Get PDF Vox confidential une enquête inédite sur les mystères de la voix humaine (French Edition)

Contents:

Are You an Author?

Le chiffre ne laisse aucune place au doute: Et Donald Trump de poursuivre avec la phrase qui occupe nombre de journalistes depuis sa publication: A vast horde of migrants was making its way through Mexico toward the United States, and no one was stopping them. The Gateway Pundit, a website that was most recently in the news for spreading conspiracies about the school shooting in Parkland, Fla. And as the president often does when immigration is at issue, he saw a reason for Americans to be afraid. The coverage tends to play on the fears that hiding among mass groups of immigrants are many criminals, vectors of disease and agents of terror.

And often the president, who announced his candidacy by blaming Mexico for sending rapists and drug dealers into the United States, acts as an accelerant to the hysteria. The sensationalization of this story and others like it seems to serve a common purpose for Mr. Trump and other immigration hard-liners: The narrative on the right this week, for example, mostly omitted that many people in the caravan planned to resettle in Mexico, not the United States.

And it ignored how many of those who did intend to come here would probably go through the legal process of requesting asylum at a border checkpoint — something miles of new wall and battalions of additional border patrol would not have stopped. The coverage became so distorted that it prompted a reporter for Breitbart News who covers border migration, Brandon Darby, to push back. In an interview, Mr. Darby said it was regrettable that the relatively routine occurrence of migrant caravans — which organizers rely on as a safety-in-numbers precaution against the violence that can happen along the trek — was being politicized.

As tends to be the case in these stories, the humanitarian aspects get glossed over as migrants are collapsed into one maligned category: Trump touched off an international furor when he posted a series of videos on Twitter that purported to show the effects of mass Muslim migration in Europe. These items tend to metastasize irrespective of the facts, but contain powerful visual elements to which Mr.

Trump is known to viscerally respond. Trump insinuated that some kind of terror-related episode involving Muslim immigrants had taken place in Sweden. Like the caravan story, which apparently came to Mr. And he later had to clarify that he was referring to a Fox News segment on issues Sweden was having with migrants generally, not any particular event. When the president himself has not spread stories about immigration that were either misleading or turned out to be false, his White House aides have. Last year, the White House joined a pile-on by the conservative news media after it called attention to the account of a high school student in Montgomery County, Md.

The case became a national rallying cry on the right against permissive border policies and so-called sanctuary cities that treat undocumented immigrants more leniently. Fox News broadcast live outside the high school for days. The story of the caravan has been similarly exaggerated. The facts of the caravan are not as straightforward as Mr. Trump or many conservative pundits have portrayed them. The story initially gained widespread attention after BuzzFeed News reported last week that more than 1, Central American migrants, mostly from Honduras, were making their way north toward the United States border.

Yet the BuzzFeed article and other coverage pointed out that many in the group were planning to stay in Mexico. That did not stop Mr. The use of disinformation in immigration debates is hardly unique to the United States. Misleading crime statistics, speculation about sinister plots to undermine national sovereignty and Russian propaganda have all played a role in stirring up anti-immigrant sentiment in places like Britain, Germany and Hungary. Some of the more fantastical theories have involved a socialist conspiracy to import left-leaning voters and a scheme by the Hungarian-born Jewish philanthropist George Soros to create a borderless Europe.

One thousand Central American migrants are headed to the United States border. Detainees who passed their initial hearings often found themselves stranded in Artesia without bond. As the months ticked by in Artesia, many detainees began to wonder if they would ever be free again. In Honduras, Ana ran a small business selling trinkets and served on the P. Within days, they had escalated their threats, approaching Ana brazenly on the street. Four weeks later, in McAllen, Tex. Ana and her daughter entered Artesia in mid-July. In October they were still there. The attorney next to me was crying, Ana was crying, her little girl started crying.

I looked over at the bailiff, who actually ended up being my friend when I went back another time. He had tears in his eyes. Many of the volunteers in Artesia tell similar stories about the misery of life in the facility. The detainees reported sleeping eight to a room, in violation of the Flores settlement, with little exercise or stimulation for the children. Many were under the age of 6 and had been raised on a diet of tortillas, rice and chicken bits.

Another, Lisa Johnson-Firth, said: Raised in a small town near Mount Hood, Sischo did not realize until high school that her parents brought her into the United States from Mexico as an infant without documentation. When Sischo learned that children arriving from Central America were being incarcerated in Artesia, she volunteered immediately. She arrived a week after Christina Brown, and like Brown, she stayed.

Christophe Haag

Brown recommended Sischo for the job of project coordinator. Brown and Sischo make an unlikely pair. Brown, who has a sturdy build and dark brown hair, has an inborn skepticism and a piercing wit. Sischo is six years younger and preternaturally easygoing. Until she discovered her own immigration background, she had little interest in political affairs and spent much of her time in Oregon as a competitive snowboarder.

For both, Artesia was a jarring shift from life at home. As they sat together one evening in December, they described a typical week. Officials for ICE say these accounts are exaggerated. But they declined multiple requests to visit the Artesia facility and took weeks to answer questions about its facilities. No one ever responded, to date, to my request. Visitors who did gain access to the facility have raised troubling questions about the ethics — and legality — of how it handled children.

The Flores settlement requires the government to provide regular schooling for juveniles in detention, but the mayor of Artesia, Phillip Burch, said that on several visits to the compound, the classrooms were always empty. And none of the tours that I made did I see the children actually in class. When one member asked why the building was empty, an ICE official replied that school was temporarily closed.

Detainees have consistently told their lawyers that the school was never reliably open. They recall a few weeks in October when classes were in session for an hour or two per day, then several weeks of closure through November, followed by another brief period of classes in December.

Olavarria has a distinguished record as advocate for refugees and previously served as a top immigration adviser for Senator Edward M. She said that she was under the impression that attorneys in Artesia were granted access to the facility, and she could not explain why Brown was not. She also believed that the meal service in Artesia was adapted to reflect the dietary norms of Central America and that medical care was adequate and available.

After hearing what detainees, attorneys, faith advocates and elected officials described in Artesia, Olavarria promised to look into these issues and provide further documentation. Despite several attempts to elicit that documentation, she provided none. In a statement, the Department of Homeland Security said: Attorneys for the Obama administration have argued in court, like the Bush administration previously, that the protections guaranteed by the Flores settlement do not apply to children in family detention.

Federal judges have consistently rejected this position. By mid-November, more than of the detained women and children were free on bond. That announcement came at the very moment the president was delivering a live address on the new protections available to established immigrant families.

Many of them were close to a bond release; in San Antonio, they might be detained for weeks or months longer. Brown pulled her car to the side of the highway and spent three hours arguing to delay the transfer. By mid-December, most of the Artesia detainees were in Karnes, and Brown and Sischo were scrambling to pack the contents of their home and office. On the afternoon of Dec. The next morning, a law professor named Barbara Hines was also speeding into San Antonio.

Hines is a wiry woman in her 60s with a burst of black curls and an aspect of bristling intensity. In the battle over refugee detention, she is something of a seminal figure for advocates like Brown and Sischo. As co-director of the Immigration Law Clinic at the University of Texas, Hines helped lead the lawsuit against the Hutto facility, which brought about its closure in and the abolition of widespread family detention until last summer. When the Obama administration announced plans to resume the practice in Artesia, Hines was outraged; when officials opened the second facility in Karnes, just two hours from her home in Austin, Hines began to organize a pro bono project of her own.

But first, she had a client to represent. Hines pulled into a parking lot behind the immigration court in downtown San Antonio and rushed inside, up a clattering elevator to the third floor and down a long hallway to a cramped courtroom. At the front, behind a vast wooden desk, sat Judge Glenn McPhaul, a tidy man with slicked hair and a pencil mustache.

He presided from an elevated platform, with a clerk to his right, an interpreter to his left, and a large television monitor in the corner. These were just a few of the Karnes detainees, linked by video feed to the courtroom. Another women and children were in the compound with them. There was no legal distinction between their cases and those of the women in Artesia; they had simply been sent to a different facility, weeks or months earlier.

But the odds of release in Karnes were worse. Many of the volunteers at Karnes are friends and former students of Hines, who has been drafting every licensed lawyer she can find. As she slid down the long bench to a seat, she nodded to some of the attorneys in the room and stopped to whisper with another. On the television screen, her client, Juana, was stepping toward the camera at Karnes.

She was a young woman with a narrow face and deep eyes. Her hair was pulled back to reveal high cheekbones and a somber expression. McPhaul asked the stenographer to begin transcription, then he commenced with the ritualized exchange of detention proceedings, recording the names of the attorneys, the detainee and everyone on the bench.

He noted the introduction of a series of legal documents and confirmed that Juana was still happy to be represented by Hines. There was a stream of legal jargon and a few perfunctory remarks about the status of the case, all of it in clipped judicial vernacular and a flat, indifferent tone. As Hines stepped out of the courtroom, Juana was turning away from the camera to return to her children in Karnes.

It was impossible to say how much of the hearing she understood, since none of the proceedings were translated into Spanish. Over the next two hours, the scene would repeat a dozen times. Each time McPhaul called a name, a new lawyer would step forward, taking a seat before the bench and proceeding through the verbal Kabuki. But the courtroom interpreter was not allowed to convey this news to the detainee, either. If the pro bono attorney spoke Spanish fluently, there might be a few minutes at the end of the session to explain what happened.

These, of course, were the lucky women with an attorney to represent them at all. Although the families in Artesia and Karnes have been detained in an environment that closely resembles incarceration, there is no requirement in American law to provide them with the sort of legal representation afforded to other defendants. Unlike the Artesia project, where the involvement of AILA brought in hundreds of volunteers from across the country, Hines could scrape together only so many friends and compatriots to lend their time.

The remaining refugees would proceed to court alone. They would understand little of what happened, and most would be deported. It was difficult for Hines to think about what might happen to those women next. The refugees who are returned to Central America can be subject to even greater harassment by gangs for having fled.

Hector Hernandez, a morgue operator in Honduras, has said that children who come back from U. This was her agenda for the first meeting with Christina Brown, which took place that afternoon in a sunlit conference room in the downtown offices of Akin Gump. Hines sat at the head of a long table, with Lauren Connell to her left and an attorney from Raices named Steven Walden to her right. After a few minutes, Brown appeared in the doorway. Hines smiled sympathetically as they sat down. Brown shook her head. Hines and Connell exchanged a look. Even if the Artesia lawyers could double or triple their workload, the number of detainees would soon overwhelm them.

The day before, officials in Karnes had approved a plan to expand the detention facility from about beds to roughly 1, At the same time, two hours west of Karnes, in the little town of Dilley, the Department of Homeland Security was about to open another refugee camp for women and children. It would be the largest detention facility in the country, with up to 2, beds.

They decided to spend their first evening in Texas at a vegetarian restaurant downtown. They should be released. For Sischo, seeing the families struggle — families much like her own — was almost more than she could stand. On visits to her parents in Oregon, she struggled to maintain composure.

Customers Also Bought Items By

For Brown, by contrast, the same experiences seemed to have amplified her energy and commitment. As dinner came to an end, Brown and Sischo stepped outside into the night. Some will be released on bond to await their asylum hearing; others will remain in custody until their hearings are complete. Those without an attorney will most likely fail to articulate a reason for their claim in the appropriate jargon of the immigration courts and will be deported to face whatever horror they hoped to flee. By late spring, the construction of the new facility at Dilley should be complete.

It already represents a drastic departure from the refugee camp in Artesia. Managed by the Corrections Corporation of America, the largest private prison company in the country, the South Texas Family Residential Center has its own promotional website with promissory images of the spacious classrooms, libraries, play areas and lounges that will eventually be available to refugees in long-term detention.

Architectural drawings for the site show eight distinct neighborhoods on the campus, with dormitory housing, outdoor pavilions, a chapel and several playgrounds. How much of this will ultimately materialize remains to be seen. Esther Olavarria, the senior counselor for immigration issues at the Department of Homeland Security, acknowledged that there had been shortcomings in Artesia but described the Dilley facility as a correction. Many advocates have expressed concerns about the Dilley facility as well.

Its management company, C. In , federal investigators reported that conditions at a C. Two years ago, C. The state has now taken control of the facility. The management contract at Dilley was also created with unusual terms. In their hurry to open the new facility, officials for the Obama administration bypassed normal bidding procedures and established Dilley under an existing contract for the troubled C. Eloy city officials say they do not expect to monitor, or even visit, the Dilley facility. Any new refugees who surrender this spring may spend more than a year in Dilley before their asylum hearings can be scheduled.

Olavarria said that officials hope the process will move more quickly, but it will depend on the immigration courts in San Antonio, which fall under the Department of Justice. A study funded by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, of more than detainees between and , found that 93 percent will appear in court when placed in a monitoring program. Officials from the Department of Homeland Security say the facilities in Karnes and Dilley are still insufficient to house the detainees they expect to process in the coming year.

For now, the Artesia facility is closed, its bunk beds and hallways empty. Brown and Sischo remain in Texas; they rescued their U-Haul from an impound lot and found an apartment soon thereafter. That same week, an email from the mayor of Artesia, Phillip Burch, was circulating among city residents.

juin | | jcdurbant

His complete archive is available on Longform. Much has been written — some of it either inaccurate or designed to obfuscate the issue ahead of the midterms for political purposes — about the border fiasco and the unfortunate separation of children from parents. The media outrage usually does not include examination of why the Trump administration is enforcing existing laws that it inherited from the Bush and Obama administrations that at any time could have been changed by both Democratic and Republican majorities in Congress; of the use of often dubious asylum claims as a way of obtaining entry otherwise denied to those without legal authorization — a gambit that injures or at least hampers thousands with legitimate claims of political persecution; of the seeming unconcern for the safety of children by some would-be asylum seekers who illegally cross the border, rather than first applying legally at a U.

A few other random thoughts.

Vox confidential une enquête inédite sur les mystères de la voix humaine ( French Edition) eBook: Christophe Haag: www.farmersmarketmusic.com: Kindle Store. Vox confidential on www.farmersmarketmusic.com Vox confidential (French) Paperback Start reading Vox confidential une enquête inédite sur les mystères de on your.

And it is mostly culpable for once again using illegal immigration and the lives of its own citizens — and allowing Central Americans unfettered transit through its country — as cynical tools of domestic and foreign policy. Illegal immigration, increasingly of mostly indigenous peoples, ensures an often racist Mexico City a steady stream of remittances now its greatest source of foreign exchange , without much worry about how its indigent abroad can scrimp to send such massive sums back to Mexico.

Facilitating illegal immigration also establishes and fosters a favorable expatriate demographic inside the U. And Mexico City also uses immigration as a policy irritant to the U.

All of the above call into question whether Mexico is a NAFTA ally, a neutral, or a belligerent, a status that may become perhaps clearer during its upcoming presidential elections. So far, it assumes that the optics of this human tragedy facilitate its own political agendas, but it may be just as likely that its cynicism could fuel renewed calls for a wall and reexamination of the entire Mexican—U. Finally, it is unfortunate that former CIA and NSA director Michael Hayden and former first lady Laura Bush have both demagogued the issue by respective grotesque and ignorant comparisons of current border shelters to the Auschwitz-Birkenau extermination camp and the forced Japanese internment during World War II.

At its horrendous peak in August , the Auschwitz-Birkenau complex on some days exterminated 10, human beings and may have cumulatively murdered well over 1 million Jews, as well as Eastern Europeans and Russians. To suggest that a detainee center is anything similar to that industrial killing monstrosity is unhinged, abhorrent — and shameful.

It is an insult to current U. And it is a greater injury to the lost 6 million of the Holocaust when their fate is so cavalierly and ignorantly used for political advantage. He too often became the object of frequent and unfair comparisons to various Nazi allusions of the sort that he is now promulgating against the Trump administration. Moreover, we often forget that the forced relocation and internment was an unconstitutional and amoral act aimed at mostly Japanese-Americans citizens among them the parents and grandparents of my current neighboring farmers , along with some Japanese residents.

One can disagree with a current policy without stooping to distort history to smear an administration, especially when such tactics in the past have been used against those now employing them. Some economic migrants are using children as chits, but the problem is fixable — if Congress acts. The latest furor over Trump immigration policy involves the separation of children from parents at the border. For the longest time, illegal immigration was driven by single males from Mexico. Over the last decade, the flow has shifted to women, children, and family units from Central America.

Those remain the same. The past practice had been to give a free pass to an adult who is part of a family unit. The new Trump policy is to prosecute all adults. The idea is to send a signal that we are serious about our laws and to create a deterrent against re-entry. Illegal entry is a misdemeanor, illegal re-entry a felony.

When a migrant is prosecuted for illegal entry, he or she is taken into custody by the U. In no circumstance anywhere in the U. The child is taken into the custody of HHS, who cares for them at temporary shelters. The criminal proceedings are exceptionally short, assuming there is no aggravating factor such as a prior illegal entity or another crime. The migrants generally plead guilty, and they are then sentenced to time served, typically all in the same day, although practices vary along the border.

After this, they are returned to the custody of ICE. The adult should be reunited quickly with his or her child, and the family returned home as a unit. Where it becomes much more of an issue is if the adult files an asylum claim. In that scenario, the adults are almost certainly going to be detained longer than the government is allowed to hold their children. It says that unaccompanied children can be held only 20 days.

A ruling by the Ninth Circuit extended this day limit to children who come as part of family units. So even if we want to hold a family unit together, we are forbidden from doing so. The clock ticking on the time the government can hold a child will almost always run out before an asylum claim is settled. The migrant is allowed ten days to seek an attorney, and there may be continuances or other complications. This creates the choice of either releasing the adults and children together into the country pending the ajudication of the asylum claim, or holding the adults and releasing the children.

If the adult is held, HHS places the child with a responsible party in the U. ICE has only about 3, family spaces in shelters. It is also limited in its overall space at the border, which is overwhelmed by the ongoing influx. This means that — whatever the Trump administration would prefer to do — many adults are still swiftly released.

Why try to hold adults at all? First of all, if an asylum-seeker is detained, it means that the claim goes through the process much more quickly, a couple of months or less rather than years. Second, if an adult is released while the claim is pending, the chances of ever finding that person again once he or she is in the country are dicey, to say the least. It is tantamount to allowing the migrant to live here, no matter what the merits of the case. The option that both honors our laws and keeps family units together is a swift return home after prosecution.

But immigrant advocates hate it because they want the migrants to stay in the United States. How you view this question will depend a lot on how you view the motivation of the migrants and how seriously you take our laws and our border. Every indication is that the migrant flow to the United States is discretionary. It nearly dried up at the beginning of the Trump administration when migrants believed that they had no chance of getting into the United States. This strongly suggests that the flow overwhelmingly consists of economic migrants who would prefer to live in the United States, rather than victims of persecution in their home country who have no option but to get out.

Even if a migrant does have a credible fear of persecution, there is a legitimate way to pursue that claim, and it does not involve entering the United States illegally. First, such people should make their asylum claim in the first country where they feel safe, i.

Second, if for some reason they are threatened everywhere but the United States, they should show up at a port of entry and make their claim there rather than crossing the border illegally. There is obviously a moral cost to separating a parent from a child and almost everyone would prefer not to do it. But, under current policy and with the current resources, the only practical alternative is letting family units who show up at the border live in the country for the duration.

Not only does this make a mockery of our laws, it creates an incentive for people to keep bringing children with them. Needless to say, children should not be making this journey that is fraught with peril. But there is now a premium on bringing children because of how we have handled these cases. They are considered chits. Some migrants have admitted they brought their children not only to remove them from danger in such places as Central America and Africa, but because they believed it would cause the authorities to release them from custody sooner.

Others have admitted to posing falsely with children who are not their own, and Border Patrol officials say that such instances of fraud are increasing. If someone is determined to come here illegally, the decent and safest thing would be to leave the child at home with a relative and send money back home.

Because we favor family units over single adults, we are creating an incentive to do the opposite and use children to cut deals with smugglers. Congress can change the rules so the Flores consent decree will no longer apply, and it can appropriate more money for family shelters at the border. This is an obvious thing to do that would eliminate the tension between enforcing our laws and keeping family units together. The Trump administration is throwing as many resources as it can at the border to expedite the process, and it desperately wants the Flores consent decree reversed.

Despite some mixed messages, if the administration had its druthers, family units would be kept together and their cases settled quickly. The missing piece here is Congress, but little outrage will be directed at it, and probably nothing will be done. And so our perverse system will remain in place and the crisis at the border will rumble on. The hysteria over border-enforcement problems benefits Democrats — and gives them no incentive to fix the problem. T he illegal-immigration issue has always been one fraught with politicking. We always hear the same refrain from both sides: And yet nothing ever gets done.

The impression of some in the press seems to be that nothing gets done because of a lack of public pressure. If only they could somehow jar American sensibilities into solving this problem once and for all! For the last week, the attention has been nearly wall-to-wall — and the moral preening has hit an all-time apex. Instead, it achieves precisely the opposite. In this case, that manipulation has been particularly extreme.

But the truth is more complex: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that even accompanied immigrant minors must be released from custody within 20 days. That means that if their parents do not arrive at a point of entry to claim asylum, and instead violate the law by crossing the border illegally, they will be arrested — and their children must then be separated from them by the working of the law. The only possible solution, without a change to the law itself, would involve releasing illegal-immigrant parents along with their children into the general population.

Likely, some of that is true — although the stories from various sources conflict. But those facilities were overburdened for years before Trump took office; in fact, the media covered these same facilities and pointed out the problems therein during the Obama administration. In reality, all of this could be solved with simple legislation. The House of Representatives is actually set to take up the issue of family separation in both versions of the immigration bill being presented in the House.

The longer the Democrats prevent a solution from arising, the more they gain in the public-opinion polls. So they have little incentive to come to the table around an immigration solution — their better political option remains to wait Trump out and let the press inflict damage on him. Better to let the problem fester for political gain than to attempt to solve it. Yes, Trump is enforcing the laws against crossing the border illegally more harshly than the Obama administration did. Yes, Trump has spoken with great passion in favor of stronger border controls.

Instead of using truth as a guide, however, the press continue to suggest that base animus animates conservative feelings on immigration. The only ones who lose out are the American people. Over the weekend, you may have seen a horrifying story: Almost 1, migrant children were missing, and feared to be in the hands of human traffickers. The Trump administration lost track of the children, the story went, after separating them from their parents at the border. The news spread across liberal social media — with the hashtag Wherearethechildren trending on Twitter — as people demanded immediate action.

The narrative had combined parts of two real events and wound up with a horror story that was at least partly a myth. The Trump administration does in fact have a new policy of prosecuting all undocumented border crossers, which involves separating parents from their children. But the 1, children whom the Department of Health and Human Services recently reported it cannot locate are not among those taken from their parents. Many probably are not really missing. The unanswered phone calls may warrant further welfare checks, but are not themselves a sign that something nefarious has happened.

The Obama administration also detained immigrant families and children, as did other recent administrations. Some waved off this seeming contradiction, saying Mr. And it is true that even when using similar tactics, President Trump and President Obama have expressed very different attitudes toward immigration and espoused different goals. Those arguments underscore the degree to which this controversy is animated as much by attitudes toward the president and the way he has made immigration a focus of partisan conflict as by specific policy preferences.

Deadlock over immigration has meant that, for decades, politicians have turned to the same compromise: The Obama administration sharply increased deportations in his first term in the hope of building a case for comprehensive immigration reform. That move did not pay off. Detained immigrant children have frequently been caught up in the enforcement side of that bargain. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Immigration and Naturalization Service before it have argued that immigration detention is an essential part of enforcement and deterrence, and have vigorously pursued detention of families and children throughout multiple presidential administrations.

At the same time, as Lilliana Mason, a political scientist at the University of Maryland, writes in a new book , partisan identity has become an umbrella for other important identities, including those involving race, religion, geography and even educational background. It has become a tribal identity itself, not merely a matter of policy preferences. Accurate news can serve that purpose. But fake news has an advantage. By adding in the missing children, the story manages to incorporate an incompetence angle as well. The rapid spread of this particular story also hints at the longer-term dangers of partisan polarization.

That departure from norms has caused tremendous suffering for immigrants and their communities. On a broader scale, it is revealing that the story of the missing children felt so true to so many people. It shows the ways that shattering norms also damages public trust. Research shows that the loss of this trust — particularly when combined with extreme polarization — can weaken support for democracy over time. In his farewell address as president Tuesday, Barack Obama warned of the dangers of uncontrolled partisanship. That seems a well-founded worry. Partisan bias now operates more like racism than mere political disagreement, academic research on the subject shows.

And this widespread prejudice could have serious consequences for American democracy. The partisan divide is easy to detect if you know where to look. Consider the thinly disguised sneer in most articles and editorials about so-called fake news. But the fake-news phenomenon is not the result of personal failings. And it is not limited to one end of the political spectrum. Partisan refraction has fueled the rise of fake news, according to researchers who study the phenomenon.

The power of partisan bias. In , Sean Westwood, then a Stanford Ph. He got annoyed with persistent squabbles among his friends, and he noticed that they seemed to be breaking along partisan lines, even when they concerned issues that ostensibly had nothing to do with politics. Westwood, now a professor at Dartmouth. He wondered if this was a sign that the role of partisanship in American life was changing. Previously, partisan conflict mostly applied to political issues like taxes or abortion. Now it seemed, among his acquaintances at least, to be operating more like racism or sexism, fueling negative or positive judgments on people themselves, based on nothing more than their party identification.

But starting in the s, Americans began to report increasingly negative opinions of their opposing party. Since then, that polarization has grown even stronger. The reasons for that are unclear. To find out more about the consequences of that polarization, Mr. Westwood, along with Shanto Iyengar, a Stanford professor who studies political communication, embarked on a series of experiments. They found something quite shocking: That is a sea change in the role of partisanship in public life, Mr.

It was just an ancillary trait. But in the modern era we view party identity as something akin to gender, ethnicity or race — the core traits that we use to describe ourselves to others. That has made the personal political. And it has become more rare for children to have a different party affiliation from their parents. But it has also made the political personal. Today, political parties are no longer just the people who are supposed to govern the way you want. They are a team to support, and a tribe to feel a part of. How partisan bias fuels fake news.

Partisan tribalism makes people more inclined to seek out and believe stories that justify their pre-existing partisan biases, whether or not they are true. And Clinton voters, he said, would be similarly drawn to stories that deride Mr. Trump as a demagogue or a sexual predator. Social media provides a unique opportunity to publicly declare to the world what your beliefs are and how willing you are to denigrate the opposition and reinforce your own political candidates. Partisan bias fuels fake news because people of all partisan stripes are generally quite bad at figuring out what news stories to believe.

Instead, they use trust as a shortcut. Partisan bias strongly influences whom people perceive as trustworthy. One of the experiments that Mr. Iyengar conducted demonstrated that people are much more likely to trust members of their party. Whatever that second player received would be multiplied, and he or she would then have a chance to return some of the cash to the original player.

How much confidence would the participant have that the other player would give some of the money back? They found that participants gave more money if they were told the other player supported the same political party as they did. Westwood find most worrying. That feeds partisan bias among the public by reinforcing the idea that the opposition is made up of bad or dangerous people, which then creates more demand for political extremism.

The result is an environment in which compromise and collaboration with the opposing party are seen as signs of weakness, and of being a bad member of the tribe. Whereas the Democrats are obviously motivated to seize upon that as a plausible account of what occurred. Already, partisan bias is undermining confidence in the last election. And you begin to view the outcome as somehow contaminated or tainted.

Westwood was even more pessimistic. I think this is the new normal. The policy of prosecuting immigrants for crossing the border illegally has been in place for multiple administrations. The Obama administration prosecuted half a million illegal immigrants and similarly separated families in the process. So did the Bush administration.

Personal accounts from immigration lawyers tell a tale of Obama being equally concerned about unaccompanied minors traveling to the border and wanting to create a deterrent. Photos of border detention facilities from the Obama-era, taken during , look nearly identical to the ones taken during the Trump era. You never see them, however. Two of the 32 photos originally included in this post were found to be from a CPB press handout June 17, They have since been removed. The global world order is unbalanced and inequitable. In turn, as it unravels, America feels this loss of balance the hardest — it has always spent the most money and manpower to keep the system working.

The Europeans have basically been free riders on the voyage, spending almost nothing on defense, and instead building vast social welfare systems at home and robust, well-protected export industries abroad. Rather than lash back at Mr. Trump, they would do better to ask how we got to this place, and how to get out. The European Union, as an institution, is one of the prime drivers of this inequity.

At the Group of 7, for example, the constituent countries are described as all equals. It is a highly integrated, well-protected free-trade area that gives a huge leg up to, say, German car manufacturers while essentially punishing American companies who want to trade in the region. The eurozone offers a similar unfair advantage. If it were not for the euro, Germany would long ago have had to appreciate its currency in line with its enormous export surplus. Sure, eurozone membership makes imports to Germany more expensive than they would be under the deutschemark; wage restraint has also helped maintain the competitiveness of German machinery.

But how can the very same politicians and journalists who defended the euro bailout payments during the financial crisis, arguing that Germany profited disproportionately from the common currency, now go berserk when Mr. Trump makes exactly this point? German manufacturers also have the advantage of operating in a common market with huge wage gaps. Bulgaria, one of the poorest member states, has a per capita gross domestic product roughly equal to that of Gabon , while even in Slovakia, Poland and Hungary — three relative success stories among the recent entrants to the union — that same measure is still roughly a third of what it is in Germany.

Under the European Union, German manufacturers can assemble their cars in low-wage countries and export them without worrying about tariffs or other trade barriers. Trump is not the first president to complain about the unfair burden sharing within NATO. Indeed, while his actions are shocking, the Europeans cannot say they are surprised. All those German politicians who oppose raising military spending from a meager 1. When the door was opened, in , many in the West believed that a growing Chinese middle class, enriched by and engaged with the world economy, would eventually claim voice and suffrage, thereby democratizing China.

The opposite has happened. China, which has grown wealthy in part by stealing intellectual property from the West, is turning into an online-era dictatorship, while still denying reciprocity in investment and trade relations. Again, while many in the West have talked the talk about taking on China, only Mr. Trump has actually done something about it. Europe needs to understand what is driving Mr.

Catégories

Socialist Bernie Sanders is unquestionably the spiritual leader of the Democratic party, which is radicalizing itself in his image, and on the strength of her blowout Democratic-primary win over liberal incumbent Joe Crowley in the party-ruled NY congressional district, soon-to-be-congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is now one of the most prominent faces in the Democratic party. You have the Queens Democratic Party, which is overwhelmingly male as well. Each time McPhaul called a name, a new lawyer would step forward, taking a seat before the bench and proceeding through the verbal Kabuki. Amazon Music Stream millions of songs. But when he speaks his mind he is surprised by the strength of the response he gets from voters.

Jochen Bittner is a political editor for the weekly newspaper Die Zeit and a contributing opinion writer. Gilles-William Goldnadel est avocat et essayiste. Tout cela marche moins bien et les peuples ne marchent plus du tout. Selon Thomas Wieder, le journaliste du Monde: Deux questions un peu vulgaires sinon populistes: Mais avoir raison dans son coin ne suffit pas. Il est grand temps de la ressusciter. Ce retrait de Washington ne prend pourtant personne par surprise. The substantial data compiled in this study reveals, however, that the reviews conducted by the vast majority of countries participating in the UPR process are failing to achieve its stated purpose.

More than UPR interventions were analyzed and evaluated, as detailed in 12 country charts. Out of 55 countries examined—including all 47 members of the UN Human Rights Council—only 19 had average scores indicating that they contributed positively. Tragically, a majority of 32 out of 55 countries acted as a mutual praise society, misusing the process in order to legitimize human rights abusers, instead of holding them to account.

Four were neither positive nor negative: While it is in the nature of governments to balk at confronting other countries for fear of affecting friendly diplomatic relations, human rights cannot be neglected, and countries must live up to their obligations as participants in the UPR process. The UN member states that conduct UPR will only engender accountability from the country under review, and thereby protect human rights victims, to the extent that they pose tough and specific questions for each country under review.

Another 10 countries were found to have made contributions to the review process that were positive, yet WEAK: That so many respected democracies choose to ask soft questions, shying away from pointedly addressing violations and ensuring scrutiny, is unacceptable. We urge a dramatic shift in approach by countries that should be leading by example. Included also in this same category were two countries whose contributions were neither positive nor negative: The rankings in Table 1 reflect only the average quality of interventions made.

They do not measure the quantity of statements, the statistics for which are available in Tables 2 and 3. Switzerland , for example, spoke only in 6 out of the 12 country reviews examined in this report. Similarly, the United States spoke in only 7 of the 12 reviews, and of late has been silent at UPR sessions. Argentina, Bosnia, Chile and Slovakia spoke only a handful of times. We recommend that all countries—in particular, those who are members of the Human Rights Council—fulfill their duties by participating meaningfully in the UPR process. Regrettably, a majority of the countries examined in this report not only failed to fulfill the stated objective of UPR, but acted to undermine it.

Their interventions praised and covered up for the country reviewed, effectively blocking, undermining and spoiling genuine scrutiny of violations. When violators are granted impunity, victims are let down. The report demonstrates that bloc affiliations played an important role in determining how countries reviewed each other. As a result, some of the poorest overall reviews were those performed on Algeria, Bahrain, Morocco and Tunisia, closely followed by Pakistan and Uzbekistan. We urge all UN members states not to allow bloc politics to override their obligation to conduct UPR reviews in an objective, non-selective and non-politicized manner.

While almost all of the countries that acted positively in UPR rank as free democracies under the annual survey by Freedom House, not all free democracies acted positively. It is time for democratic countries at the UN to act like democracies. Regrettably, as the charts show, most country interventions failed to consider this NGO information, and failed to address the most prevalent human rights violations. We recommend an end to the exclusion of NGOs from the oral debate of review sessions.

States that frivolously interrupt NGOs on one or another pretext should be disciplined by the council President. The Trump administration is committed to protecting and promoting the God-given dignity and freedom of every human being. Every individual has rights that are inherent and inviolable. They are given by God, and not by government. Because of that, no government must take them away. For decades, the United States has led global efforts to promote human rights, often through multilateral institutions. While we have seen improvements in certain human rights situations, for far too long we have waited while that progress comes too slowly or in some cases never comes.

Too many commitments have gone unfulfilled. President Trump wants to move the ball forward. From day one, he has called out institutions or countries who say one thing and do another. We have no doubt that there was once a noble vision for this council. But today, we need to be honest — the Human Rights Council is a poor defender of human rights. The only thing worse than a council that does almost nothing to protect human rights is a council that covers for human rights abuses and is therefore an obstacle to progress and an impediment to change. The Human Rights Council enables abuses by absolving wrongdoers through silence and falsely condemning those who have committed no offense.

A mere look around the world today demonstrates that the council has failed in its stated objectives. Its membership includes authoritarian governments with unambiguous and abhorrent human rights records, such as China, Cuba, and Venezuela. There is no fair or competitive election process, and countries have colluded with one another to undermine the current method of selecting members.

Since its creation, the council has adopted more resolutions condemning Israel than against the rest of the world combined. The United States has no opposition in principle to multilateral bodies working to protect human rights. But when organizations undermine our national interests and our allies, we will not be complicit. When they seek to infringe on our national sovereignty, we will not be silent.

The United States — which leads the world in humanitarian assistance, and whose service members have sacrificed life and limb to free millions from oppression and tyranny — will not take lectures form hypocritical bodies and institution as Americans selflessly give their blood and treasure to help the defenseless. She is the right leader to drive our efforts in this regard at the United Nations. Her efforts in this regard have been tireless. Ambassador Haley has been fearless and a consistent voice on behalf of our ally Israel.

And she has a sincere passion to protect the security, dignity, and the freedom of human beings around the world — all while putting American interests first.

Similar authors to follow

She has been a fierce defender of human rights around the world. I want to thank Secretary Pompeo for his friendship and his partnership and his leadership as we move forward on these issues.

La femme choisie (Littérature) (French Edition).
.
Lost in a Stallions Arms (Mills & Boon Kimani) (The Stallion Brothers, Book 3)?
www.farmersmarketmusic.com: Christophe Haag: Books, Biography, Blogs, Audiobooks, Kindle.
Nebraskas Cowboy Rail Line (Images of Rail)!

On that occasion, I outlined the U. These reforms were needed in order to make the council a serious advocate for human rights. For too long, the Human Rights Council has been a protector of human rights abusers and a cesspool of political bias. Regrettably, it is now clear that our call for reform was not heeded. Human rights abusers continue to serve on and be elected to the council.