Were you driving the person as a passenger in your car? Or were they hiding in your truck? Things like this, when we get into smuggling cases, intent indicated by the way you're interacting really matters in these cases. And that was really at play and in Scott's trial, right, there was an argument that because people had been provided shelter in an indoor aid station that somehow demonstrated concealment because they were behind four walls, right? Which doesn't hold up, right? I have guests at my house and I'm not concealing them from law enforcement just because they're inside. So we get down to the nitty gritty of interpretation with these kinds of statutes. And that's why these cases really matter in how they play out in court, how further answers are being defined. Parker, did you have thoughts on that? **Parker ** 47:54 Um, I think a lot of what I was gonna say is the same as what you said, the language of furthering someone's presence, I think, has been one that in No More Deaths, sort of, like analyzing our legal exposure, have focused on. For example, if you do encounter someone who is in critical medical condition and the nearest hospital is Nogales, you know, you can drive them there. That's not furthering their presence. But, you know, I think ultimately, it comes down to I think this is sort of like a perennial question in No More Deaths as people try to define what exactly is and isn't legal. And as we all know, that doesn't necessarily have bearing on, you know, what the State will try to argue is illegal. And, you know, Scott, what Scott did was perfectly legal in all of our opinions. If we'd had a different jury, he still could have been convicted regardless. So I think the language leaves a lot open to interpretation. And, you know, with the repressive State, they can say that it's illegal. In fact, I think, even in the...we also had a number of misdemeanor charges that volunteers were facing and some went to trial for. The State in that case, was trying to argue that humanitarian aid itself is interfering with the government's compelling interest in enforcing the border. So when their enforcement tactic is to try and increase the threat to people's lives. They can see humanitarian aid, as you know, a threat to that border enforcement and furthering people's illegal presence by simply helping them to survive, which that particular argument that the State made was specifically addressed on appeal and the judge said, "This is grotesque. This is horrifying logic on the part of the government." but they still tried to make that argument. **Inmn ** 49:42 Yeah. Cool. Well, thanks y'all for getting into that a little bit. I think as like a tie in to a general theme of the podcast is, you know, community preparedness. And I think something that like...I think something that like, you know, people who don't spend time thinking a lot about community preparedness or aren't radical leftists, or like whatever, think about these questions of like, "Oh, if like I encounter someone who needs help, like, what am I going to do? How am I going to help that person?" versus like, "What is my fear of doing something illegal that could get me in trouble?" And I worry that like...I worry that people having myths or misinterpretations or listening to whatever propaganda Border Patrol is spewing, that people won't act to help people or to save someone's life because they think that they're doing something that could get them in trouble. And that fear of legal trouble is greater than the desire to help people, which I don't think is true, but like something that I think people worry about, if that makes sense. **Sophie ** 51:06 Yeah, I mean, I can say, I live in Arivaca, which is the town that No More Deaths bases a lot of its work out of. It's a rural town 11 miles from the border. And residents, they're sitting in the middle of this migration corridor and everyone who lives there has had a knock on their door of someone who's lost, often extremely sick or injured and looking for help. And it's also a town that's under virtual, you know, it's actually...it's not unique in the sense that all these towns along the border are now, you know, living under virtual Border Patrol occupation. They're surrounded by Border Patrol checkpoints. You can't go to the doctor, you can't go to the bank without passing through a checkpoint and talking to an armed guard. And there's a heavy presence of Border Patrol in and around town, which has the function of, on the one hand, they're doing these things like chase and scatter and on the other, this kind of high visibility is really intimidating to the public, right? You feel like you're up against this virtual domestic army and intimidation is real. And they're coming on to people's property without notice, often pointing guns at residents, harassing locals, especially people of color. So education and Know Your Rights trainings have been so paramount because at the same time, you know, Border Patrol policy has put these communities on the front lines as the first responders when people are coming through incredibly remote areas. And the first lights they see, the first roads they come to, the first buildings are these residents in these rural communities. They're kind of a natural source of support. And I think Border Patrol has a vested interest in trying to break apart the historic practice before and beyond organizations like No More Deaths of residents opening their door and giving a hand, getting water to anyone who's out in the desert and in trouble. So I think what you're saying Inmn has been like a real focus of organizing and I know it has been an Ajo where Scott lives as well, where they have a local project also doing Know Your Rights education and providing humanitarian resources and things like that to try to break apart Border Patrol's attempt to recruit the local population into their really deadly enforcement regime. And I think that there's been this really vibrant history of border communities, offering that support and facing down the really intimidating presence of this incredibly well resourced, militarized enforcement agency in and around their communities. You know, so I think it's critical. **Inmn ** 53:57 Yeah. And it's like seeing communities in Arivaca and Ajo and the Tohono O'odham Nation really band together to combat these narratives that Border Patrol or the government are trying to really make people think are true and I don't know.... Yeah, that has been one of the most inspiring things to me about doing border aid work or anything like that is seeing the communities that have really like sprung up to...or the communities that like have forever been doing this kind of work and like how they maintain that work and use that to build community rather than divide community. I don't know. I don't know. I just.... Like, God, I remember hearing someone once say they were like, "I don't care what the government says. I'm going to give...if someone comes to my door, I'm giving them food, dammit." And I was like, hell yeah. You're awesome. And this is like someone who I like don't expect to have any other political alignment with. But like, we agreed on that. And I was like, that's awesome. **Parker ** 54:02 No, totally, I've had a few similar experiences in Tucson of just, you know, meeting...like talking to my Uber driver or someone, you know, that I've come into contact with completely unrelated to any sort of political work, you know, and then talking to them and them saying, "Oh, yeah, I ran into someone who was crossing once and gave them a lift to the gas station so they could buy some food and water," you know, like, just thing like that, where it's, you know, there is, on the one hand, this real fear of criminalization that like Border Patrol has created, but then on the other hand, there's just such a natural impulse for humanity for people to, you know, give someone water or lift or, you know, whatever it is that they're needing. **Inmn ** 56:12 Yeah, yeah. And I know I'm just riffing off a specific organization's name right now. But it's almost like, it's really important for people to help other people and to just treat them like people because they're people. We're all just people trying to help people. [There's an organization called People Helping People] **Sophie ** 56:33 Yeah, and it's part of this kind of longer, you know, history of social movement, I think, you know, whether we're talking about Germans sheltering Jews or underground railroad or, you know, it's always been that when you have a general population get caught up in these kinds of violent campaigns that are trying to, you know, discriminate and punish people based on identity, there are always locals who won't comply. And I think that it's heartening to see that tradition, you know, continue on the border in southern Arizona, like you're saying, Inmn against really, you know, among really unlikely actors. Like many people I know in Arivaca might hold really racist beliefs but still are always going to give a person water and food a bed to stay in because they're people, right? So it's a really kind of interesting moment in which ideology sort of doesn't hold up to the needs...to the human needs of the present. And I find that really heartening. **Inmn ** 57:46 Yeah, it makes me really curious. And like, I want to try to learn more about this part of this specifically, but it's like what's going on in Palestine right now is I'm really curious about what people in neighboring regions are doing that are very similar to this kind of work right now and what people...and like what people...hearing about people in Israel who are like...who are like getting indicted with pretty scary criminal charges simply for like, speaking out against what Israel is doing right now? I don't know. **Sophie ** 58:34 Yeah, it's so important. **Inmn ** 58:39 But as a kind of unfortunate segue, so like, you know, the community is really holding it down for trying to help people who are experiencing being lost and scattered in the desert. But Border Patrol is doing the opposite of that. Could y'all talk a little bit about, I guess, the third installment of the report? **Parker ** 59:04 Yeah, the third installment is called "Left to Die," and it focuses on search and rescue. And so this is another report that came out of our experiences with the missing migrant crisis line and providing search and rescue but also out of Border Patrol's sort of propaganda, styling themselves as humanitarian and putting out a ton of PR about their search and rescue. You know, they hold these PR events every year where they show, you know, their fancy helicopter tricks. And they put out these statistics about how many people they rescue every year with no sort of explanation of what that means. Meanwhile, as they were doing that, you know, our personal experience and the experience of people with Derechos Humanos' missing migrant crisis line and with No More Deaths was complete inaction when they would try and request a search and rescue from Border Patrol. So when someone does call the missing migrant crisis line, a family member or someone who's lost, we want whatever resources possible. That's almost always what the family is asking, is for whatever resources possible to go to try and rescue their loved one. And so we would call Border Patrol. And a lot of the time, we would get no response, a refusal to respond to go in search for someone, or, you know, these really vague, just sort of like, "Yeah, we'll look into it," and then they never call back. So we were experiencing a lot of inaction in response to requests for search and rescue from Border Patrol. And we wanted to document that with this report. So the report draws primarily from the case notes, from emergency cases received by the Derechos Hunmanos missing migrant migrant crisis line. So there were I think 456 calls that were classified in a two year period as emergency cases. So these are cases where the person had been heard from within the last three days, there was some information about their location, and there is a possibility that they were still alive in the desert and in need of rescue. So in contrast to a bunch of other calls that were received from the Derechos crisis line where someone was known to be in detention, but they were missing a detention, or it had been months since they disappeared, these were the cases that were potential search and rescue. **Sophie ** 1:01:19 So like Parker, said these are cases in which the family or the person was requesting a Border Patrol response or consented to us advocating or organizations advocating for a Border Patrol response. And we'll talk a little bit more about why Border Patrol for these cases. But we looked at the outcomes and Border Patrols is kind of a notoriously opaque organization. There's so little public reporting or transparency about what they do. So like Parker mentioned, they'd publish these rescue statistics but with no information about the cases from which they were deriving them. And we looked at, you know, press releases where the headline was, "Border Patrol Rescues Man," and then you read the article and it's about them chasing someone into a pond where they almost die and then the agents pull them out of the pond, right? **Parker ** 1:02:20 And then arrest them and deport them. **Sophie ** 1:02:21 So this really kind of farcical phrasing of "apprehension as rescue." So there really wasn't data to challenge that with. So that's part of why we really wanted to look at this data set. And we found when we looked at those 456 cases that 63% of the time, so two thirds of those cases, where Border Patrol was pressed to respond to a person in immediate distress, we had no confirmation that they took any measure to mobilize a search or rescue in response to them. So nothing. No confirmation of any action being taken in two thirds of the time, in hundreds of cases, right? And then in the 37% of cases in which there was indication that Border Patrol took some action to prevent loss of life, we found that their responses just severely, severely diminished when compared against the measures that Pima County Sheriff's Department search and rescue would take if they were coming to save my life, right, if I was lost in the same area. So in particular, we saw Border Patrol, when they did deploy to search for a person who was lost in the desert and in distress, we found that the duration of those efforts and the resourcing was just really diminished when compared to the measures taken to search for a citizen or a foreign tourist. So a lot of those searches lasted less than a day and we had some that lasted less than an hour without locating the person. And then just lack of resources. Like a lot of those deployments were simply a helicopter flyover. When you look in the newspaper at the case of a missing hiker, right, a citizen hiker, you'll see that those searches will take two weeks and that the search effort and area and resources will expand with each day that the person is not found, right? More and more resources are added because it's more and more urgent. Instead we see that if the person isn't pretty quickly located in the 1/3 of the time that Border Patrol deploys at all, they will call off the search. And so as a consequence of that, we found that out of these 456 cases that a quarter of the time, the person in distress was never located. So that's not a quarter of the time that they died, that's a quarter of the time that they disappeared, right? So the person was never located one in four cases and yet the search was called off. And we can see that's just absolutely an indication of deadly discrimination that, you know, if that...those are not the numbers that citizens see. And I think this was really important in combining these observations with that first report "Chase & Scatter," to really put together a full picture in which we found that looking at the kind of critical role that Border Patrol is playing in putting people into a life or death situation by chasing them and scattering them in the wilderness compared with the frequency with which they would deploy, to search for and rescue or distressed person, we were able to say that Border Patrol is two times more likely to take part in causing a person to go into distress, causing an emergency, than they are in participating and attempting to rescue them. So really, they're just always responding to these emergencies of their own making and they're much more heavily focused on their enforcement priority, right, in putting people in harm's way as a matter of policy. **Parker ** 1:06:06 Yeah, it really is this sort of twisted rebranding of Prevention Through Deterrence and the fact that people are being pushed into danger. It's like, you know, someone at Border Patrol's office was like, "I know, we can call these rescues now," because everybody who's crossing through the borders is facing a huge threat to their life. They're in wilderness areas. They're lost. They're in distress. And then because of that, Border Patrol can rebrand any arrest of somebody as a "rescue" by saying, "Yeah, we arrested this person, you know, who was like, lost, and therefore, we rescued them." **Sophie ** 1:06:42 And then use that number to somehow offset the death statistics, which is incredible to me to publish these numbers, you know, Border Patrol saying, okay, there were 300 human remains recovered this year, but allegedly, they rescued 700 people, as if there's something legitimate about, you know? That death statistic needs to be zero, right? It's sort of trumpeting, it's own death statistics, you know, in a way as a way to them comparatively have their rescue seem even more significant. And it makes you sort of forget that that statistic should be zero and that those numbers are, you know, again, hugely partial, because so many people are disappearing and never ever recovered. The other part that the report looked at was what happens when the County doesn't deploy a search and rescue like they would for a person with citizenship status or a tourist, which we'll talk about more, Border Patrol doesn't deploy, and someone is in distress. Their family knows about it. They received a distress call, right, from their child, their brother, their loved one who's crossing and we found that really often, families and communities will mobilize and improvise search on their own based on the information that they have from the person who's calling them. So we were really interested in what happens when families and communities mobilize, sometimes with the partnership of community search and rescue organizations, sometimes on their own, and Border Patrol's reaction. So another kind of focus of part three was looking at systematic Border Patrol, obstruction and interference with family and community-based search and rescues when all systems kind of failed them and found that a quarter of the time, 25% of the time, that communities and families deploy to search for their loved ones Border Patrol obstructs those efforts in some way. So we tracked a number of those issues, like refusal to share critical information that Border Patrol might have about the person's point-last-seen, denying access to eyewitnesses who might be in custody, harassing families and volunteers on the ground. So a number of really serious kinds of obstructions to anyone being able to access a search area and have adequate information. Often Border Patrol will have coordinates of where they attempted to apprehend a group and people were scattered and the person you're looking for was scattered by the apprehension attempt and needs those coordinates to go to the point that they are last seen to start the search, right? And Border Patrol refusing to share information and even cases in which Border Patrol is sharing false information with families and communities. So again, we see this as another measure that's meant to just increase the number of people who are dying and disappearing in an attempt to cross through the borderlands. **Parker ** 1:09:50 Yeah, and within that, I think one thing that we really tried to highlight in this report too, is the bureaucratic runaround that families and volunteers are met with trying to report an emergency. So like a lot of people have probably, you know, had the experience of trying to call Verizon and getting bounced around between different voicemails but that'll happen in these moments where there is a life threatening emergency that someone is trying to report. And there's no functional system. It'll happen between, you know, a county run 911 and Border Patrol where the county is saying, you know, "That's not our job, it's Border Patrol's job," and then Border Patrol will be saying, "Well, no, you have to call 911." It'll happen within Border Patrol agencies where you call one number and you're told you have to call this other number and then you get transferred to the other number. And it's, you know, a non-working number. Border Patrol will say you have to call the consulate. The consulate will say you have to call Border Patrol or the consulate's closed on the weekend. So it's a completely non-functioning emergency response system. And I think we just want to capture that and the experience that, you know, families will go through just spending like hours and hours just trying to even get someone on the phone who they can report the emergency to. And then, you know, half the time you do that and you don't even get a call back. So it's just a really infuriating system. **Sophie ** 1:11:05 Yeah, and just to add on to that as well, we have a lot of cases where Border Patrol refuses to deploy, saying there's not enough information to search and then families and/or humanitarian organizations will deploy their own search and immediately locate the person, right? So some of those efforts also reveal that even minimal effort is so significant in preventing loss of life in these cases, and yet we see agents, you know, Border Patrol, really reluctant or refusing to deploy at all. **Inmn ** 1:11:38 Thanks so much for listening everyone. This interview was unexpectedly much larger than we thought it was going to be and we're kind of just cutting in the middle of it. And we'll continue the interview next week. So tune in next week, for now that we've finally laid a lot of groundwork for what the new "Disappeared" report is about and then we can actually now talk about the new report. And yeah, it's going to be, you know, "fun" isn't the right word, but it's going to be an interesting finish to the conversation. So if you enjoyed hearing about border militarization and the other reports then tune in next week to finish the conversation. And I'm just rambling now, because I didn't write a script. And it turns out I do really well with scripts. But we will see you next time. Thanks so much for listening. If you enjoyed this podcast, then go do border work, go do humanitarian aid work, find ways to plug into these networks wherever you live because I'm sure they exist and because, unfortunately, the border is everywhere. And there's.... Which you know, is horrible. And it also means that wherever you are, there's something, there's some way for you to plug in to deal with it, or whatever. You could also, if you liked this podcast, rate and review and like and subscribe, or whatever the nameless algorithm calls for. Feed it like a hungry god. But if you want to support us in other sillier ways that don't involve feeding a nameless and mysterious entity then consider subscribing to our Patreon. You can find us at patreon.com/strangersinatangledwilderness. And if you sign up at the $10 a month level, then we will mail to you a zine version of our monthly feature every month. It's called the Zine of the Month Club. It's really fun. And you get a nice little letter from us every month. I think it's delightful. And you can also support us by supporting our publisher, Strangers, in a Tangled Wilderness. Strangers publishes books, zines, comics, podcasts, obviously, and a whole bunch of other stuff. And we have some exciting stuff coming out this year and next year. And in particular, we would like to thank these Pa
Photo: No known restrictions on publication. @Batchelorshow 1912 #NewWorldReport: Troubles in the Northern Triangle: Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador. Latin American Research Professor Evan Ellis, U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute. @revanellis #NewWorldReportEllis Guatemala https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/oas-urges-guatemalan-authorities-move-forward-with-election-process-2023-07-08/ Honduras https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/un-experts-arrive-honduras-explore-anti-corruption-mission-installation-2023-07-09/ El SALVADOR https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/salvadoran-president-bukeles-party-names-him-2024-candidate-2023-07-10/
Show Notes In this episode, Mimi and Kim interview Brad Twedt of International Justice Mission (IJM). Brad explains IJM's work to address violence against women and children in the machismo culture of Central and South America. IJM works with the police departments, prosecutors, departments of justice, and local community anti-violence advocates to change the culture of violence against women. As they face powerful forces, they find that reliance on God in praise, supplication, and lament gives them the strength in their work. Disclaimer The opinions expressed in CBE's Mutuality Matters' podcast are those of its hosts or guests and do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of CBE International or its members or chapters worldwide. The designations employed in this podcast and the presentation of content therein do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of CBE concerning the legal status of any country, area or territory or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers. Bio Brad Twedt serves as executive vice president, global people support, at International Justice Mission (IJM). IJM is a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting people in poverty from slavery and other forms of violence. A lawyer by training, Brad started his service at IJM as a volunteer Legal Fellow in Kampala, Uganda, and Guatemala City, Guatemala. He then stepped into over a decade of leadership in IJM's Latin America region. He led IJM's program aimed at violence against women and children in Central America as Guatemala country director and as Northern Triangle regional vice president. Brad and his wife, ReJean, returned to the US in 2022 after residing in Guatemala City for nearly eleven years. Brad received his JD from the Columbia University School of Law and joined IJM after a legal career in both New York City and Chicago. Contact Information IJM Website: https://www.ijm.org/our-work Brad Twedt: btwedt@ijm.org Resources Books Referenced in Interview by Gary Haugen: Good News About Injustice: A Witness of Courage in a Hurting World The Locust Effect: Why the End of Poverty Requires the End of Violence Book Review: Is There Any Good News About Injustice? By Victoria Peterson-Hilleque Mutuality Matters podcast referenced in Closing: (Intersectionality) Hope & Justice-Dismantling and Reconciling through the Psalms with Dr. Gabby Cudjoe-Wilkes Books by and about Katherine Bushnell referenced in closing: God's Word to Women by Katharine Bushnell Daughters of Deliverance by Lorry Lutz The Queen's Daughters by Lorry Lutz Read about the link between poverty and violence against women: Why Does Injustice Against Women Abound?
Photo: No known restrictions on publication. @Batchelorshow Guyana 1920 #NewWorldReport: Northern Triangle and extreme dragnets. Latin American Research Professor Evan Ellis, U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute. @revanellis #NewWorldReportEllis https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/honduras-again-extends-emergency-powers-fight-violent-gangs-2023-04-08/
The Northern Triangle countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras have long faced challenges from gangs which have become entrenched criminal networks. In response, governments throughout the region have periodically adopted hardline, or mano dura, security policies to clamp down on gangs. Most recently, El Salvador has seen one of the most extreme versions of such a policy under President Nayib Bukele, using a state of emergency to curtail constitutional protections, jailing upwards of sixty thousand alleged gang members, and serving as a backdrop for his consolidation of power and attacks on civil society and the press. In this episode, Christopher Hernandez-Roy sits down with Steven Dudley, Co-Director of InSight Crime and author of the award-winning book MS-13: The Making of America's Most Notorious Gang. Together, they unpack the nature of El Salvador's state of exception, what differentiates it from past hardline policies, and the threat this "Plan Bukele" poses to El Salvador and to democracies throughout the region. They also delve into the impact of both gang violence and counter-gang repression on Salvadoran citizens, and what can be done to promote lasting security in Central America.
In Episode 7 of Multi-Verse, poet William Archila reads and discusses his poem “Northern Triangle Dissected” with host Evangeline Graham, in a conversation about the migration stories of unaccompanied minors, the legacy of the Central American Crisis, and using metaphor to convey psychology. “Northern Triangle Dissected” is part of William Archila's new manuscript All Things Dark & Invisible. An early version of the poem can also be found in Poetry Magazine: www.poetryfoundation.org/poetrymagazi…le-dissected Listen to more poetry: www.multiversepoetry.org
Colombia and Brazil recently elected far-left presidents, joining Mexico, Argentina, Chile and Peru in the growing leftist bloc. Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar joins us to look at this Marxist resurgence in Latin America and what it means for American relations with these countries. We also talk about different approaches to solving the immigration crisis and uplifting the Northern Triangle countries. And Rep. Salazar, who spent three decades as a journalist covering politics and war in Latin America, describes what it was like to interview Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, and Augusto Pinochet. Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar represents the 27th Congressional District of Florida. She serves on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Committee on Small Business. She was the Central American Bureau Chief for Univision during the 80s. Follow her on Twitter at @RepMariaSalazar.
Big Lead @ Noon: Puberty blockers being used a Children's Hospital are having some severe side effects - not approved for kids // Monkey Pox vax being pushed on kids // Kamala says she never says "Northern Triangle" -cue montage of her saying itSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Photo: No known restrictions on publication. @Batchelorshow #NewWorldReport: The violent and forgotten-about Northern Triangle. Latin American Research Professor Evan Ellis, U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute. @revanellis https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11065941/Guatemalas-Giammattei-unharmed-gunmen-fire-military-guarding-entourage.html
You're listening to Lingo Phoenix's word of the day for July 27. Take Your Houseplant For A Walk Day Today's word is migration, spelled m-i-g-r-a-t-i-o-n. migration /maɪˈɡreɪʃən/ ●○○ noun [countable, uncountable] when large numbers of people go to live in another area or country, especially in order to find work There was a mass migration of poverty-stricken farmers into the cities. He argues that there are many economic benefits of migration. The United States was created by migration and the modern world has been sculpted by migration. Biden appointed Vice President Kamala Harris to address the root causes of migration, and Harris has traveled to Guatemala and Mexico in her efforts to encourage potential migrants to stay in their home countries and apply for asylum legally. — Sarah Kolinovsky, ABC News, 20 July 2021 Meanwhile, the administration has focused almost entirely on addressing the root causes of migration in the Central American countries of Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, collectively known as the Northern Triangle. — Michelle Hackman, WSJ, 16 July 2021 With your word of the day, I'm Mohammad Golpayegani. We love feedback. If you want to email us, our address is podcast@lingophoenix.com, or you can find me directly on Twitter and message me there. My handle is @MoeGolpayegani. Thanks for listening, stay safe, and we'll see you back here tomorrow with a new word.
Today we have a gentleman with us from an organization called Think HUGE. His name is Greg Huger. Greg, maybe you can tell us what the acronym means and a little bit about yourself and the organization that you represent? The post HUGE job creation in the Northern Triangle appeared first on The Central American Group.
Photo: #NewWorldReport: #Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador — Absent AMLO and the Northern Triangle. Latin American Research Professor Evan Ellis, U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute. @revanellis https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/08/politics/biden-summit-of-the-americas/index.html
For the remainder of season six of the SHINE podcast, the interviews and focus will point light on how we optimize for our well being and how that is interconnected to the planet's well-being. Today's episode highlights my new friend Alejandra Schrader on combating climate change, one bite at a time. Alejandra and I both had our first books debut in 2021. Alejandra has focused and used her platform to educate and inspire folks with plant based meals, recipes and ways to eat in ways that are sustainable with environmentally friendly farming practices. Her first book, The Low Carbon Cookbook and Action Plan: Reduce Food Waste and Combat Climate Change with 140 Sustainable Plant-based Recipes is amazing. Alejandra and I talk about her mission to support people to be mindful of what they consume, how they consume, and how their cooking can support the health of our bodies and the planet. Guest Links: Alejandra Schrader- https://alejandraschrader.com/ Alejandra on Instagram- https://www.instagram.com/chefaleschrader/ The Low Carbon Cookbook and Action Plan: Reduce Food Waste and Combat Climate Change with 140 Sustainable Plant-based Recipes- https://thelow-carboncookbook.com/ Shine Podcast- Taking a Stand for a Good Food System with Bruce Friedrich- https://carleyhauck.com/podcast/54-taking-a-stand-for-a-good-food-system-with-bruce-friedrich Reducetarian Summit- https://www.reducetarian.org/summit-2022 Meat Me Halfway- https://www.meatmehalfway.org/ SHINE Links: Thank you for listening. Want to build a high trust culture and psychological safety at work? Sign up for our newsletter and get the free handout and be alerted to more inspiring Shine episodes Building Trust Free Gift — https://www.leadfromlight.com Carley Links Book Carley for Speaking — https://carleyhauck.com/speaking Leading from Wholeness Learning & Development — https://carleyhauck.com/learning-and-development Carley's Book — https://carleyhauck.com/shinebook Executive Coaching with Carley — https://carleyhauck.com/executive-coaching Contact Carley — https://carleyhauck.com/contact Carley's Patreon Page https://www.patreon.com/carleyhauck Well Being Resources: Inner Game Meditations — https://carleyhauck.com/meditations Doterra — https://www.doterra.com/US/en/site/carleyhauck 4 Sigmatic — 15% Discount code Shine — https://us.foursigmatic.com/?rfsn=4405553.d15cc7&discount=SHINE Social: LinkedIn — https://www.linkedin.com/in/carley-hauck/ IG — https://www.instagram.com/carley.hauck/ Website — https://www.carleyhauck.com Newsletter — https://www.leadfromlight.com Shine Podcast Page — https://carleyhauck.com/podcast The Imperfect Shownotes 0:01 Carley Hauck Hi, my name is Carley Hauck. I am your host of the SHINE podcast, welcome. This podcast focuses on the intersection of the application of how to be a conscious, inclusive leader, the recipe for high performing teams, and awareness practices, so that you can cultivate a strong inner game. To be the kind of leader our world needs. Now, I facilitate two to three episodes a month. And before I tell you about our wonderful topic today, please go over to your Apple podcasts and hit the subscribe button. This way you don't miss any future interviews. We are in season six of the SHINE podcast. And this season is all about how we optimize to live, work, play, so that we can bring our whole and best selves to our mission, to our life, to our relationships. This includes being mindful of our consumption or energy leaks. And really figuring out how we can have the best performance for our minds, bodies, hearts, how we can support the wellbeing of our communities and our planet. For the remainder of the season, there will be a specific focus on the well being of our bodies and how that's interconnected to the planet's well being. And we will be kicking that off right now with today's episode, Combating Climate Change One Bite at a Time with my new friend Alejandra Schrader. Alejandra and I both had our first books debut in 2021. And we each had a similar mission, and inspiration and writing our books. We were dedicated to awakening humanity, in service of people and planet, and my book Shine: Ignite Your Inner Game to Lead Consciously at Work and In the World, I focus on the body of work that I've successfully facilitated, and supported many leaders in business so that they can align with business as a force for good and social and environmental responsible actions. I also highlight in my book three trailblazing leaders and their journeys, and how to promote more vegan, plant based food options to mitigate climate change, and change the food system for good. Alejandra has focused and used her platform for plant based meals that are cooked smart and packed with flavor, nutritional value. She advocates for sustainable diets and environmentally friendly farming practices. And her first book, The Low Carbon Cookbook and Action Plan: Reduce Food Waste and Combat Climate Change with 140 Sustainable Plant-based Recipes is amazing. Alejandra and I talk about what consciousness inclusive leadership means to her, what it looks like in her journey, her mission for really supporting people to be mindful of what they consume, how they consume, and how their cooking can be in the greatest support of the earth and all the resources that we all share. There are some special highlights in this episode, and I would love for you to listen. Thanks for tuning in. Carley Hauck 3:55 Hello, SHINE podcasters. I am delighted to be here with my friend, Alejandra Schrader. And Alejandra, thank you so much for joining me today. I'm really looking forward to our conversation. Alejandra Schrader 4:12 Yeah, it's truly a pleasure. Thank you so much for having me. Carley Hauck 4:15 Yeah, well, I I saw your book and I think I found it because there was a post that you had liked. Bruce Friedrich the president, I don't know what I should call him Grand Puba, he was like all plant based alternative proteins, you know, the Good Food Institute and I saw your book and I thought, look at her. She wrote a recipe book, focused completely on recipes that would lower our carbon footprint. I have got to get to know this woman. So thank you again for writing your new book, The Low Carbon Cookbook and Action Plan: Reduce Food Waste and Combat Climate Change with 140 Sustainable Plant-based Recipes. Before I jump into the motivation for that, one of the first questions that I always ask folks on the SHINE podcast is the question. How do you view being a conscious, inclusive leader? Like what does that mean to you? Alejandra Schrader 5:30 Well, first of all, it means a great sense of responsibility that is driven my by my purpose, by a sense of purpose to leave this planet a better place than I found it. As we will talk later, I have a baby, and I want to make sure that he is able to enjoy a planet in which he can thrive. And by being a conscious leader, I also feel the responsibility to lead by example, to attract more than to promote, to lead the way that I carry myself, that I show up, that I work, and that I communicate in a way that other people feel encouraged and empowered to join me to follow my lead to find their own calling their own purpose, but ultimately to have as a common denominator, the greater good for people and the planet. Carley Hauck 6:36 Lovely, great answer. So I heard, you know, a greater responsibility, and wanting to leave behind a better world really acting and service of the greatest good. Thank you. Well, based on that answer, tell me more about your motivation for writing your book. Alejandra Schrader 7:01 Yes, I think that there are many layers to that. And I would say the first one definitely is my love for Mama Earth, for the planet. And my focus on the subject of sustainability, which I have, since I was a little girl, I would see how our actions impacted, at that time, the environment in which I was in, I grew up in Caracas, Venezuela, and one of my favorite parks, it's kind of because it's a big city, kind of like New York City. And there's not the same but we have something similar to what will be the Central Park and I remember walking by and seeing how some trees that were in front of a tall building that had many curtain wall, which is that reflective glass, they will be dying. And I would ask my mom like what, you know, why are these three stances so well, you know, because we live in a tropical country and the sun once it hits the facade of the building reflects upon these trees and is too much heat and the trees can handle it and I remember that is you know, sort of blew my mind and I was like well then why why first of all right, they will build this building so close to the park and why would they choose that material that is reflect you know, and I had all these questions. Funny enough, I went on to become an architect. And while I was in architecture school, I went to CyArk a very progressive, designer Oriented Architecture School and I pushed every envelope when it came to sustainability every one of my buildings tried to the design it really tried to use the environment in which was in like that concept that form follows function how can I maximize the intake of air or the exposure of the song and and that was a principle that I didn't carry to everything else I've done in my life. I went to graduate school to do work in urban planning and sustainability was again my like the foundation of my research and my projects. And after an unfortunate event when I lost my career in architecture and urban planning, I am really by a very lucky shot and working in the food world in the culinary world, it only made sense to bring that passion for sustainability. Little did I know really at the time it was only it was so many something like one of those gut feelings that innate like it's just an intuitive thought I need to I need to continue to you know to work this path. Little did I know at the time that genuinely food has this massive effect on on the planet how we produce it. how we shop, how we cook, what we eat, how we dispose of waste our food. You know, food is responsible for over a quarter of all greenhouse gasses. And so again, you know, I'm saying little did I know because I cannot take credit for the for that awareness at the time. But thank goodness, right that sometimes we hear a calling, and we have a sense of strong sense of intuition. And you know, some of us, well, actually, I should say that at that point in my life, I was willing to listen to that. Carley Hauck 10:35 And what I hear is that you had a greater consciousness at a younger age, and you saw the inter-connection of everything from, you know, living spaces to the well being of the planet to the well being of ourselves, our own ecosystem, right? And, yes, it reminds me of the consciousness that I had as a little girl too, because I did not grow up in Venezuela, but I grew up in Florida. And I would take these walks on the beach, St. Augustine, which is one of the oldest cities in the United States. And, you know, Florida has just, I'd say recently, maybe in the last 10 years has started a recycling program, they still do not have a lot of composting at all, which I know you and I are communicating to, we dug about food waste, but I was picking up plastic bottles of the sand whenever I did find any plastic because I knew that a sea turtle was going to see that plastic as a jellyfish and they were going to try to eat it. And so in a similar to you, I just knew like this isn't this isn't right, this isn't supposed to be and it's gonna do more harm than positive. So that was your first layer. Tell me. Alejandra Schrader 11:52 Yes. So the next layer comes after the work that I you know, I don't believe in coincidences anymore. I believe in greater callings on God shots, you know, whatever people want us to define them as, but I sort of fell into this wonderful line of work. And in my work as a chef, and as a culinary professional, where I could help bridge that gap between what people what people eat, and, and where are cooked, where food is coming from how the farmers that are working the land properly, the work of scientists determining what is the best food for planet health and human health. And by working on that I got exposed to a lot of information that at one point, I couldn't unsee. I, you know, I got invited to the United Nations to present the EAT-Lancet report on planetary health. And here I am talking in the great chambers to people about, you know, that we have the power to change that with a shift in our diets to help combat the climate crisis, and I'm passing all these beautiful messages that I've learned. And at the same time I am aware of, especially in the United States, how the industrial industrialized animal production works and how that's so bad for the production of greenhouse gasses, especially methane, it got to a point that I knew too much. And I felt here, here we go again, back to that concept that I couldn't tell people don't eat meat anymore. But I said, You know what, I'm going to stop eating meat, I'm going to transition slowly into a plant based diet for the sake of the planet, and because of all these, all these things that I know that I cannot no longer avoid or turn my back into. And then the third layer, which is a simple one, but very impactful, was my own health. I've always had, since I was six years old, battled with issues of obesity of my body, you know, I tend to gain weight very quickly. There's a lot of third world food insecurity embedded into me and you know, that's a whole conversation, but at one point, I was dealing with really high levels of cholesterol, triglycerides, etc. And this at the same time, right that, you know, again, I'm exposed to these vast amount of information. So I said, I'm gonna give it a try. I'm gonna go plant weeks and three months after I switch to a plant based diet, all of my blood work levels were perfect. Not even decent. They were perfect. And that was that's, that's ultimately what sold me I said, You know what, this again, these are layers. I'm doing it for the planet. I'm doing it for my integrity, but I'm also doing it for my health. Carley Hauck 14:47 Fabulous, thank you. Well, you talk about in, you know, layer two this broken food system, which we're gonna have to be solving and fixing for quite a long time, not just in the United States but all over the world. And then I loved hearing kind of that more personal investment, and the amazing results that you've seen in adopting a plant based, maybe vegan, would you would you say your diet is mostly vegan? Alejandra Schrader 15:17 When I talk about plant based. And I think that there are many definitions out there. But the main difference for me is, as opposed to going to the supermarket and navigating the refrigerated aisles section finding vegan sausage, vegan pizza, vegan chicken, I stay on the perimeters of the store and I really use produce, and vegetables, fruits, nuts, seeds, algae, fungi, but I eat mushrooms to create beautiful and delicious dishes. And I try to stay away from vegan products that are a little more processed and less healthy. So that's why I like to focus more on the plant based nomenclature, because this is one that I identify more with. Carley Hauck 16:09 And that's helpful, I think, for our listeners, because I think a lot of people can get confused on, okay, what's plant based? What's whole foods? What's vegan? And so that was very specific. I appreciate that. Alejandra Schrader 16:26 Yes. And, and one more piece again, because sometimes people get too hung up, I will, if you will, on the terminology. You know, there's times where I've traveled to the Northern Triangle and Central America to do some work on the field. And there's genuinely nothing else to eat it true story than beans and cheese. And so, you know, if I spent a significant amount of time there, I can only eat so many beans, you know, to sad that there were more vegetables available in a land that is so frugal and fertile. But so there's been times in my plant based diet journey where I have had some dairy, soy mixed in and so on and I think that's another big difference between plant based and vegan is that we avoid animal source products, and focus on a wider variety of plant based ingredients. Carley Hauck 17:23 Wonderful. And I tend to eat very whole food based as well, I love fruits and vegetables. And I'm also not eating dairy products and really limiting my meat sources very much so I can eat in a much similar way. I wanted to talk a little bit about food waste, because this is an area that you focus on a lot in the beginning of the book. And I'm going to actually just take this quote directly from your book, you said, “About 1/3 of the global food supply never gets eaten. Food loss occurs during the post harvest and processing phases of food production, while food waste occurs on the consumption side of food systems. When edible food, when edible, good food goes unconsumed food waste and loss accounts for 6% of all carbon emissions, which is more than three times the global aviation. There are more than 3 billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalents, co2 due to throwing food away in the garbage and not composting. And Americans throw away about 20% of food that they buy.” And so you and I both live in California. Correct. And what was so encouraging to me was that the beginning of this year, California put a statewide mandate that everybody has to compost. Now I've been composting for a long time, and I imagine that you have to, but I just am so excited about that. Because my hope and desire is that other states are going to follow suit. So let's talk a little bit about food waste. Alejandra Schrader 19:15 Yes. So from the, you know, I wrote, I wrote this book in the second half of 2020. And I just want to update because some of these figures have actually gone up. Some studies show that even up to 40% of the food that Americans are buying are ending up in the trash, which is pretty sad and worrisome. Also the fact that as consumers we really cannot do much about the food that is being lost in the production phase of the food supply chain. Maybe we can do a little bit there are some companies like Imperfect Foods where they try to recuperate some of these, which actually are being thrown away, because most consumers will go to the store and be like, well, this apple is not as big as this other one, or it has a tiny bruise or, you know, or the color has some discoloration. And, you know, and so here's where we as consumers can also become more, you know, more conscious about the food that we demand so that the suppliers don't feel the need to, to let food go to waste. But what we can do, definitely as consumers is then, you know, buy in a conscious way so that we don't have so much stuff at home that a lot of it is, you know, becoming spoiled and having to throw it away, that when we do dine out and we ask for that little bag, or that little box that we actually consume that instead of just tossing it in the trash, and that we do a better job at what I like to say, the utilizing the investment, maximizing the investment that we've made in food. And that's where we get to use ingredients that are ingredients or parts of the plant that are traditionally thrown in the trash. A lot of times I go to the market and my heart shrinks when I see people ripping the greens of carrots and leaving them on the shelves and just taking the carrots home. Or when we get home and we buy these beautiful radishes with radish greens. And usually they get caught off and thrown in the trash. There is a lot of nourishment, a lot of phytochemicals, and good for us stuff and all of these elements that are being thrown away that why I mean, it took a lot of resources for Mother Earth to help you know water, you name it, to help them grow. And so we should find creative ways to utilize them whether we make pesto sauce with the carrot greens, whether we make a chimichurri with the radish greens, whether we actually wash them really well and use them as a salad, make a salsa verde or use them instead of cilantro. And like those two, there are so many, so many ingredients that are being thrown away. That's why I talk about using the plant from root to leaf as much as the plant as we can. That way we honor those resources that went into, into growing them. And there are some studies that talk about how much we can minimize our individual carbon footprints by just doing these small changes. And I think that to me that it just makes me feel like I have so much power, like a lot of people say, Oh, well, you know, I've tried to do something for the environment, I'm gonna start using paper straws. It's not impactful, it's not enough, you know, we can do a lot more. And if we take responsibility for the fact that our actions can make a big difference, I think people will be more likely to make some of these changes at home. Carley Hauck 22:58 Thank you for that, you know, one of the other things that you mentioned is and, and this was something that happened in the midst of a pandemic, you know, a lot of people were getting to-go's right. And so a lot of people were also cooking at home. But I think to add to your point, when you go and you're, you know, buying food from a restaurant, you can actually bring your own container, you know, because the pandemic has definitely calmed down a bit, I think people didn't feel like they can even bring their own container, but you can bring your own container so that we're not continually adding more and more plastic to our soil to our air to our water. And one of the other things that you were mentioning around you know, eating a more plant based diet and whole foods is the link to the carbon that's coming when we're eating more agriculture, or rather livestock. And one of the things that we also need to be mindful of is the water consumption. And so you know, we have an infinite amount of water. And as more and more people are living on this planet, and the more resources that we need to grow food, we need to find ways that are sustainable, to be able to feed everyone and again, you know, eating from root to leaf, and eating more of these plants is going to reduce our need for more and more water and it's also going to lower our carbon footprint. Alejandra Schrader 24:29 Exactly. Well said. Carley Hauck 24:31 some things that I was thinking about. What are some of the favorite ways that you, you know, might reuse recipes? I know you have some ideas or not even reused recipes but reuse food so you know we tend to always have leftovers right? And I'm a big proponent of eating all my leftovers. I don't want any food going to waste but how are you maximizing for that when you think about your kitchen right now at home? Alejandra Schrader 24:58 Well so in my own kitchen, and granted, that is just my husband and I until recently, and even then my son is an infant. So he eats, he doesn't eat yet the same food as we do, because I've tried to prevent him from eating salt and other ingredients. But even though we're a small household, and actually I like to see that as an asset, then what that means is, one meal can last me for longer for many for more days than in other families where there are more people. I always talk about, you know, finding a day like a meal prepping day in your week where you can allocate to four hours on a Sunday afternoon, and you can cook up onto stuff so that you can actually separate it into smaller containers. And some dishes are actually fabulous in the, you know, to freeze and reheat later, especially stews I love. Actually, I believe that it gets even more of enhanced flavor when you freeze and then reheat, I don't know, lentils through this, or maybe some curry, or maybe after gene, there's just, there's just something about sitting there for a while and then being reheated. And then that way, we only eat what we can for the day or the next couple of days. And then we get to free something else. And then, you know, a month from now, a lot of these foods are good to freeze for even six months. So that would be sort of like one way to cook smart. And to avoid food waste by saving stuff for later. I love to repurpose foods and I think that some cooks, when they're less versed in the kitchen, may feel a little more intimidated by this. But I always I always think it's a good idea to think like how can I turn this leftover pasta dish into a casserole, maybe I just add a little more sauce and sprinkle little cheese and put it in the oven it leaded grit, you know, create a beautiful grated internalization on the top and wa-la, you know, now you have a new dish. But I think that the biggest impact is probably from the kind of food waste, where we again are utilizing parts of the vegetable, the fruit that we traditionally don't like, if I'm gonna peel potatoes to make a match, I'm going to save those fields. And I'm going to toss them in the oven with a little olive oil and salt and pepper until they get crisp. And now I can scoop my hummus or my guacamole with it. And I use them as chips or crackers instead of throwing away and I know sort of like trust me on this one that I saved my banana peels, and I poached them I scraped the inner membrane, I shred them. And now I can make a delicious pulled fork type of ingredient. And to sort of attest that this works. This is actually what I just served. Last month I went to Cali Colombia to help open like it was the inauguration of the newest seed bank a, gene bank by the CGIR. And there were 220 people in attendance. And I get up and the first thing I say is I love to cook with trash, and I am going to serve you. Instead of meat, I'm gonna make a shredded banana peel dish. And I think people you know tilted their heads a little bit. But everyone was so blown up that they could call me to their tables to tell me how much they had left. So having an open mind that has a lot to do with the success of this event. And I just encourage people to try to be a little daring when it comes to food waste. Carley Hauck 29:04 Thank you for sharing some of the recipes and the ways that you're doing that at home right now. That's inspiring. I wanted to pivot a little bit into travel. And you actually just spoke about how you are in Colombia. One of the things that I've been thinking about when we think about lowering our carbon footprint, you know, it's not only in how we're eating, but it's how we're traveling. And as the world is starting to open up again, and we're getting on planes more and we're traveling more. The way that we used to travel I don't feel was very sustainable. You know, we go to Paris for a week from New York or from California and we come back. And when you're traveling as a tourist, you're usually accumulating a lot of plastic, you're eating out a lot and not to mention the carbon that is occurring from the plane, you know. And then the way that travel typically, you know is happening is that we're given all this single use plastics. And so this has always been a problem. But we have more consciousness. Now we know that the way that we were traveling, the way that we were eating was not going to support a thriving world or planet. So I wanted to use some of our conversation today to bring a little more awareness to inspire more conscious action. And so I was just in Austin last week for a conference and I had the opportunity to stay with a friend. But I also really wanted to stay with a friend because I knew that that would actually minimize some of the waste that I would have if I stayed in an Airbnb or in a hotel. And so we did a lot of cooking while we were there, and anything that we ate out, I brought home and I ate it, I had very, very little food waste, I was so happy about that. Austin also is an area of Texas that composts. And what was interesting is the friend that I was staying with had a green compost bin in their backyard. But she wasn't composting. Her family wasn't composting, I thought what is going on, but they just weren't thinking about it. They thought that that was only for yard waste. So I showed them how easy it was. As a going away gift, I got them a compost bin and you know, compost baggies. And in fact, I got a text from her this morning, she said that it was almost completely full yesterday. Yes, you kiddos. So the kids or now composting. Now, not every state or city has a composting program. But we know that when we're regenerating the soil, that we're actually extracting carbon from the atmosphere, putting it in the soil instead of it going into the ocean, which is then creating more warming and acidification of all of our marine animals. So I'm bringing all of this because I think it's important that we start to think if we're going to be traveling, how can it be more regenerative? How can we be finding ways to cook to eat less out to be more mindful of the plastics that we're bringing, whenever I go travel, I always bring my own water bottles so that the flight attendants can pour water directly into my bottle, we need to minimize the single use plastics because only 7% actually gets recycled, the rest of its going into our soil and to our food into our water. And I'm going to pause there because I'd love to hear any of your thoughts. Alejandra Schrader 32:41 Yes, I mean, you've touched upon so many interest in so subjects within this greater topic. First of all, you're absolutely right about traveling period, right, like, not all of us and, and I'll, I'll use this to, to, to plug in something I've been sort of joking about but I really mean it, you know, like I am so grateful for, for the for the younger generations that are really really really fighting the good fight. And not all of us can be Greta Thunberg. So you know, when I go do these very meaningful events that I travel for, I couldn't really, you know, get on a sailboat and go across the Atlantic each time. And so I make it a point that the purpose of the treat of the trip is valuable and meaningful enough to in a way offset the carbon generated by it, by the trip itself. I actually when it comes to vacations, we much rather go on road trips as a family especially now that we have a little one but also on my day to day live and and again as a way to offset the carbon footprint that I'm generating by my sporadic business trips is we've you know, we walk and we use a lot of non motorized transportation methods like bike and I live in a very walkable communities so I am very fortunate to have access to goods and services within walking distance or bike rides. And then again, yes, you're absolutely right about that when we do have to travel and jump on a plane like you know, making small changes from bringing the water bottle to actually packing in our own food. We get to eat healthier than eating airport food if we bag our own. I don't know roasted seeds and dry and dry fruits and so forth. I'm a big fan of silicone bags so that we don't have to keep throwing away these little Ziploc baggies. They freeze great by the way. And then you talked about compost, and it is true compost is something that we should all be practicing a little bit more. But I want to just sort of shed light on it. I have a little graphic in my book that it's like an inverted pyramid. And while composting is great, there are other things that we get to do with our food waste that are not just more meaningful, but best utilized for the greater purpose of reducing our carbon footprint. And, you know, a lot of times food that is perfectly good, gets to be thrown away because no one likes it or, or, you know, no one's gonna eat it, we should be considering gifting that food, especially here in the state of California, we have a lot of homeless populations that we could help or even donate the food to shelters and things like that. Yeah, and then there are other layers like we've been trying to repurpose it for your pet or things like that. And then you know, compos being the last one. So just trying to find creative ways. And I'll give you one little example, when you are foot foot prepping, and you have like the shells of your audience, or the caps of your bell peppers, or, and I mean shells, like the little skins that you remove from garlic, or the base of your salary, or the tops of a carrot.You put all that in a silicone bag, you say you do purchase and invest in a big silicone bag like a pound to bow. And every time you have some of these scraps, you put it in this bag, and you keep it in your freezer. And whenever that bag is full, you put it in a big pot, add four to six quarts of water and you make a delicious vegetable broth. Carley Hauck 37:00 I knew you were gonna say that. I would. That sounds amazing. Speaking of plastic bags, as I was actually coming back from Austin, I was there for almost 10 days for some professional development and, and a culture summit. But I always bring my own food on the plane because it's healthier and then I don't, you know, inherit any more plastic. But I was sitting next to this Indian couple, they were older. And they brought out their bags of peas and rice. And it was and they were just eating it out of the bag. And then here I was with my little Tupperware of all vegetables and some nuts. And we were all eating it at the same time. And I said, Are you vegetarian? And they said yes. And I. And I said, I love vegetables too. And it was just so fun. We were all eating our, you know, brought food and I was like, Ooh, what do they have? And so anyway, yeah, yeah, you can create a culture around it on the plane. So I know we only have a little bit longer. But I wanted to also ask you about your inner game, Alejandra, because it was clear to me that you had cultivated a strong inner game. And for those that have been listening to the podcast, the inner game is the internal operating system that really impacts how we show up in the world. And so what do you feel like you have really, maybe dive deeper on as your commitment to your self growth, let's say in the last year, I know that you were birthing this book at about the same time you were birthing this brand new little boy into the world. Alejandra Schrader 38:44 Yes. And that's such a meaningful question for me, because especially when the pandemic hit, and I as a small business owner, took a big hit. And yet again, professionally, I found myself in despair. I had to really tap you know, until my inner self and remember the kind of resilience that I have built throughout my life. Trust that when I've thrown a curveball a lot of times is life just presented me the opportunity to take on a new challenge. It happened, you know, in 2009 when I lost in quotes my career in planning and development and I was quote, forced into the culinary world. And, and especially because the way in which I was living is it was not sustainable working 60 to 70 hours a week, not dedicating enough time to self care to my husband, to the quality of my life. It was only normal and perfect that I had to lose my business when the pandemic hit so that the opportunities were created. So that, one, I finally after eight years of pursuing a book deal, got it. And that after decades of being married, I became pregnant, something that I actually wanted. And I didn't have the means of just being fully transparent, the financial means to get myself or to put myself through, let's just say fertilization methods, and to go on to grow two babies at the same time. I also had to tap into something that is so important for me now, which is empathy for myself, as a way to be more empathetic towards others, to have a greater awareness of my purpose, of my assets of what I am, what am I able to bring to the table, and to finally, and this actually is getting me really emotional to show up authentically to no longer try to be a chameleon to adapt to, to pretend to be someone that I'm not just so that I am liked, just so that I am accepted. And, you know, looking back, I'm like of course! Only when I allowed myself that opportunity to play my inner game skills, everything unfolded into what I now have, the opportunities that I'm given, just the great responsibility that I have for and this passion that is bursting. And I have the means to practice it, to share it and to empower others with. Carley Hauck 42:11 Beautiful. Y'all, you can't see Alejandra, but I can and she's just shining, which is, as you know the title of this podcast. So there are so many me too's, that I can relate to and that and I, I don't know if you felt this way, but when I was actually going through the journey of writing this book, which was four years, and then it actually came out last year, it was really a birthing of myself, you know, to have to continually talk and show up again and again and again, in service of this message, which is really in service of waking humanity up for the greatest good, you know, there are tests, there are challenges, you have to own it, you have to embody it, you have to show up, you have to walk it, and I am really grateful for what that has, what has evolved in me as a result of that, can you relate to that? Alejandra Schrader 43:18 Oh, absolutely. And to trust, to trust that, in that part is so hard as a, you know, I was born in the States, but I grew up in South America and as a woman of color that felt like an immigrant that, you know, it's it feeling the need to control it was so, you know, such a big part of who I was, and I and I felt like it had to be that way. And the moment that I let go, and I just allowed for things to happen. And I trusted that I was taking care of and that as long as I did that work, as long as I put the right energy into doing the work, everything was, you know, everything's gonna work out. Now, I don't even question it. I know, I know. And, and to, you know, to be a sort of, like, I couldn't have any any more tangible evidence that that is true than my book, my child and all of these beautiful, amazing opportunities to really be such an like, you know, I get to be a steward of the planet. Now I get to, you know, I often say that my book is the love letter to Mother Earth written from my kitchen. And now I get to talk to decision makers and impactful people, high profile officials and cetera about this message and I hope to make a big difference. And now I have the platform to do it. Carley Hauck 44:55 You do, and it's so amazing. I love hearing about your journey. So as we're wrapping up, tell us about these two events you have coming out in May and June. Were you get to do this? Alejandra Schrader 45:07 Yes. So, in May, I am invited to speak at the 75th World Health Assembly, which is the decision making body of the World Health Organization in Geneva. And I am part of a side event where the launch of the periodic table of food initiative is taking place, it's May 22. And I get to come and talk about my favorite subject: food waste and sustainability, eating within planetary boundaries. And then in June, I was invited to speak at the Women in Food and Agriculture Summit, the WFP summit in Frankfort. And, and again, I'm going to have the platform to talk about, you know, sustainable food systems, and hopefully, hopefully, you know, like, light up that spark, and yet another or a couple few or 100 individuals so that we can all start working towards a more sustainable future. Carley Hauck 46:12 Thank you, well, I know you're gonna send me those show links. And we will provide them for our listeners to tune into. You also have a really fun Instagram account with beautiful recipes, I actually have picked out one of your recipes from your book, it's the zucchini noodle and portobello steak, which in the show notes so folks can go and you know, cook that up. And I hope people will go and find your book and find some really fun inspiration for the spring and summer. Wherever you are listening in from. And is there. Is there anything else that you want to leave our listeners with? Alejandra Schrader 46:51 I just say, I would just say like, you know, you don't have to say yes, but you can stop saying no. And, and I say that in regards to trying to make meaningful shifts to the way that you eat, and that you think about food. And, if that's saying yes means trying one new vegetable every week, maybe not having an animal source product one meal a day, maybe even practicing meatless Mondays, there's not too small of a change, every small action can make big wonderful effects as part of a collective action. Carley Hauck 47:36 Well, Alejandra, thank you so much for your wisdom, for your service. I look forward to staying connected and just seeing how this light continues to spread and inspire so many others. And if there's a way that I can support you, please feel free to reach out. Alejandra Schrader 47:55 Thank you so much. It means so much to us what a wonderful conversation. I'm very grateful. Carley Hauck 48:04 Thank you so much, Alexandra for your voice, your passion, sharing your story. I'll link to all the wonderful resources Alejandra mentioned in the show notes. As you heard, we can mitigate climate change, protect our resources by eating mostly whole foods plants, being mindful of how we cook, how we even use our food scraps, and how we can reduce the consumption of meat so that there is more for everyone, and we're taking good care of the planet. While there are many plant based and alternative protein products coming into the market. What is also part of these new products is plastic and packaging. And what I'd like to invite as you start to move towards a more vegan plant based diet is that you focus on buying more fruits and vegetables. Buy foods in bulk. Bring your own bags, use your own utensils when you're traveling or when you're just out and about keep them in your car. Use water bottles, instead of buying plastic bottles. And even keep a to-go plastic container or maybe a metal container in your car so that when you do go out to eat when you have leftovers, you don't have to take another plastic container. All of this plastic is going into our soil or water, our oceans. Only 7% of plastic is actually recyclable. So in our efforts to focus and optimize our wellbeing, the planet's wellbeing our families or communities, we have to get rid of this plastic consumption. So my invitation: How can you minimize your plastic this week? This year? And as a way to support you to reduce your meat consumption, I want to tell you about this fabulous conference that I'll be attending from May 12 through 14th. That's right outside of the Bay Area, I believe there will be a virtual opportunity as well. The tickets are really affordable. And I believe they're not turning anyone away. And this is the fourth annual summit, they had to push pause because of a pandemic. I will be attending, the organizer Brian invited me. I am so delighted. And Bruce Friedrich, who was our first interview of the season, who is the co-founder of The Good Food Institute, Brian actually worked for Bruce years ago. So if you missed that interview, which is Standing For a Good Food System, you definitely want to listen to that one. But going back to the Reducetarian Summit May 12 through 14th, definitely check that out. The link is in the show notes. And if you can't attend, there is also a cookbook that Brian has written and his documentary Meat Me Halfway, yes, m-e-a-t me halfway, came out last summer, and I highly recommend it. All of these links will be in the show notes. The SHINE podcast has been self sponsored since May 2019. It is freely offered from my heartfelt desire to be in service and support of a workplace and world that works for everyone and is living in greater harmony with the Earth from conscious inclusive leadership and socially responsible business practices. I would love and appreciate your support so that I can continue to have these wonderful interviews with inspiring leaders bringing science tips and evidence to your ears. And you can donate and support me by going to my Patreon page www.patreon.com/carleyhauck, the link is in the show notes. Your generosity helps so much. If you enjoyed this episode, please share it with friends, family or colleagues. If you have questions, comments or topics you'd like me to address, please email me. I would love to hear from you support@carleyhauck.com. Until we meet again, and that's going to be really soon my friend because I have another fabulous episode coming out on Earth Day. Oh, I can't wait to share it with you. But until we meet again, be the light and shine your light.
Anne C. Richard, distinguished fellow and Afghanistan coordination lead at Freedom House, will lead a conversation on refugees and global migration. FASKIANOS: Thank you. Welcome to the final session of the Winter/Spring 2022 CFR Academic Webinar Series. I'm Irina Faskianos, vice president of the National Program and Outreach here at CFR. Today's discussion is on the record, and the video and transcript will be available on our website, CFR.org/academic. As always, CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. We are delighted to have Anne Richard with us today to talk about refugees and global migration. Ms. Richard is a distinguished fellow and Afghanistan coordination lead at Freedom House. She has taught at several universities including Georgetown, University of Virginia, Hamilton College, and the University of Pennsylvania. From 2012 to 2017, Ms. Richard served as an assistant secretary of state for population, refugees, and migration, and before joining the Obama administration she served as vice president of government relations and advocacy for the International Rescue Committee. She has also worked at the Peace Corps headquarters and the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, and is a member of CFR. So, Anne, thank you very much for being with us today. With your background and experience, it would be great if you could talk from your vantage point—give us an overview of the current refugee trends you are—we are seeing around the world, especially vis-à-vis the war in Ukraine, the withdrawal from Afghanistan, et cetera. RICHARD: Thank you so much, Irina, for inviting me today and for always welcoming me back to the Council. And thank you to your team for putting this together. I'm very happy to speak about the global refugee situation, which, unfortunately, has, once again, grown yet larger in a way that is sort of stumping the international community in terms of what can well-meaning governments do, what can foundations and charitable efforts and the United Nations (UN) do to help displaced people. I thought we could start off talking a little bit about definitions and data, and the idea is that I only speak about ten minutes at this beginning part so that we can get to your questions all the more quickly. But for all of us to be on the same wavelength, let's recall that refugees, as a group, have an organization that is supposed to look out for them. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees is the title of the number-one person in the organization, but the entire organization is known by that name, UNHCR, or the UN Refugee Agency. It also has a convention—the 1951 Refugee Convention—that came about after World War II and was very focused on not allowing to happen again what had happened during World War II where victims of the Nazis and, as time went on, people fleeing fascism, people fleeing communism, couldn't get out of their countries and were persecuted because of this. And there's a legal definition that comes out of the convention that different countries have, and the U.S. legal definition matches very much the convention's, which is that refugees have crossed an international border—they're not in their home country anymore—and once they've crossed an international border the sense is that they are depending on the international community to help them and that they're fleeing for specific purposes—their race, their religion, their ethnicity, their membership in a particular social group such as being LGBTQ, or political thought. And if you think back to the Cold War, these were some of the refugees coming out of the former Soviet Union, coming out of Eastern Europe, were people who had spoken out and were in trouble and so had to flee their home countries. So what are the numbers then? And I'm going to refer you to a very useful page on the UN High Commissioner for Refugees website, which is their “Figures at a Glance” presentation, and we're going to reference some of the numbers that are up there now. But those numbers change every year. They change on June 20, which is World Refugee Day. And so every year it hits the headlines that the numbers have gone up, unfortunately, and you can anticipate this if you think in terms of the summer solstice, the longest day of the year. It's usually June 20, 21, 22. So June 20, that first possible day, is every year World Refugee Day. So if you're working on behalf of refugees it's good sometimes to schedule events or anticipate newspaper articles and conversations about refugees ticking up in—at the end of June. So if you were paying attention last June for World Refugee Day, UNHCR would have unveiled a number of 82.4 million refugees around the world, and so this upcoming June what do we anticipate? Well, we anticipate the numbers will go up again and, in fact, yesterday the high commissioner was in Washington, met with Secretary of State Tony Blinken, and they met the press and Filippo Grandi, the current high commissioner, said that he thinks the number is closer to ninety-five to ninety-six million refugees. So, clearly, a couple things have happened since last June. One is that so many people are trying to flee Afghanistan and another is so many people have fled Ukraine. So if we went back to that $82.4 million figure that we know we have details on, we would find that this is the figure of people who are displaced because of conflict or persecution around the world. The ones that count as refugees who have actually crossed an international border is a smaller number. It's 20.7 million people that UNHCR is concerned about and then another close to six million people who are Palestinians in the Middle East whose displacement goes back to 1948, the creation of the statehood of Israel, and upheaval in the Middle East region as Palestinians were shifted to live elsewhere. And so—and they are provided assistance by a different UN agency, UNRWA—UN Relief Works Administration in the Near East—and so if you see a number or you see two sets of numbers for refugees and they're off by about five or six million people, the difference is the Palestinian, that number—whether it's being counted in, which is for worldwide numbers, or out because UNHCR cares for most refugees on Earth but did not have the responsibility for the Palestinians since UNRWA was set up with that specific responsibility. So what's the big difference then between the eighty-two million, now growing to ninety-five million, and this smaller number of refugees? It's internally displaced persons (IDPs). These are people who are displaced by conflict or are displaced by persecution, are running for their lives, but they haven't left their own countries yet. So think of Syrians who, perhaps, are displaced by war and they have crossed their own countries and gone to a safer place within their own country but they haven't crossed that border yet. Others who have crossed into Lebanon or Turkey or Jordan or Iraq or have gone further afield to Egypt, those would be considered refugees. Who's responsible for the IDPs then? Well, legally, their own countries are supposed to take care of them. But in my Syria example, the problem is Syria was bombing its own people in certain areas of the country, and so they were not protecting their own people as they should be. People can be displaced by things other than war and conflict and persecution, of course. More and more we talk about climate displacement, and this is a hot issue that we can talk about later. But who's responsible then when people are displaced by changing climactic conditions and it's their own governments who are supposed to help them? But more and more questions have been raised about, well, should the international community come together and do more for this group of people—for internally displaced persons—especially when their own governments are unwilling or unable to do so? What about migrants? Who are the migrants? Migrants is a much broader term. Everyone I've talked about so far who's crossed a border counts as a migrant. Migrants are just people on the go, and the International Organization for Migration estimates there's about 281 million migrants on Earth today—about 3.6 percent of the world population—and one of the big issues I've pushed is to not see migrants as a dirty word. Unfortunately, it often is described that way—that migratory flows are bad, when, in fact, lots of people are migrants. Students who travel to the U.S. to take classes are migrants to our country. The secretary general of the United Nations, António Guterres, who was himself for eleven years the high commissioner for refugees, he says, I am a migrant, because he's a Portuguese person working in New York City. People hired by Silicon Valley from around the world to work in high-paid jobs, legally in the United States, they are migrants. More concerning are vulnerable migrants, people who are displaced and don't have the wherewithal to, necessarily, protect themselves, take care of themselves, on the march or where they end up, or also if they're seen as traveling without papers, not welcome in the places where they're going, that can be a very, very dangerous situation for them. So be aware that migrants is a really broad all-encompassing term that can include travelers, businesspeople, as well as vulnerable and very poor people who are economic migrants. Finally, immigrants are people who set out and migrate because they intend to live somewhere else, and when we were talking about the Trump administration's policies to reduce the number of refugees coming to the U.S. we also see that immigration to the U.S. also was decreased during that administration as well. So both the refugee program and a lot of the immigration pathways to the U.S. are now being examined and trying to be not just fixed, because a lot of them have needed care for quite some time, but also put back on a growth trajectory. And then asylum seekers are people who get to a country on their own, either they have traveled to a border or they pop up inside a country because they have gotten in legally through some other means such as a visitor visa or business visa, and then they say, I can't go home again. It's too dangerous for me to go home again. Please, may I have asylum? May I be allowed to stay here and be protected in your country? So that's a lot of different terminology. But the more you work on it, the more these terms—you get more familiar using them and understand the differences between them that experts or legal experts use. So ninety-five to ninety-six million people, as we see another eleven million people fleeing Ukraine and of that four million, at least, have crossed the borders into neighboring countries and another seven million are internally displaced, still inside Ukraine but they've gone someplace that they feel is safer than where they were before. When we looked at the eighty million refugees and displaced people, we knew that two-thirds of that number came from just five countries, and one of the important points about that is it shows you what could happen, the good that could be done, if we were able to push through peace negotiations or resolutions of conflict and persecution, if we could just convince good governance and protection of people—minorities, people with different political thought, different religious backgrounds—inside countries. So the number-one country still remains Syria that has lost 6.7 million people to neighboring countries, primarily. Secondly was Venezuela, four million. Third was Afghanistan. The old number from before last August was 2.6 million and some hundreds of thousands have fled since. And the only reason there aren't more fleeing is that they have a really hard time getting out of their country, and we can talk more about that in a moment. The fourth are Rohingya refugees fleeing from Burma, or Myanmar. That's 1.1 million, and the fifth was Southern Sudanese, 2.2 million, who have fled unrest and violence in that country. So we know that we have not enough peace, not enough solutions, and we have too much poverty, too, and dangers. In addition to the Venezuelans, another group that has approached the U.S. from the southern border that were in the paper, especially around election times, is from the Northern Triangle of Central America, so El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. These are people who could be fleeing because of economic situations and could also be fleeing from criminal violence, gangs, warfare, narcotraffickers. And so if they are fleeing for their lives and approaching our southern border, we are supposed to give them a hearing and consider whether they have a case for asylum, and the—unfortunately, that is not well understood, especially not by folks working at our borders. The Customs and Border Protection folks are more and more focused on, since 9/11, ensuring that bad guys don't come across, that terrorists don't come across, that criminals don't come across. And we heard in the Trump administration conversations about Mexicans as rapists, gang warfare being imported into the U.S. from Central America when, in fact, some of it had been originally exported, and this sense that people from the Middle East were terrorists. And so really harsh language about the types of people who were trying to make it to the U.S. and to get in. Some final thoughts so that we can get to the question and answer. The U.S. government has traditionally been the top donor to refugee and humanitarian efforts around the world. The bureau at the State Department I used to run, the Population, Refugees, and Migration Bureau, was a major donor to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees—UNRWA—the International Committee of the Red Cross, and also the International Organization for Migration, which used to be an independent organization and is now part of the UN since 2016. We were also the number-one resettlement location, the formal program for bringing refugees to the United States, and when I was assistant secretary we brought seventy thousand refugees per year to the United States, invited them to come through a program that took eighteen months to twenty-four months, on average, to get them in because they had to be vetted for security reasons. They had to pass medical tests. Their backgrounds had to be investigated to see that they were who they said they were. And that number went higher in the last year of the Obama administration to eighty-five thousand refugees and, in fact, the Obama administration proposed some very strong additional measures to help refugees. But the Trump administration threw that all into reverse with a completely different set of policies. So the numbers then became reduced every year—fifty-three thousand in the first year of the Trump administration, 22,500 the next year, thirty thousand in 2019, 11,814 in 2020, a similar number in 2021, and slow numbers coming today, this despite bringing so many Afghans through an evacuation exercise last summer. Many of the people who were evacuated were American citizens or green card holders. Afghans who had worked for the U.S. but did not have their formal paperwork yet were brought in under what's called humanitarian parole, and the problem with that program is that it's no guarantee for a longer-term stay in the United States. So there's a bill in Congress right now to address that. A lot of the people who worked on that, especially within the U.S. government, are proud that they've scrambled and brought so many people so quickly—120,000 people brought from Afghanistan. At the same time, those of us who are advocates for refugees would say too many people were left behind and the evacuation should continue, and that's a real concern. In terms of resettlement in the U.S., it's a program run—public-private partnership—and we've never seen so many volunteers and people helping as there are right now, and initiatives to help welcome people to the United States, which is fantastic. I would say the program should be one of humanity, efficiency, and generosity, and that generosity part has been tough to achieve because the government piece of it is kind of stingy. It's kind of a tough love welcome to the United States where the refugees are expected to get jobs and the kids to go to school and the families to support themselves. So let me stop there because I've been just talking too long, I know, and take questions. FASKIANOS: It's fantastic, and thank you for really clarifying the definitions and the numbers. Just a quick question. You said the U.S. government is the top donor. What is the percentage of DVP? I mean, it's pretty— RICHARD: Tiny. Yeah. FASKIANOS: —tiny, right? I think there's this lack of understanding that it may seem like a big number but in our overall budget it's minuscule. So if you could just give us a— RICHARD: Yeah. It's grown in the last few years because of all these crises around the world to ten to twelve million—I mean, ten billion dollars to twelve billion (dollars) between the U.S. Agency for International Development and the State Department, which was bigger. It was around seven or eight billion (dollars) when I was the assistant secretary five, six years ago. But the important part of it was it provided the whole backbone to the international humanitarian system. Governments, some of them, saw Americans sometimes as headaches in terms of we, Americans, telling them what to do or we, Americans, having our own ideas of how to do things or we, Americans, demanding always budget cuts and efficiencies. But the fact is the whole humanitarian enterprise around the world is based on American generosity, especially the big operating agencies like World Food Programme, UNHCR, UNICEF, UN Development Program. FASKIANOS: Great. Thank you. So now we're going to go to all you for your questions. Hands are already up and Q&A written questions. So I'll try to get to everybody as much as I can. I'm going to go—the first question from Rey Koslowski, and if you can unmute yourself and give us your institution that would be fantastic. RICHARD: Hi, Rey. Q: All right. Rey Koslowski, University at Albany. Hi, Anne. Good to see you. I'd like to pick up on the use of humanitarian parole. So, as I understand it, it's being utilized for Afghan evacuees, Afghans, who you mentioned, who didn't—weren't able to get on the flights and were left behind, but also for Ukrainians. You know, President Biden announced a hundred thousand Ukrainians. I mean, a very—we're using other channels but we've had, I believe, three thousand at the U.S.-Mexican border and, I believe, they're being paroled for the most part, right. As I understand it, we're—one DHS letter that I saw said that there were forty-one thousand requests for humanitarian parole for Afghan nationals. But I'm wondering about capacity of the USCIS to handle this, to process this, because, you know, normally, I think, maybe two thousand or so, a couple thousand, are processed, maybe a couple of people who do this, and also in conjunction with the challenges for processing all of the asylum applications. So, as I understand it, back in the fall there was some discussion of hiring a thousand asylum officers—additional asylum officers. I was wondering, what are your thoughts about our capacity to process all of the—the U.S. government's capacity to process the humanitarian parole applications and the asylum applications, and if you have any insights on new hires and how many— RICHARD: Well, you know, Rey, at Freedom House now I'm working on a project to help Afghan human rights defenders and— Q: Right. RICHARD: —the idea is that they can restart their work if we can find a way for them to be safe inside Afghanistan, which is very hard with the Taliban in charge right now, or if in exile they can restart their work. And so we're watching to see where Afghans are allowed to go in the world as they seek sanctuary and the answer is they don't get very far. It's very hard to get out of the country. If they get to Pakistan or Iran, they don't feel safe. They have short-term visas to stay there, and the programs that might bring them further along like resettlement of refugees are—take a much longer time to qualify for and then to spring into action, and so they're stuck. You know, they're afraid of being pushed back into Afghanistan. They're afraid of becoming undocumented and running out of money wherever they are, and so they're in great need of help. The humanitarian parole program sort of—for bringing Afghans into the U.S. sort of understood that our eighteen- to twenty-four-month refugee resettlement program was a life-saving program but it wasn't an emergency program. It didn't work on an urgent basis. It didn't scoop people up and move them overnight, and that's, really, what was called for last August was getting people—large numbers of people—out of harm's way. And so when I was assistant secretary, if we knew someone was in imminent danger we might work with another government. I remember that the Scandinavians were seen as people who were more—who were less risk averse and would take people who hadn't had this vast vetting done but would take small numbers and bring them to safety, whereas the U.S. did things in very large numbers but very slowly. And so this lack of emergency program has really been what's held us back in providing the kind of assistance, I think, people were looking for the Afghans. I was surprised we even brought them into the United States. I thought after 9/11 we'd never see that kind of program of bringing people in with so little time spent on checking. But what they did was they moved up them to the front of the line and checked them very quickly while they were on the move. So it was safe to do but it was unusual, and I think part of that was because the military—the U.S. military—was so supportive of it and U.S. veterans were so supportive of it and we had, for the first time in a while, both the right and the left of the political spectrum supporting this. So the problem with humanitarian parole is I remember it being used, for example, for Haitians who had been injured in the Haitian earthquake and they needed specialized health care—let's say, all their bones were crushed in their legs or something. They could be paroled into the U.S., get that health care that they needed, and then sent home again. So we've not used it for large numbers of people coming in at once. So what refugee advocates are seeking right now from Congress is the passage of the Afghan Adjustment Act, which would give people a more permanent legal status. They would be treated as if they were—had come through the refugee resettlement program and they'd get to stay. So you're right that the numbers being granted humanitarian parole at one time is just not the normal way of doing things. You're also right that the—this is a lot of extra work on people who weren't anticipating it, and more can continue with the hundred thousand Ukrainians who the president has said we will take in. And so the thing is when we have these kind of challenges in the United States one way to deal with it is to spend more money and do a better job, and that seems to be an option for certain challenges we face but not for all challenges we face. With these more humanitarian things, we tend to have tried to do it on the cheap and to also use the charity and partner with charities and churches more than if this were sort of a more business-oriented program. So we need all of the above. We need more government funding for the people who are working the borders and are welcoming people in or are reviewing their backgrounds. We need more assistance from the public, from the private sector, from foundations, because the times demand it. And it's very interesting to me to see Welcome US created last year with three former U.S. presidents—President Bush, President Clinton, President Obama—speaking up about it, saying, please support this, and people from across the political aisle supporting it. I wish that had existed in 2015 when we were grappling with these issues at the time of candidate Trump. So the needs are greater. Absolutely. But that doesn't mean we have to just suffer through and struggle through and have long backups like we do right now. We could be trying to put more resources behind it. FASKIANOS: I'm going to take the next written question from Haley Manigold, who's an IR undergrad student at University of North Florida. We know that the war in Ukraine is going to affect grain and food supplies for the MENA countries. Is there any way you would recommend for Europe and other neighboring regions to manage the refugee flows? RICHARD: The first part of that was about the food issue but then you said— FASKIANOS: Correct, and then this is a pivot to manage the refugee flows. So— RICHARD: Well, the Europeans are treating the Ukrainians unlike any other flow of people that we've seen lately. It goes a little bit back and reminiscent to people fleeing the Balkans during the 1990s. But we saw that with a million people in 2015 walking into Europe from Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan—mix of economic migrants and real refugees—that Europe, at first, under Angela Merkel's leadership were welcoming to these folks showing up, and then there was a backlash and the walls came up on that route from the Balkans to Germany and to Sweden. And so in the last few years, Europeans have not been seen as champions in allowing—rescuing people who are trying to get to Europe on their own. You know, especially the Mediterranean has been a pretty dismal place where we see Africans from sub-Saharan Africa working their way up to North Africa and trying to get from Libya across the Mediterranean to Europe. These are mostly economic migrants but not solely economic migrants, and they deserve to have a hearing and, instead, they have been terribly mistreated. They get stopped by the Libyan coast guard, the Europeans push boats back, and they are offloaded back into Libya and they are practically imprisoned and mistreated in North Africa. So that's a terribly inhumane way to treat people who are trying to rescue themselves, their families, and find a better life. And another point to the Europeans has been, couldn't you use these young people taking initiative trying to have a better life and work hard and get on with their lives, and the answer is yes. Europe has this sort of aging demographic and could definitely use an infusion of younger workers and talented people coming in. But, instead, they have really pushed to keep people out. So what's happened with Ukrainians? They're seen as a different category. They're seen as neighbors. There's a part of it that is positive, which is a sense that the countries right next door have to help them. Poland, Moldova, other countries, are taking in the Ukrainians. The borders are open. If they get to Poland they can get free train fare to Germany. Germany will take them in, and that's a beautiful thing. And the upsetting thing is the sense that there is undertones of racism, also anti-Islam, where darker-skinned people were not at all welcome and people who are not Christian were not welcome. And so it's probably a mix of all the above, the good and the bad, and it's potentially an opportunity to teach more people about “refugeehood” and why we care and why it affects all of us and what we should do about it and that we should do more. FASKIANOS: Thank you. All right, I'm going to take the next question from Kazi Sazid, who has also raised their hand, so if you could just ask your question yourself and identify yourself. Q: Hello. So I'm Kazi. I'm a student at CUNY Hunter College and I happen to be writing a research paper on Central American and Iraq war refugee crises and how international law hasn't changed the behavior of a state helping them. So my question is, how does confusion and ignorance of migration and refugee terminology by state leaders and the general populace impact the legally ordained rights of refugees such as having identity documents, having the right to education, refoulement, which is not being sent back to a country where they are danger? One example is like Central Americans are termed as illegal immigrants by the right wing but the reality is they are asylum seekers who are worthy of refugee status because gang violence and corruption has destabilized their country and the judicial systems. I think femicide in El Salvador and Honduras is among the highest and—so yeah. RICHARD: Yeah. Thank you for asking the question, and I have a soft spot in my heart for Hunter College. Only one of my grandparents went to college and it was my mother's mother who went to Hunter College and graduated in the late 1920s, and as we know, it's right down the street from the Harold Pratt House, the home of the Council on Foreign Relations. So I think a lot of what you—I agree with a lot of what you've said about—for me it's describing these people who offer so much potential as threats, just because they are trying to help themselves. And instead of feeling that we should support these folks, there's a sense of—even if we don't allow them in our country we could still do things to ease their way and help them find better solutions, but they're described as these waves of people coming this way, headed this way, scary, scary. And if you follow the debates in the United States, I was very alarmed before and during the Trump administration that journalists did not establish that they had a right to make a claim for asylum at the border. Instead, they talked about it as if it were two political policies duking it out, where some people felt we should take more and some people felt we should take less. Well, the issue that was missed, I felt, in a lot of the coverage of the Southern border was the right to asylum, that they had a right to make a claim, that we had signed onto this as the United States and that there was a very good reason that we had signed onto that and it was to make sure people fleeing for their lives get an opportunity to be saved if they're innocent people and not criminals, but innocent people who are threatened, that we'd give them a place of safety. So I agree with you that the lack of understanding about these basic principles, agreements, conventions is something that is not well understood by our society, and certainly the society was not being informed of that by a lot of the messengers describing the situation over the past few years. FASKIANOS: Thank you. So I'm going to take the next question from Lindsey McCormack who is an undergrad at Baruch—oh, sorry, a graduate student at Baruch College. My apologies. Do you see any possibility of the U.S. adopting a protocol for vetting and accepting climate refugees? Have other countries moved in that direction? And maybe you can give us the definition of a climate refugee and what we will in fact be seeing as we see climate change affecting all of us. RICHARD: I don't have a lot to say on this, so I hate to disappoint you, but I will say a couple things because, one, I was on a task force at Refugees International, which is a very good NGO that writes about and reports on refugee situations around the world and shines a light on them. I was part of a task force that came out with a report for the Biden administration on the need to do more for climate migrants, and so that report is available at the Refugees International site and it was being submitted to the Biden administration because the Biden administration had put out an executive order on refugees that included a piece that said we want to do a better job, we want to come up with new, fresh ideas on climate migrants. So I don't know where that stands right now, but I think the other piece of information that I often give out while doing public speaking, especially to students, about this issue is that I feel not enough work has been done on it, and so if a student is very interested in staying in academia and studying deeper into some of these issues, I think climate migration is a field that is ripe for further work. It's timely, it's urgent, and it hasn't been over-covered in the past. I admire several people, several friends who are working on these issues; one is Professor Beth Ferris at Georgetown University who was, in fact, on the secretary general's High Level Panel on Internal Displacement and she made sure that some of these climate issues are raised in very high-level meetings. She was also part of this task force from Refugees International. Another smart person working on this is Amali Tower, a former International Rescue Committee colleague who started a group called Climate Refugees and she's also trying to bring more attention to this; she's kind of very entrepreneurial in trying to do more on that. Not everybody would agree that the term should be climate refugees since “refugees” has so much legal definitions attached to it and the people displaced by climate don't have those kind of protections or understandings built around them yet. But I think it's an area that there definitely needs to be more work done. So I think the basic question was, did I think something good was going to happen anytime soon related to this, and I can't tell because these crazy situations around the world, the war in Ukraine and Taliban in charge in Afghanistan—I mean, that just completely derails the types of exercises that the world needs of thinking through very logically good governance, people coming together making decisions, building something constructive instead of reacting to bad things. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to take the next question from raised hand Ali Tarokh. And unmute your—thank you. Q: Yes. OK, I am Ali Tarokh from Northeastern University. I came here in the United States ten years ago as a refugee. And I was in Turkey—I flew Iran to Turkey. I stayed there fourteen, sixteen months. So this is part of—my question is part of my lived experience in Turkey. So one part is humanitarian services, helping refugees move into the third country, OK? The one issue I—it's my personal experience is the UNHCR system, there is many corruptions. This corruption makes lines, OK, produce refugees—because some countries such as Iran and Turkey, they are producing refugees and there is no solution for it, or sometimes they use it as—they use refugees as a weapon. They say, OK, if you don't work with me—Turkey sent a message to EU: If you don't work with me, I open the borders. I open the borders and send the flow of refugees to EU. Even some—even Iran's government. So my question is, how can we in the very base on the ground—the level of the ground—how can we prevent all these corruption or how can we work out with this kind of government, countries that are—I named them the refugee producers. And by the time there is two sides of the refugees—one is just humanitarian services, which is our responsibility, United States playing globally there; and other side it seems refugees issue became like industry. In Turkey, the UNHCR staff, some lawyers/attorneys, they take money from people, they make fake cases for them. Even they ask them: Hey, what country—which country would you like to go, United States, Canada, Scandinavian countries? So what is our strategy? What is our solution to help real refugees or prevent produce refugees? RICHARD: Well, there's several things that are raised by your question. Turkey and, now we see, Russia have both been countries where we have seen instances where they can turn on the flow of refugees and turn it off. And Turkey was watching people walk through Turkey, cross the Mediterranean is very scary, dangerous trip between Turkey and Greece in these rubber boats in 2015, 2016, and then they would make their way onward, and then, because of this big EU-Turkey deal that involved 3 billion euros at the time, all of a sudden, the flow stopped. And then in further negotiations going on and on, Turkey would say things that seemed like it came right from a Godfather movie, like, gee, I'd hate to see that flow start up again; that would be a real shame. And so it was clear it was sort of a threat that if you didn't cooperate it could play this very disruptive role on the edges of Europe and deploying people, as you said, which is so cruel not just to the people who are receiving them but to the individuals themselves that they're not being seen as people who need care but instead as a problem to be deployed in different directions. And we saw that also with Belarus and Poland and now also it may have been part of the thinking of Vladimir Putin that by attacking Ukraine, by going to war with Ukraine that there would be exactly what is happening now, people scattering from Ukraine into Europe and that that would be a way to drive a wedge between European countries and cause a lot of not just heartache but also animosity between these countries. So what the Russians didn't seem to appreciate this time was that there would be so much solidarity to help the Ukrainians, and that has been a bit of a surprise. So you've also talked about corruption, though, and corruption is a problem all over the world for lots of different reasons, in business and it's embedded in some societies in a way that sometimes people make cultural excuses for, but in reality we know it doesn't have to be that way. But it is very hard to uproot and get rid of. So I find this work, the anti-corruption work going on around the world, really interesting and groups like Transparency International are just sort of fascinating as they try to really change the standards and the expectations from—the degree to which corruption is part of societies around the world. So UNHCR has to take great care to not hire people who are going to shake down and victimize refugees, and it's not—there's never a perfect situation, but I know that a lot of work is done to keep an eye on these kinds of programs so that the aid goes to the people who need it and it's not sidetracked to go to bad guys. And the way I've seen it is, for example, if I travel overseas and I go to someplace where refugees are being resettled to the U.S. or they're being interviewed for that, or I go to UNHCR office, there will be big signs up that will say the resettlement program does not cost money. If someone asks you for money, don't pay it; you know, report this. And from time to time, there are mini scandals, but overall, it's remarkable how much corruption is kept out of some of these programs. But it's a never-ending fight. I agree with you in your analysis that this is a problem and in some countries more than others. FASKIANOS: So I'm going to take the next question from Pamela Waldron-Moore, who's the chair of the political science department at Xavier University in New Orleans. There are reports in some news feeds that African refugees from Ukraine are being disallowed entry to some states accepting refugees. I think you did allude to this. Is there evidence of this, and if so, can the UN stop it or alleviate that situation? RICHARD: We saw before the Taliban took over in Afghanistan that some European countries were saying it was time for Afghans to go home again, and the idea that during this war it was safe for Afghans to go back—and especially for Afghans who are discriminated against even in the best of times in Afghanistan, like the Hazara minority. It's just—I found that sort of unbelievable that some countries thought this was the right time to send people back to Afghanistan. And so at the moment there's a weird situation in Afghanistan because it's safer in some ways for the bulk of the people because the active fighting has—in large parts of the country—stopped. But it's deadly dangerous for human rights defenders, women leaders, LBGTQ folks—anyone who tries to stand up to the Taliban—you know, scholars, thinkers, journalists. And so those are the folks that, in smaller numbers, we need to find some kind of way to rescue them and get them to safety while they are still inside Afghanistan or if that's outside Afghanistan and in the region. The borders—the border situations change from time to time. For a while they were saying only people with passports could come out, and for most Afghan families, nobody had a passport or, if they did, it was a head of household had a passport for business or trade. But you wouldn't have had passports for the spouse and the children. And so this has been a real dilemma. We also see a whole series of barriers to people getting out; so first you need a passport, then you need a visa to where you're going, and then you might need a transit visa for a country that you are crossing. And what has come to pass is that people who are trying to help evacuate people from Afghanistan—a smaller and smaller number as the months go on; people are trying to make this happen because it's so hard—that they will only take people out of the country if they feel that their onward travel is already figured out and that they have their visas for their final-destination country. So the actual number that's getting out are tiny. And the people who have gotten out who are in either Pakistan or Iraq are very worried. And they're afraid to be pushed back. They're afraid they will run out of money. They are afraid—I think said this during my talk before—they're afraid that there are people in Pakistan who will turn them in to the Taliban. And so it's always hard to be a refugee, but right now it's really frightening for people who are just trying to get to a safe place. FASKIANOS: And in terms of the discrimination that you referenced for refugees leaving the Ukraine, I mean, there have been some reports of EU—discrimination in European countries not accepting— RICHARD: Well, like African students who are studying in Ukraine— FASKIANOS: Yes. RICHARD: —who were not treated as if they were fleeing a country at war— FASKIANOS: Correct. RICHARD: —but instead were put in a different category and said, you know, go back, go home. FASKIANOS: Yes. RICHARD: Yeah, that's—that is quite blatant— FASKIANOS: And there's— RICHARD: And that was happening at the borders. FASKIANOS: Is there anything the UN can do about that, or is that really at the discretion of the countries—the accepting countries? RICHARD: Well, the—yeah, the UNHCR has these reception centers that they've set up, including between the border of Poland and Ukraine, and I think the other neighboring countries. And so if one can get to the reception center, one could potentially get additional help or be screened into—for special attention for needing some help that maybe a white Christian Ukrainian who spoke more than one language of the region would not need. FASKIANOS: Great. So let's go to Susan Knott, who also wrote her question, but has raised her hand. So Susan, why don't you just ask your question? And please unmute and identify yourself. KNOTT: OK, am I unmuted? FASKIANOS: Yes. KNOTT: OK. I am Susan Knott, University of Utah, Educational Policy and Leadership doctoral program. I am also a practicum intern at ASU, and I'm also a refugee services collaborator. And I'm engaged in a research project creating college and university pathways for refugees to resettle. I'm just wondering what your feel is about the current administration efforts in seeking to establish the pathway model similar to ASU's Education for Humanity Initiative with Bard, and is there helping lead the Refugee Higher Education Access program that serves learners who require additional university-level preparation in order to transition into certificate and degree programs. And I just—I'm not just—and all of this buzz that's going on since all of terrible crises are occurring, I'm not seeing a whole lot that—based on my own experience working with refugee education and training centers at colleges—on the college level, and learning about the Presidents' Alliance on Higher Ed and Immigration. I'm just wondering—and they're saying let's have this be more of a privately funded or partnerships with the university scholarships and private entities. What about a federally-funded university sponsorship program for refugee students given that the numbers or the data is showing that that age group is the largest number of just about every refugee population? RICHARD: That's a really fascinating set of issues. I'm not the expert on them, so I'm going to disappoint you. but I appreciate that you took a little extra time in how you stated your intervention to add a lot of information for this group, which should very much care about this. I get a lot of questions every week about university programs that Afghan students could take advantage of. I don't have a good handle on it, and I'm trying to do that with—I'm overdue for a conversation with Scholars at Risk in New York. Robert Quinn is the executive director of that, I believe. And so I'm glad you raised this and I'm not going to have a lot of extra to say about it. FASKIANOS: Anne, are there—is there—there's a question in the chat in the Q&A about sources for data on U.S. initiatives toward refugees. Where would you direct people to go to get updates on the latest programs, et cetera? RICHARD: Sometimes I'm embarrassed to say the best summaries are done by not-for-profits outside the government than by the government. The best source for data on resettlement of refugees to the U.S. is a website that is funded by the U.S. government called WRAPSNET.org—WRAPS spelled W-R-A-P-S-N-E-T dot-O-R-G. And in double-checking some of the things last summer, I felt that DHS had better descriptions of some of the programs than the State Department did, and that's my bureau that I used to—run, so—but they are responsible for determining who is in and who is out of these different programs, so maybe that's why they do. So there's a lot on the DHS website that's interesting if you are looking for more information. And one of the things the Council does, it has done a number of these special web presentations: one on refugees that I got to help on a couple of years ago, and I think there's one up now on Ukrainians. And this is the type of public education function that the Council does so well I think because they fact-check everything, and so it's very reliable. FASKIANOS: Thank you for that plug. You can find it all on CFR.org—lots of backgrounders, and timelines, and things like that. So we don't have that much time left, so I'm going to roll up two questions—one in the Q&A box and one because of your vast experience. So what role do NGOs play in refugee crises and migration initiatives, particularly in resettlement? And just from your perspective, Anne, you have been in academia, you've worked in the government, you worked at IRC, and now are at Freedom House. And so just—again, what would you share with the group about pursuing a career in this—government, non-government perspectives and, what students should be thinking about as they launch to their next phase in life. RICHARD: Yeah, that we could have a whole ‘nother hour on, right? That's—(laughs)— FASKIANOS: I know, I know. It's unfair to, right, do this at the very end, but— RICHARD: NGOs play really important roles in both the delivery of humanitarian assistance overseas and the help for resettlement in the United States. In the U.S. there are nine national networks of different groups; six are faith-based, three are not. They are non-sectarian, and they do amazing work on shoe-string budgets to—everything from meeting refugees at the airport, taking them to an apartment, showing them how the lights work and the toilet flushes, and coming back the next day, making sure they have an appropriate meal to have, and that the kids get in school, that people who need health care get it, and that adults who are able-bodied get jobs so they can support themselves. The other type of NGO are the human rights NGOs that now I'm doing more with, and I guess if you are thinking about careers in these, you have to ask yourself, you know, are you more of a pragmatic person where the most important thing is to save a life, or are you an idealist where you want to put out standards that are very high and push people to live up to them. Both types of organizations definitely help, but they just have very different ways of working. Another question for students is do you want high job security of a career in the U.S. government—say, as a Foreign Service Officer or as a civil servant where maybe you won't move up very quickly, but you might have great sense of satisfaction that the things you were working on were making a difference because they were being decisively carried out by the U.S. or another government. Or do you prefer the relatively lean, flatter organizations of the NGO world where, as a young person, you can still have a lot of authority, and your views can be seen—can be heard by top layers because you're not that far away from them. And so, NGOs are seen as more nimble, more fast moving, less job security. Having done both I think it really depends on your personality. Working in the government, you have to figure out a way to keep going even when people tell you no. You have figure out—or that it's hard, or that it's too complicated. You have to figure out ways to find the people who are creative, and can make thing happen, and can open doors, and can cut through red tape. In NGOs you can have a lot of influence. I was so surprised first time I was out of the State Department working for the International Rescue Committee one of my colleagues was telling me she just picks up the phone and calls the key guy on Capitol Hill and tells him what the law should be. That would never happen with a junior person in the U.S. government. You have to go through so many layers of bureaucracy, and approvals, and clearances. So, really, it depends on the type of person you are, and how you like to work, and the atmosphere in which you like to work. I can tell you you won't get rich doing this type of work, unfortunately. But you might be able to make a decent living. I certainly have, and so I encourage students to either do this as a career or find ways to volunteer part-time, even if it's tutoring a refugee kid down the block and not in some glamorous overseas location. I think you can get real sense of purpose out of doing this type of work. Thank you, Irina. FASKIANOS: Thank you very much. And I have to say that your careful definitions of the different categories—and really, I think we all need to be more intentional about how we explain, talk about these issues because they are so complex, and there are so many dimensions, and it's easy to make gross generalizations. But the way you laid this out was really, really important for deepening the understanding of this really—the challenge and the—what we're seeing today. So thank you very much. RICHARD: Thank you. Thanks, everybody. FASKIANOS: So thanks to all—yeah, thanks to everybody for your great questions. Again, I apologize; we're three minutes over. I couldn't get to all your questions, so we will just have to continue looking at this issue. We will be announcing the fall Academic Webinar lineup in a month or so in our Academic Bulletin, so you can look for it there. Good luck with your end of the year, closing out your semester. And again, I encourage you to go to CFR.org, ForeignAffairs.com, and ThinkGlobalHealth.org for research analysis on global issues. And you can follow us on Twitter at @CFR_Academic. So again, thank you, Anne Richard. Good luck to you all with finals, and have a good summer. (END)
View Podcast Archive Arrests at the Southwest border in the first four months of FY 2022 have already exceeded the yearly totals of the past 10 fiscal years. The statistics show another disturbing trend; the percentage of encountered migrants coming from beyond Mexico and the “Northern Triangle” of Central America has grown, reaching 41 percent of total apprehensions. Concerned about this border... Source
View Podcast Archive Summary Arrests at the Southwest border in the first four months of FY 2022 have already exceeded the yearly totals of the past 10 fiscal years. The statistics show another disturbing trend; the percentage of encountered migrants coming from beyond Mexico and the “Northern Triangle” of Central America has grown, reaching 41 […]
Photo: Office of the Secretary (Carlos Gutierrez) - Secretary, Central America Free Trade Agreement Trade Mission to Guatemala #NewWorldReport: The Northern Triangle and the Biden Administration. Senadora Maria Fernanda Cabal. @MariaFdaCabal (on leave). Joseph Humire @JMHumire @SecureFreeSoc. Frances Martel @Breitbart https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/immigration/article256739902.html
Debra LaPrevotte, former senior FBI official joins America's Roundtable co-hosts Natasha Srdoc and Joel Anand Samy discussing key issues affecting Americans including the national security crisis at the U.S. southern border, the serious consequences of defunding the police, and the significance of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Debra retired after 20 years with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). She served as a Supervisory Special Agent on the International Corruption Unit at FBI Headquarters in Washington D.C. Debra was instrumental in initiating the FBI's Kleptocracy program and seized more than $1 billion dollars from foreign corrupt officials. Debra has spent the past 14 years working international corruption investigations. She is also a Forensic Scientist and spent several years on the FBI's Evidence Response Team Unit at the FBI Lab. Prior to her FBI career, Debra worked for the Department of Defense for five years. Debra has an undergraduate degree from George Mason University and a masters degree in Forensic Science from George Washington University. https://ileaderssummit.org/services/americas-roundtable-radio/ https://ileaderssummit.org/ | https://jerusalemleaderssummit.com/ America's Roundtable on Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/americas-roundtable/id1518878472 Twitter: @ileaderssummit @NatashaSrdoc @JoelAnandUSA America's Roundtable is co-hosted by Natasha Srdoc and Joel Anand Samy, co-founders of International Leaders Summit and the Jerusalem Leaders Summit. America's Roundtable from Washington D.C. informs, educates, empowers and challenges the listening audience about the importance to restore, strengthen, and protect our freedoms, the rule of law, and free markets. America's Roundtable advances the ideas of freedom, the significance of freedom of speech, limited government, and the application of free market principles to solve problems. America's Roundtable presents in-depth analysis of current events and public policy issues while applying America's founding principles. America's Roundtable radio program - a strategic initiative of International Leaders Summit, focuses on America's economy, healthcare reform, rule of law, security and trade, and its strategic partnership with rule of law nations around the world. The radio program features high-ranking US administration officials, cabinet members, members of Congress, state government officials, distinguished diplomats, business and media leaders and influential thinkers from around the world. America's Roundtable is aired by Lanser Broadcasting Corporation on 96.5 FM and 98.9 FM, covering Michigan's major market and the upper Midwest, SuperTalk Mississippi Media's 12 radio stations and 50 affiliates reaching every county in Mississippi and also heard in parts of the neighboring states, including Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana and Tennessee, and through podcast on Apple Podcasts and other key online platforms.
FAIR's Mark Morgan joins WWL-AM's (New Orleans, LA) Newell Normand to discuss border town states of emergency, corrupt foreign leaders in the Northern Triangle countries, and new border encounter data.
Private Companies Pledge $1.2 Billion in Investments to Central American Northern Triangle Vice President Kamala Harris announced a total of $1.2 billion worth of infrastructure and economic development investments in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras from high-earning corporations like Microsoft, Mastercard and PepsiCo. Oscar Chacón, Executive Director of Alianza Americas says while this public, private partnership is a step in the right direction, more is needed like leveraging the far greater $22 billion in remittances from Central Americans working in the United States. Food Insecurity in the Military We speak with Shannon Razsadin, President and Executive Director of the Military Family Advisory Network about food insecurity in the military. Happy the Elephant Could Change the Face of Animal Rights Happy finds herself at the center of a legal case that could shift our notion of legal personhood as we know it. An organization called the Nonhuman Rights Project filed a writ of habeas corpus, or claim of unlawful detention, on behalf of Happy, all in an effort to get her rehomed to a sanctuary. Right now, you can only use a habeas corpus petition on behalf of a person. Happy's case will go before New York State's highest court, the Court of Appeals, sometime in 2022. For more on this, The Takeaway spoke to Jill Lepore, the David Woods Kemper Professor of American History at Harvard University and a staff writer at The New Yorker. She recently wrote about Happy the elephant for The Atlantic. For transcripts, see individual segments page.
Private Companies Pledge $1.2 Billion in Investments to Central American Northern Triangle Vice President Kamala Harris announced a total of $1.2 billion worth of infrastructure and economic development investments in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras from high-earning corporations like Microsoft, Mastercard and PepsiCo. Oscar Chacón, Executive Director of Alianza Americas says while this public, private partnership is a step in the right direction, more is needed like leveraging the far greater $22 billion in remittances from Central Americans working in the United States. Food Insecurity in the Military We speak with Shannon Razsadin, President and Executive Director of the Military Family Advisory Network about food insecurity in the military. Happy the Elephant Could Change the Face of Animal Rights Happy finds herself at the center of a legal case that could shift our notion of legal personhood as we know it. An organization called the Nonhuman Rights Project filed a writ of habeas corpus, or claim of unlawful detention, on behalf of Happy, all in an effort to get her rehomed to a sanctuary. Right now, you can only use a habeas corpus petition on behalf of a person. Happy's case will go before New York State's highest court, the Court of Appeals, sometime in 2022. For more on this, The Takeaway spoke to Jill Lepore, the David Woods Kemper Professor of American History at Harvard University and a staff writer at The New Yorker. She recently wrote about Happy the elephant for The Atlantic. For transcripts, see individual segments page.
As one of the remaining democracies in Latin America, Guatemala is in a critical position to advance mutual values and interests in the region. From its recognition of Taiwan to its cooperation on trade, migration, and security, Guatemala is a critical U.S. partner in Latin America and the crucial Northern Triangle region. However, the Biden […]
As one of the remaining democracies in Latin America, Guatemala is in a critical position to advance mutual values and interests in the region. From its recognition of Taiwan to its cooperation on trade, migration, and security, Guatemala is a critical U.S. partner in Latin America and the crucial Northern Triangle region. However, the Biden Administration is imposing a partisan and highly politicized agenda on Guatemala, demonstrated with its failed “root causes” strategy and its most recent decision to exclude Guatemala from the Summit for Democracy.President Alejandro Giammattei is entering his third year in office. The Heritage Foundation has invited President Giammattei as he highlights the importance of U.S.-Guatemala relations and our engagement with democratic partners in the region. From the border crisis to the rising threat of China and the prolonged need for strengthening trade relations, the need to highlight this importance could not be more timely. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
The Northern Triangle countries of Latin America are some of the most violent in the world. El Salvador and Honduras have ranked among the highest murder rates for years. It's not only the gang violence we hear most about, but also domestic abuse and gender-based violence. And the trauma it leaves behind has a devastating effect on entire communities, from the hospital staff who treat victims to police officers patrolling the streets—and especially on children and their ability to learn. Celina de Sola spent a career in humanitarian aid work before returning to her hometown of San Salvador in 2007 to look for a way to protect children from violence. With her husband, Ken Baker, and brother Diego, she started with a single volunteer-led after-school club for kids in one of the city's most dangerous neighborhoods. Today, Glasswing International equips schools, hospitals, and police forces with the knowledge and training to overcome the debilitating effects of violence-induced trauma. To date, Glasswing has reached more than 2 million children and adults in nine countries across Latin America—as well as in New York City. And it's partnering with national governments to further scale up a “trauma-informed ecosystem” that not only improves students' academic performance and resilience, but also creates a restorative antidote to help break the cycle of violence. This episode tells Glasswing's story, including: the terrifying day-to-day life in gang-controlled neighborhoods how Celina's childhood and humanitarian work led to Glasswing how school clubs provide a safe, caring environment to help children heal… …and the positive results on their academic performance and behavior the neuroscience of trauma—and how its impacts can be reversed healing the mental health wounds of hospital staff and police forces how Glasswing is helping public institutions reshape the services they provide For the full transcript go to: https://ssir.org/podcasts/entry/healing_from_trauma
“I believe that corruption affects the whole country in every way. And when state money is not used in sustained public policy to combat poverty, inequality, malnutrition, or for entrepreneurship, the citizens of a country do not find options, and leave their country for lack of opportunities.” Congressman Nineth Montenegro, former Second Vice President of the Congress of Guatemala & Human Rights Leader. Key Links https://www.usaid.gov/generating-hope-usaid-el-salvador-guatemala-and-honduras (USAID Programming in the Northern Triangle) https://www.usaid.gov/news-information/fact-sheets/apr-2021-usaid-increases-efforts-address-irregular-migration-el-salvador (USAID Increases Efforts to Address Irregular Migration) https://cnnespanol.cnn.com/video/migrantes-frontera-deportacion-centroamerica-crisis-migratoria-guatemala-rey-rodriguez-pkg-perspectivas-mexico/ (CNN en Español: llegan a Guatemala hambrientos y sin zapatos, aseguran autoridades) https://elperiodico.com.gt/opinion/opiniones-de-hoy/2021/10/21/la-dictadura-saca-las-garras/ (El Periodico: la dictadura saca la garras) Ojo Con Mi Pisto: Educación alimentaria: clave para optimizar el empleo de remesas Ojo Con Mi Pisto: Caquipec transforma las remesas en desarrollo para la comunidad ---- Irregular migration is a global crisis responsible for critical health, economic, security, and citizenship issues everywhere. So, have you ever wondered about the so-called “pull-factors” that cause people to leave their homes and flee the Northern Triangle? In this episode of Democracy! The Podcast, we dive head first into the issue of immigration in Guatemala as we talk to a few people who have witnessed the problem first-hand. We'll visit with a couple of the consortium's partners who traveled to the tiny border town of El Ceibo between Mexico and Guatemala, and hear more about their work strengthening Guatemala's government to alleviate the problem on its own. Plus, her husband was one of the 40,000 people tragically “disappeared” from the streets of Guatemala City in the 1980s. Guatemalan Congressman Nineth Montenegro, former Second Vice President of the Congress of Guatemala, and a well-known human rights leader, gives a candid account of what she suffered during the country's conflict, and how it dramatically transformed her life into one of public service. She shares her greatest wish for her country and even explains why some Guatemalans have come to love the infamous “coyotes”, when she sits down with Adrienne. Democracy! The Podcast is brought to you by the Consortium for Elections and Political Process Strengthening (CEPPS) with support from the United States Agency for International Development through the Global Elections and Political Transitions Award. ---- Follow https://twitter.com/cepps (CEPPS on Twitter). http://cepps.org/podcast (Democracy! The Podcast) is hosted by CEPPS and Adrienne Ross. This podcast has been produced by the http://cepps.org (Consortium for Elections, and Political Process Strengthening) through the Global Elections and Political Transitions award and is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the https://www.usaid.gov/ (United States Agency for International Development.) Opinions expressed here are those of the host and the guests and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the US Government. This show is produced by https://twitter.com/evoterra (Evo Terra) and https://simpler.media (Simpler Media). This podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Chartable - https://chartable.com/privacy
“...stability in the Central American region is at stake. We already have Nicaragua that the rest of Central America is concerned about, but we [also] have in the northern part of Central America, three governments in different areas, undermining the rule of law, transparency, and any freedom of speech, or movement by civil society and journalists.” Deborah Ullmer, NDI, Regional Director for Latin America & the Caribbean Programs. Key Links Vota Bus: https://www.democracyspeaks.org/blog/guess-who%E2%80%99s-back-back-again (Guess Who's Back? Back Again) Vota Bus: https://www.democracyspeaks.org/blog/beep-beep-make-way-democracy (Beep! Beep! Make Way for Democracy!) ---- In this episode of Democracy! The Podcast, join us as we head to Central America to navigate the nations of the Northern Triangle: Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. Find out what's really driving immigration, economic woes, and an alarming number of headlines about unstable democracy. Plus, hear first-hand from the consortium's teams as they prepare to stand by Hondurans in the upcoming general elections. Then, in a very short period of time, El Salvador's democracy has gone from a beacon of hope to red alert. We'll learn what the crisis could indicate for the future of the country and dreams of enduring stability in the region, when Adrienne sits down with Ambassador Roger Noriega to break it all down. And then, beep beep, make way for the Vota Bus! Democracy gets a lift when citizens gain a better understanding of their own rights and responsibilities. Democracy! The Podcast is brought to you by the Consortium for Elections and Political Process Strengthening (CEPPS) with support from the United States Agency for International Development through the Global Elections and Political Transitions Award. ---- Follow https://twitter.com/cepps (CEPPS on Twitter). http://cepps.org/podcast (Democracy! The Podcast) is hosted by CEPPS and Adrienne Ross. This podcast has been produced by the http://cepps.org (Consortium for Elections, and Political Process Strengthening) through the Global Elections and Political Transitions award and is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the https://www.usaid.gov/ (United States Agency for International Development.) Opinions expressed here are those of the host and the guests and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the US Government. This show is produced by https://twitter.com/evoterra (Evo Terra) and https://simpler.media (Simpler Media). This podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Chartable - https://chartable.com/privacy
The threats from hurricanes, the losses to floods, and the lack of disaster preparedness all impact on people's decisions in the Northern Triangle to migrate to the United States. Margarita R. Seminario sits down with Dr. Betilde Muñoz-Pogossian, Director of the Department of Social Inclusion at the Organization of American States to discuss her recent publication “Environmental Explanations of Central American Migration: Challenges and Policy Recommendations". This report underscores how exposed Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras are to climate events and how, compounded with lack of economic opportunities and security vulnerabilities, climate change impacts their decision to migrate to the United States. Furthermore, it provides specific policy recommendations on a whole-of-government and whole-of-nation approach to respond to climate-related drivers of migration.
Today on the podcast we will discuss the ongoing political, economic, and humanitarian crises stemming from the Northern Triangle. That term refers to Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala. Why are tens of thousands of migrants fleeing those countries? How did the Obama and Trump Administration respond to this migration? And, what is the Biden Administration … Continue reading The Crisis of the Northern Triangle
FAIR's Dave Ray joins WFMN-AM's (Jackson, MS) Paul Gallo to recap what the Biden administration has done to dismantle the nation's southern border security in just six months. The administration has halted most border wall construction, terminated asylum agreements with the Northern Triangle countries, and has ended the 'Remain in Mexico' policy.
Accion has a commitment to support families and small businesses in the Northern Triangle countries – Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador – and help address the root causes of migration. Over the next three years, Accion, a global leader in microfinance and fintech impact investing, will provide advice, guidance and consulting services to the financial institutions that are helping micro and small business owners in the region – ultimately benefitting more than 400,000 people. In making this commitment, Accion is a founding partner in Vice President Kamala Harris' recent call to action to support economic development in the region. In this episode, Chris Hood is joined by Sam Maule, Google Cloud and special guest Michael Schlein, President and CEO of Accion, to discuss how they are joining forces with the White House to support digital and financial inclusion in Central America.
The podcast is late this week, because Julie & Brandy honored America's fallen soldiers on Memorial Day by doing what they do best: getting drunk. Emotions are high, and the hangover is real, so after a quick recap of the work Kamala Harris is doing in the Northern Triangle to help stem the flow of immigration at the Southern Border, the girls take an extra-long lunch with some extra-large shots of Hot Psaki. And while the hair of the dog might have made their hangovers better, the only way to make this episode better is to get completely drunk before listening to it. Bottoms up! *************************************************************************************************************************** *** Subscribe to our Patreon Podcast! https://www.patreon.com/dumbgaypolitics **** *** Check out our website! https://www.julieandbrandy.com ***** DEALS FROM OUR SPONSORS! *** NATIVE DEODORANT: Get 20% off your first order at NativeDeo.com/DGP (or use code DGP at checkout) *** *** HELLO TUSHY BIDET: Get 10% off your first order. Go to HelloTushy.com/DumbGay *** *** UNCOMMON GOODS: Get 15% off your next gift. Go to uncommongoods.com/dumbgay *** *** MAGIC SPOON CEREAL: Get free shipping when you order the Variety Pack! Go to www.magicspoon.com/dumbgay (put the Variety Pack in your cart) and enter promo code dumbgay at checkout *** ***** Dumb Gay Politics with Julie & Brandy **** Julie Goldman **** Brandy Howard **** Julie and Brandy *** The People's Couch *** DGP *** Gay Podcast *** Political Podcast *** Lesbian *** Bravo *** Starburns Audio **** Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
El Salvador has some of the most draconian abortion laws in the world, so much so that miscarriages and stillbirths land women in jail. Macon and Walter ask El Salvador human rights activists how they have been fighting to change El Salvador's Handmaid's Tales abortion laws. Who are the 17 women they are trying to free from prison? Why is now the moment for the international community to put its #EyesOnElSalvador? And what can policymakers, celebrities, and everyday Americans do to help? Guests in this episode include: Sara García Gross, Agrupación Ciudadana por la Despenalización del AbortoMorena Herrera, Agrupación Ciudadana por la Despenalización del AbortoPaula Avila-Guillen, Women's Equality CenterDaniela Martins, Women's Equality CenterTo raise awareness about this issue, and to help free 17 women who remain in prison, please share the hashtags #EyesOnElSalvador, #FreeSara, and #LibertadParaSara. For additional reading about this issue and the women's movement, please check out these links: Las17.org (Spanish language website)A woman lost her pregnancy but was jailed for abortion. She later died. (NBC News)The abortion cases that could force El Salvador to loosen its ban (Al Jazeera)The Women Imprisoned For Miscarriage in the Strictest Anti-Abortion Country On Earth (Jezebel)El Salvador abortion laws on trial in case of woman jailed after miscarriage (Gaurdian)Thank you to Quentin Perrot for his help producing this episode.
Asylum lawyer, Alina Kilpatrick, reveals the harrowing and deadly journey her clients face through the Northern Triangle—only to be met with cruelty at the US border. Sacred Heart Center: https://shcrichmond.org/en/Platform Enterprise Newsletter: stories.platformenterprise.com Get full access to Planet: Critical at www.planetcritical.com/subscribe
In the Northern Triangle countries of Central America - Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, extortion is so pervasive that it has been called “A way of life”. The growth in extortion in the region was defined by the expansion of street gangs MS13 and Barrio 18. They have a stranglehold on the countries in which they operate, extorting rich and poor and even international corporations. The revenue from extortion has provided gangs in the region with a solid economic operating base, and at the same time allowed them to diversify into other criminal enterprises – they are now transnational organized criminal groups. Presenter: Jack Meegan-Vickers Speakers: 1. https://twitter.com/gmovma (Guillermo Vazquez del Mercado Almada), https://globalinitiative.net/experts/guillermo-vazquez-del-mercado-almada/ (Senior Analyst, Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime) 2. https://www.dialogos.org.gt/node/202 (Evelyn Espinosa), Research Adviser at https://www.dialogos.org.gt/ (Diálogos) 3. https://globalinitiative.net/experts/pamela-ruiz/ (Pamela Ruiz, Consultant at the Coalition for Resilience Project and member of the GI Network of Experts.) 4. https://twitter.com/luciadammert?lang=en (Professor Lucia Dammert), University of Santiago, Chile and https://globalinitiative.net/experts/lucia-dammert/ (member of the GI Network of Experts.) https://globalinitiative.net/extortion/ (GI Extortion Project) Paper: https://globalinitiative.net/extortion-in-central-america/ (A Criminal Culture: Extortion in Central America) Other content available at the Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime https://globalinitiative.net/ (website).
Welcome to Episode 4 of No Wall They Can Build, the Ex-Worker Podcast's serialized audiobook exploring borders and migration across North America. This week's installment continues the previous episode's exploration of the conditions south of the border that drive migration north by surveying the situation in the three countries of the “Northern Triangle.” Guatemala's malnourished, heavily indigenous population languishes in poverty under oligarchic rule, the legacy of centuries of colonialism and a devastating civil war. Our narrator analyzes the numerous problems plaguing the country and examines the unfinished struggle for freedom and dignity that prompted the war, including its impact on global revolutionary imagination through its influence on the Zapatistas. The horrifying levels of violence in El Salvador trace their roots both to economic pressures and to US support for the former reactionary military regime during a bloody civil war. The section concludes with a hair-raising anecdote about the guerrilla movement's creative revenge against a genocidal army officer. A brief note on the profound dysfunction of Honduras, stemming from the structure of North American economy, is followed by a discussion of the tensions between these four Central American nations and their inhabitants. This episode rounds out our picture of the recent history of the region and the dynamics that push people from their homelands on the perilous trip towards the US/Mexico border. {April 24, 2019} -------SHOW NOTES------ Table of Contents: Introduction {0:01} Guatemala {0:35} Story #1: The Influence of the Guerrilla Movement {16:30} El Salvador {17:40} Story #2: Revenge at El Mozote {25:05} Honduras {28:07} Story #3: A Souvenir {30:52} Tensions {31:22} Conclusion {34:51} Note: For this audiobook, we will not provide full transcripts of the text of each episode as we do for The Ex-Worker or The Hotwire. If you want to read along, you can find the book in PDF. You can check out our poster diagramming the North American border regime and immigrant solidarity stickers. Stay tuned next week for Episode 5: The Trip and The Product.
Asylum applications have increased fivefold in Costa Rica over the last three years, due to an influx of people fleeing the Northern Triangle. The country has the most efficient legal system in the region. A text by Maye Primera.
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
