A German couple is suing Facebook after the company denied them access to their deceased daughter’s account. While legal disputes over inheritance are nothing new, questions over digital legacy and online reputations are growing more common in the age of information.

According to German news outlet Deutsche Welle, a subway train struck and killed the plaintiffs’ 15-year-old daughter in 2012. It remains unclear whether her death was an accident or if the girl committed suicide. Her parents hope that by gaining access to her Facebook account they might be able to shed light on the circumstances surrounding her death.

In 2015, a court in Berlin granted the couple access to their daughter’s Facebook account, stating that digital possessions ought to be as inheritable as material possessions. Facebook, however, refused to comply with the court order and appealed the decision. The social media giant argued that while they sympathized with the parent’s demands, it would violate the privacy of users who had messaged the teenager under the expectation their conversation would remain private.

Facebook does have a set of guidelines that users can follow if they are concerned about what will happen to their account upon their passing. Facebook memorializes accounts of deceased people and gives users the option to name a legacy contact. However, the plaintiffs’ daughter was not old enough to name a legacy contact.

Even if she had been old enough to name her parents as legacy contacts, they still would not have been allowed to log into the memorialized account or check her messages. Deutsche Welle reported that the girl’s parents did know her password but that her account had already been memorialized by the time they tried to log in.

Increasingly, law firms and will writers are offering advice on how to protect one’s digital legacy, but the case in Germany highlights the fact that there are limits on one’s ability to control their online presence once they pass. Individuals have the option to create (or not create) an online profile. However, once an account has been created, control over that account may not be exclusive to the user depending on the service.

Clearly, the phrase “you can’t take it with you” has added meaning in the information age but legal questions about digital legacy have salience in life as well as death. Additionally, one can have a digital legacy without ever having created an online account.

In 2010, a Spanish man filed complaints with the national Data Protection Agency against a local newspaper, Google Spain, and Google Inc. When that man’s name was searched, Google turned up an auction notice for his repossessed house. He argued that because the matter had been resolved, the search result was irrelevant and violated his right to privacy. In 2014, the European Court of Justice ruled in favor of the man’s “right to be forgotten.”

While the European Court ruled that the “right to be forgotten” is limited and should not be used to make “prominent people less prominent or criminals less criminal” other courts have enforced the digital right more broadly. A Japanese court stirred up controversy when it recognized a convicted child sex offender’s “right to be forgotten.” The court ruled that in spite of his crimes, the man should be allowed to rehabilitate his life “unhindered.”

Digital legacies have come to define people in life and in death. As long as the law continues to lag behind technology (it likely always will), questions of who controls online reputations remain points of fierce contention.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Who Controls Your Digital Legacy? appeared first on Law Street.

Anti-government protests have defined Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro’s time in office, but few, if any, past demonstrations compare to this latest wave. Infuriated by a highly controversial Supreme Court ruling in late March, millions of Venezuelans have been taking to the streets demanding the 2018 presidential election be held ahead of schedule.

On Wednesday evening, Yibram Saab Fornino, son of Venezuela’s Defensoría del Pueblo (Ombudsman), Tarek William Saab, posted a video on YouTube denouncing the government’s violent response to protesters and calling on his father to act. While the Ombudsman is meant to be a politically independent defender of social justice and humans rights, Saab is considered a government insider.

In December 2014, pro-Maduro United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) legislators controversially elected Saab as Ombudsman weeks before they would lose control of the National Assembly. The opposition Democratic Unity Table (MUD) boycotted the vote on the basis that Saab was a former PSUV state governor who only left the party to take up the politically independent role. Although PSUV did not have the two-thirds majority constitutionally required to elect an Ombudsman, the Supreme Court, stacked with government sympathizers, upheld the vote.

Critics argue that by ignoring the violence the supposedly apolitical Ombudsman is protecting his political allies, and is complicit in the violent suppression of the opposition. Opponents of the government are latching onto Yibram Saab’s statement.

Yibram Saab begins the open letter to his father by expressing his concern for Venezuela’s “ruptured constitutional order.” He affirms that neither he nor his siblings were threatened into publishing the video but were acting freely and in accordance with the values imparted by their father. Saab goes on to condemn the “national security forces’ brutal repression” of protesters. Saab then pays tribute to Juan Pablo Pernalete, a 20-year-old university student and recent victim of Venezuela’s security forces, before appealing to his father by saying “that could have been me.”

Over the past month, Venezuela’s security forces have killed at least 29 demonstrators. Maduro has justified the violence by claiming that security forces are fighting against a terrorist-led coup. Nonetheless, Yibram Saab’s video is emblematic of the fact that state sanctioned violence has only served to embolden anti-government sentiment.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Violence in Venezuela: Son of Ombudsman Calls on His Father to Act appeared first on Law Street.

Last Sunday, The New York Times published an extensive profile of Uber’s CEO, Travis Kalanick, which recounted his and his company’s numerous scandals. A new allegation was nestled among the long list of known controversies. The report claimed Uber bought data from Slice Intelligence to track the brand allegiances of thousands of rideshare customers. Slice Intel owns an email unsubscriber called Unroll.me, which it used to collect Lyft receipts from users’ inboxes before selling them to Uber. While it does not appear any laws were broken, the revelation has reignited a debate around profit-driven data collection.

The report only mentions this scheme in passing, but the fleeting allegation was enough to upset Unroll.me users. Hours after the report was published, Unroll.me’s CEO, Jojo Hedaya, released a tone-deaf statement on the company’s website.

The statement is titled “We Can Do Better,” but by “we” he means “the user.” In the non-apology, Hedaya places blame on the consumer. After describing the public anger as “heartbreaking,” Hedaya immediately notes that each user has to agree to Unroll.me’s terms of use and the “plain-English Privacy Policy,” but that “most don’t take the time to thoroughly review them.”

The statement indicates Unroll.me has no intention of changing its ways because it’s how the company can “monetize [its] free service.” This rationale is misleading. Users may not pay money to use the service but, as long as Unroll.me sells user data, the service isn’t free. Unroll.me profits at the expense of each user’s privacy and third-party buyers, such as Uber, set the price.

Unroll.me claims all the data it sells is anonymized, but it is difficult for any user to know how well their data is protected. The Times report details the way in which Uber uses its app to “fingerprint” iPhones. With a tiny line of code, Uber is able to identify any iPhone regardless of whether the Uber app had been deleted from the phone or the phone had been erased and reset. Increasingly, tech companies that claim to value user data, value it as something to be sold, not as something to protect.

Nothing is free. Consumers cannot demand private companies provide unmonetized free services. However, companies that sell user data cannot claim to provide free services. While users of a service like Unroll.me may not hand over money, a transaction ultimately takes place.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Unroll.me Sells Its Data to Uber: Is Your Free App Really Free? appeared first on Law Street.

On March 29, El Salvador became the first country in the world to ban metal mining. The ban passed through the El Salvador unicameral legislature with support from a sweeping coalition and is favored by nearly 80 percent of the El Salvadorian population. In spite of the overwhelming support for the ban, the anti-mining movement started with a handful of grassroots groups determined to push back against the country’s historical devotion to “pro-business” policies.

El Salvador: An Unlikely Contender

Like many Latin American countries, El Salvador opened its doors to multinational companies in the early 1990s in the hope that an influx of foreign investment would help steady its newly reformed political system. Entrance into the globalized economy appeared to be the best option for a country emerging from a long and brutal civil war. The region saw a spate of political pushbacks against neoliberal economic policies, but El Salvador remained devoted to the globalized economy.

Following the 1992 peace accords, the right-wing, pro-business Nationalist Republican Alliance (NRA) controlled El Salvador for 17 years. During this time, foreign money, much of it from mining, flooded into El Salvador. In 2001, the conservative government adopted the U.S. Dollar as its official currency. Officials pegged their currency to the dollar with the intention of stabilizing the economy and making El Salvador a more attractive destination for international investors.

Candidates from the socialist Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN) have won the past two presidential elections but have largely continued the economic strategies initiated by the NRA. The FMLN leaders have not employed the kind of “anti-imperialist” rhetoric that has often been used by other socialist leaders in the region. When Salvador Sánchez Cerén, a former leftist guerilla, took power in 2014, he promised budget cuts and to maintain a close relationship with the United States. Sánchez’s predecessor and fellow FMLN member, Mauricio Funes, ruled the country as a centrist.

It is surprising that a country so roundly committed to foreign investment and the global economy would be the one to lead a charge against multinational metal mining corporations.

From Grassroots to Mainstream

Not long ago, El Salvador was actively courting multinational mining operations. After the civil war, the government began trying to rebuild the large-scale mining industry that had died out when conflict erupted in 1980. When global gold prices began to climb in the early 2000s, El Salvador received a flurry of exploration permit applications.

After some exploratory drilling, Pacific Rim Mining Corporation proposed plans for a mine named El Dorado to be built in the basin of the Rio Lempa–El Salvador’s primary source of drinking water.  According to Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch Division, El Dorado would use two tons of cyanide and 900,000 liters of water a day to extract over 1.4 million ounces of gold in about four years.

Rapid industrialization and population growth in the 1990s caused extreme environmental degradation. By the early 2000s, over 90 percent of El Salvador’s ground water was chemically contaminated and no amount of boiling, filtering, or chlorination would make it potable. The prospect of a cyanide and water intensive mine on the crux of the country’s primary source drinking water was, for many, too much to stomach. Locals feared the mine’s copious water consumption would suck up supply and that the cyanide would render it undrinkable in the process.

As word of the mine spread, groups began to form and resist the El Dorado mine and mining in general. By 2005, the grassroots movement had turned national. Local and international groups united to form The National Roundtable Against Metal Mining in El Salvador (La Mesa), and the population’s support for a metal mining ban had grown.

In May 2007, El Salvador’s anti-mining movement gained one of its most powerful allies–the Catholic Church. In response to anti-mining statements from archbishops in neighboring countries, the El Salvadorian Catholic Church publicly denounced mining, claiming “no material advantage can be compared to the value of human life.” By October of the same year, polls showed 62 percent of the population opposed metallic mining in El Salvador.

The conservative NRA party had previously blocked attempts by the FMLN to pass a legislative ban on metallic mining but public support for the ban had become irresistible. In March 2008, NRA President Antonio Saca instituted a nationwide moratorium on metal mining permits.

The Backlash

Though this moratorium remained in place until the passage of an anti-mining law last month, the presidential moratorium wasn’t permanent and could have been lifted at any moment. The situation was precarious.

Pacific Rim and other mining cooperations quickly filed legal complaints against El Salvador. These suits quickly devolved into drawn-out legal battles, in which mining corporations demanded hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation from one of the poorest countries in Latin America.

As these compensation claims crawled through World Bank tribunals, pro-mining operatives launched violent attacks against the anti-mining movement. From 2009 to 2011, at least four anti-mining activists were murdered. Rather than silencing the movement, these acts of violence galvanized support for the ban.

In late 2016, the World Bank slapped down Pacific Rim’s claim to compensation paving the way for a permanent ban.

A Future Without Mining

Over the course of a few years, the El Salvadorian government’s stance on mining underwent a 180-degree turn. Forces that once backed the mining lobby were forced to concede to a groundswell of opposition. As the effects of environmental degradation and exploitation become more apparent, El Salvador’s grassroots movement provides hope for similar ones around the world.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How El Salvador Became the First Country to Ban Metal Mining appeared first on Law Street.

Snapchat’s CEO, Evan Spiegel, is at war with India. Spiegel supposedly said India was too poor for Snapchat and now #BoycottSnapchat is trending in the world’s second most populous country.

According to Anthony Pompliano, a former Snapchat employee, Spiegel dismissed his idea to expand in underutilized markets.

“This app is only for rich people,” said Spiegel, according to Pompliano. “I don’t want to expand into poor countries like India and Spain.”

The accusations were found in documents from a lawsuit between Pompliano and Snap Inc., Snapchat’s parent company.

In a statement to the public, a Snap Inc. spokesperson dismissed Pompliano’s claims as the words of a “disgruntled former employee,” adding: “Obviously Snapchat is for everyone! It’s available worldwide to download for free.”

“We are grateful for our Snapchat community in India and around the world,” the statement read.

In spite of the denial, angry Snapchat users took to the internet. As news of the alleged comments spread, #BoycottSnapchat and #Uninstall_Snapchat began trending in India and around the world.

Reportedly, almost 400,000 users in India deleted the Snapchat app from their phones between Saturday and Sunday.

Twitter users also used the hashtag #1star to encourage others to damage the app’s rating and write scathing reviews on both Android and iOS–as of today, Snapchat has a one star rating on the Indian App Store.

It was even rumored that Indian hackers retaliated by leaking 1.7 million Snapchat users’ data on the “dark web,” but these reports have not been verified.

But as Indians took to their respective app marketplaces in defense of their country’s honor, some locked onto the wrong target. Snapdeal, an e-commerce platform that actually happens to be based in India, received a number of one-star ratings and many uninstalled the unrelated “snap app.”

Snapdeal’s CEO took to twitter to express his surprise:

@thetanmay Thanks bud. Ppl asking us to make a statement that @snapdeal is not @snapchat was possibly the last thing I thought I would ever need to do.

— Kunal Bahl (@1kunalbahl) April 16, 2017

Pompliano’s lawsuit accuses executives of exaggerating user data to mislead advertisers. Funnily enough, it looks as though Snapchat’s user data will suffer a painful blow regardless of whether or not Pompliano’s accusations are found to be true.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why is #BoycottSnapchat Trending in India? appeared first on Law Street.

On March 2, Cecilio Pineda Brito, a nationally known crime reporter, was shot dead by two men on a motorcycle. On March 19, Ricardo Monlui Cabrera, the editorial director of the Córdoba’s Él Politico newspaper and president of his local journalism association, fell victim to similar motorcycle drive-by. Miroslava Breach Velducea, a correspondent for the national newspaper La Jornada, was shot and killed four days later. Last Friday, reporter Maximino Rodriguez Palacio was shot dead in La Paz, Mexico, marking the fourth fatal attack on a journalist in only six weeks.

The recent spate of attacks is shocking but not surprising. Human rights and freedom of the press advocates, both domestic and international, have long been calling for a response to anti-media violence in Mexico.

Freedom House’s 2016 Freedom of the Press Index named Mexico “one of the world’s most dangerous places for journalists and media workers,” citing numerous violent attacks in 2015. Conditions have only been intensifying.

According to a report by Article 19–a non-profit devoted to protecting freedom of expression–suppressive and/or violent attacks on journalists have been on the rise since 2010. The report found 426 acts of aggression against journalists and 11 homicides in 2016. While 2016 was the bloodiest year for journalists under President Enrique Peña Nieto and the worst since 2000, 2017 may surpass it.

Despite these statistics, Peña Nieto’s government seems unconcerned with attacks on journalists. Article 19 reports that the Mexican Special Prosecutor’s Office on Crimes Against Freedom of Expression–known in Mexico as FEADLE, its Spanish acronym–only investigated 118 cases of the 426 acts of aggression against journalists and that 99.75 percent of attacks go unresolved.

Although criminal organizations often take most of the blame for any kind of violence in Mexico, there is a slew of evidence implicating the government in the anti-media violence. In 2016, “State agents” supposedly perpetrated 53 percent of the 426 acts of aggression identified by Article 19–criminal organizations are believed to have perpetrated 4 percent of the attacks.

Last month, Gilberto Israel Navarro Basaldúa, a journalist from the city of Guanajuato, reported that an employee of the municipal government’s economic council had swerved his car and hit Navarro off his motorcycle. Although employees of state and municipal governments are believed to have carried out the majority acts of aggression, Article 19 found 56 examples in which federal officials allegedly attacked the press.

It is clear that the Mexican government is unwilling to protect its media. Peña Nieto has blamed local governments for obstructing investigations but Article 19 found that his government had consistently refused to use its authority to take control of the process. The fact that state workers from all levels of government are believed to be responsible for the majority of acts of aggression against the media perhaps explains why the government is unwilling to investigate and prosecute anti-media crimes.

Historically victimized by criminal organizations and now increasingly victimized by government officials, the Mexican journalists have no place to turn. Freedom of the press has long been under threat in Mexico, but it appears the government is intent on undermining the expressive freedom in its entirety.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Who is Responsible for Anti-Media Violence in Mexico? appeared first on Law Street.

As of April 11, Alabama no longer grants state judges the authority to override jury recommendations in capital cases. As one of her first acts as governor, Kay Ivey signed the SB16 bill into law and put an end to judicial override in capital cases in Alabama. The move was likely a preemptive response to shifting legal tides. Had Alabama not revised its laws, it would likely have faced fierce and ongoing battles in court.

Alabama, Florida, and Delaware are the only states to have ever allowed judicial override in capital cases. In the 2016 case Hurst v. Florida, the U.S. Supreme Court found Florida’s sentencing scheme in violation of the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury. In response to the high court’s ruling, Delaware’s Supreme Court ruled its state’s sentencing scheme unconstitutional a few months later.

In the wake of Hurst v. Florida, the U.S. Supreme Court denied an appeal by an Alabama death row inmate who claimed he was sentenced under a scheme similar to Florida’s. Alabama’s Supreme Court upheld judicial override nine months later. In spite of these victories, it seems that Alabama was no longer willing to put resources toward defending judicial override in court.

Following Hurst v. Florida, the Florida legislature amended its sentencing practices to reinstate capital punishment. However, Delaware’s General Assembly has yet to pass any such legislation, meaning there is an effective halt on the death penalty in the state. By amending its sentencing laws, Alabama has put an end to a recurrent legal battle and ensured the perpetuity of capital punishment in the state.

While Alabama has removed judicial override, its new sentencing practices could still face legal challenges. Following the chain of events set in motion by Hurst v. Florida, Alabama is now the only state that allows a jury to non-unanimously recommend the death penalty.

Before the Hurst v. Florida ruling, Alabama, Florida, and Delaware allowed a jury to recommend the death penalty with 10 of 12 votes. In the same ruling that banned judicial override, Delaware’s Supreme Court deemed non-unanimous recommendations unconstitutional. While Florida’s initial legislation preserved the practice, the Florida Supreme Court later found non-unanimous recommendations constitutional.

Alabama’s Supreme Court would almost certainly uphold non-unanimous death penalty recommendations, and the U.S. Supreme Court has not explicitly ruled on the matter. The overwhelming consensus against the practice suggests Alabama could once again find itself in court.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will Banning Judicial Override for Capital Cases Keep Alabama Out of Court? appeared first on Law Street.

As tensions on the Korean peninsula continue to heat up, Chinese and South Korean officials met in Seoul on Monday and agreed to strengthen sanctions on North Korea if the state continues to carry out nuclear tests. As the two parties finalized the agreement, South Korea had to respond to news that the United States Navy dispatched a strike group to the Korean peninsula. Many in the region, and throughout the world, fear the U.S. strike force might exacerbate an already fractious situation.

The Chinese-Korean agreement on sanctions comes just before a busy period on the North Korean calendar. April 15 marks the beginning of the country’s most important holiday. The “Day of the Sun,” which actually involves three days, commemorates the birth of the country’s founder and first president Kim Il Sung. April 21 honors the birth of Kim Il Sung’s mother and April 25 is Military Foundation Day. The fear is that April’s festivities could motivate Kim Jong Un to order another round of missile tests as a show of national strength. The Chinese and South Koreans hope their threat is enough to discourage any holiday testing.

North Korea has few international allies and is heavily reliant on its diplomatic and economic relationship with China. While China’s agreement with South Korea will not go unnoticed above the 38th parallel, North Korea rarely demonstrates the kind of obedience China might expect from its dependent client state.

North Korea has a long history of shirking China’s wishes in favor of its own agenda. In the past, China was often willing to fund the regime and look the other way whenever North Korea misbehaved because it acted as a strategic buffer with South Korea and, by extension, the United States. While China publicly opposed North Korea’s efforts to obtain nuclear weaponry, Chinese trade with, and aid to, North Korea remained largely the static after Kim Jong Il ordered the country’s first round of tests in 2009. However, this dynamic may be shifting.

The relationship between the two countries seems to have deteriorated since Kim Jong Un ascended to power. Kim Jong Il visited China seven times in the last 11 years of his life, while Kim Jong Un has yet to meet with the Chinese President Xi Jinping. Many believe the Chinese President firmly dislikes the Supreme Leader. Recent talks between China and South Korea could accelerate the growing rift between China and North Korea. China may soon be unwilling to forgive a North Korean state headed by a leader who it does not trust.

While it is unclear whether regional pressure will be enough to prevent more North Korean tests, Chinese and South Korean negotiators would have certainly preferred it if the United States had not sent a naval strike group to the region. South Korea’s chief nuclear envoy Kim Hong-kyun said that the two countries did not discuss the possibility of an American strike on North Korea, but President Trump’s snap decision to bomb a Syrian air base late last Thursday, as well as recent statements by both Trump and his Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, have put many on alert.

Even if the fleet’s deployment was a symbolic display of power, there is a good chance the simple presence of a U.S. strike force will make matters worse. Whereas Kim Jong Un may have considered standing down in the face of Chinese sanctions, the arrival of a U.S. naval fleet could push him to order more tests.

Although China appears increasingly frustrated with Kim Jong Un, it is not yet willing to take actions that might threaten the future of the Kim dynasty or the North Korea state. Meanwhile, the United States is taking steps that are unbeknownst to those in the region, including South Korea. The international community is at least cursorily united against Kim Jong Un’s nuclear ambitions but has yet to form a combined front. The messy and disjointed way in which international actors are approaching North Korea may well rile up Kim Jong Un and push him to lash out.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Nuclear North Korea: Can China, South Korea, and the U.S. Unite? appeared first on Law Street.

During his four years as president, Nicolás Maduro has faced an ever-growing political opposition and has become the focal point of near constant anti-government protests. On March 29, Venezuela’s pro-government Supreme Court ruled to dissolve the majority-opposition legislature and absorb its powers. Though the high court softened its decision after an intense backlash, anti-government protesters continue to flock to the streets of Caracas and cities across Venezuela in opposition to what they are calling a coup d’état. Although the opposition is growing louder, larger, and more determined, Maduro is intent on keeping power at all costs. The current conditions have been long in the making and it is unclear what lies ahead.

Hugo Chávez and Oil

By most estimates, Venezuela has the largest discovered crude oil reserves in the world. For decades, the Venezuelan economy has depended on the exports of this single commodity. When Hugo Chávez rose to power in 1998, world oil prices were high and the economy was booming. Chávez used the profits generated by Venezuela’s nationalized oil industry to build a country with his socialist vision. Under his rule, social spending increased and many felt that Chávez more than lived up to his promises of a socialist society. Chávez famously launched an initiative in 2011 to provide over one million houses to families in need.

In spite of his promise to defy capitalism and imperialism, Chávez’s undiversified and commodity-based economy was always at the mercy of international markets. After hitting an all time high in July 2008, oil prices crashed in January 2009, putting the Venezuelan economy under immense pressure. However, although Chávez’s approval rating did suffer slightly, he retained popular support and his mandate was rarely in doubt. In tough times, Chávez’s cult of personality guaranteed him a certain amount of unconditional support and there was no one who could mount a realistic challenge against him.

Maduro’s Rise

Nicolás Maduro took over the United Socialist Party (PSUV) upon Chávez’s death in March 2013 and won a special election the following month. Maduro’s surprisingly narrow victory suggested he would never have the kind of support that his predecessor had enjoyed. Venezuela’s economy had been flagging long before Maduro took over; soaring inflation rates and a dependency on imported consumer goods had resulted in widespread shortages. However, without Chávez at the helm, Venezuelans appeared far less willing to turn a blind eye. Though Maduro promised to continue the Chávez legacy, he would never be able replace the revolutionary figure.

In January 2014, anti-government demonstrations gained traction after a violent government response to initial demonstrations caused matters to escalate. In May 2014, oil prices crashed and the situation went from bad to worse. Already struggling in the polls, Maduro’s approval rating plummeted below 25 percent. Protests continued to rage, and in March 2015, the National Assembly finally granted him permission to rule by decree.

Political Resistance

In spite of Maduro’s move to expand his power, the political resistance continued to mount. In December 2015, the opposition Democratic Unity Roundtable Party (MUD) took control of the National Assembly for the first time in more than 16 years of PSUV rule. MUD controlled 112 (67 percent) of the legislature’s 167 seats–a supermajority that granted deputies expanded powers over Maduro’s executive branch.

While Maduro initially accepted the results, the loyalist Supreme Court ruled to block three newly elected MUD lawmakers from taking office, citing electoral irregularities. The ruling, which was handed down a week before the deputies were set to meet for their first session, was seen by opposition politicians as a blatant attempt to dismantle the supermajority. The MUD-controlled National Assembly ignored the ruling and swore the deputies in. It was this act of defiance that compelled the court to dissolve the National Assembly and hand control of the country back to Maduro and the PSUV on March 29.

While the ruling effectively restored Maduro’s control over Venezuela’s three branches of government, it in no way restored his control over the country. On the day of the ruling, protestors amassed outside the court. In response to the outcry, the Supreme Court revised the contentious decision last Saturday. While it seems the Supreme Court will no longer take over the legislature’s power to enact legislation, the ruling was not reversed. The legislature has still been ruled to be in contempt of the court and may not be allowed to pass new laws. Unsurprisingly, this revision has done little to quell the opposition. Protests continue to rage and have since turned violent.

While there are signs that Maduro could lose the faith of some high-ranking PSUV members and face a challenge from inside the party, it seems unlikely the party will turn on him just yet. Maduro is intent on expanding his powers, while an ever-increasing number of Venezuelans are adamantly opposed to his leadership.

Maduro would almost certainly lose a free and fair election–scheduled for October 2018–but any number of things could happen before then. Long-standing tensions have reached a point where some fear a civil war may be imminent.

Under Chávez, the PSUV dominated every aspect of Venezuelan politics. While critics often called Chávez a dictator and decried his authoritarian style, the popular support for the socialist leader was undeniable. Maduro, the heir to Chávez’s throne, does not enjoy this level of popularity. Maduro is simply incapable of filling the seat Chávez left behind. Many of the systemic issues that plague Venezuela pre-date Maduro’s presidency, but his approach to the role has only aggravated an already disgruntled, disenfranchised, and disenchanted public.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Political Turmoil in Venezuela: What’s Next? appeared first on Law Street.

On March 3, the State Department released its Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2016, and its pointed critique of India’s human rights record has raised some eyebrows. The report is particularly critical of India’s history of state violence and the country’s criminal justice system in general. While one might expect the State Department’s findings to influence talks during Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s impending visit to Washington, the matter will likely be ignored.

Accusations of State Violence

“Instances of police and security force abuses, including extrajudicial killings, torture, and rape; corruption” are cited as the most significant examples of human rights violations in India. While an investigation by India’s National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) revealed examples of arbitrary, unlawful, and extrajudicial killings throughout the country, the State Department report said, data from the Institute for Conflict Management suggests a concentration of killings in northern states, particularly along the Indian-Pakistani border.

While state violence is identified as a primary concern, injustices are believed to extend to almost every aspect of India’s criminal justice system. Here are some examples:

• According to the report, police and government officials have consistently denied claims of hundreds of unresolved disappearances, and have supposedly demanded bribes from people hoping to learn whether or not their family members are currently detained.
• According to the National Law University in Delhi, 216 of the 270 death row inmates they interviewed had been tortured.
• Investigations by NHRC revealed numerous cases in which police officers raped detainees and NGOs argued the government agency underestimated the figures.
• Research indicates that activists and “economically vulnerable” people are at a much greater risk of being arbitrarily detained and subjected to cruelty. Torture is often used to force false confessions.
• Judicial corruption is believe to be widespread and, according to the Supreme Court, 43 percent of the country’s high court positions are vacant.

The report suggests India’s Armed Forces Special Powers Act of 1958 (AFSPA) is a major contributing factor to state violence and arbitrary detention. Though there are multiple iterations, the act grants security forces special powers in areas the government has determined to be “disturbed.” These “special powers” include, but are not limited to, the right to use deadly force against anyone who is in violation of the law, and to arrest anyone “who has committed a cognizable offence or against whom a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed or is about to commit a cognizable offence” without a warrant.

Security forces also have the right to enter and search property without a warrant. While there are numerous Islamic and Maoist insurgent groups operating in the “disturbed areas,” critics argue the decades-long enforcement of AFSPA has only escalated violence carried out by the government with impunity.

A White House Response?

In a press briefing on Friday about the upcoming visits of the leaders of Jordan and Egypt, a senior White House official said that human rights were “first and foremost in our discussions [with foreign leaders],” but that the Trump Administration plans on approaching “these types of sensitive issues in a private, more discreet way.” This approach however, makes it difficult for the public to know whether matters of human rights are discussed with foreign leaders at all. If existing information is anything to go by, trade, not human rights, will be the topic of choice during Modi’s visit.

By all accounts, President Donald Trump and Modi enjoy a warm relationship. Five days after his inauguration, Trump called the prime minister, expressed his support for Modi’s economic reforms, and invited Modi to the White House. Trump called Modi again last Tuesday to congratulate him on his party’s victories in state-level elections. After the call, the White House confirmed Modi would be visiting Washington sometime this year. No date has been set.

When Trump called Modi in January, “the two discussed opportunities to strengthen the partnership between the US and India in broad areas such as the economy and defense,” according to the White House. While campaigning, Trump expressed support for Modi’s plan for economic growth. In an interview with The Times of India, former Deputy Secretary of State William Burns suggested that a bilateral investment treaty would likely be a priority for both countries when Modi visits. It is safe to assume that the topic of trade will take precedence in any upcoming discussions between the U.S. and India.

Trump is unlikely to address the matter of human rights, even “in a private, more discreet” setting. After the two leaders spoke in January, a Trump spokesperson noted that they had agreed to “stand shoulder to shoulder in the global fight against terrorism.” India has long used terrorism as the justification for AFSPA and state violence at large. In spite of the fact that the State Department identified state violence as one of the most flagrant examples of human rights violations in India, the “law and order president” is unlikely to condemn the hardline policies believed to be motivating the violence.

While the scathing human rights report carries Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s signature, the endorsement is only a formality. Trade will likely be at the forefront during Modi’s visit and any future discussions between the two countries.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will Trump Mention India’s Human Rights Abuses in His Meeting with Narendra Modi? appeared first on Law Street.

Paraguay’s Senate recently took a step toward amending a constitutional rule that restricts presidents from holding more than one five-year term in office. President Horacio Cartes has long been pushing for the amendment and has formed a pluralistic coalition with some of his traditional political rivals.

Nonetheless, many in Paraguay’s Congress and a vast majority of the public oppose the amendment for fear that it might allow yet another dictatorship to take hold of the country. While unpopular, the amendment seems inevitable, though the political consequences of the change are unknown.

Of Paraguay’s 45 senators, 25 met for Tuesday’s charged special session in which they pushed through procedural changes that will make it easier to amend the constitution. President of the Senate Roberto Acevedo was not present at the meeting. Instead, a pro-Cartes senator took to the microphone, declared himself Senate President, and called for a vote.

By a show of hands, legislators lowered the number of votes needed before proposals could be put before Congress and restricted the Senate President’s power to strike down legislation. These procedural changes come seven months after the legislature successfully defeated a bill that would have ended the one-term limit.

As legislators met inside the El Cabildo, Paraguay’s congressional building, riot police mobilized outside and protesters amassed in the streets. Numerous politicians, including many from the president’s own Colorado Party, denounced the proposed amendment as well as the irregular means by which legislators have pursued the proposal.

Paraguay’s Catholic Bishops came out against the Senate’s vote, arguing it demonstrated an “absolute lack of consideration and respect for the democratic institution.” Though the clergymen urged Paraguayans to “reflect, calmly and reasonably, on what happened,” many fear the country might once again fall under dictatorial rule. This concern is justified considering Paraguay’s history with authoritarian rule.

A New Era of Dictatorship?

After regaining power from the Liberal Party in 1947, the Colorado Party ruled Paraguay as a one-party dictatorship for six decades. While opposition parties were technically legalized in 1962, Alfredo Stroessner led the party and country as a military dictator until 1989, when a faction of the Colorado Party staged a coup and implemented reforms.

In spite of these reforms, the right-wing party retained power for another two decades until Fernando Lugo won the presidency in 2008. Now, a Colorado president and the man who ended six decades of Colorado rule are working together to amend the constitution with the intention of facing off against one another in the 2018 elections.

The highly controversial battle does not fall along party lines. Supporters for the amendment include members from all three major parties. Pro-Cartes members of the right-wing Colorado Party have aligned with a faction of the center-right Liberal Party and the bulk of the center-left Frente Guasú party. Though this three-party coalition is working to pass the same constitutional amendment, their motivations differ.

The pro-Cartes faction of the Colorado Party hopes to see the current president re-elected. Some lawmakers in the Frente Guasú party want to amend the constitution so former President (and leader of Frente Guasú) Lugo can run against Cartes in 2018. Lugo was impeached in 2012, and under the current constitution, is barred from running again.

Despite its wide congressional support, the amendment is extremely unpopular among Paraguayans. A recent poll shows that 77 percent of Paraguayans oppose the amendment. Aside from the fact that many feel the government’s fixation with amending the constitution has distracted from more important issues, Paraguayans seem to recognize the term limit is intended to safeguard against the re-occurrence of a Stroessner-style regime.

Could Lugo Win Again?

Though the public overwhelmingly opposes the amendment, polls show that were the election held tomorrow, Lugo would win over 50 percent of the vote, while Cartes would win less than 12 percent. Lugo is the only candidate to defeat the Colorado Party in decades and remains popular with the electorate. Were Lugo to run in 2018, his win could potentially weaken the Colorado Party’s traditional hegemony and embolden voices opposed to the status quo.

While allowing Lugo to run again could help normalize the peaceful exchange of power between parties, the strength of the Colorado Party must not be underestimated. While Lugo won the presidency in 2008, he did not complete his term. A year before his term expired, Colorado and Liberal members of Congress formed a coalition and impeached Lugo. The conditions for his impeachment where somewhat dubious and many Latin American leaders condemned the decision. Unless Lugo’s Frente Guasú is able to secure a strong contingency in Congress, there is no guarantee that his prospective second term won’t end up like his first.

Recent developments seem to suggest a constitutional amendment allowing multiple terms is inevitable. While the amendment could see a popular opposition voice return to the highest office in the land, it may also reopen a door that was locked shut, bringing a new era of dictatorship to Paraguay.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Paraguay on the Verge of Becoming a Dictatorship? appeared first on Law Street.

Immigration courts have long struggled to handle the caseloads created by years of policies aimed at criminalizing undocumented immigrants. Formal deportation proceedings for apprehended immigrants were emphasized under President George W. Bush and would later define President Barack Obama’s deportation legacy.

The influx of asylum-seeking refugees–many from Central America–that began in 2014 compounded the problem by further increasing caseloads and diversifying the type of cases put before judges. While President Donald Trump has ordered new facilities and an expanded border patrol workforce, his policies will likely confuse an already-tangled system.

Shift to Formal Deportation

In the past, immigration agents “voluntarily returned” the vast majority of undocumented people they apprehended. Under this practice, undocumented immigrants, particularly those apprehended along the border, were deported from the U.S. but were not formally processed or subjected to legal consequences. According to the Migration Policy Institute, the Clinton Administration deported a total of 12.3 million people (including “voluntarily returned” immigrants), but only formally deported about 900,000 people.

Critics demanding the government formally deport anyone found entering the U.S. without documentation referred to voluntary returns as “catch and release.” Soon there was a concerted government effort to implement policies that would essentially criminalize undocumented immigrants. These policies were meant to deter deported migrants from attempting to re-enter the country.

In 2005, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) announced the Consequence Delivery System (CDS), which resulted in an increase in formal deportations. According to the Migration Policy Institute, the Bush Administration deported 10.3 million people (two million fewer than Clinton), and formally deported over 2 million people. This trend continued under Obama, who was either unwilling or unable to rollback formal deportations.

In his two terms, Obama formally deported 3.1 million people in spite of the fact that he deported far fewer people (5.3 million) overall than the Clinton and Bush Administrations. About 7.3 percent of undocumented immigrants were formally deported under Clinton, 19.4 percent under Bush, and 58.5 percent under Obama.

The decades-long commitment to criminalizing undocumented immigration has put enormous pressure on immigration courts. For years, immigration courts have lacked the resources necessary to undertake the hundreds of thousands of deportation hearings. While existing policy demands the criminalization of undocumented immigrants, the courts are struggling to keep pace in spite of controversial methods, such as Operation Streamline, designed to expedite hearing proceedings.

Refugees, Not Immigrants

In the summer of 2014, thousands of Central American refugees fled north in search of protection from violence in their home countries. In years prior, the vast majority of migrants attempting to cross the U.S.-Mexico border were Mexican citizens. Since the 2008 recession however, the number of Mexican migrants has dropped dramatically. In 2014, non-Mexicans outnumbered Mexican migrants for the first time on record.

Immigration officers found that far fewer people were attempting to cross the border undetected; instead, many more people were simply turning themselves in and requesting asylum. While approximately 90 percent of non-Mexican migrants crossing the southern border over the past few years have been from Central America, there is an increasing trend of non-Latin American migrants moving through Mexico in need of asylum.

Unwilling to provide asylum to the thousands seeking help and hoping to ease the strain placed on immigration infrastructure, the Obama Administration pressed the Mexican government to act. On July 7, 2014, Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto announced the Southern Border Plan, which he claimed would both protect the rights of migrants while ensuring security of the region.

Mexico deported nearly twice as many Central Americans in 2015 than in 2014, but the plan did little to discourage refugees from traveling through Mexico. While the number of migrants traveling on traditional thoroughfares north through Mexico decreased, they took lesser-known, more dangerous, routes to avoid detection. Central American refugees and refugees from around the world continue to arrive at the southern border demanding their cases be heard by U.S. authorities.

Under both international and domestic law, the U.S. is required to review the case of anyone who arrives on U.S. soil claiming to be a refugee and requesting asylum. While the Obama Administration approved a fraction of the asylum requests, policy dictated that migrants requesting asylum were entitled to have their case formally reviewed.

Trump’s recent executive order accused refugees of abusing the asylum program by forcing asylum proceedings to delay deportation. Trump’s order upended the asylum process by affording border officers the power to review asylum claims. Reports suggest immigration agents are either reviewing cases in brief or simply refusing to accept asylum claims and turning people around. Critics argue that these practices are in violation of domestic and international laws.

The Courts Under Trump

Trump inherits a system that is plagued by backlogs that have been building for over a decade. Nonetheless, Trump’s persistent rhetoric, his numerous executive orders, and a spate of recent U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids suggest deportation cases will climb under his presidency.

While Trump ordered the expansion of the immigration enforcement workforce and construction of new facilities, the funds would require congressional approval. Furthermore, new appropriations would likely fail to fill existing cracks caused by a decade of aggressive deportation policies. Recent shifts in migration patterns have exacerbated immigration courts’ caseloads.

While Trump’s promises of secure borders and increased deportations won him the support of many, it remains to be seen whether he will be able to fulfill his promises. Trump’s immigration policies present a logistical nightmare for an already overworked system and will likely face numerous legal challenges both domestically and internationally. In attempting to ramp up immigration enforcement to unprecedented levels, Trump may force it to a grinding halt.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump’s Policies Could Further Damage Ailing Immigration Courts appeared first on Law Street.

Donald Trump Jr. decided early on not to measure himself against his father https://t.co/HXIxaRxHOV

— The New York Times (@nytimes) March 19, 2017

While Donald Sr. has shown he’s comfortable with stump speeches, Don Jr. seems very uncomfortable on his stump. Needless to say, Twitter latched on to the meme-ready image, mercilessly mocking him and his lumberjack attire.

@JordanFreiman noticed that Don Jr.’s sitting troubles go far beyond just stumps.

how is he so bad at sitting? pic.twitter.com/Jg7cTMfDcc

— Jordan Freiman (@JordanFreiman) March 18, 2017

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Twitter Roasts Donald “Stump” Jr. With Viral Meme appeared first on Law Street.

On March 29, Prime Minister Theresa May will trigger Article 50 and initiate the United Kingdom’s official withdrawal from the European Union. Once EU officials receive notice of the UK’s intention to leave, the two parties will be able to formally negotiate the terms under which it will leave, and how it will interact with the union going forward. Much has been made about the likelihood that EU negotiators will be keen to make an example of the United Kingdom so as to send a message to other member states who may be eyeing an exit. However, if Theresa May’s political history is anything to go by, a comprehensive split with the European Union will suit her government just fine.

Following the referendum, there was much debate over whether May’s government ought to pursue a “soft Brexit,” which would have allowed Britain to stay in the Common Market, or sever all existing ties with the European Economic Area and undertake a “hard Brexit.” Polls released the day before May’s speech on her plan to leave the EU showed that more Britons supported either remaining in the European Union or at least the Common Market. May ultimately committed to a “hard Brexit,” claiming that remaining within the single market “would, for all intents and purposes, mean not leaving the EU at all.”

Controlling immigration has long been the priority for the former Home Secretary, which is a key factor in why she was elevated from her position to prime minister in the wake of a referendum result that was largely motivated by anti-immigrant sentiment. In the run up to the referendum, May backed the Remain campaign but her support was unenthusiastic; she rarely spoke in favor of EU membership. On a rare occasion May did speak, she still expressed her distaste for freedom of movement. During her time as home secretary, May put forward a number of hardline immigration policies that were criticized by many as being overtly harmful to immigrants and their families.

Considering May’s feelings on immigration, it is no surprise she opted to pursue a “hard Brexit” plan that would allow Britain to have absolute control over immigration policy. Wishing to avoid a domino-like collapse of the union, EU negotiators would have likely rejected a plan that allowed the UK to remain within the Common Market. However, considering that a “soft Brexit” would have carried provisions for the freedom of movement of people, it is unlikely May would have gone for these terms anyway.

Relations between the United Kingdom and the European Union are likely somewhat tense. Once Article 50 is triggered and negotiations begin, both sides will be trying to score political points. May’s government will hope to convince the British public and the world that the United Kingdom would be better off outside of the EU. The EU will be aiming to stem the tide of euro-skepticism by demonstrating value of EU membership and the cost that exiting the union incurs.

While the two parties have distinct goals, their plans for achieving their respective objectives appear to be largely the same: pursue a definitive break. In her speech announcing a “hard Brexit,” May declared that she would not be bullied by the EU claiming that “no deal for Britain is better than a bad deal for Britain.” In October, President François Hollande said that “there must be a price” for leaving the EU and that Britain cannot expect to “to enjoy supposed benefits [of EU membership] without downsides.”

Both the UK and the EU have drawn lines in the sand. As of now, a “hard Brexit” appears to be the mutually agreeable course of action, but only time will tell whether both, neither, or just one of the parties were well advised in pursuing such a conclusive break.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The UK and EU Both Seem to Want a “Hard Brexit,” but for Different Reasons appeared first on Law Street.

On Wednesday, Mexican presidential hopeful Andrés Manuel López Obrador submitted a petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) accusing President Donald Trump of persecuting migrants. The petition could indicate a swelling international resistance to Trump.

In a press conference at the National Press Club, López Obrador and his team announced that the petition challenged Trump’s anti-immigration executive orders. While the petition lists 30 specific cases involving Mexican and Guatemalan citizens, López Obrador’s team claimed to be acting on behalf of immigrants around the world.

Signed by over 12,000 Mexican and American citizens, the petition will be placed under initial review. If the IACHR allows it proceed, the case could go before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. However, even if the court denounces the U.S., such a ruling would have little, if any, effect.

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights are components of the Organization of American States, and collectively uphold the American Convention on Human Rights. While the U.S. signed the convention in 1977, it did not ratify it. Therefore, the U.S. is under no legal obligation to accept rulings issued by the Inter-American Court. Furthermore, Trump has regularly expressed his contempt for international organizations and would most certainly dismiss any ruling that denounced his policies.

It is unlikely that López Obrador submitted the petition with the intention of mounting a genuine legal challenge. He will be well aware that U.S. is not beholden to IACHR rulings. However, by submitting the petition, the left-wing politician has cast himself as a determined political opponent of Trump. Though candidates for the Mexican presidential race are not expected to file until the summer, López Obrador has been working to drum up early support and currently leads opinion polls.

While the extremely unpopular Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto received an outpouring of support  after he canceled a meeting with Trump, his approval rating has since dropped to a record low. López Obrador is promising a platform that stands to the left of the president’s Institutional Revolutionary Party.

Speaking at the National Press Club, López Obrador said he was “disappointed” with how Peña Nieto handled early conversations with Trump. He accused the Mexican president of “submitting” to the U.S. by agreeing to avoid publicly discussing Trump’s proposed border wall and immigration policies. López Obrador declared that Mexico “is not a colony” and that the two countries “need a relationship based on respect not force.”

Riding the same wave of anti-establishment sentiment that propelled Trump to the White House, López Obrador is a refreshing alternative to many who are tired of the status quo. Though largely symbolic, López Obrador’s petition sends a clear statement of intent to both those in Mexico and those in the U.S.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mexican Presidential Hopeful López Obrador Accuses Trump of Human Rights Violations appeared first on Law Street.

This week, India’s National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) imposed measures that significantly cut the prices of a variety of “essential” drugs, including drugs that treat cancer. These price controls are by no means unprecedented. For decades, the Indian government has worked to keep drug costs low, which has often meant bucking international drug patenting and pricing norms. In doing so India nurtured and developed a massive generic drug industry. While the Indian government must not be admonished for keeping drug costs low, its longstanding obsession with cheap drugs may distract from broader health care accessibility issues.

In 1970, India passed a newly revised Patents Act, which upended the Indian pharmaceutical industry. The act stipulated pharmaceutical patents would only be issued to drugs that exhibited “one or more inventive step(s).” While this language seems relatively innocuous, it totally changed the way in which pharmaceutical corporations conduct business.

Drug patents allow holders to charge high prices because patents ensure market exclusivity for a given period of time. However, in order to maintain market exclusivity, drug companies engage in a practice known as “evergreening.” In most countries, patent laws are such that pharmaceutical companies are able to extend patents and maintain monopolies by making trivial modifications to an already patented product. According to the American Medical Association, these slight alterations allow patent holders to claim they are releasing a new, innovative drug and extend their exclusive rights over said drug “despite the absence of any compelling pharmacologic difference.” In the United States, companies do all sorts of things to “evergreen” drugs including “obtaining additional patents on other aspects of a drug, including its coating, salt moiety, formulation, and method of administration.”

The language in India’s 1970 act is such that companies selling drugs in India would no longer be able to get a patent unless they were offering a new and “inventive” drug. Companies would no longer be able to patent known drugs in an attempt to extend a market monopoly. As a result, a drug that might have enjoyed patent protection elsewhere, would not be protected under Indian patent policy. Soon after this policy shift, India’s generic drug industry exploded, and domestic drug prices plummeted. Before long, India became one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical exporters.

India has made changes to its patent policy over the years, but its generic drug industry continues to operate and thrive under legal conditions set in motion by the 1970 act. Ironically, India’s largest manufacturers are beginning to push back against price-oriented policies that brought them into existence.

While India’s patent polices undermined evergreening practices, price controls were instituted as an additional means of keeping drugs affordable. The creation of a generic drug industry worked to cut costs by undermining market monopolies but, as time went on, India’s most prominent manufacturers of generic drugs were able to brand their products and charge premiums. Price controls were used to ensure these premium prices were not excessive compared to the average cost of other generics.

Whereas India’s patent laws prevent multinational corporations from charging exorbitant prices in monopolized markets, India’s price controls prevent domestic manufacturers of generic drugs from charging more for a drug that bears their brand. Just as multinational corporations argued India’s patent policies stifle innovation, domestic manufacturers arguing that price control affect their ability to operate. In 2012, the government even went as far as suggesting “a future where we will not issue any brand or trade names.”

India’s government should not be criticized for ending price gouging tactics. Multinational corporations should not be able to exclude swaths of people from access to drugs by manipulating patent policy and extending market exclusivity, and cheap generics are crucial in a country where around 78 percent of the population pays for health care out-of-pocket. However, while access to cheap drugs is vital, the government’s health care policy is largely defined by its longstanding obsession with the generic industry and domestic drug prices.

Decades of policies ensuring cheap and readily accessible drugs have helped improve access for many but may have distracted from more holistic attempts at improving health care accessibility. Yet, notwithstanding cheap drug prices, studies have show health care costs are responsible for half of all Indian households falling into poverty. This most recent round of price controls on essential generic drugs came as no surprise, and that might be an issue. India’s pushback to the international patent regime is commendable but cheap drugs should not be treated as the end all be all of health care accessibility.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post India’s Low Drug Prices: Do They Lead to a Struggle for Health Care Accessibility? appeared first on Law Street.

The Department of Health and Human Services has declared widespread opioid abuse to be a serious public health issue. Officials across the country are searching for ways to combat the epidemic and are increasingly calling for “public health responses, not a war on drugs.” However, reports indicate the Ohio city of Washington Court House has begun charging people who survive opiate overdoses with “inducing panic.” Although city officials claim the new practice is not meant to worsen the conditions of those struggling with opioid addiction, the policy directly opposes the prevailing logic regarding addiction and rehabilitation.

In the past month, police used Naloxone, a drug that reverses the effects of opioids, to revive seven people before charging them with a misdemeanor. In an interview with the city’s local ABC affiliate, Washington Court House officials argued charging overdose survivors “gives [the city] the ability to keep an eye on them, to offer them assistance and to know who has overdosed.” The court summons is meant to ensure the city is able to “follow up” with overdose survivors and show them the city cares and wants to help them, not jail them, the officials said.

Nonetheless, those charged with “inducing panic” could face up to 180 days in prison or a $1,000 fine. Regardless of whether or not Washington Court House attorneys plan on convicting the addicts who have been charged, the move is misguided. The criminal justice system is not equipped to assist drug addicts, and attempting to address addiction by using the system only perpetuates the criminalization of drug addiction and addicts.

The U.S. has a long history of criminalizing drug addicts rather than providing them the medical assistance they require. According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, those found guilty of drug related offenses constitute 46.4 percent of the prison population. In a 2010 report, the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse estimated 65 percent of the prison population “meet medical criteria for substance abuse or addiction” but only 11 percent receive any kind of treatment for their addiction. Furthermore, the availability of drugs within prison walls is well documented, and relapses are common.

There is an expert consensus that addiction is a medical condition and ought to be treated as such. While officials throughout the nation are recognizing the need for cogent and compassionate public health responses, Washington Court House continues the detrimental criminalization of drug addiction.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ohio Town Charges Opioid Overdose Survivors with “Inducing Panic” appeared first on Law Street.

On January 27, the Spanish prime minister appointed Edelmira Barreira Diz to be the “Commissioner for the Demographic Challenge.” The “sex tsar,” as the media has dubbed her, will be responsible for addressing Spain’s depressed fertility rate and relieving the socioeconomic implications of an aging population. Spain is one of many European countries that have begun to recommend that their citizens have more children. Italy, Denmark, and Sweden have all launched fertility campaigns as well. While many have championed immigration as a means of easing Europe’s demographic dilemma, few governments can open their borders without facing backlash from an increasingly xenophobic European public. By sidestepping immigration, fertility campaigns represent an implicitly ethnocentric response to Europe’s aging populations.

A decreasing fertility rate is considered an important trait of economic development. European fertility rates have been dropping for decades and, as a consequence, the age of the average European is climbing. Many experts fear Europe’s growth-oriented economies are reaching an impasse. As retirees begin to make up a larger percentage of the overall population, there will be proportionally fewer young people to pick up the slack. The economic challenges these long-term trends potentially pose are beginning to loom large for many European officials.

While there is debate on whether or not the ratio of workers to retirees holds bearing over economic performance, governments throughout Europe are seemingly behaving as though it does. During the Euro-crisis, the continent’s aging population was often mentioned as a factor possibly hindering the recovery. The fact that the European Union and individual European states are working to reduce the average age of their respective populations is indicative of their belief that youth is key to ensuring long-term economic stability.

Immigrants are often pegged as quick and effective supplements to an aging labor force. However, with anti-immigrant sentiments are flaring, any argument in favor of immigration is bound to cause fervent controversy. By encouraging fertility, governments can address concerns about an aging population and avoid acknowledging the merits of immigration.

In doing so, fertility campaigns hark back to a time when fascist European governments demanded their citizens give more children to the state. Like campaigns of the past, modern efforts ignore the question of immigration and instead encourage the cultivation of a new generation of citizens who will one day contribute to continued economic growth. While seemingly tame, fertility campaigns are a resurgent trend that implicitly enforce nationalistic notions of who is valuable and who is not. Far right groups remain particularly concerned with fertility. They see high rates of domestic fertility as a source of national strength and the fertility of immigrants as a threat to the social fabric. Last year, Germany’s right wing party, Alternative for Germany, leaked a manifesto outlining policies that would incentivize German women to have three or more children.

European governments are unwilling or unable to address their perceived aging problem with policies that would upset the vociferous anti-immigrant faction. While these contemporary fertility campaigns are related in comparatively innocuous terms, they work to emphasize the value of citizens and minimize, or entirely ignore, the value of immigrants.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fertility Campaigns Fight Population Shifts but Reinforce Anti-Immigrant Sentiments appeared first on Law Street.

On February 17, Maine’s Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) asked the federal government to approve a statewide ban on the use of food stamps to purchase sugary drinks and candy. In its press release, DHHS representatives argued that banning such purchases would benefit public health and ease the burden on taxpayers. While many welcomed the move, it embodies the way in which conditional government welfare programs patronize and stigmatize low-income people.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as the Food Stamp program, is a state-administered and federally-funded program designed to help low-income families. Maine’s move to ban candy and soda aside, SNAP is already an example of conditional welfare in that benefits can only be used to buy foodstuffs from approved vendors. Rather than providing unconditional benefits for low-income families to spend at their discretion, conditional welfare programs like SNAP undermine the autonomy of low-income people by imposing parameters on how they are allowed to use their benefits. Governments rationalize the conditions imposed on welfare recipients, but these rationalizations are often unjustified. Ultimately, conditional welfare is motivated by a cultural and institutional mistrust of low-income people.

The press release from Maine’s DHHS justified the prospective ban on the grounds that soda and candy lack nutritional value and that eliminating the option to buy soda would reduce obesity amongst SNAP recipients. However, the assumption that simply improving nutritional content of the food one eats will improve one’s weight is not that well supported by evidence. While poor nutrition can affect certain health outcomes, the American Medical Association and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases agree that caloric content, not nutritional content, of food overwhelmingly determines one’s weight.

In 2010, a professor of human nutrition at the University of Kansas made headlines when he lost 27 pounds in two months by cutting his calorie intake and restricting his diet to Twinkies, Doritos, and Oreos. Of course, being thin is not equivalent to being healthy and there are many positive health outcomes associated with improving nutritional intake. Nonetheless, simply banning the purchase of some items will do little to reduce obesity, nor ensure those on food stamps will diversify their nutritional intake.

Misguided Calculations

After drawing a tenuous prediction that the prohibition of sugary foods will cause a reduction in obesity rates, the press release notes “Over $700 million is spent in Maine on obesity related medical expenditures and more than a third of that paid for by taxpayers in the Medicare and Medicaid programs.” This, of course, implies that low-income individuals are disproportionately responsible for Maine’s obesity problem and that they disproportionately contribute to the healthcare costs associated with obesity.

However, according to data from the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF), the average low-income Mainer generates an effectively equal amount of “obesity related medical expenditure” as the average Mainer who is not reliant on Medicare or Medicaid. Over 269,000 of 1.33 million Mainers rely on Medicaid and over 306,400 on Medicare. When factoring in the 104,000 dual eligibilities, KFF’s data shows that nearly 35 percent of Maine’s population relies on these health aid programs.

Therefore, just under two-thirds of the Maine population that is not low-income makes up about two-thirds of Maine’s “obesity related medical expenditure.” The assertion made in this press release is likely grounded in the misguided and simplistic belief that poorer Americans are more likely to be obese. In reality, obesity is a relatively constant cause for concern across all income brackets.

Unconditional Help

Obesity is no doubt an issue in Maine and throughout the country. While the state’s move to eliminate sugary products from its food stamp program may have been well intentioned, it is but one example of how conditional welfare disproportionately blames low-income people for public problems that are largely unrelated to economic status. Such misguided rationalizations are often used to justify patronizing conditional welfare programs.

While limiting the autonomy of beneficiaries is seen as a way of ensuring government funds are spent properly, doing so not only unjustly stigmatizes welfare recipients, it often undermines the efficacy of each dollar spent on welfare. Conditional welfare assumes that because one is in need of welfare, they are unfit to have discretion over how they spend money.

Research has shown that unconditional cash transfer and welfare programs are far more effective means of improving recipients’ conditions. In 2003, Brazil introduced a program known as Bolsa Familia under which poor families were eligible to receive direct cash transfers. While Bolsa Familia did impose some conditions on families (requiring children of recipient families be vaccinated and attend school), each family was free to spend their cash transfer as they saw fit. The program was considered a huge success, helping to reduce poverty and inequality nationwide.

Maine’s effort to ban the purchase of candy and soft drink with food stamps awaits approval from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), which is the federal agency in charge of overseeing SNAP.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post No Food Stamps for Sweets: Unjust Welfare Conditionality appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, thousands of people attended “Not My Presidents’ Day” rallies throughout the country to protest the Trump presidency. In Washington D.C., a large group gathered in Dupont Circle to listen to a number of speakers before marching toward the White House.

Lee Carter, a candidate for the Virginia State House of Delegates (50th district), was the first to address the D.C. crowd. He called for those against the president to stand up to his administration, and to “stand together and let people know that there is a viable alternative for this country going forward.”

Lindsey Middelton, a researcher at the National Institute of Health, attended the rally holding star-shaped American flag balloons and a sign demanding “respect, inclusion, and civility.” She said she “wanted the energy from the Women’s March to continue.” Middelton recalled protesting the Vietnam War, and said the protests surrounding President Donald Trump are at least equally passionate. She hopes “the public outrage affects the people downtown making decisions.”

Marchers approach the White House. Courtesy of Callum Cleary for Law Street Media.

Native and civil rights activist Gray Michael Parsons then took the stage. He spoke of the important role the media played in capturing and exposing injustice during the civil rights movement and demanded that those in the audience work to do the same. Parsons, who protested the Dakota Access pipeline in Standing Rock, North Dakota last fall, criticized the Department of Justice for not visiting the protest site and asked the crowd to “be our media…stand up for us.”

Mizraim Belman, an undocumented immigrant and first-year student at Georgetown University, stood at the center of Dupont Circle to decry the president’s hardline immigration policy. He affirmed his undocumented status before defiantly declaring that he was “unafraid” of the president’s expressed intentions.

Jordan Marie Daniels, also a native activist, stood in the center of Dupont Circle in front of a striking “Defend the Sacred” banner and asked for a continued and unified resistance in the face of an “unfit administration.” Daniels will be part of a native rights march on the White House on March 10.

At one point during rally, two men on roaring motorcycles began circling the park, attempting to drown out the speakers by revving their engines. Fixed to the back of one bike was an American flag; the other held a blue flag that read “Trump.”

“Bikers for Trump” attempt to disrupt the D.C. rally. Courtesy of Callum Cleary for Law Street Media.

Ken Boddye, a candidate for the Virginia State House of Delegates (51st district), was the last to speak in front of the crowd, and his words echoed those who spoke before him. He concluded by proclaiming that those against Trump will “not stand for his regression, hate or fear.” He, along with the other speakers, then led the rally on a march down to the White House.

Among the stream of protesters en route to the White House was Will Allen. Wearing the ubiquitous pink hat from the Women’s March and a tie-dye shirt, Allen stood to the side to speak with Law Street. He said he was protesting the endless incompetence of the Trump Administration. “It’s just one thing after another,” he said, “every day another lie, every day another story.” Before rejoining the march, Allen added: “it’s not making any sense, so we need somebody new.”

Alec Siegel also contributed to this story. 

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Happened at the D.C. “Not My Presidents’ Day” Protest? appeared first on Law Street.

On Sunday, Ecuadorians went to the polls to vote for their next president. Though eight candidates were listed on the ballot, Ecuadorians were ultimately expected to choose between Lenín Moreno, from the ruling socialist Alianza PAIS party, and Guillermo Lasso, a center-right candidate running for the second time. With almost 90 percent of the vote counted, Moreno leads Lasso by 10.8 percent. However, Moreno’s 39.11 percent share of the vote leaves him just shy of the 40 percent required to avoid a run off election and win outright. In spite of his comfortable first round win, a run off could spell the end for Moreno, a decade of socialist rule in Ecuador, and hammer yet another nail in the coffin of Latin America’s leftist resurgence.

Over the past few years, the ruling party’s popularity has waned. The early days of the Alianza PAIS era were marked by strong economic growth but as global oil prices dropped, the commodity-dependent Ecuadorian economy began to stall. Allegations of government corruption compounded credibility issues posed by the economic downturn. While Moreno was expected to win the first round of votes, it was unclear whether or not he would be able to win the election outright. Looking increasingly vulnerable, Moreno could very well lose the potential run off.

Lasso’s objective was to prevent Moreno from reaching 40 percent in the first round so as to build a majority coalition capable of defeating Moreno in a second round. In his speech last night, Lasso called for the 60 percent of Ecuadorians that rejected Moreno to form a centrist coalition. After placing third, center-left candidate Cynthia Viteri urged her supporters to vote for Lasso. However, even if Lasso drew the support of every single Viteri voter, he would still be about six percent short of a run off-winning majority. Fourth-placed center-left candidate, Paco Moncayo, received nearly seven percent of the vote but refused to support either candidate in a second round.

While Viteri’s and Moncayo’s supporters rejected Alianza PAIS, it is important to note that they sit left-of-center. It remains to be seen what portion of this sizable center-left voting block will opt for centrism over a leftist status quo. If a run off becomes a reality, Lasso and Moreno will be forced to fight for scraps.

Lasso has promised a radical departure from current government policy. He has vowed to cut taxes for business to encourage foreign investment and slash government spending. All of this, Lasso claims, will result in a million new jobs for Ecuadorians. While Moreno has promised to make alterations to socialist rule, he intends on advancing Correa’s legacy. Over the past decade, Alianza PAIS members have worked to reduce poverty and have joined other leftist Latin American leaders in demanding increased regional integration.

Moreno’s predecessor, Rafaela Correa, took office as the “pink tide” swept through Latin America. Newly elected left-leaning governments throughout the region promised a shift away from neoliberalism by using commodity exports to increase social spending. Many of these leftist movements were unable to overcome depressed commodity markets and their once infatuated support bases began to shrink. While Latin America’s pink tide is not dead, it is struggling to counter those calling for a move back toward neoliberal policies. Ecuador’s election could be yet another indicator that the “pink tide” is on its way out.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ecuador’s Election: The “Pink Tide” is on the Rocks appeared first on Law Street.

The Relson Gracie Jiu-Jitsu Academy in Columbus, Ohio has released a video that could come in handy for cabinet appointees, visiting heads of state, victorious athletes, or anyone else set for a photo op with the new president. The video provides step-by-step instructions on how to defend against Trump’s aggressive handshake technique.

First, a disclaimer: the black-belt Jiu-Jitsu instructor explicitly states that he is not suggesting his moves should be employed against the president and he does not intend to use the move should he have the opportunity to meet with the president–nor should anyone else. However, if President Trump’s handshaking style happens to become popular with his followers, this guide could help make your next Thanksgiving with that uncle a little bit more bearable.

In short, the defense goes like this:

Step 1: Once the president/your uncle grabs your hand, allow them to pull you in.

Step 2: Step in with your left foot and use your free left arm to wrap around the president’s…I mean, your uncle’s right elbow.

Step 3: Use the hand embraced in a shake with the perpetrator’s tiny hand to bend their (possibly tiny) wrist inwards.

Step 4: Then, use your free left hand to put your red-hatted uncle into a “gnarly” “gooseneck wrist lock.”

Step 5 (optional but recommended): Wash any peculiar orange, Cheeto-like residue from your hands lest you wish to fall ill with the same skin ailment that seems to have stricken Sean Spicer.

Remember, these five easy steps might just be the perfect addition to your next Turkey-day. And should you meet the president, consider Justin Trudeau’s a less inflammatory technique for resisting the Trump grip of death.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How to Defend Against the Infamous Trump Handshake appeared first on Law Street.

The 2017 French Presidential Elections are quickly approaching and Marine Le Pen, leader of the far-right Front National (FN), leads in the polls. Like much of the western world, France has seen an upsurge in far-right, nationalistic sentiment. When comparing the 2017 race to French and European elections gone by, it is difficult to envision Le Pen’s path to the presidency. However, even if she is defeated, Le Pen’s far-right platform will remain a definitive political force in France for the foreseeable future.

The Situation in France

According to recent polls, Le Pen leads a handful of candidates with 26 percent favorability. Assuming polls hold steady, Marine Le Pen will win the first round of voting, scheduled for April 23, but will not accrue the majority required to win the election outright. Le Pen will have to compete in a run off election against the second most popular candidate.

This will not be the first time a Le Pen reaches the run off round of a presidential election. Jean-Marie Le Pen, Marine Le Pen’s father, came second in the first round of votes to earn one of two places in the run off round of the 2002 election. In the first round of voting, Jean-Marie Le Pen earned 16.9 percent of the vote compared to the center-right Jacques Chirac’s 19.9 percent. In the run off, Le Pen lost in a landslide. Le Pen was barely able to improve his 16.9 percent share, while Chirac’s share of the vote soared to 82.2 percent. Chirac was scandal ridden and highly unpopular. However, his left wing opponents backed him in the second round, calling on the French public to “vote for the crook, not the fascist.” Chirac won because he was seen by a Le Pen-fearing coalition as the lesser of two evils.

It is important to note that Jean-Marie Le Pen was an underdog, whereas his daughter is expected to win the first round. It is therefore unlikely that Marine Le Pen’s fate will perfectly map that of her father. However, Le Pen’s defeat to an anti-right wing coalition in the run off still seems imminent. If results in Austria’s 2016 presidential election are anything to go by, even the most popular of right wing politicians can struggle to overcome a two-round electoral system.

Lessons from the Rest of Europe

Like France, Austria’s elections make use of the two-round system. In the run-up to Austria’s first round of voting, Norbert Hofer, a far-right nationalist, held a sizable lead over his competitor. The Austrian nationalist ended up winning the first round by 13.8 percent. However, after an annulled run off election that was too close to call, Hofer lost the rerun by 7.6 percent. Hofer’s lead going into, and coming out of, the first round of voting was considerably greater than the lead Le Pen currently enjoys. Hofer’s first round victory was not particularly shocking. However, even with his sizable first round victory, the Austrian nationalist was unable to overcome the the anti-right wing coalition that formed in the second round.

Over the last few years, there have been a slew of analyses discrediting the viability of a right-wing populist movement. Such predictions were almost invariably disproven. While a Le Pen victory might be unlikely, it would be hardly come as a total surprise considering the state of contemporary western politics. Regardless of whether Le Pen overcomes a prospective anti-FN voter-bloc in the second round, her style of right wing nationalism will demand a response from whomever holds power. In France and elsewhere, far-right mobilizations have now entered the political mainstream.

Though Hofer was unable to win the largely ceremonial presidency, the centrist-controlled Austrian Parliament has already begun to pander to the far-right. In January, the parliament passed laws that would require asylum seekers undergo an “integration year” during which they would be expected to learn German. Austria has also become the latest European country to ban Muslim women from wearing full-face veils in public spaces–a entirely symbolic move considering only about 150 women in Austria wear such veils.

In the UK, the center-right Conservative Party has similarly worked to appease nationalists. Former Prime Minister David Cameron made the decision to call a referendum on EU membership that was seen by observers as a way of appeasing the far-right UK Independence Party and the more conservative members of his own party. Cameron expected the referendum to fail and hoped the public’s support would neutralize his far-right opponents. His plan backfired. The public voted to leave and Cameron resigned. In spite of the fact that a majority of parliamentary conservatives wished to remain in the EU, Theresa May, the new conservative leader, claims she is firmly committed to imposing the type of hardline immigration policies demanded by British nationalists.

The Netherlands has a general election scheduled for March 15 and the center-right People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) is scrambling to maintain control of the government. Geert Wilders’ far-right Party for Freedom (PVV) leads in the polls. Though Wilders’ PVV will not win enough seats to form a government outright, his party is currently projected to win the greatest number of seats. Though Mark Rutt, Prime Minister and Leader of the VVD, has ruled out the possibility that his party would form a coalition government with the far-right PVV, he has been pandering to an increasingly nationalistic public. Last month, he ordered immigrants to “act ‘normal’, or go away.”

What Does this Mean for Far-Right Movements?

Far-right mobilizations have gained, and will likely continue to gain, power, irrespective of whether or not they win elections. Marine Le Pen’s run for the presidency could very well fall short, but her surge in popularity over the past few years is indicative of France’s entrenched far-right movement. Assuming Le Pen loses, the party that achieves power will not have done so by inspiring a united support base or platform. The party in power will reflect a disjointed majority that will collectively disagree with Le Pen but might not agree on that much else. A fragmented leadership will only favor the far-right. As France’s far-right continues to voice their concerns, those in power will be forced to respond. This response will never disarm the far-right if those delivering it are politically impotent and ideologically incoherent.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Even if Marine Le Pen Loses, French Nationalism Will Still Win appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, nearly 200,000 Californians were asked to evacuate their homes after workers at the Oroville Dam noticed the emergency spillway was severely damaged. The spillway was activated in response to rapidly rising water levels in the Oroville reservoir. While the dam was never in danger of collapsing, the failure of a vital failsafe and the subsequent mass evacuation serves as a reminder of the dire state of American infrastructure.

In its 2013 Report Card, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave the nation’s infrastructure a D+, citing “a significant backlog of overdue maintenance across our infrastructure systems” and “a pressing need for modernization.” While both Democrats and Republicans recognize the need to improve the nation’s infrastructure, there is debate on how these public works projects should be carried out. Any comprehensive infrastructure program must work to consider and shape long term environmental conditions.

The Oroville Dam overflow is demonstrative of how existing infrastructure is unsuited to changing climatic conditions. Since 2011, the state of California has been battling an intense drought and Oroville was not immune. However, snow melt and heavy rainfall over the past week caused water levels in the Oroville Reservoir to rise rapidly.

https://twitter.com/erbrod/status/831151275387531265

There is indisputable causal evidence linking climate change, drought conditions, and floods. According to the Climate Reality Project, as global temperatures rise, the atmosphere is able to hold more moisture at a given time. This leads to less regular but more intense downpours. Infrequent rain leads to more frequent droughts. When downpours finally occur over drought stricken land, the unsaturated soil is unable to absorb the deluge, meaning much of the water simply runs off into streams, rivers, lakes and oceans.

The Oroville Dam incident is just one example of how climate change is expected to exacerbate weather conditions. The Department of Transportation has released a number of reports in which it identifies climate change as a major threat to infrastructure. The country’s crumbling infrastructure is incapable of withstanding extreme weather conditions and future projects must acknowledge these climatic realities. Furthermore, the prioritization of certain infrastructural policies over others could either ease or worsen the effects of anthropogenic climate change.

President Donald Trump’s infrastructure plan promises $1 trillion worth of investment, places an emphasis on mass transit and high speed rail projects, and includes a plan for a modest increase in green energy investment. Nonetheless, the president might struggle to get congressional approval for his plan as it will likely not sit well with some of his fellow Republicans. The Republican establishment has traditionally called for smaller infrastructural spending packages and has resisted the expansion of public transport and green energy projects. Even if Trump’s infrastructure plan gets the green light, any gains made in public transport and green energy are likely to be offset by his overt hostility toward the environment and environmentalist work. The Untied States’ aging infrastructure is unequipped to deal with climate change, and the president refuses to admit climate change is an issue.

While it can be easily ignored, infrastructure shapes everything from socioeconomics to environmental conditions. The Oroville Dam incident reminds us that while investment in infrastructure is a necessity, new projects must not only by equipped to tolerate extreme climatic conditions, but should also work as tools that mitigate anthropogenic environmental impacts.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Oroville Dam Overflow: The Environment and Failing Infrastructure appeared first on Law Street.

On February 8, Wikipedia editors unanimously voted to ban The Daily Mail from being used as a factual reference in their articles. The editors stated that the tabloid has a “reputation for poor fact checking and sensationalism” and is “generally unreliable.”

The ban comes at a time when the credibility of online sources is under heavy scrutiny. However, in the age of “alternative facts” and “fake news,” it’s hotly contested what constitutes credibility.

While misinformation ought to be combated, it is unclear who should lead the fight. In response to widespread concern over the reliability of internet sources, numerous organizations have announced plans aimed at curbing the proliferation of misinformation.

Having previously denied any editorial responsibility over what is shared through their respective sites, Google and Facebook have since announced efforts to prevent the spread of false stories. Both of the internet giants have promised to ban sites found guilty of publishing false stories from using their ad services.

Facebook is piloting a program that would allow users to report stories they believe to be fake, and has also announced plans to team up with major media outlets to fact check circulating stories. Meanwhile, the BBC has established a team whose mission is to “cut through the spin and concentrate on the facts.”

The degree to which these measures will reduce the spread of falsities remains to be seen. However, it is likely some corners of the internet will cry foul regardless of the outcome.

The term “fake news” lost meaning as quickly as it entered the public lexicon. At first, “fake news” meant exactly what it sounds like it means. The likes of President Trump and his followers have since co-opted the term to refer to any news outlet or piece that does not confirm their biases.

While Trump is an extreme example of someone stuck in an echo chamber, many are guilty of mistaking “credibility” with “agreeability.” Before tackling the issue of credibility, there must be some sort of consensus on what it means to be credible. We as a society must also be careful of who we allow to lead this discussion.

The internet is at an ethical impasse. The spread of misinformation is undoubtedly dangerous. Nevertheless, trusting organizations like Facebook and Google to decide what constitutes fact could be a mistake. No matter how good their intentions may seem, Facebook and Google are entities with their own independent agendas.

An outlet does not necessarily need to lie in order to misinform or to craft a narrative bias. Selecting truths can be just as damaging as spreading lies. How can we trust that these newly implemented editorial policies aimed at stemming lies won’t later be used to curate truths? In fighting misinformation, it is important that we do not carelessly privilege the ability to define and police “credibility.”

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Internet’s Fight Against Fake News appeared first on Law Street.

Over the past several months, there have been major advancements in Colombia’s peace process. But more work lies ahead if Colombia wants to achieve lasting peace and reconciliation–each actor in the conflict must be held accountable. In an attempt to ensure a comprehensive peace process, Colombia’s transitional justice system charged a group of multinational corporations (MNCs) with crimes against humanity. The move to charge corporate entities with crimes against humanity is rare and could set a precedent for corporate accountability moving forward.

Colombia’s Peace Process

Late last year, the Colombian government reached a peace agreement with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and has since begun talks with the National Liberation Army (ELN). Negotiations between the government and these two marxist insurgencies have dominated coverage of the country’s peace process. However, it is a mistake to treat the conflict as something exclusive to the government and these leftist insurgencies. The war in Colombia is complex. In order to achieve lasting peace, the process cannot ignore the plethora of groups and interests that have stoked the conflict over its many years. On February 2, the Colombian transitional justice system took a major step in ensuring a comprehensive peace and reconciliation process by charging a group of MNCs with crimes against humanity.

While FARC and the ELN often draw the attention of onlookers, a 2013 government report claimed right-wing paramilitary groups aligned with the Colombian government and/or corporations perpetrated most of the conflict’s targeted killings and a majority of its massacres. The collection of MNCs, which includes Dole, Del Monte, and Chiquita were accused of knowingly funding right-wing paramilitary groups in order to protect their interests. The fruit-producing MNCs are believed to have supported the infamously violent United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC) which controlled swaths of Uraba and northern Colombia–the country’s main banana producing region.

Corporate Crimes?

Of course, corporations are regularly accused of violating human rights. There are no shortages of stories (many backed by conclusive evidence) in which corporations ruthlessly pursued their interests with a callous disregard for human life. Rich in natural resources, Latin America is home to some of the most harrowing examples of corporate incited conflicts. Notwithstanding the multitudes of corporate interests in the region, fruit companies have a particularly sordid history in Latin America. In the 1950’s, the United Fruit Company worked with the CIA to overthrow an overwhelmingly popular leftist government in Guatemala and install a far-right authoritarian government that was sympathetic to corporate business interests. This authoritarian coup led to a 36-year war and the genocide of an estimated 200,000, predominately indigenous, people. In the 1980’s, The United Fruit Company changed its name to Chiquita Brands International. Though stories past and present suggest that corporations consistently violate human rights, they act as though they are “too big to stand trial.”

MNCs are largely immune from legal accountability. By definition, MNCs are international entities. Their global reach often leads them to argue that a given court does not have jurisdiction over their actions. Therefore, finding a court that will hear a case and have the authority to enforce a ruling is a major challenge for a prospective plaintiff. Furthermore, many courts, including the International Criminal Court, fail to list corporations as judicial persons subject to investigation and prosecution. While courts could potentially punish executives instead of the entity as a whole, complex corporate structures make it difficult to pin liability on particular individuals. Even if a viable case is brought against a corporation, they generally have a distinct economic advantage over the plaintiff that allows them to employ superior counsel or settle the case out of court. On the rare occasion MNCs are found guilty in court, the punishments are often negligible. These factors perhaps explain why Colombia’s transitional justice system is among the first to charge MNCs with crimes against humanity.

Transitional Justice as a Model?

Transitional justice systems are established in the wake of a conflict and are a crucial component in peace and reconciliation processes. According the International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ), a non-profit that has been working with Colombia since 2005, transitional justice, among other things, works to make “access to justice a reality for the most vulnerable,” ensure “that women and marginalized groups play an effective role in the pursuit of a just society,” and  establish “a basis to address the underlying causeless of conflict and marginalization.” While one would hope and expect that every court system upheld these values, transitional justice systems are established with these particular humanitarian aims in mind. If the consortium of corporations actually did fund paramilitary groups, then it is imperative for peace that they are held accountable. An effective reconciliation process must necessarily give a voice to those most affected by the conflict and create a dialogue that addresses, deconstructs, and delegitimizes the conflicts motivating interests and actors. However, there is often a stark power imbalance between those driving conflict and those most affected by conflict. Unfortunately, these disparities in power translate into the traditional court room.

Far too often, corporate behemoths are able to marginalize the voices of those victimized by their interested pursuits. MNCs are able to bat away, or at least minimize, practically any legal challenge that comes their way. It is too early to argue that events in Colombia signify a turning point for corporate accountability. The charges against these MNCs were pressed by an impermanent court, under particular circumstances, have yet to be proven, and the implications of a guilty verdict remain to be seen. Multinational corporations continue to grow in size and influence, and corporate accountability is often demanded but rarely demonstrated. The fact that that a transitional justice system was among the first to explicitly charge MNCs with crimes against humanity is indicative of the way in which traditional justice systems generally preserve hegemonic interests rather than uphold justice.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Colombia Charges Corporations with Crimes Against Humanity appeared first on Law Street.

During his campaign, President Donald Trump promised to create 25 million new jobs over the coming decade, many of which he claimed would come from the revival of U.S. manufacturing. Trump is firm in his belief that low taxes and protectionist trade policies will create the jobs he promised, in spite of the fact that jobs in manufacturing have been in steady decline for decades. However, even if manufacturing does return to U.S. shores, automation means longterm blue-collar job growth, as prophesied by Trump, is unlikely. Trump is by no means ideologically suited to oversee the inevitable march towards automation.

Protectionists on both the left and right argue that free trade has allowed companies to expand profit margins by moving their manufacturing bases to the global south, where labor costs are significantly lower, and finished products exported to the global north for consumption avoid the costs of high tariffs. As manufacturing automates and the cost of labor becomes irrelevant, the global south will lose comparative advantage. China’s shift towards automation and their drive to create a consumer economy is indicative of the dwindling labor advantage in the global south.

Increasingly, it will make sense for firms to establish automated factories closer to their consumer base as a means of cutting transportation costs. Therefore, manufacturing could be returning to the U.S. irrespective of Trump’s policies. However, the return of manufacturing to the U.S. would not necessarily imply the preservation of existing blue-collar jobs or the creation of new ones.

The degree to which automation replaces human employees remains to be seen, but continued automation is generally considered inevitable. At the current rate, a jobless future could be a reality for many. But current policies would leave them destitute. Discussions surrounding automation have prompted many to argue in favor of reinventing social programs. Social programs that ensure a Universal Basic Income (UBI), a college education, healthcare, and housing are necessary if increasingly automated societies hope to ensure the wellbeing of all. However, such policies would be in diametric opposition to Trump’s economic perspectives.

Over the past few months, Trump has promised to slash government spending–particularly on social services. Trump believes welfare programs will be irrelevant in his “dynamic booming economy” where taxes are low, tariffs are high, and jobs are plentiful. However, if the president truly hopes his people are able to find long term employment in manufacturing, or any other industry, he had better think about developing skilled workers by investing in public schools and free college tuition. More likely, Trump will lead the “race to the bottom,” regardless of whether or not he revives U.S. manufacturing. Automation is a reality Trump has not considered, nor is he ideologically suited to do so.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Trump Prepared for Automated Manufacturing? appeared first on Law Street.

On November 30, 2016, the Colombian Congress ratified a long awaited peace deal between the Colombian government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). After 52 years of fighting and months of negotiations in Havana, Cuba, FARC agreed to permanently put down arms and reinvent itself as a mainstream political party. America’s involvement in the conflict is longstanding. While President Barack Obama’s promises of aid were integral to the action plan for peace, policy shifts under President Donald Trump could jeopardize peace in Colombia.

The Alliance

Colombia is widely considered America’s strongest ally in Latin America. The alliance between the two states is built on Colombia’s entrenched and complex domestic conflict. Though first motivated by an ideological war with communism, the partnership would come to be defined by the U.S.’s war on drugs. President Richard Nixon declared a war on drugs in 1971. Rather than addressing domestic demand for drugs, the U.S. government chose to wage war against those producing and trafficking drugs. As a result, Colombia became a focal point for the U.S.’s anti-drug policies. For decades, the Colombian government has received American military and financial support.

Over the years, American interference has undoubtedly contributed to the escalation and complication of the conflict in Colombia. Less than a decade ago, the U.S. was engaging in covert operations against FARC leaders, often in violation of international law. However, in a rare move away from traditional security approaches, the Obama Administration began pushing for peace between the Colombian government and FARC as early as 2009.

In 2015, after a turbulent fews years, Colombian and FARC representatives hammered out the details of a deal which was ultimately defeated in a referendum. A slightly reworked deal was approved by the Colombian congress in late November. The U.S. took the backseat throughout the negotiation process, but a $450 million aid package from the Obama administration was crucial for peace.

A Shifting Stance?

Gimena Sanchez-Garzoli, Senior Associate for the Andes at the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), said that the aid package was necessary for peace. The primary purpose of the package is to develop alternative livelihoods for coca growers. Under Trump, there is no guarantee that this aid package will arrive as promised, if at all. The Trump Administration has already placed all ongoing foreign aid under review. Trump has also taken direct action on specific aid packages. In his first week, Trump halted a $221 million aid package to the Palestinian Authority and reinstated the “Mexico City Policy,” which bans federal funding to international groups that work to endorse pro-choice policies or provide services related to abortion. There is no guarantee that the money promised under Obama will be delivered under Trump.

The Trump Administration clearly intends to impose conservative policies on foreign aid. Whether or not the Trump Administration will cut off aid to Colombia remains to be seen, and the White House has said little on the matter. However, when asked about the peace deal during his confirmation process, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson expressed his support for the long-standing militaristic policy known as Plan Colombia. He went on to say he “would review the details of Colombia’s recent peace agreement, and determine the extent to which the United States should continue to support it.” Tillerson’s expressed support for Plan Colombia and his ambiguous stance on the peace deal are cause for concern.

Tillerson’s reluctance to commit to peace in Colombia not only puts the deal with FARC in doubt but it could jeopardize future peace talks. While the agreement between FARC and the Colombian government is a major step on the road to peace, these two actors do not encapsulate the conflict. The conflict in Colombia involves a variety of right-wing paramilitary and leftist guerrilla groups. Though FARC has been the major and ever-present belligerent in the conflict, there are more hurdles to jump before Colombia can guarantee total peace. Preliminary peace talks with the National Liberation Army (ELN), another leftist revolutionary group, are already underway. Even if the Trump administration chooses not to obstruct the deal with FARC, the Colombian government may not be able to rely on the kind of support it received from the Obama Administration when looking ahead.

Finally, it is important to note why the first draft of the peace deal with FARC was narrowly defeated in the referendum. Though less affected by the war than those living in rural conflict zones, urban Colombians voted down a deal that they believed to be far too lenient on the guerrillas. Were Trump to oppose the current peace deal, he may well find support from a sizable portion of Colombians who feel their government should not be negotiating with FARC or any other rebel group. This move would not be unthinkable considering Trump’s rhetoric concerning terrorist groups has been unapologetically aggressive, and both FARC and the ELN remain on the State Department’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations.

If Trump is unwilling to continue Obama’s move away from traditional security policies in Colombia, the peace process in Colombia could stall. Even if Trump upholds existing deals and promises between the U.S., Colombia, and FARC, the Colombian government may have to conduct future peace negotiations without American financial or diplomatic support.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Does Trump Mean for Peace in Colombia? appeared first on Law Street.

On January 23, President Donald Trump signed an executive order halting all government hiring. The move drew criticism from those who argue the freeze would disrupt crucial government services and programs. The freeze prohibits every federal agency, excluding those related to the military, public safety, and public health, from hiring new employees.

This means that for the foreseeable future, agencies must make do with the staff on hand. Federal agencies are even barred from filling vacancies left by outgoing employees. Lawyers are among the plethora of current and prospective public employees affected by the president’s order.

A report by the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates the federal government employed about five percent of the nation’s practicing lawyers in 2014, which equates to about 39,000 jobs. However, assuming the hiring freeze remains in place, this number is likely to stagnate and drop in the coming years. The incapacitation of this sizable employer will force newly graduated lawyers to alter their job search strategy. The freeze will mostly affect graduates entering job markets in or near government job centers.

As with many of his orders, the language describing the hiring freeze is vague. It is unclear whether the Department of Justice or the Department of Health and Human Services, for example, are exempt based on their importance to public safety and public health respectively.

Therefore, some graduates aspiring to work in the federal government may still have luck. Nonetheless, though Trump may have closed the door on many graduates who hoped to serve the public by entering the federal government, he has inadvertently opened doors in other industry sectors.

In the days and weeks following election night, immigration lawyers reported being swamped by calls and emails from immigrants hoping to learn what a Trump presidency might mean for them. Overnight, Trump’s inflammatory campaign rhetoric was transformed into impending immigration policy. Only days into his term, Trump began signing executive orders that would realize the type of hardline policies he had long threatened.

On January 25, Trump signed two orders that, among other things, called for the construction of wall along the Mexican border, an uptick in deportation efforts, and funding cuts to sanctuary cities. Two days later, the president signed an order that banned the entry of all non-citizens arriving from seven Muslim-majority countries. Both of these orders resulted in large public protests throughout the country.

As private citizens mobilized in the wake of Trump’s latest order, so too did immigration lawyers who began flocking to airports around the country and offering pro bono counsel to those detained. Assuming the Trump administration continues down its current path, immigration lawyers are likely to be in high demand. New lawyers hoping to serve the public may be frozen out of the federal government. But immigration law has, and will continue to be, an area in dire need of individuals dedicated to serving the public by any means necessary.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Will Trump’s Hiring Freeze Affect New Lawyers? appeared first on Law Street.

President Trump has spent his first week advancing his hardline campaign promises by signing a slew of executive orders. On Wednesday, the president made his way to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) where he signed two executive orders specifically related to immigration.

The first ordered the construction of his infamous wall along the southern border. The second order demanded federal agents implement more aggressive deportation practices, calls on Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to hire 10,000 new agents, allows local law enforcement officers to act as immigration officers, and, finally, block federal grants to so-called “sanctuary cities.” In spite of these developments, officials in sanctuary cities and jurisdictions are already standing in defiance.

According to the New York Times, four states, 364 counties, and 39 cities have laws on their books that limit the ability of local law enforcement agencies to cooperate with ICE and/or forbids local authorities from inquiring into one’s immigration status. When local authorities arrest someone, they fingerprint them and share the information with ICE. If ICE finds the detainee is undocumented, they ask local authorities to hold the person for 48 hours longer than they normally would. However, DHS has stated these detainer requests are optional as jailing an individual without a warrant violates the 4th Amendment. It seems the president, or more likely his advisors, are aware that they cannot legally force local jurisdictions to comply but that they can possibly coerce local jurisdictions into cooperation by imposing economic sanctions.

Executive orders are not policies in a typical sense and were traditionally implemented as a means of guiding existing laws rather than fabricating new, broad-sweeping ones. While President Trump’s orders are strong statements of intent, they are decidedly vague. There is no telling how much funding and what kinds of grants President Trump intends to deny to sanctuary jurisdictions. The Supreme Court ruled in South Dakota v. Dole that the federal government can restrict funding to indirectly achieve federal objectives, but those mandates cannot be “unduly coercive.” While this may prevent the Trump administration from halting all funding, defiant jurisdictions risk massive and unexpected cuts.

Concerned officials in Washington, D.C. warned that, depending on what the Trump administration decides is constitutionally “reasonable,” the city’s budget could be slashed considerably. Due to its unique status, the District has perhaps the most to lose. Nevertheless, the president’s coercive anti-immigrant order will gravely affect any and every sanctuary jurisdiction.

The president claims that the damage he intends to inflict on communities across the country is in defense of the country at large. Since the campaign, it is clear that President Trump’s anti-immigrant stand is grounded in a long-standing stereotype that immigrants, particularly undocumented immigrants, bring crime. In his speech at DHS headquarters, President Trump stood in front of a crowd that included the family members of people killed by undocumented immigrants to whom he gestured while claiming his measures would save “thousands and thousands of lives.” Additionally, the preamble of his executive order states that sanctuary jurisdictions “have caused immeasurable harm to the American people and to the very fabric of our Republic.” However, the “harm” caused by sanctuary cities and undocumented immigrants can be, and has been, measured.

Political scientists at the University of California at Riverside and Highline College found that sanctuary jurisdictions saw no statistically significant change in crime following the passage of sanctuary laws. Furthermore, a study by the American Immigration Council found that “immigrants are less likely to commit serious crimes or be behind bars than the native-born, and high rates of immigration are associated with lower rates of violent crime and property crime.” And these facts do not even consider discrimination in the American criminal justice system. A large body of research has shown that Latinos, and people of color in general, are disproportionately arrested and convicted. Moreover, once convicted, people of color face longer sentences than white people found guilty of the same crimes.

President Trump’s attack on sanctuaries has already met resistance, and so it is possible that funding for hundreds of communities will drastically diminish. These sanctions will place a huge strain on communities throughout the country for no good reason at all. President Trump is well aware that these communities provide a safer environment for undocumented people. Perhaps he’s forgotten that they are also home to Americans he promised to “never let down.”

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post President Trump’s Order to Sanction Sanctuary Cities is Met with Resistance appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump began his first week in office by announcing plans to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Canada and Mexico. The announcement itself is unsurprising. Trump railed against NAFTA throughout his campaign claiming it and other free trade agreements threatened American firms and workers. However, in fulfilling his campaign promise Trump runs the risk of alienating a support base that was particularly reliable during the election: farmers.

Farmers overwhelmingly favored Trump to Clinton in the run-up to the election. An October poll by AgriPulse revealed 55.4 percent of farmers supported Donald Trump while only 17.8 percent favored Clinton; the rest were either split between third party candidates, undecided, or chose not to answer. Respondents from battleground states reflected national numbers. Farmer and farm towns were undoubtedly key in ensuring Trump’s victory in the Electoral College. Post-election maps show Trump won in part because he was able to win rural counties in states like Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Michigan that had supported Barack Obama in 2012, while also maintaining support in rural counties that voted for Mitt Romney. Now that Trump is in office, farmers will be waiting to see what his vow to renegotiate NAFTA will mean for them.

Over the past several decades, domestic agricultural policies have encouraged farmers to scale up or risk bankruptcy. The emphasis on production has plagued the U.S. market with surplus produce. To compensate for this, the U.S. heavily subsidizes farmers. Nonetheless, prices are so low that profits are only really attainable for large-scale corporate farms. Smaller operations have been squeezed out.

Though NAFTA has undeniably contributed to the corporatization of the agricultural industry, it has allowed farmers to avoid depressed prices in U.S. markets and seek fortune by exporting surplus goods north and south of the border tariff free. Famously, NAFTA created the conditions in which American farmers are able to dump their surplus, heavily subsidized produce in Mexico. U.S. producers sell corn and other staples at prices well below the cost of production, which cannot be matched by Mexican producers. This dynamic decimated many sectors of the Mexican agricultural industry and forced a Mexican reliance on cheap U.S. imports. However, the state of the Mexican industry is likely of little concern to the president who promised to put “America first.” Therefore, before negotiating with his North American counterparts, Trump may want to consider the fact that NAFTA has created a release valve for surplus U.S. goods on which American farmers rely.

Both Canada and Mexico are leading buyers of U.S. agricultural exports. Unable to rely on profiting from the U.S. market, smaller farmers would most certainly be hurt most were Canada and Mexico to place tariffs on U.S. goods. Notwithstanding the uncertain fate of NAFTA, the future of the agricultural industry has long been in question. As with many other industries, agriculture is increasingly mechanized. This means there will likely be fewer future job opportunities on both small and large farms in the future. Corporations are able to purchase, implement, and often create new technologies. However, small-scale farmers with limited capital who are already struggling to compete with corporate prices face an uncertain future.

The promise to bring blue-collar employment back to the United States grounds Trump’s trade stance. While renegotiating or terminating NAFTA could arguably help him achieve this goal, it is by no means the only facet of his emerging trade policy. Tariffs are likely to be imposed on U.S. exports assuming Trump follows through with his campaign promise of establishing more protectionist agreements with Canada and Mexico. If small-scale farmers are no longer able to sell their goods in Canadian and Mexican markets tariff-free, already slender profit margins might shrink further. Without making major changes to the U.S. agricultural market, Trump’s renegotiation of NAFTA could have adverse effects on a major line of agricultural income and alienate one of his most important bases of support. To do make these changes and protect small-scale farmers, Trump would have to address corporate dominance of the industry. However, though claiming to be for the worker, his business dealings and cabinet appointees suggest he sees little issue with corporatization.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will Trump’s Opposition to NAFTA Lose Him the Support of Farmers? appeared first on Law Street.

Russian Deputy Minister Yelena Mizulina submitted a bill to the State Duma, Russia’s lower house of parliament, that would decriminalize some acts of domestic violence. If passed, the law would protect abusers found guilty of domestic abuse for the first time, as long as the attack did not cause serious harm and excluded rape.

The ultra-conservative lawmaker, who  claimed the bill defends “traditional family culture,” said people should not be jailed or considered a criminal for “a slap.” Unsurprisingly, Mizulina is also the author of the “gay propaganda bill,” which has greatly restricted the rights of LBGTQ people. This law was similarly justified by claims that it defended traditional families.

The Duma, dominated by President Vladimir Putin’s United Russia party, overwhelmingly supported the legislation, dubbed the “slapping bill” by Russian media. Of the Duma’s 450 MPs, 368 voted in favor of the law after its first reading. The law stands in opposition to one passed last July that criminalized acts of violence against family members. This complete 180 is believed to be a means of appeasing the ultra-conservative faction within United Russia.

While there is little data available on domestic violence in Russia, a report by the ANNA National Centre for the Prevention of Violence estimates that violence occurs in one in four households, two-thirds of murders are domestic, 14,000 women a year are killed by their husbands or other relatives, and up to 40 percent of violent crimes are family related. Meanwhile, the city of Moscow only has one state-funded refuge for victims of domestic violence.

The bill has outraged many in Russia but the government has already moved to silence opposition. Groups wishing to protest in Russia must file for permits. While activists requested permission to protest, their requests for permits were denied on the grounds that a protest would disrupt traffic and pedestrians.

The sizable United Russia majority is likely to push the bill through subsequent votes with ease before they send it to the upper chamber for a final vote.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bill Aims to Decriminalize Some Domestic Violence in Russia appeared first on Law Street.

The desire to move away from liberal economic policies toward more protectionism partly drove the Brexit vote. However, a successful protectionist push to leave the European Union could very well now result in an entrenchment of economic liberalism in the United Kingdom.

Over the past several decades economic liberalism and neoliberalism became standard economic policy throughout the developed world. Free markets, free trade, and privatization of assets were valued above all other policy. As liberalism globalized, free trade agreements such as NAFTA and economic unions like the EU were formed. However, protectionist movements on both the right and left have formed in response to this economic standard and have quickly gained traction. Just as the U.S. saw Donald Trump’s and Bernie Sanders’ protectionist platforms gain huge momentum, the British shocked the world by opting to leave the liberalist EU, with many “leave” voters crying out for more protectionist economic policy.

The “leave” vote shook the center-right government to its core, prompting the resignation of Prime Minister David Cameron. However, the same pro-free-trade and pro-liberalism Conservative Party that was in power before the referendum remains in power today. Therefore, Prime Minister Theresa May’s economically liberal Conservative Party is charged with engineering the leave process. In spite of the fact that a protectionist movement established in part the mandate to begin the leave campaign, it is unlikely that May’s government will pick up the protectionist torch and reject liberal economic policy.

On Tuesday, May announced that the UK would commit to a “hard Brexit.” Under this plan, the UK would undergo a total uncoupling with EU economic infrastructure. Headlines of plans to sever ties with the EU would have pleased many protectionist “leave” voters who view the EU as an exemplar of liberalism and globalization. Yet, when considering May’s clearly stated devotion to liberal economics, it is unlikely that “hard Brexit” will produce the protectionist policy outcomes many leave voters would have hoped for.

The Sunday before May committed to “hard Brexit,” Chancellor of the Exchequer Phillip Hammond stated that the UK would do “whatever” in order to keep the economy afloat following “Brexit.” He said that under “hard Brexit,” they would have to “change [the economic] model to regain competitiveness.” Supporters and critics alike took this to mean that economic policy under “hard Brexit” would see deregulation reign supreme.

May’s speech to the World Economic Forum (WEF) on Thursday all but confirmed these assumptions of future liberal policy. The Prime Minister outlined her intention to develop a British economy at the forefront of liberal economic policy. Though she posed some criticisms of globalization, May was far more critical of Donald Trump and other populist movements’ protectionist ideologies. May capped off her speech to the congregation of world leaders and financial actors by declaring that Britain would become “a forceful advocate for business, free markets and free trade.”

While many in the “leave” camp hoped to move Britain away from liberalism, May has responded with a plan that satisfies her ideological devotion to liberalism. Many opposed to the EU found the organization to be one that epitomized liberal globalization. Though many in the Conservative Party might have wanted to “remain,” it seems they are taking the “leave” vote as an opportunity to advance liberalism. No longer shackled by outside economic regulatory powers like the European Central Bank (ECB), the Conservative Party feels free to act in accordance with its ideology.

The decision to leave the European Union transformed most every aspect of Britain’s political and economic life. However, the referendum did not change the fact that a political party faithful to liberal economics was in power. Though it is not exactly clear how May’s vision will take shape, the developments over the past week have set the stage for a British economic model grounded on highly liberal economic policy. Economic protectionists who voted “leave” are unlikely to see their hopes for future economic economic policy actualized. In fact, those who hoped for protectionist economic policies may see a Britain committed to liberalism like never before.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will May’s Hard Brexit Live up to Voters’ Expectations? appeared first on Law Street.