Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Betsy DeVos Will Meet With Accused Rapists and a “Men’s Rights” Group

Today, Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos will meet with attorneys representing men who claim to have been falsely accused of rape. She will also meet with a former Navy serviceman who has been lobbying against what he calls the “military’s sexual assault witch hunt,” as well as another man who claims to have been falsely accused and is currently a representative for Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE.) SAVE may sound like a good thing, but it mostly argues that rape claims are false. Its website has features about topics like “rape hoaxes” and “rape culture hysteria.”

The Southern Poverty Law Center says that SAVE’s goal is to get rid of services for abuse victims, and to “return the focus to the ‘true victims of abuse’–the falsely accused.” SAVE and some other “men’s rights” groups have been known to publish names of rape survivors in order to shame them, and blame women for their assaults, according to Jaclyn Friedman, an expert on campus sexual violence.

“DeVos also plans to meet with groups…with a track record of intimidating rape survivors.“

This is a new low. https://t.co/Cu4hFmyrnp

— Brittany Packnett (@MsPackyetti) July 12, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: July 13, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Last week’s top stories on Law Street covered the problems plaguing Washington D.C.’s Metro system, the evacuation of thousands of refugees from Greece, and allegations of sexual abuse and pedophilia in Hollywood. ICYMI, check out the top stories below.

1. Trouble Below: The Problems Plaguing the Washington D.C. Metro

Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx recently promised to close the Washington D.C. Metro system unless it complied with safety requirements. How did it get to this point where the nation’s second-largest mass transit system is on the verge of being shuttered due to safety concerns and a series of mishaps? Read the full article here.

2. From Camp to Camp: Thousands of Migrants in Greece Evacuated

As the buses left the camp, the passengers were met with conflicting farewells: onlookers gently waved and blew them kisses; an olive green tarp on the side of the road read, in white spray paint, “Europe doesn’t care if you suffer.”

The buses–packed with refugees from Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere in the Middle East and North Africa–were headed south from Idomeni, Greece, on the Macedonian border, where a camp that housed thousands of the refugees for months was being evacuated, per directions from the Greek government. The operation to clear all 8,400 people started on Tuesday and is expected to last for up to ten days, government officials said. Read the full article here.

3. Does Hollywood Have a Pedophilia and Sexual Abuse Problem?

In an interview on Sunday, actor Elijah Wood claimed that Hollywood has a pedophilia crisis. He said that the business has a history of scandals and abuse, and that such abuse is probably still happening among Hollywood’s elite. However, he later pointed out that he does not have any firsthand experience with it. Read the full article here.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

As the buses left the camp, the passengers were met with conflicting farewells: onlookers gently waved and blew them kisses; an olive green tarp on the side of the road read, in white spray paint, “Europe doesn’t care if you suffer.”

The buses–packed with refugees from Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere in the Middle East and North Africa–were headed south from Idomeni, Greece, on the Macedonian border, where a camp that housed thousands of the refugees for months was being evacuated, per directions from the Greek government. The operation to clear all 8,400 people started on Tuesday and is expected to last for up to ten days, government officials said.

The migrants will be bused about 60 miles south, to a collection of camps near Thessaloniki, a city on the Aegean Sea. While journalists were barred from Idomeni, the international aid agency Doctors Without Borders and Moving Europe, an organization that documents the migrant route through the Balkans, have been reporting deplorable conditions in what are to be the migrants’ new homes: cramped, ripped turquoise tents on dirt, leaky water splotches on the ground though no water to drink.

In a statement responding to the evacuation, Melanie Ward, Associate Director of Policy and Advocacy at the International Rescue Committee said:

What is happening signals the start of the establishment of medium to long-term camps on European soil. This poses the question: how long do we expect people–so many of whom have fled war and conflict–to be living in tents in refugee camps in Greece?

Over a million refugees have landed in Europe from the Middle East and Africa–most displaced by civil war and terrorism–since the migrant flood intensified in 2015. With its strong economy and relatively welcoming resettlement policy, Germany is the preferred destination for many families. And though Greece is a necessary checkpoint along the the popular route through Turkey, the Aegean and the Balkans, it is rarely identified as a permanent residence for the refugees.

The Idomeni camp–with its small tents strewn about muddy dirt plains and along train tracks that run north from Macedonia through Greece in the south–became bloated with refugees when Macedonia closed its borders in March. On Tuesday, bulldozers razed the camp as the refugees–40 percent of whom are women and children–were evacuated. For now, according to Greek officials, the new reception centers have a capacity of 6,000, a number that should rise as new sites are established.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post From Camp to Camp: Thousands of Migrants in Greece Evacuated appeared first on Law Street.

Early this week, hundreds of migrants in Greece–many of whom made perilous journeys on inflatable rafts to make it there–were placed onto ferries to be sent back to where they came from. This is the result of a new deal between the European Union and Turkey to help ease the undeterred flow of migrants into Europe, which began its implementation on Monday. The deal stipulates that un-vetted refugees who landed in Greece will be sent back to Turkey, and in exchange, a vetted refugee in Turkey can be brought to Europe to be resettled. This “one-for-one” trade sounds like a  simple enough solution for stopping an uncontrolled flow of refugees into Greece, but the endless logistical, ethical, and political issues that have arisen with it are making it a problematic solution to a complex problem.

While the State Department called the deal an “important step,” it has been criticized by many human rights organizations and aid groups who allege that Turkey is not a safe place for these migrants to return to. Amnesty International believes that there are “fatal flaws” in the deal, alleging that Turkish authorities have been forcefully sending hundreds of refugees back to war-torn Syria. The deal also doesn’t offer protections to non-Syrian migrants, who were also being deported under the deal.

Protesters dive into sea as ferry carrying #migrants prepares to leave #Lesbos returning them to turkey pic.twitter.com/q1Gz608HAG

— Sophie Long (@S0Long) April 8, 2016

The deal is facing a variety of challenges so far: BBC reports that arrivals into Turkey have already been delayed, and 3,000 migrants still sit in centers awaiting deportation (which could take weeks at minimum). Tensions have also been high in Greece, where “irregular migrants” who have arrived since March 20 (the date the deal was put into effect) have been put into holding centers that have been described as “prison-like.” Early Friday, protests broke out on the island of Chios between hundreds of migrants who had broken out of their centers and residents of the island. 

To add to that, Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan has been adding to fears that Turkey is undependable, reportedly threatening to not support the refugees if the EU did not live up to its end of the deal (which consisted of promised cash and EU membership to Turkey).

Main refugee camp on #Lesbos. Minutes earlier aggressive Greek police chased me away and deleted my photos. pic.twitter.com/WQ02iZBlBH

— Nick Squires (@NickSquires1) April 4, 2016

These are only a few of the many issues facing this deal, and it’s only gotten started. It’s hard to definitively say whether this is a step forward or a step back. While the EU clearly needs to confront the problem of an unchecked flow of refugees entering Europe, it also must be careful not to compromise the human rights of these groups, many of whom have already lived through horrific atrocities. This agreement clearly has problematic elements that make it difficult to ensure these rights; however, it remains to be seen how the deal will affect the situation of the refugees in the long-term.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Why Hundreds of Refugees are Being Shuffled Around Europe appeared first on Law Street.

Every winter, the mountain resort of Davos, Switzerland plays host to the business world’s most eminent economic, journalistic and entrepreneurial minds at the World Economic Forum. The three-day long summit at Davos has repeatedly been lampooned as an obnoxious demonstration of power and privilege that does very little to create significant change in the world economy. However, looking past the elaborate meals and chartered helicopters, Davos can grant insight into what the top tier of the economic sector has planned for the future. Read on for a breakdown of the most important moments at Davos this month and what they mean for 2016.

What is Davos?

The World Economic Forum–a Swiss nonprofit based in Geneva–holds its annual meeting in the ski resort town of Davos, in the Eastern Alps. The meeting is usually comprised of approximately 2,500 business leaders, policy makers, and journalists–referred to as “influencers.” The three-day conference serves as an opportunity to discuss the world’s most pressing economic and social challenges and often serves as a crucial meeting place for building the groundwork for both corporate and political collaboration in the coming year. Davos’ mission is to facilitate public-private sector relations, and while it has done an admirable job of meeting that goal, it is often criticized for being too exclusive or elitist. The Davos invitee list is often limited to only the most profitable economic corporations, mainstream news networks, and representatives from developed nations.

The Issues

Spotlight on Migration

The refugee crisis took center stage at this year’s conference, with political leaders discussing both the nature of open travel across Europe and the impact of the swell of immigrants on the continent’s economy. Dutch prime minister Mark Rutte claimed that Europe has only “six to eight weeks” to save the Schengen system of travel–which allows for unrestricted travel for those who hold visas for any of the twenty-six countries that make up the Schengen zone.  Several countries have suspended their Schengen policy and Davos provided opportunities for several ministers and politicians to discuss future plans for border control. Rutte argues that as spring approaches, the number of refugees entering Europe will only swell, potentially leading to a complete shutdown of the Schengen zone’s open border policy. French Prime Minister Manuel Valls also spoke on border policies, claiming that the European Union was not originally built to withstand the challenges of the refugee crisis.

In an interview given in the days before the conference began, billionaire George Soros added to the panic surrounding a European Union breakup by stating that

The EU is on the verge of collapse…the Greek crisis taught the European authorities the art of muddling through one crisis after another… The EU now is confronted with not one but five or six crises at the same time.

Outside of the formal roundtable discussions, Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Löfven spoke out regarding the spike in sexual attacks in Cologne, Germany and other European cities this month, saying that all refugees are not to blame for these crimes and that sexual harassment was problematic in Sweden and other nations long before the refugees arrived.

The Possibility of a “Brexit”

Davos’s discussions focused on the potential of Britain leaving the European Union in 2016 or 2017. Multiple European leaders made fervent pleas to the British representation and citizenry at large to stay within the union, referring to British secession as a “tragedy.” There is no scheduled vote on England leaving but with tensions over the refugee crisis stretching European governments thin, rumors of a potential British exit sent shock waves through Davos. However, Britain would most likely not benefit from exiting the EU in 2016. In a recent interview, Ian Bremmer, president of the Eurasia group, said that

If you’re asking if it is in Britain’s narrow interest to stay in Europe, I would say it is less in their interest than it was a year ago – but I would still make the point that if the Brits leave the EU, the likelihood that Scotland leaves Britain goes up very significantly, and I do believe that’s bad for the UK… Furthermore, leaving the single market, irrespective of the fact that Britain is not in the euro, would damage Britain’s role in finance globally; Britain would take a hit because of that. Also the logistics of the unwinding process, playing out over a couple of years, would be immensely distracting and damaging to both sides. Investment decisions are going to be changed both in the UK and the EU, and both would suffer

The potential “Brexit” dominated politician’s rhetoric at the summit but ultimately appeared to be a red herring as Prime Minister David Cameron stated that he is “not in a hurry” to schedule a vote on a British exit from the EU.

Debt Relief for Greece

During the forum, the IMF’s managing director, Christine Lagarde, and the Greek prime minister, Alexis Tsipras, met briefly to discuss the future of the Greek economy.  The IMF has agreed to extend new loans to Greece but it has also publicly stated that it is only prepared to support Greece on a “strings-attached basis.” Greece will need to enact significant economic changes and receive backing from Eurozone partners if it wants to take on IMF funds. Representatives from both the IMF and the Greek delegation referred to the talks as cordial and productive. Tsipras made a statement during Davos promising to reform the Greek economy–while simultaneously criticizing European insistence on lowering budget deficits.

It should be noted that Lagarde, who is responsible for the IMF’s prediction of world economic growth, recently downgraded the statistic to 3.4 percent from 3.6 percent for 2017. This contributed to worries for all countries represented at Davos but should be especially troubling for Greece as it takes on its new package of loans. Tsipras made a series of optimistic statements regarding a rebound for Greece but with limited prospects for growth and the influx of migrants that have swept into Greece, his speeches hardly seem to be realistic.

Discussions on Gender Inequality

Davos featured multiple events on closing the gender gap this year. Historically, Davos has been male dominated and as only 11 percent of company board directors from across the globe are women, the invite list was still mainly masculine this year. However, the organizers of Davos did dedicate specific time and spaces to gender inequality brainstorming sessions and panels. The United Nations brought its HeforShe campaign to the summit. Both Sheryl Sandberg and Justin Trudeau spoke at a panel on gender inequality, advocating for business and political leaders to embrace feminism. The Girls’ Lounge, a space reserved for the 18 percent of Davos attendees who are female, hosted a roundtable discussion on gender inequality during this year’s conference. The discussion focused on making workplaces more equitable and changing the culture of the corporate world. However, German journalist Manuela Kasper-Claridge noted that a great deal of the events on gender inequality were led by men, seriously undercutting the participation of the female attendees. While the soundbites produced at the forum were mainly positive, relatively few attendees committed publicly to promoting gender equality in their corporations or parliaments.

Conclusion

Davos is not a perfect yardstick for upcoming political and economic changes as it only includes a small percentage of the thousands of decision makers involved in the global economy, but it does create a platform for valuable discussion. The refugee crisis continues to dominate the political and economic discussions of European parliaments, and the pressure from the potential withdrawal of Great Britain from the EU has only complicated the debate. Davos is struggling to create gender parity in its annual conference but its efforts this year may open up more discussions in the coming years and prove valuable in the effort to promote feminism in workplaces across the world. Ultimately, Davos is a forum held for ideas not action–there are no votes or referendums that come as a direct result, the stock market does not rise or fall based on its speeches, and many of the attendees are only repeating their position on issues they have discussed time and time again. However, Davos serves as an unparalleled signpost for where European leaders hope to focus their time, energy, and resources in 2016.

Resources

The Guardian: Let’s Make Attending Davos as Shameful as Running a Sweatshop

The Atlantic Sentinal: Weeks Left to Save Schengen, Dutch Premier Warns

The Express: EU could go UNDER in 6 WEEKS, Dutch PM Claims as France Admits ‘We Weren’t Built for This’

The Daily Mail: Davos elites fear weakened European Union

The Irish Times: Number of Migrants Entering Europe ‘Needs to be Reduced’, Davos Hears

CNBC: Migrants Not to Blame for Sex Attacks: Swedish PM

Foreign Policy: Davos Diary: Europe Fears ‘Brexit’ But Not At ‘Any Price

The Telegraph: Davos Leaders Fear ‘Brexit’ May be Deathknell for EU

International Business Times: Davos 2016: Greece Promised New IMF Loans At Meeting With Lagarde And Tsipras

The Market Mogul: Worries in Davos 2016

The Guardian: IMF Demands EU Debt Relief for Greece Before New Bailout

Quartz: #Davosproblems: The Financial Crisis isn‘t Over, and the Inequality Crisis is Just Beginning

The Guardian: Embrace Feminism to Improve Decision-Making, says Justin Trudeau

Deutsche Welle: Davos, we Have a Gender Problem

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post What are the Major Takeaways from the 2016 World Economic Forum? appeared first on Law Street.

Over half of the nation’s governors have said that they will not accept Syrian refugees if they are brought into the United States. The 27 different governors have mostly cited security concerns as the primary reason for being opposed to refugees being brought into their states. A state by state map of where governors stand on accepting Syrian refugees is below:

These proclamations about resettling Syrian refugees in the U.S. come as a reaction to a few different issues. The horrific terrorist attacks in Paris were allegedly propagated by at least one man who came into Europe by pretending to be a Syrian refugee. He entered Greece using a fake passport that identified him as Syrian. Additionally, President Obama recently stated that his plan still calls for the United States to absorb 10,000 Syrian refugees. It’s a combination of these two factors that seem to be motivating the backlash from governors.

How governors have been making their refusal known varies. Some, like Governor Nathan Deal of Georgia have issued executive orders to that effect. Texas Governor Greg Abbott, on the other hand, sent a letter to President Obama outlining his intention to turn away Syrian refugees. Regardless of what state governors say, however, it’s not technically within their purview whether or not the U.S. should accept refugees–it’s a federal responsibility. However, states can keep their resources from being used by the federal government, which seems like it would be the most likely way that refugees are hampered from being resettled into various states.

The controversy over whether or not to accept Syrian refugees hasn’t just been limited to state governors. It’s been commented upon by the many, many presidential contenders as well, and unsurprisingly is split across party lines. Democrats, for the most part, have supported allowing refugees in. For example Senator Bernie Sanders urged that the U.S. not turn its back on refugees fleeing oppression and civil war in Syria. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asserted her support for taking in refugees as well during last Saturday’s Democratic debate, the night after the attacks in Paris.

In contrast, many of the Republican contenders have spoken out against taking in any of the refugees. Dr. Ben Carson has not only said that the U.S. shouldn’t take in Syrian refugees, but also urged Congress to “extinguish” resettlement programs altogether. Another Republican frontrunner Donald Trump has questioned whether the refugees will be a “Trojan horse” in America, and has suggested buying land in Syria for them to go to. How they would be protected in that “swatch of land” is unclear. Senator Ted Cruz has said that we should accept only Christian refugees. Governor Jeb Bush broke from the rest of his Republican counterparts, saying that we should let in refugees but screen them intensely.

This problem isn’t going away anytime soon–the situation is worsening in Syria. Whether or not the U.S. decides to accept Syrian refugees looks to be a point of significant argument moving forward in the national conversation, as well as in the primary elections.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post More than Half of U.S. Governors Want to Turn Away Syrian Refugees appeared first on Law Street.

Like the United States, many European nations increasingly face an illegal immigration problem. As the sinking of a boat carrying migrants last week showed, this problem is also very deadly. But what is inspiring these migrants to risk everything and head for Europe? Read on to learn about the immigrants coming into Europe, the groups facilitating that process, and the issues with which Europe needs to contend in light of the influx of illegal immigration.

The Sinking and Legacy

On April 19, 2015, a boat on its way to Italy carrying illegal immigrants from places as far and wide as Eritrea and Bangladesh, capsized off the coast of Libya. The overcrowded boat overturned after ramming a Portuguese cargo ship, the King Jacob. A full count of the deceased is still unknown.

A Recurring Problem

While the recent wreck was a tragedy, it certainly was not the first and likely not the last boat filled with illegal migrants headed for Europe to sink. In fact, such incidents have happened frequently and speak to a much larger trend. In 2014 for example, as many as 218,000 migrants were estimated to have crossed the Mediterranean from Africa to Europe. This year, 35,000 have already been suspected of crossing from Northern Africa into Europe.

Those who have made the crossing must be considered the lucky ones. Attempted crossings lead to a substantial number of deaths at sea. Last year 3,500 people were believed to have perished during the attempted crossing. That number sits at around 1,600 this year, with the most recent sinking taken into account. Unfortunately these numbers are only likely to increase. Prior to this incident, since October 2013, there have been at least four other occurrences in which a boat carrying migrants had sunk while carrying at least 300 people.

Human Trafficking

These trips tend to be organized by human traffickers. The traffickers are predominantly Libyan bandits, militia, and tribesmen. There are two main routes these smugglers take to get their human cargo through Africa and into Europe. The eastern route stretches as far as Somalia, while the western one reaches Senegal. Regardless of the routes’ starting points, migrants are funneled to Libya where they are then launched from either Benghazi or Tripoli in overcrowded and rickety boats toward the coast of Italy.

Unfortunately, traffickers’ tactics have recently began to change, making them even more nefarious and hard to prevent. Many traffickers have begun abandoning their ships en route to Europe–literally leaving the ships without steering of any kind. The smugglers obtain a large cargo ship, then during the trip advise their migrant-manned crews to call for help while they abandon the ship. The reason why the smugglers do this is two fold: First they are paid up front so it does not matter to them whether these migrants actually make it to Europe or not; secondly, by abandoning the boat they reduce their own chances of being arrested and can then smuggle more people and further profit. This practice has extended the smuggling season from spring and summer to all year round, but has made the crossing even more dangerous.

The industry has become especially appealing for traffickers in the last few years as traditional sources of income have disappeared as a result of government upheaval. Additionally, those doing the actual trafficking in many cases are would-be migrants themselves, which makes stopping the practice extremely difficult. The video below briefly explains the harrowing journey from Libya to Europe and all its difficulties.

Why do migrants cross the Mediterranean?

With all these dangers in mind, why do migrants risk crossing the Mediterranean? The answer varies for each individual, yet some reoccurring themes present themselves. Many of these themes are similar to the reasons why people attempt to migrate to the United States. First, many of the migrants are escaping danger back home. This ranges from country to country as well–for example, there has been an increase in migrants from Syria due to the civil war in that country.

Along with danger, another major impetus is economic. Most of the migrants attempting the journey are young men looking for opportunities. The goals of these men naturally vary, but often the promise of success and the ability to send earnings back to their families is a common desire.

While migration to Europe has become popular, it was not always the top destination for migrants. In the past, migrants had also attempted to go to places such as Israel and Saudi Arabia; however, with Israel increasing security and with Saudi Arabia engaged in a military conflict in Yemen, these routes have dried up. Whichever route the migrants take, they risk abuse ranging from robbery to rape and murder. In response to these dangers and the increasing deterioration of Libya, some migrants have tried crossing through Morocco instead, a much more difficult route.

Impact on Europe

When migrants successfully make the journey to Europe, the onus shifts from their handlers to European authorities. Since many migrants arrive in Europe without identification of any kind, it can make it much more difficult to send them back. This, in effect, makes migrants asylum seekers who are then held in refugee camps. Once in these camps, migrants may continue onward in Europe where travel restrictions have been reduced as part of the open-border aspect of the European Union.

Migrants are sometimes also allowed to move throughout Europe due simply to the cost of supporting them. Italy, the destination for many migrants, was spending as much as $12 million dollars a month on its search and rescue efforts in the Mediterranean. Another popular hub, Greece, spent $63 million in 2013 fighting illegal immigration. The problem both these countries, and other southern-European countries, face is that while they are part of the EU, the costs of their efforts have been almost entirely their own burdens to bear. These costs can be especially painful, considering the same countries that serve as these initial destinations for migrants are the ones also currently dealing with recessions. The video below highlights the issues each country in the EU deals with in regards to immigration.

The reason why countries such as Italy and Greece are footing the majority of these bills is due to their immigration laws. According to something referred to as the Dublin Regulation, a migrant must be processed as an asylum seeker upon entering a country. Once the person has been processed in that country, they become the responsibility of that particular nation. The following video shows the strategic routes immigrants take into Europe and reiterates how asylum status is achieved.

The design of this system naturally leads to problems, chief among which are accusations by richer northern-European countries that their southern neighbors are letting migrants pass north in an effort to reduce costs for themselves. In response to these allegations and as a result of bearing what it perceives to be an unfair burden, Italy cancelled its search and rescue mission last year. In its place the EU created the Triton Mission, a program similar to Italy’s, which focuses on rescuing migrants. Moreover, as part of a proposed ten-point plan in response to the most recent ship sinking, the mission is slated to increase in size. Another aspect of that plan is a program that is supposed to be implemented to return refugees to their countries. Nonetheless, even if the EU goes forward with its goal to expand the Triton mission, it will still be smaller than the one Italy disbanded last year.

Conclusion

Despite being described by several sources as modern day slavery, the practice of illegally ferrying immigrants from Africa and elsewhere to Europe is unlikely to stop or even slow down any time soon. This is the result of many things that are not likely to change in the immediate future, such as relatively high standards of living in the EU, crisis in the Middle East and Africa, EU laws regarding migrants, and the lucrative trafficking operations. But if Europe wants to fix its broken immigration system and prevent future tragedies on the scale of last week’s ship sinking it must do more than simply increase patrols.

Resources

ABC News: Libya Migrant Boat Sinking

Wall Street Journal: Rich Smuggling Trade Fuels Deadly Migration Across Mediterranean

BBC News: Mediterranean Migrants: Hundreds Feared Dead After Boat Capsizes

Atlantic: Human Traffickers Are Abandoning Ships Full of Migrants

CNN: Eating Toothpaste, Avoiding Gangs: Why Migrants Head to the Mediterranean

Human Events: Illegal Immigration is Europe Losing Control of Its Borders

Economist: Europe’s Huddled Masses

EUbusiness: Commission Proposes Ten-Point Migrant Crisis Plan

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Illegal Immigration in Europe: Latest Shipwreck Sheds Light on Trend appeared first on Law Street.

The pageantry and anticipation surrounding the Olympic Games has subsided recently. The mismanagement by certain host countries (Greece and Russia among others) has had a sobering effect on future host-candidates. In other words, countries are still down to party at your place, they just don’t welcome you coming over and ruining their expensive city.

And no city makes headlines for being unwelcoming quite like Boston. Last Thursday, America’s bid city held its first community meeting on the 2024 Olympics at Suffolk Law School. The organization No Boston Olympics–a grassroots coalition that has seemingly summoned the hospitality of Louise Day Hicks–was a vocal participant at the meeting. Essentially, No Boston Olympics feels the cost of hosting the 2024 Games would financially cripple the city, and everyone within the blast radius would foot the bill via taxes. The group makes a strong point: spending lots of money often sucks. But like other groups of contrarian fiscal hawks (see: Tea Party), they don’t see the entire picture.

The truth is, the success of the Olympic Games usually depends on who’s hosting. Greece, a country whose debt is becoming as famous as its Baklava, has not rebounded from hosting the 2004 Olympic Games.  Russia, which is having difficulty financing its own imperialistic urges, is now also struggling to pay off the 2014 Sochi Olympic Games.

On the flip side, the 2008 Summer Olympics turned a profit in Beijing. The 2012 Games in London, which were not cheap, could generate up to £40 billion in economic growth for England by 2020. Are those examples too foreign for you? The good ol’ US of A turned a profit after the ’96 games in Atlanta. As we did for the ’84 games in Los Angeles and then again for the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics in 2002.  Don’t we have faith that an Olympics in Boston would follow the lead of England or prior American Olympics rather than those games in Greece and Russia?

Here are a couple of reasons why Boston could be a good spot. The CEO of the 2002 Salt Lake games–Mitt Romney–lives in the area, and Boston is where his venture capital firm is headquartered. Not only is he local, but he also could have some free time on his hands! This is not a joke. Speaking of saviors for winter sports, do you know who else calls greater Boston home? Bob Kraft, the Patriots owner who privately financed his new stadium and turned a moribund afterthought into a four-time Super Bowl winning machine. He’s also been fingered as an adviser for the 2024 bid. Another big name is Red Sox owner John Henry, who was one of the few people who made millions during the 2008 recession and has already approved of Olympic use for Fenway Park.

This really isn’t a coincidence. There are many people in Boston who manage money well and who know the business of sports. It’s also densely populated, connected by a major subway system, and has vacant college housing during the summer. You get the point. Now let’s hear some counter-points courtesy of Boston.com’s coverage of the committee meeting.

1. “Members of Boston Homeless Solidarity Committee questioned why  . . . a cure for AIDS couldn’t get the resources and attention that an Olympic bid might.” (You can host the Olympics when you cure AIDS. Deal, fat cats?)
2. “At one point during Mandredi and Blauwet’s presentation, they showed a rendering of the proposed beach volleyball stadium on Boston Common. That idea drew hissing.” (Boston Common is for ice skating and for smoking pot in between Emerson classes. Not beach volleyball.  GAWT IT? If Boston wins the bid, don’t be surprised if there’s a spinoff protest for this particular issue. #NAWTOWAHCAWMIN)

Being frugal about local resources is understandable. People want the T (subway) fixed. People want better infrastructure. And people want these things completed quickly, without being too expensive. Well you know what could potentially make that happen? The Olympics. This isn’t that novel of an idea. If the International Olympic Committee and the United States are pushing for a smooth, seamless Olympics, you’ll probably get outside funding to fix some of your local problems. Romney got $3 million from the federal government specifically to help extend Salt Lake City’s light rail for its Olympics. In fact, for the last three American Olympics the federal government has spent $1.4 billion to improve the host cities’ transportation and infrastructure, a figure that will increase considering the government knows how inflation works. This money comes in addition to the millions that these cities receive from outside investors and through corporate sponsorship.

I realize many in Boston still suffer from a Big Dig hangover. That mega-engineering project spiraled out of control and the debt won’t be paid until 2038. But one bad investment–and its badness is debatable–shouldn’t stop the city from taking some financial risks in the future. The list of potential hosts is getting smaller, which means the IOC will soon be forced to scale down the costs involved in hosting the Olympics, which means the possibility of profit could be even greater. So while this may not be an obvious opportunity for Boston, maybe we should fully evaluate the idea[r] before calling in the militia. I mean, who doesn’t love a pahty, kid?

Andrew Blancato

The post Boston Olympics Backlash Filled With Cowardice and Stupidity appeared first on Law Street.

The most recent elections in Greece are over and the relatively new Syriza party has been declared victorious. This historic election means that there will be changes in Greece–those changes, however, could be very drastic not only for the country itself but for the entirety of the European Union. The Syriza party could be a great force for change in Greece, or undo some of the economic progress that has been made in recent years.

Greece. Image courtesy of [Kevin Anderson via Flickr]. 

What was the situation in Greece leading up to the elections?

Greece has been in less-than-stellar shape since the global recession began in 2008. The country is severely in debt, has a high unemployment rate, and low wages. The government was also much-maligned; in December the Greek Parliament rejected former Prime Minister Antonis Samaras’ preferred candidate for President. When that happens an immediate election must take place, and that rush to the ballot box brought a number of parties to the forefront, including the Syriza party.

What is Syriza?

Syriza, which means “Coalition of the Radical Left,” is a fairly recently created political party in Greece. It became an official party in July 2013. Since then it remained small until this election when it won by a landslide. Syriza is led by the new president of Greece, Alexis Tsipras.

What is the Syriza Party ideology?

The Syriza Party defines itself as a party of the democratic and radical left whose ideology took root in popular struggles for Greek independence, democracy, labor, and anti-fascist movements in Greece. Even though the party consists of a collection of many different ideological currents and left cultures, the group has built its identity on a synthesis of the values of the labor movement with those of the ecological, feminist, and other new social movements.

Syriza is also well known as an anti-establishment party, and ran on a platform that promised to fight an entity known in Greece as the “Troika,” which consists of the of the European Commission, the International Monetary Fund, and the European Central Bank. Syriza wants to force these groups to forgive some Greek debt and allow the country to enact a program of stimulus spending, among other reforms.

The 2015 Election

How did Syriza fare in the 2015 elections?

The Syriza party did extremely well in the election. According to the Greek Interior Ministry, Syriza won 36.3 percent of the vote, enough to obtain 149 of the 300 seats in the Greek Parliament.  

What does Syriza’s win mean? 

The Greek Parliament requires 151 members in order for a party to become a majority, and by extension form and run the government. While Syriza won the most seats, it did not get quite enough to make a majority on its own. This requires it to form an alliance with a party or number of parties in order to make a coalition government. While Syriza is a leftist party, its choice of an ally may seem strange. It reached out and allied itself with the Independent Greek Party, which is a group on the right. The two parties have nothing in common except that they both have a mutual opposition to austerity and the way that Greece has been treated by the rest of Europe. However, their unity means that the Syriza/Independent Greek Party coalition is in control, and elevates Syriza’s leader, Tsipras, to the position of President.

How did other parties fare in the election?

After Syriza, the New Democracy Party won 27.9 percent of the vote, or 76 seats. This party ran on the vision of a new socio-economic development model for the country.

Another party that made gains was the neo-Nazi Golden Dawn Party; it acquired 6.3 percent of the vote. The To Potami party, which ran on the idea of putting the common man into government and not professional politicians, acquired a similar six percent of the vote. Both Golden Dawn and To Potami acquired 16 seats each.

The KKE Party, which is a communist party that follows the ideas of Marxism-Leninism, acquired only 5.5 percent, enough for 15 seats. The Pasok Party, which ran on a platform of freedom, democracy, and a better future, ended up with 4.7 percent percent of the vote tying it with the Independent Greeks Party, which believes in the political system of parliamentary democracy, as well as religious freedom. Each of these parties won 13 seats.

Austerity

The main issue that has united the Syriza and Independent Greek parties is austerity. Austerity in its simplest form involves policies to reduce government spending and/or higher taxes in order to try to reduce government budget deficits. According to the Atlantic, what this means in Greece’s case is a series of spending cuts and tax hikes designed to reduce the country’s enormous bailout debt, which currently equals 175 percent of its GDP.

The austerity measures, which were put into place in 2012, were beginning to work, according to outgoing Prime Minister Samaras, and he has the facts to back him up. Since 2009, Greece’s primary deficit has gone from a whopping 10.7 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), to a primary surplus of 2.7 percent of GDP. In addition, the banking sector is much stronger and more resilient than it has been since the beginning of the economic crisis.

Despite all of the economic good news, the changes have not improved life soon enough for the Greek people who have found themselves in dire straits. Four million Greeks have been reduced to poverty and they can’t do much about it because unemployment has soared to 28 percent. To make matters worse, wages have dropped 12 percent in the same time frame. The new government promises to change that by gaining debt forgiveness, even if it means going head to head with the rest of the European Union, some members of which have already said that they will not be backing down. They hope that other nations who have parties with similar ideologies will be able to gain control of their respective governments and force the EU to concede to their demands.

What does this election mean for Greece’s debt?

The election means that Greece is going to look at other methods to pay its debts, get them forgiven, or if left with no other option, default on them. The party is hoping to bully the Troika into submission, but that will be difficult since it will have a hard time asking other nations for help. The video below explains the challenge that Greece will have to deal with.

 How has the rest of Europe responded?

The main response to the elections in Greece came from Europe, and so far these responses have been cold at best. This is particularly true of the entities that make up the Troika. With Syriza’s platform so centralized on removing the austerity measures and the Troika refusing to back down, both sides are gearing up for a fight.

European Union Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker already warned that any reduction of Greece’s debt commitments is not even on the Commission’s mind. His thoughts are being echoed by Jeroen Dijsselbloem, president of the Eurogroup, who stated that “There is very little support for a write-off in Europe.” This means that Greece will have an uphill battle to get anything done in terms of debt reduction. The results of this clash will be watched by other nations that are close to being in the same boat as Greece, such as Italy and Spain.

This leaves Greece with a few options. The country could default on its bills and as a result leave the EU–an option that neither side wants to see happen as it is an extremely unpopular idea in Greece and not a popular one in the EU either. The other option is for the Troika to cave into Syriza’s demands. However this wraps up, observers fear that parties with the same ideology as Syriza’s will gain power in other nations and force the same demands, which could spell big problems for the European Union down the road.

Conclusion

Syriza, an anti-bailout, anti-austerity party in Greece, has won the latest election only to find itself in a struggle with the European Union powerhouses. If Syriza fails, Greece could be forced from the European Union; if it succeeds, the EU will be forced to alter terms with other nations that are in debt to the banks, as well. No matter what, Syriza’s election spells big changes for Greece.

Resources

Primary

Syriza: Who We Are

Additional

Independent: Greece Elections: Syriza and EU on Collision Course After Election Win for Left Wing Party

Atlantic: Europe’s Austerity Moment is Ending 

Reuters: Greek PM Tsipras Names Anti-Austerity Cabinet, Port Sale Halted

Guardian: Syriza’s Election Victory in Greece–How Europe Reacted 

Fortune: Why the Greek Elections Might Be the Beginning of the End for the Euro 

Bloomberg: Euro Area’s Pro-Default Parties May Trigger New Crisis

Time: 5 Facts About the Greek Election

Editor’s Note: This post has been updated to credit select information to the Atlantic. 

Chris Schultz

Chris Schultz is a Midwestern country boy who is a graduate of Dordt College in Sioux Center, Iowa and holds a bachelors degree in History. He is interested in learning about the various ocean liners that have sailed the world’s waters along with a variety of other topics. Contact Chris at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Syriza Party: A Fresh Start for Greece? appeared first on Law Street.

On Friday, August 1, Moody’s Investor Service upgraded Greece’s government bond rating, indicating subtle economic growth for a country hit hard by the 2008 economic crisis. Plagued by structural weakness, along with a decade of mounting financial deficits, the Greek economy floundered from the outset of the 2008 recession, afflicting the Eurozone system until it was saved from the brink of bankruptcy in 2010. Eurozone countries and the International Monetary Fund have pumped 240 billion euros ($308 billion) in the Greek economy, floating the feeble country on the promise of exacting austerity measures including drastic cuts to public spending that have triggered unprecedented levels of poverty, decimating incomes and pushing the unemployment rate to 27 percent.

Moody’s recent vote of confidence in the Greek economy may however mark at turning point for the credit-strapped country, since the Moody’s upgrade is corroborated by other reputable credit agencies. On May 23, 2014 Standard & Poor and Fitch raised their ratings of Greece from B- to B, while Moody’s predicted a gradual decline of its massive national debt. While this credit rating remains at “junk” status, or below investment grade, Greece’s economy is projected to grow by 1.2 percent, the first significant uptick in seven years signaling that the country is near the end of its dismal recession.

If graffiti in Athens can tell us anything about this recent optimism, it is that Greece’s impending resuscitation has not come without its social costs. Moreover, the capitalist “invisible hand” is not the only hand of consequence. In July, preceding Moody’s report of Greece’s economic health, iNO, a Greek graffiti muralist, unveiled his latest piece. The mural, called “Wake UP,” portrays one hand saving another that lets go of a coin. “While the economic situation in Greece remains unsettled [ne s’arrange pas],” explained the French graffiti blog ALLCITY, “iNO made a blind wall in Athens with the theme of resurrection, the hand of God bringing to life a man fascinated by money.” The black and white mural cast against dense cream concrete buildings, prescribes a redemption that necessitates letting go of money, perhaps suggesting a return to more humanitarian, social, and fiscal policies in Greece. Since the outset of the 2008 economic crisis, iNO has been at the forefront of Greek political graffiti; his murals have illuminated the social consciousness of the recession. 

“People in Greece are under pressure,” iNO told The New York Times in April. “They feel the need to act, resist and express themselves… If you want to learn about a city, look at its walls. Take a walk in the center of Athens, and you will get it.” Nearly all of iNO’s murals contain a social message, whether implicitly or explicitly expressed. “No Future,” for example, depicts two faces of a baby: one searching the sky desperately, the other stares blankly at the viewer, or at the absence of future and economic promise in Athens. “System of Fraud,” shows the heads of two hellenistic statues, the bottom melting away, perhaps critiquing Athens tourism industry, or the mismanagement of its revenue. “Wake Up” in contrast, is a hopeful message, but also an admonishment against the abuses of capital.

Political graffiti has been a mainstay of dissent in Greece since the outset of the 2008 economic crisis. Activists against the government have plastered Athens’ city walls, banks, kiosks, trains, and cars with political messages like  “Their Wealth is Our Blood;” commenting on international bailouts to save Greece, “Wake Up! Fight Now!;” and even sardonic graphics advertising democracy, “Super Democracy (as seen on TV)” with a figure giving a middle finger.

Graffiti has functioned as “counter-propoganda” for the Greek people who have been devastated by austerity measures and no longer trust the government. Going forward, however, graffiti will mean more than a statement of protest; as a voice of the people, political graffiti will play a role in discussions about the restoration of the Greek economy and society. The upgrade of Greece’s credit rating marks a turning point for the Greek economy. Will Greece resume the self-destructive path of government corruption and financial mismanagement, or will the country espouse more humanitarian policies, shifting emphasis from boosting private investors to a more robust welfare for its people? If anything is clear, it is that Graffiti will remain part of the equation.

—

Ryan D. Purcell (@RyanDPurcell) holds an MA in American History from Rutgers University where he explored the intersection between hip hop graffiti writers and art collectives on the Lower East Side. His research is based on experience working with the Newark Public Arts Project and from tagging independently throughout New Jersey and New York.

Featured image courtesy of [aesthetics of crisis via Flickr]

Ryan Purcell

Ryan D. Purcell holds an MA in American History from Rutgers University where he explored the intersection between hip hop graffiti writers and art collectives on the Lower East Side. His research is based on experience working with the Newark Public Arts Project and from tagging independently throughout New Jersey and New York. Contact Ryan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Graffiti Marks Turning Point in Greek Economy appeared first on Law Street.