The Department of Homeland Security waived more than three dozen environmental laws and regulations Wednesday to speed up the first phase of construction of border wall projects near San Diego.

#NoWallsNoWaivers
#Resist#ResistTrump#RevitalizeNotMilitarize#OurLands pic.twitter.com/80JZkd5Maa

— cyndi tuell (@cctuell) August 1, 2017

The projects will be constructed along an approximately 15-mile segment of land that starts at the Pacific Ocean and extends eastward toward a point called Border Monument 251, according to a statement from the DHS. The waiver follows one of President Donald Trump’s January executive orders, which called for greater security along the U.S.-Mexico border.

The DHS invoked a 1996 law to waive several environmental protections, including a law that would have required the department to assess the environmental impact the wall would have. In spite of the waivers, the department maintained in a statement that they are “committed to environmental stewardship with respect to these projects.”

The statement read:

DHS has been coordinating and consulting–and intends to continue doing so–with other federal and state resource agencies to ensure impacts to the environment, wildlife, and cultural and historic artifacts are analyzed and minimized, to the extent possible.

However, environmental advocates and border wall opponents weren’t convinced. The Center for Biological Diversity, which sued the DHS in June to obtain documents on Trump’s border wall prototypes, published a statement condemning the waiver and the wall. Brian Segee, and attorney for the center, criticized Trump’s planned wall for being harmful to the environment and the people who live near the border.

“Trump wants to scare people into letting him ignore the law and endanger wildlife and people,” Segee said in the statement. “Trump’s wall is a divisive symbol of fear and hatred, and it does real harm to the landscape and communities.”

In another critique of the decision, American Oversight Executive Director Austin Evers cautioned against impulsively expediting the border wall.

“Today’s announcement by DHS is a disturbing sign that President Trump will barrel ahead with building a border wall no matter the cost to taxpayers or effect on our environment,” he said. “Given the widespread skepticism towards the effectiveness of the border wall by leaders in both parties–including the new White House Chief of Staff–effective safeguards are more important than ever to prevent President Trump from spending tens of billions of dollars and radically transforming our Southwestern border based solely upon his whims and impulses.”

Environmentalists fear that Trump’s border wall would negatively impact the surrounding environment through actions such as impeding animal migration and increasing floods in the desert. Segee pointed out that the construction wouldn’t be limited to just the wall, but would include roads, lighting, and other infrastructure that would accompany it.

In a May study, the Center for Biological Diversity found that the wall and related infrastructure would potentially affect 93 threatened, endangered, and candidate species. But the full impact of such large-scale construction projects cannot be known unless an environmental impact assessment is performed, a procedural step that DHS does not appear to see as a necessity.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post DHS Waives Environmental Rules To Build San Diego Border Wall appeared first on Law Street.

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:

NAACP Issues Travel Advisory for Missouri

The NAACP has issued its first-ever statewide travel advisory for the state of Missouri. This announcement came after Senate Bill 43 passed the state legislature and was signed by Governor Eric Greitens. The new law makes it harder for employees to prove their protected class status in a lawsuit; critics, including the NAACP, say that it makes discrimination easier and dubbed it a “Jim Crow bill.”

The advisory is intended to let people of color and members of the LGBT community traveling through the state know what’s going on, and to be particularly vigilant. It cites recent instances of police brutality and discrimination in Missouri, and asks that everyone “warn your families, co-workers, and anyone visiting Missouri to beware of the safety concerns with travel in Missouri, notify members of your trade associations, social and civil organizations that they are traveling and living in Missouri at their own risk and subject to unnecessary search seizure and potential arrest, and file and seek help on any existing claims for discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and whistle blowing ASAP before your legal rights are lost.”

.@NAACP issues travel advisory for Missouri, the first in its 108-year history, after passage of “Jim Crow Bill” https://t.co/sEFbjOzQUa pic.twitter.com/N1UyXNEcqk

— New York Daily News (@NYDailyNews) August 2, 2017

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 RantCrush Top 5: August 3, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) released a draft recovery plan for endangered Mexican gray wolves on Thursday. An Arizona district court ordered the FWS to complete the plan by the end of November.

The last time the FWS revised the recovery plan for the Mexican wolves was 1982. The new recovery plan focuses on increasing wolf populations in Arizona, New Mexico, and Mexico.

“At the time of recovery, the Service expects Mexican wolf populations to be stable or increasing in abundance, well-distributed geographically within their historical range, and genetically diverse,” a FWS statement said.

The recovery plan provides for the establishment and maintenance of “a minimum of two resilient, genetically diverse Mexican wolf populations.” According to the plan, the Mexican gray wolf will be considered for downlisting from endangered to threatened status when there are at least 320 wolves in the U.S. and 170 wolves in Mexico.

Michael Robinson, a conservation advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity, said that threshold is “far fewer wolves than the number scientists have said is necessary for a viable population.” Robinson also criticized the plan for not including regions that scientists have said would be “essential to their long-term survival,” including the Grand Canyon.

Before becoming endangered, the Mexican gray wolf, or “el lobo,” roamed northern Mexico and throughout Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. The Mexican gray wolf was listed as an endangered subspecies under the Endangered Species Act in 1976, and was absorbed into the endangered species listing of the gray wolf in 1978. Efforts to reintroduce wolves to the wild began in the late 1990s.

According to the Mexican Wolf Interagency Field, there are currently only about 100 Mexican gray wolves in New Mexico and Arizona. Environmentalists and wildlife advocates have supported efforts to release more captive wolves into the wild. However, they met opposition with ranchers and rural leaders who worried that the wolves would attack livestock and wild game.

In June 2016, the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish brought a case against the U.S. Department of the Interior, the FWS, and certain government officials for releasing two Mexican gray wolf pups in New Mexico without a state permit. New Mexico, along with 18 other states, argued that the Endangered Species Act required the federal government to work with them to determine how species would be reintroduced inside of their borders. The district court enjoined the defendants from releasing any Mexican gray wolves into New Mexico without a state permit.

In April 2017, the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish had failed to present sufficient evidence that they would suffer irreparable harm due to the release of the wolves. The appellate court reversed and vacated the district court’s injunction and remanded the case to the district court.

Following the FWS’s release of the recovery plan draft this week, Bryan Bird, Southwest program director for Defenders of Wildlife, called the plan a “backroom deal” that restricts the wolves from moving in suitable habitats. He also noted that President Donald Trump’s planned border wall will cut off access for wolves trying to pass between the U.S. and Mexico and make the wolves “incapable of beating the clock of extinction.”

“Future generations should have the chance to hear wolves howl on the landscape,” Bird said. “Scientists–not politicians who had undue influence on the recovery plan for Mexican gray wolves–should be making decisions about how best to protect endangered species and their habitat.”

The FWS will hold information meetings in July where members of the public will be able to submit comments on the draft recovery plan in Flagstaff, Arizona; Pinetop, Arizona; Truth or Consequences, New Mexico; and Albuquerque, New Mexico. People can also submit comments on the document online.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.S. Wildlife Officials Draft Court-Ordered Recovery Plan for Mexican Gray Wolf appeared first on Law Street.

For a president who has defined himself by his harsh immigration stance, President Donald Trump’s recent announcement seemed to go against this position. Dreamers, for now, will not have their protections eliminated, Trump said. In a June 15 statement, the Department of Homeland Security said: “The June 15, 2012 memorandum that created the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program will remain in effect.”

This seemed like good news for Dreamers. But White House officials said that the long-term plan for DACA and Dreamers has not been officially set, leaving hundreds of thousands of immigrants in limbo. Trump’s statement followed an interview with the Associated Press in April, when Trump said that Dreamers could “rest easy.” The Trump Administration is “not after the dreamers, we are after the criminals,” he said.

Becoming a naturalized U.S. citizen is a long process. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services lists the 10 steps that one must take to become a naturalized citizen. Though it’s broken down into 10 steps, these steps can, and do, take years. USCIS also created a “worksheet” that people can follow to see if they qualify to become U.S. citizens. For those without help–legal or otherwise–the process can seem daunting.

DACA created a channel for certain immigrants, specifically children brought to the U.S. by their parents to gain the legal documentation to remain in the country. Calling this channel into question causes anxiety for many immigrants who previously thought they were safe. 

What is a Dreamer?

“Dreamer” is the term often given to those covered by DACA. This gets confusing because there is a separate act, the “Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act of 2011,” commonly referred to as the DREAM Act. The distinction is that the DREAM Act was never passed. A report released by University of California, Los Angeles summarizes the program as such:

First introduced in 2001 by Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Richard Durbin (D-IL), the DREAM Act is a bipartisan bill that would provide undocumented youths who came to the United States before the age of sixteen a path toward legalization on the condition that they attend college or serve in the U.S. military for a minimum of two years while maintaining good moral character

Former President Barack Obama ultimately created an executive order that came to be known as DACA (see below for more details on the specifics). DACA, while it did not provide a path to citizenship, worked to ensure that immigrants who came to the United States as minors and who were now pursuing work or education, could not be deported. The fact that DACA is an executive order and not an act  opens it up to vulnerability at the hands of Obama’s successors, including Trump, who could roll it back.

The protections of DACA provide peace of mind for the Dreamers it covers. For young immigrants who are trying to earn a college degree, the program provides assurances that they can continue their studies without the risk of deportation. But under Trump, Dreamers cannot rest easy quite yet. On June 16, a day after announcing the program will stay for the time being, White House officials said that the long-term fate of the program has not yet been decided.

What exactly is DACA?

The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, is an immigration policy enacted in 2012 under the Obama Administration. Rather than working toward a path to legalization, DACA allows immigrants who entered the country illegally as minors to apply every two years for a work permit. The purpose of this policy was to take the pressure off non-threatening illegal immigrants. If an immigrant came to the U.S. as a minor and was working or attending school and not getting in trouble with the law, he or she would not be deported. DACA currently covers around 750,000 immigrants.  

Obama’s Legacy

Obama left a mixed legacy in terms of immigration. While Obama never incited chants to “Build a wall,” he still cannot be considered a savior for immigrants. According to the Department of Homeland Security, he deported more illegal immigrants than any of his predecessors. Compared to George W. Bush, Obama’s deportation numbers are far higher. Obama deported roughly three million compared to Bush’s two million. Obama, too, was stricter about fining companies that employed illegal immigrants.

But right now the most important remaining aspects of Obama’s immigration legacy stem from DACA. Immigrants protected under this policy do not represent the majority. In fact, of the almost 11 million illegal immigrants in the country, DACA covers about 750,000. So while the Trump Administration’s current promise to retain DACA is a step forward for those who support immigration, the status of a majority of illegal immigrants remains in jeopardy.

“You Need to be Worried”

White House officials have been careful to not mince words. Thomas Homan, acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, had direct advice for illegal immigrants. At a recent House Appropriations subcommittee hearing, he said, “If you are in this country illegally, and you committed a crime by entering this country, you should be uncomfortable, you should look over your shoulder, and you need to be worried.”

The Trump Administration’s statement released on June 15 also said DAPA (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans) would be rolled back. DAPA, a policy to protect the illegal immigrant parents of American citizens or people who have legal documentation to be in the country, was never actually put in place. After making it all the way to the Supreme Court, a deadlocked 4-4 court could not rule on the proposed plan. But it has now been effectively voided by Trump.

More Uncertainty for Immigrants

Trump ran a campaign that was hardly subtle about his feelings about immigrants. Trump began his campaign making unsavory comments about Mexican immigrants. “Build a wall,” an allusion to increased security on the Mexican border, was one of the bastions of the president’s election rallies. But many immigrants, not just from Mexico, have felt the hostility of the current administration.

And once he got into office, Trump wasted no time in trying to stymie immigration. After exactly one week in office, the president signed an executive order suspending citizens from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen from coming to the United States for 90 days. The following day, federal Judge Ann M. Donnelly blocked part of the executive order on the grounds that it “violates their rights to Due Process and Equal Protection guaranteed by the United States Constitution.”

On February 2, the administration eased the executive order to exclude those with green cards. A month later, on March 6, the president released another revised travel suspension, this time excluding Iraq. This revised ban was blocked by district court Judge Derrick Watson of Hawaii. Additional parts of the revised ban have been blocked by federal judges as well. The actions taken by the Trump Administration have been for the safety of the American people, the president says. But more than protect Americans, the attempted bans have cast the Trump Administration as one that is unfriendly to immigrants.

While Trump has yet to sign an executive order that suspends immigration from Mexico or other Latin American countries, he has not been extending an open welcome to any of those citizens either. Trump has repeatedly emphasized the need to build a wall on the Mexican-American border– a wall that Mexico will pay for, he has said. Before Trump was inaugurated, Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto made clear that Mexico would not be paying for the wall. For now, the fate of the wall (and who will pay for it if it ever gets built) remains uncertain.

What also remains uncertain is the fate of certain immigrants with DACA status. Juan Manuel Montes, 23, had been in the United States since he was nine. Montes had protection under DACA that allowed him to live in the United States legally, as long as he kept renewing his two-year work permit. Montes says that back in February he forgot his wallet (with his ID and DACA papers in it) in a friend’s car. While waiting for a ride home, border patrol agents stopped him.

Without papers, Montes had no way to prove he had legal justification to not be deported. He was swiftly sent to Mexico. The Department of Homeland Security denies deporting Montes at all. Rather, they said they found him crossing the U.S. border, an action Montes claims he took after being deported. While the details are unclear, the overall message is not. Immigrants protected by DACA are safe from deportation now, but their status could change.

Conclusion

The future remains murky for immigrants. Those coming from the Middle East could be subject to yet another revised travel ban. Those already in the country, living under protections that formerly guaranteed their safety may eventually not have those same privileges. The volatility that the Trump Administration has been demonstrating likely won’t put anyone at ease. With the president saying or tweeting something one day and then his officials clarifying his statements days or hours later, it makes it hard to know what is happening. Uncertainty is the biggest concern right now.

Anne Grae Martin

Anne Grae Martin is a member of the class of 2017 University of Delaware. She is majoring in English Professional Writing and minoring in French and Spanish. When she’s not writing for Law Street, Anne Grae loves doing yoga, cooking, and correcting her friends’ grammar mistakes. Contact Anne Grae at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Future for Dreamers: A Road of Uncertainty Under President Trump appeared first on Law Street.

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:

Senate Health Care Bill Sparks Protests

After the new Senate health care bill was revealed yesterday, a lot of people took to the streets to protest. Some parked themselves outside of Mitch McConnell’s office and were physically removed–including disabled people in wheelchairs or with respirators. And a lot of people showed up at DCA–one of Washington D.C.’s major airports–to make sure lawmakers saw their signs before leaving town.

Don’t fly away, save the ACA! pic.twitter.com/PsaSqjpVEw

— Generation Progress (@genprogress) June 22, 2017

The new bill will, if it passes, trigger big tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and slash spending on Medicaid. The bill even drew remarks from President Barack Obama, who has largely remained silent in political debates since leaving office. “The Senate bill, unveiled today, is not a health care bill. It’s a massive transfer of wealth from middle-class and poor families to the richest people in America,” he wrote in a Facebook post. He also said the bill has a “fundamental meanness” and that it will harm anyone who might one day get sick, get old, or start a family.

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: June 23, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

The United States and Mexico agreed to a new trade deal this week regarding the sugar trade, but some viewed it as a precursor to negotiations on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

American sugar refineries previously complained about Mexico introducing cheap sugar into the U.S. economy, while simultaneously refusing to export raw sugar to their American counterparts, according to The New York Times. This has resulted in the movement of sugar-based jobs from America to Mexico over the years.

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross had previously threatened an 80 percent tariff if the two sides did not reach a deal by early this month, according to Politico.

The talks between the two neighboring countries began in March, about two months after President Donald Trump took office on a platform of protecting American workers and companies. Ross led the negotiations with Ildefonso Guajardo, Mexico’s economy minister, The New York Times reported. At a news conference in Washington D.C., Ross said:

We have gotten the Mexican side to agree to nearly every request made by the U.S. sugar industry to address flaws in the current system and ensure fair treatment of American sugar growers and refiners.

Some politicians, businessmen, and analysts have viewed these negotiations as a possible preview to upcoming discussions on the existing NAFTA deal. Those negotiations are expected to begin in August, according to Reuters.

Just the fact that the Trump Administration dove into negotiations with a country they have often insulted was an encouraging sign, according to CNN Money.

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue said the deal “sets an important tone of good faith leading up to the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement.”

Under the terms of this new agreement, Mexico would greatly reduce the amount of refined sugar it exports to America while increasing its raw sugar exports. But many are unhappy with Trump’s first major economic agreement.

One American sugar producer, Ohio-based Spangler Candy, has voiced its displeasure at the deal. Spangler Candy, which has moved plants into Mexico for access to cheaper sugar, believes that the administration has failed on one of its main campaign promises.

“To be honest, I’m just very disappointed that the Trump administration didn’t do more to level the playing field, which is something they promised over and over again to do for the American worker,” Spangler Chief Executive Officer Kirk Vasha said in a phone interview with Reuters.

U.S. Coalition for Sugar Reform, a trade group representing U.S. sugar buyers, disavowed the deal because of the burden raising tariffs will put on consumers. The coalition estimates that the cost to consumers in higher prices will be around $1 billion, according to Reuters. The Sweetener Users Association also projected the costs at around $1 billion.

Hershey and Mondelez International, which owns the Kraft brand, both referred Reuters to those price estimates as their response to the deal. Ross has said he hopes that their concerns can be calmed in the drafting process of the deal.

So while the deal may not be ideal in the view of some companies or consumers, the deliberations bode well for future compromise between the two nations. After feuding between Mexican leaders and Trump, or his surrogates, throughout his campaign, the negotiations offered a glimpse of the upcoming collaboration regarding NAFTA.

Trump has repeatedly promised to bring jobs back to America, which he attempted to accomplish in this sugar deal. Soon enough he’ll have the chance to work on NAFTA, another major point of his throughout the campaign.

I will renegotiate NAFTA. If I can’t make a great deal, we’re going to tear it up. We’re going to get this economy running again. #Debate

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 20, 2016

Even those from the Mexican side feel the sugar deal bodes well. Carlos Vejar, a former senior Mexican trade official who served as general counsel for the trade for Mexico’s Economy Ministry, believes that sugar is “obviously an issue that is so controversial it is a good example that agreements can be reached.”

Trump’s main campaign promise was to fix America’s place in the global economy and to bring jobs back. Many are disappointed in his first attempt, so perhaps he can do better when it comes to renegotiating NAFTA.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.S. Sugar Deal with Mexico Previews NAFTA Discussions appeared first on Law Street.

Wednesday is World Press Freedom Day. A free press is vital for a functioning democracy, and how free the press is often indicates the freedom of a country’s citizens. But new numbers from Freedom House show that 2016 was the worst year for press freedom in 13 years, both in the U.S. and internationally.

Freedom House, an independent democracy watchdog, conducts its analysis based on the political, economic, and legal climate for journalists in each country. The countries are then rated from 0-100–the closer to zero, the better. This year, the U.S. went up two points to 23, which is its worst score in a decade. Reporters Without Borders also makes an annual ranking, and on its list the U.S. ended up in 43rd, in between Burkina Faso and Comoros.

#WorldPressFreedomDay | Journalists Under Threat in Both Democracies and Dictatorships https://t.co/oS4ppXgMyA map via @rsf_inter pic.twitter.com/cGyn9w4Bj0

— Human Rights Watch (@hrw) May 3, 2017

Only 13 percent of countries have a completely free press. The criteria for ranking as free are, according to Freedom House, a media environment with extensive political coverage, guaranteed safety for journalists, minimal state intrusion in the media, and no legal or economic pressures on reporters.

President Donald Trump is mentioned as a partial cause of the decline in U.S. press freedom. He has frequently criticized the media for its coverage and often calls mainstream media “fake news.” Back in March, he tweeted that he might push to change the libel laws. And on April 30, White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus said the administration had “looked at” changing them. Priebus added that the media needs “to be more responsible with how they report the news.”

The failing @nytimes has disgraced the media world. Gotten me wrong for two solid years. Change libel laws? https://t.co/QIqLgvYLLi

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 30, 2017

Who’s at the Bottom of the List?

Around the world there are countless examples of journalists who are detained because of what they report. The lowest-ranking countries are dictatorships in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. But due to violence from drug cartels and organized crime, Mexico is also deemed one of the worst countries to be a journalist. Independent nonprofit organization Committee to Protect Journalists has documented more than 50 killings of journalists in Mexico since 2010.

The CPJ’s report on Mexico shows that convictions for murders of journalists are very rare, and when they do happen, authorities often fail to prove a clear link to journalism. Instead they often frame it as a regular crime, making it hard to keep data accurate and confront the actual problem. Corruption in the government and police force is also a huge problem.

“As Mexican journalists, we feel alone.” Miguel Ángel Dìaz, who was under threat for his work as a journalist. #WPFhttps://t.co/NMugf62xN5pic.twitter.com/oPwat4x38c

— CPJ (@pressfreedom) May 2, 2017

What’s Happening in the U.S.?

But even in the U.S., reporters are sometimes detained for doing their jobs. In February, freelance reporter Jenni Monet was arrested for covering the protests at the Dakota Access Pipeline near Standing Rock. Despite following police instructions to stay behind police lines, she was detained for 30 hours. She was later charged with rioting and trespassing.

“It didn’t matter that I was complying with their instructions and it didn’t matter that they knew I was a member of the press. I was handcuffed and held in a chain link enclosure with 18 other women for hours,” she said. Amnesty International is calling for the charges to be dropped, citing the critical role of reporters in holding governments accountable for human rights abuses.

On #WorldPressFreedomDay, we need YOU to get loud to demand charges be dropped against #DAPL journalist Jenni Monet https://t.co/hbgEqSE9mPpic.twitter.com/1V9vkp4mlW

— AmnestyInternational (@amnestyusa) May 3, 2017

A Spotlight on Turkey

In Turkey, at least 156 media outlets have been shut down and at least 2,500 journalists have been fired since last summer’s failed coup. More than 120 journalists have been jailed, facing terrorism-related charges, because of what they have written or drawn. One newspaper editor and his brother who appeared on a TV panel discussion about the coup were accused of ‘sending subliminal messages’ to the people behind the coup. Both were arrested, as was the TV show’s presenter.

Since the coup, President Erdogan has cracked down on all kinds of dissent. Last weekend, almost 4,000 people were fired from public offices and the government blocked Wikipedia. Now more than 250,000 people have signed an online petition urging the Turkish government to release all the jailed journalists. Many have tweeted photos of themselves using the hashtag #FreeTurkeyMedia, including Chinese artist Ai Weiwei and the Al Jazeera journalists who were imprisoned in Egypt for more than 400 days in 2013.

♫ Ai Weiwei’s done it,
Mandela’s statue’s done it,
Even the #FreeAJStaff‘ve done it,
Let’s do it,
Let’s post a #FreeTurkeyMedia selfie. ♫ pic.twitter.com/aRHrR0e4E8

— FreeTurkeyMedia (@FreeTurkeyMedia) April 24, 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 World Press Freedom Day: Worst Outlook for Freedom of the Press in 13 Years appeared first on Law Street.

Ever since his campaign days, President Donald Trump has pledged to build a wall that will cover the border between the United States and Mexico, as a means of cracking down on illegal immigration. But those promises seem less certain each day, with Congressional Republicans hesitant to allocate billions of dollars to fund the wall and Mexico’s president denying Trump’s claims that his country would fund the project.

Now, the state of California is also pushing back against the wall by weighing the possibility of a blacklist against any contractors that Trump would hire to work on the structure.

California state Sen. Ricardo Lara, a Democrat who represents Los Angeles County, introduced a bill on Tuesday that would block companies that participate in construction of the wall from being hired by the state of California in the future. The state currently shares a substantial border with Mexico. Lara compared businesses that would potentially assemble the wall to those that would help build internment camps or segregated schools.

However, construction businesses don’t want to politicize the issue. Felipe Fuentes, a lobbyist for the state’s contractors, warned that the measure could set a precedent of “hand-picking projects that are not politically favorable to the California Legislature”–and could affect construction of everything from Planned Parenthood facilities to prisons.

Financial resistance to the wall could be the latest growing trend among mainly-Democratic states and cities looking to hit back at Trump on the local level. Soon after he resumed office, a number of mayors and governors across the country vowed that their cities would be “sanctuary cities,” in which undocumented immigrants would be protected from deportation.

Now, in addition to California, legislators in at least four other states have proposed indirect ways of opposing the wall. A public advocate in New York City introduced a bill that would blacklist contractors hired by Trump, and would require the city’s largest public pension fund to divest from participating companies. A Rhode Island representative has called for his state to withdraw its investments in businesses working with Trump. A proposed bill in New Mexico would prevent the state from selling 22 miles of land that it owns to the federal government for the purposes of building the wall. Meanwhile, legislatures in Arizona and Illinois are considering similar blacklist and divestment measures.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will California Say “You’re Fired” to Companies That Build Trump’s Wall? 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.

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.

For American college students, spring break is a time-honored tradition, typically synonymous with beaches, binge drinking, and…bad life decisions. However, this year a group of spring breakers vacationing in Cancun managed to also add bigotry to that alliterative list.

On March 3, a group of college students burst into a “Build that wall!” chant during a family show on a Cancun tourist cruise, to the astonishment of nearby honeymooners.

According to the Yucatan Times, Peruvian Anaximandro Amable Burga was aboard the “pirate ship” with his wife Suly, when he witnessed the xenophobic display. Bruga recounted the incident in a public Facebook post writing:

Today I was with Suly, my wife (who is a native of Mexico), watching an entertainment show off the coast of Cancun aboard a boat, and at the end of the show, a flock of Americans (maybe under the influence of alcohol, or maybe not), began to sing the infamous “Build that wall” chant louder and louder.

A few people reportedly expressed their annoyance, but the “Americans did not stop” and continued singing the “racist hymn.”

Bruga’s statement also called upon his fellow Latin Americans to defend one another from similar attacks, as reported by The Huffington Post and translated by Google Translate:

Latin Americans: We cannot be tolerant or even less mediators or flexible with these kinds of harmful attitudes, just like we can’t be tolerant with lies or with attacks against a person’s or a people’s dignity. No one told me about it: I lived it and it hurt and it bothered me and it filled me with rage, sadness and impotence.

Latin Americans: When you see a brother being insulted or beaten, don’t support the perpetrator, don’t join his beating by making fun of him, or insulting him or creating memes. Defend him because they are literally also insulting you. Feel it. We share the same story.

People couldn’t help but point out the obvious irony of privileged Americans showing support for Donald Trump’s plan to build a wall to keep Mexicans from entering America, while they themselves were visiting Mexico.

white people never cease to amaze me with their stupidity lol pic.twitter.com/LBjY4A2efD

— Paula™ (@_pawluh) March 14, 2017

This month, we saw a rise in drugs and rapists crossing the U.S.-Mexico border.
Must be spring break.https://t.co/ezBHfKlLmg

— Jenny Yang (@jennyyangtv) March 21, 2017

U.S. spring-breakers: “Build that wall! Build that wall!”
Why?
“Mexicans are rapists!”
Where are you?
“Mexico! It’s awesome!”

— Craig Rozniecki (@CraigRozniecki) March 21, 2017

Mexico should’ve been petty & implemented a travel ban right before spring break https://t.co/jri3UDlCkT

— lil bitty ♊️ (@BureenuhDuhh) March 21, 2017

Unfortunately, the spring break complaints don’t end there. American spring breakers in Mexico have also been accused of trashing beaches and being rude to locals. While these tourism officials are likely used to seasonal drunk and disorderly behavior from college students, the political outbursts are new and can probably be traced back to the new Trump Administration. It will be interesting to see if America’s tourism relationship with Mexico begins to change thanks to President Trump’s border policies.

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 American Spring Breakers Chant “Build That Wall” in Cancun 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.

One of President Donald Trump’s main campaign promises was to “build a wall” on the border of the U.S. and Mexico. During his first few days in office, President Trump signed an executive order on border security and immigration enforcement improvements. In Section 2 of the order, it reads that it is the policy of the executive branch to: “secure the southern border of the United States through the immediate construction of a physical wall on the southern border, monitored and supported by adequate personnel so as to prevent illegal immigration, drug and human trafficking, and acts of terrorism.”

Many of President Trump’s supporters are also ardent fans of the construction of a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. Despite encountering intense opposition from Democrats and some Republicans, the Trump Administration appears to be committed to beginning construction as soon as possible. However, there may be roadblocks ahead for the massive security project, such as issues of eminent domain and private citizens blocking or severely slowing construction of the wall, in addition to environmental concerns and waivers that must be obtained before beginning construction.

Border Wall Plans

Border security is critically important to our overall national security. As noted by the order, aliens who illegally enter the U.S. without inspection or admission present “a significant threat to national security and public safety.” President Trump’s executive order seeks to expedite determinations of any apprehended individual’s claims that they are eligible to remain in the U.S., as well as promptly remove any individuals whose claims have been lawfully rejected.

“Mexico / US Pacific Ocean Border Fence” Courtesy of Tony Webster : License (CC BY 2.0)

A critical component of Trump’s presidential campaign was regaining control of America’s borders. Now that he’s president, the particulars of how he will finance the massive border wall are still up for debate. The wall is estimated to cost $21.6 billion (though other estimates put it anywhere between $8 billion to $25 billion). The executive order signed by Trump in January contains no mention of the cost of construction. Mexico has repeatedly stated that not only will it not pay for the wall, but it will retaliate if a border tax is imposed. The order also required government agencies to report the financial assistance they gave Mexico in the past five years, giving rise to speculation that Trump wants to redirect the aid to pay for the wall.

Currently, there are hundreds of companies looking to profit significantly from the construction of a border wall. More than 375 companies have expressed interest in participating in the project. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency said it would likely begin accepting prototypes in March 2017. Those that are approved will be asked to submit full proposals. Surprisingly, a Mexican company, cement maker Cemex SAB, has stated that it would be willing to provide supplies to the project. The plan to seal the border would take three phases, with over 1,250 miles of fences and walls, and would be completed by 2020. San Diego, California; El Paso, Texas; and the Rio Grande Valley in Texas are expected to be part of the first phase. A U.S. Department of Homeland Security internal report also showed that the U.S. government has begun seeking environmental waivers to build in specific areas.

Secure Fence Act of 2006

President Trump is not the first president to propose a wall between the U.S. and Mexico. On October 26, 2006, President George W. Bush signed the Secure Fence Act of 2006. The goal of the act was to build 700 additional miles of physical barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border, and authorize more vehicle barriers, checkpoints, and lighting. It also gave the Department of Homeland Security permission to use technology such as cameras, satellites, and unmanned aerial vehicles, and specifically noted that there would be at least two layers of reinforced fencing. In 2006, both Democrats and Republicans overwhelmingly supported the act, including then-Senator Barack Obama.

In 2008, Congress introduced the Reinstatement of the Secure Fence Act of 2008, which called for Homeland Security to again construct more fencing. This time it asked for an additional 700 miles of two-layered, 14-foot high fencing along the southwestern border of the U.S., but the bill never made it out of committee. The Secure Fence Act of 2006, however, was amended in 2007 to give the Department of Homeland Security discretion in determining what type of fencing was appropriate, given the different terrain along the border. A one-size-fits-all approach, according to many, including the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP), was not an effective manner to tackle securing the border.

Issues With Landowners

Once construction on the previous border wall began, the government ran into issues with landowners near the Rio Grande. Hundreds of landowners protested what they called a “government land grab” to install the fence. It resulted in 320 eminent domain cases being taken to court. In order to purchase property for the construction of the wall, USBP had to settle with private landowners. While some settled out of court, others are still fighting.

Some private property owners want more money, while others want a gate in the fence to be able to access their land on the other side. Eloisa Tamez, 81, was given a code to get through a gate to access a quarter of her three-acre ancestral property that was bisected by the 18-foot barricade. A prominent border wall opponent, Tamez battled her case in court for seven years, before she eventually lost to the government. She was awarded $56,000 for her loss of land and the inconvenience, but says she wasn’t looking for money–she wanted to keep her land without the barriers.

The government almost always wins in eminent domain or condemnation cases, but these cases can take a significant amount of time and resources to settle. Therefore, landowners fighting President Trump’s proposed border project may have the ability to slow the project down immensely. NPR analyzed more than 300 fence cases, and found that two-thirds of them have been settled, with most taking about 3.5 years for a resolution and usually involving under an acre of land. The median settlement awarded to landowners was $12,600.

Other Concerns and Considerations

Aside from the eminent domain, private property rights, and human rights concerns with building a border wall, there are also environmental considerations. Arguably, the full construction of a wall will interfere with the migration of animals and plant pollination. Immense amount of traffic around the wall will destroy flora and fauna, potentially leaving large amounts of garbage and debris in the area as well. These environmental concerns do not seem to be of much importance to those in favor of construction.

“Double Wall Near Tijuana” Courtesy of Jonathan McIntosh : License (CC BY 2.0)

Juanita Molina, the executive director of Border Action Network, told NPR that construction of the wall could cause flooding issues. A wall will profoundly affect the connectivity of species, fragmenting habitats, and block the free movement of wildlife. So, the border wall has the potential to spread detrimental consequences not just to humans, but also to other species. Additionally, building over major physical barriers, like mountains which dot the U.S.-Mexico border, make the border wall almost impossible to build.

Moreover, it is clear that the wall will disproportionately affect people of color. Militarization of the border means that minority communities will be targeted and even displaced. Millions of people live on both sides of the border. In the four states–California, New Mexico, Texas, and Arizona–on the U.S. side of the border, people of Mexican origin comprise at least a quarter of the total population, and even higher concentrations exist within 100km of the border itself.

Conclusion

The executive order signed on January 25, 2017, is still in effect. Many people who voted for President Trump view the wall as his signature campaign promise and expect to see progress made on its construction as soon as possible. Companies also seem to have an overwhelming amount of enthusiasm for profiting off the proposed construction. However, private property owners may have the most power in stalling the wall’s completion for a significant period of time, and the efficacy of a wall in actually securing the borders is certainly up for debate. For now, President Trump has promised that construction is “going to start very soon. Way ahead of schedule. It’s way, way, way ahead of schedule.”

Nicole Zub

Nicole is a third-year law student at the University of Kentucky College of Law. She graduated in 2011 from Northeastern University with Bachelor’s in Environmental Science. When she isn’t imbibing copious amounts of caffeine, you can find her with her nose in a book or experimenting in the kitchen. Contact Nicole at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will Trump’s Border Wall Actually Be Built? appeared first on Law Street.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court began hearing arguments for Hernández v. Mesa, the case of a 15-year-old Mexican national who was fatally shot while on Mexico’s side of the border by a U.S. border patrol agent.

The parents of Sergio Adrian Hernández Guereca (Hernández) are arguing that their son’s constitutional rights were violated, even though he wasn’t standing on U.S. soil at the time of his death.

Hernández was killed in Juarez, Mexico in the summer of 2010 by U.S. Border Patrol Agent Jesus Mesa Jr., who was patrolling the U.S. border on a bicycle at the time of the incident. Mesa fired his weapon through the border fence at Hernández, who was hiding behind a pillar of the Paso Del Norte bridge, killing him.

According to the amicus brief, the family says Hernández and his friends “were merely playing a game, running up the back and down the incline of the culvert and touching the barbed wire fence that separates Mexico and the United States.”

The FBI claimed that Hernández and his friends were hurling rocks at the agent, however, video footage refuted that claim.

Hernández’s parents decided to sue Mesa in federal court, but the district court dismissed the claim. The case was then appealed to the 5th Circuit of Appeals, which also sided with Mesa. The family then appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to take the case in October of last year.

With Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat still vacant and Trump’s nominee, Judge Neil Gorsuch, still waiting for his Senate hearings to begin next month, we could very well have a 4-4 split decision–the court has been operating with only eight justices for just over a year. In the event of a tie, the court would defer to the lower court’s ruling that favors the agent.

But this isn’t the first time this type of case has been argued in court. An eerily similar shooting occurred in 2012 in Arizona, when a U.S. Border Patrol agent shot 16-year-old Jose Antonio Elena Rodriguez 10 times in the back and head through the slats of the border fence.

Rodriguez was also accused of throwing rocks at agents across the border and endangering their lives, but witnesses on the Mexico side claimed Elena Rodriguez was walking down the street when the other youths ran past just before the shooting started.

Following the shooting, Elena Rodriguez’s family and the ACLU filed a civil lawsuit against Agent Lonnie Swartz in the U.S. District Court in Tucson. The judges said they would not rule until after the U.S. Supreme Court decides on Hernandez v. U.S.

The cases “involve almost identical legal issues,” said attorney Sean Chapman, who represents Swartz in both the criminal and civil cases.  “That’s what is interesting about it…It’s incredibility similar to the Rodriguez case in Arizona. I’m waiting to see what they do.”

If SCOTUS deadlocks, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that Guereca’s family cannot sue the Border Patrol agent in the U.S. would stand in the 5th Circuit. Then the 9th Circuit may rule on the Elena Rodriguez case, Chapman said.

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 SCOTUS Weighs Case of Teen Shot in Mexico by U.S. Border Patrol appeared first on Law Street.

U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agents on the Texas-Mexico border seized nearly 4,000 pounds of marijuana disguised within a commercial shipment of key limes. Yes, limes.

Border officers in Texas find nearly 2 tons of weed camouflaged as limes https://t.co/EPxhrjJNBH pic.twitter.com/FlYxZYnNmU

— CNN (@CNN) February 8, 2017

According to a CBP press release, the drugs were discovered on January 30 at the Pharr International Bridge cargo facility inside of a 2001 Freightliner tractor trailer. With the help of a non-intrusive imagining system and canine team, CBP officers located 34,764 lime-shaped bundles weighing a total of 3,947 pounds.

“This is an outstanding interception of narcotics,” Port Director Efrain Solis Jr. said in a statement. “Our CBP officers continue to excel in their knowledge of smuggling techniques which allows them to intercept these kinds of attempts to introduce narcotics into our country.”

The drugs are valued at approximately $789,467.

But even with the help of imagining equipment and drug sniffing dogs, it should have been pretty obvious to the agents that these lumpy green sacks weren’t limes.

Smugglers tried to fool Border Patrol agents with weed disguised as limes: https://t.co/TpZXJlki11 pic.twitter.com/56BzrxCjao

— VICE (@VICE) February 8, 2017

Apparently, this isn’t the first time smugglers have used fake food to hide narcotics. Last year agents confiscated 2,493 pounds of marijuana stuffed inside of pseudo-carrots entering from Mexico at the same border crossing.

So if you happen to be a drug smuggler living in Mexico with a penchant for stuffing marijuana inside fake fruits and veggies, you should seriously try a different tactic…or maybe learn what a lime actually looks like.

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 Border Patrol Seizes Nearly 4,000 Pounds of Weed Disguised as Limes appeared first on Law Street.

There’s only one day left before the inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump. The other day it was confirmed that the Girl Scouts will be there and the announcement led to some backlash for the group. But hopefully, things will run smoothly.

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:

Obama’s Last Press Conference

Yesterday, President Barack Obama held his last White House press conference as POTUS. He said that he’s willing to openly oppose Donald Trump if there is any “systematic discrimination,” and he’ll speak up if he feels that America’s core values are at stake. Obama also defended his decision to commute Chelsea Manning’s sentence and said he’s proud to have contributed to advances in LGBT rights. He elected not to comment on the Democratic politicians who are boycotting Trump’s inauguration.

Obama spoke about diversity and said he thinks the U.S. will see more presidents of color, as well as a female president, Latino president, Jewish president, Hindu president, you name it. “Who knows who we are going to have. I suspect we will have a whole bunch of mixed up presidents at some point that nobody really knows what to call them,” he said.

“You’re not supposed to be sycophants — you’re supposed to be skeptics,” said Obama https://t.co/B1of0UBbGP

— New York Magazine (@NYMag) January 18, 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: January 19, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

It’s Monday! If you’re on the East Coast, you’re probably totally frozen! You should stay inside and keep warm with our rants of the day. Meryl Streep’s Golden Globe speech is definitely worth a listen! 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:

Palestinian Man Drives a Truck Into Crowd of People in Jerusalem

Yesterday, a Palestinian man drove a truck into a crowd of people in Jerusalem, killing four young soldiers; three were women. Seventeen more people were injured. After hitting the crowd, the driver started reversing, but was then shot to death by soldiers at the scene. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said after the attack that ISIS was behind it and that it was connected to the recent terrorist attacks in Europe, but didn’t provide any proof or further details. There have been other truck attacks carried out by Palestinians in Israel in the past without any links to Islamic State.

Jerusalem attack suspect ID’d as Fadi Qunbar; 9 people, including 5 of Qunbar’s family members, have been arrested. https://t.co/YiUepD1BLx pic.twitter.com/EG0CaDatrk

— CNN Breaking News (@cnnbrk) January 8, 2017

The attacker has been identified as 28-year-old Fadi Qunbar. Nine suspects have been arrested for their involvement in the plot, including five of Qunbar’s family members. The atmosphere in Israel has been particularly tense lately following the high-profile conviction of an Israeli soldier who shot a Palestinian man who attacked him. The soldier was convicted of manslaughter because by the time he shot the man, he was already wounded and subdued.

ISIS has not commented on the most recent attack, but extremist organization Hamas praised it on Twitter.

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: January 9, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Ease into this Monday with some of Law Street’s top stories from last week. ICYMI, an Iranian civil rights activist’s hunger strike continues, UK approves CBD for medical use, and an attack on female Mexican politician inspires a misogynistic hashtag. Check out the best of the week below!

1. Imprisoned Iranian Civil Rights Activist Continues Hunger Strike

An Iranian civil rights activist and former college student is in critical condition after going on a hunger strike for over two months. Human rights groups have been urging authorities to do something, but to no avail. Arash Sadeghi stopped eating four months into his own prison sentence to protest the arrest of his wife, Golrokh Ebrahimi Iraee, who was imprisoned because of an unpublished novel she wrote. Sadeghi is serving a 15-year sentence on charges of “assembly and collusion against national security,” “propaganda against the state,” “spreading lies in cyberspace,” and “insulting the founder of the Islamic Republic.”

2. UK Officially Classifies CBD Oil as a Medicinal Ingredient

A popular cannabis-based ingredient has officially been classified as medicine in the UK, after healthcare officials scrutinized claims speaking to its effectiveness. The Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) announced earlier this week the addition of cannabidiol, or CBD oil, to its list of medicines after reviewing several manufacturing companies’ “overt medicinal claims” that the product provides relief for patients.

3. Attack on Female Politician in Mexico Leads to Misogynistic Hashtag

A few weeks ago, Mexican senator and former Olympic athlete Ana Gabriela Guevara was severely beaten by a group of men. She was riding her motorcycle in Mexico City when a car rammed into her, seemingly on purpose. Four men got out of the car and started to beat her. She said they hit her in the ribs and the head and insulted her for being a female motorcyclist. Guevara was beaten so badly that she had to be hospitalized. She later posted a photo of herself with a black eye, thanking everyone who had supported her and said that she had recently left the operating room after having surgery.

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.

A few weeks ago, Mexican senator and former Olympic athlete Ana Gabriela Guevara was severely beaten by a group of men. She was riding her motorcycle in Mexico City when a car rammed into her, seemingly on purpose. Four men got out of the car and started to beat her. She said they hit her in the ribs and the head and insulted her for being a female motorcyclist. Guevara was beaten so badly that she had to be hospitalized. She later posted a photo of herself with a black eye, thanking everyone who had supported her and said that she had recently left the operating room after having surgery.

Agradezco la atenciones de tod@s quienes han estado pendientes de mí y mi salud, eh salido de quirófano bien a recuperar la cirugía pic.twitter.com/byhwCs19Hz

— AnaGuevara (@AnaGGuevara) December 13, 2016

Violence against women is a major problem in Mexico, including murder, abduction, and sexual violence. A few days after the incident, Guevara held a press conference, denouncing the act as “cowardly” and “vile.” To make matters even worse, one of the attackers was a police officer. But after her press conference and news of the incident spread, things took an unexpected and deeply depressing turn–a series of misogynistic hashtags on Twitter.

“If she broke your heart, break her face.”

A Mexican woman senator was attacked by men, and the internet reacted in an unusual way. pic.twitter.com/SXR2Iqal4Y

— AJ+ (@ajplus) January 1, 2017

Some people started using the hashtag #GolpearMujeresEsFelicidad, which means #BeatingWomenIsHappiness, on Twitter.

#GolpearMujeresEsFelicidad
Esas mujeres que se ofenden de este hashtag cuando en su foto de perfil usan el filtro de perra, osea confunden

— Jorgeto LH (@Armandeto) December 13, 2016

“Women offended by this hashtag when they use the b***h filter in their profile picture are confusing.”

#GolpearMujeresEsFelicidad
No creo que alguna mujer lea esto, digo, ellas deben estar en la cocina preparando sándwiches para sus hombres.

— Anthony Sugar (@anthonymkultra) December 13, 2016

“I don’t think women will read, I mean, they must be in the kitchen making sandwiches for their husbands.”

A similar one, #SiNoTeGolpeaNoTeAma—which means “If he doesn’t beat you, he doesn’t love you”—also started trending.

#SiNoTeGolpeaNoTeAma Me encanta cuando grita y llora.

— Qk (@CucarachaHolk) December 16, 2016

“I love it when she screams and cries.”

After a few weeks of these hashtags trending in Mexico, people started firing back and condemning their use.

#golpearmujeresesfelicidad or #beatingwomenishappiness is one of the most disgusting hashtags I’ve seen on social media. https://t.co/XE9jemeMEy

— Jorge Valdivia (@VeryValdivia) January 2, 2017

A Mexican woman senator was attacked by men, and the internet responded with #BeatingWomenIsHappiness. And this is how a man like Trump wins

— Greytdog (@Greytdog) January 2, 2017

According to local media, police are investigating the attack and have confirmed the main suspect is a police officer, who was either off-duty or inactive at the time. His identity has not been made public. The Attorney General has requested to see surveillance footage that could be helpful in learning more about the sequence of events. In the meantime, people are showing their support for the former World Champion track and field athlete. Hopefully the case will help bring attention to the issue of violence against women, and the misogynistic hashtag responses that can follow.

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 Attack on Female Politician in Mexico Leads to Misogynistic Hashtag appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday night, in the midst of figuring out how to mend the country after a brutal few weeks, and selecting the leaders of the U.S. government’s various departments, President-elect Donald Trump sent out the following tweet:

Just got a call from my friend Bill Ford, Chairman of Ford, who advised me that he will be keeping the Lincoln plant in Kentucky – no Mexico

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 18, 2016

He followed that with another tweet that read: “I worked hard with Bill Ford to keep the Lincoln plant in Kentucky. I owed it to the great State of Kentucky for their confidence in me!”

But there is one problem with Trump’s claims: Ford, the second best-selling U.S. automaker, never planned on shutting its Louisville, Kentucky plant and shipping operations to Mexico. Trump, just a little over a week after being elected and months from being in office, is already taking credit for something he did not do.

Ford has in fact repeatedly said it has no plans to cut any U.S.-based plants, though it has announced plans to open up new ones in Mexico, and shift some small-car production there as well. The car company will invest $4 billion in plants in Mexico in the coming years, but not at the expense of U.S. plants. The Louisville plant, which employs 4,700 people, manufactures the Ford Escape and the Lincoln MKC SUV.

“So Ford is leaving. You see that, their small-car division leaving. Thousands of jobs leaving Michigan, leaving Ohio. They’re all leaving,” Trump said in September during the first presidential debate. Ford responded via Trump’s favorite platform, Twitter:

Ford has more hourly employees and produces more vehicles in the U.S. than any other automaker. pic.twitter.com/k15cqknsvX

— Ford Motor Company (@Ford) September 27, 2016

On Friday, Spokeswoman Christin Baker said in a statement that Ford “confirmed with the President-elect that our small Lincoln utility vehicle made at the Louisville Assembly plant will stay in Kentucky.” And while Ford did say it might suspend production at the Louisville plant for two weeks due to low demand, it has never shared plans to simply up and move to Mexico, as Trump’s tweet claimed.

Taking credit when it is not due to him seems to be a pattern for Trump, especially concerning Ford. Last year, while campaigning on the promise of bringing back manufacturing jobs to the U.S., Trump took credit for a Ford plant that moved from Mexico to Ohio. Ford made that decision in 2011, when Trump was still firing people on “The Apprentice.”

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 Trump Takes Credit for Stopping a Ford Plant from Moving to Mexico appeared first on Law Street.

An Associated Press report released in September revealed that the Department of Homeland Security had “erroneously” granted at least 858 immigrants American citizenship. Typically, in any presidential election season, political parties would seize on a report like this, and would try to spin it to win the election. An issue concerning immigration is a political match to be lit, and the reactions could be explosive. Considering immigration reform has been one of the top priorities for legislators, the report may be especially relevant.

Pundits are asking questions about whether this report showed the Obama administration attempting to streamline citizenship applications to get more Democratic voters. Republican officials are seizing on an email asking Homeland Security employees to work overtime in order to process more applications. Then again, this may be a case of an honest mistake, one where overworked bureaucrats may have overlooked a key step in admitting immigrants into our country.

In large bureaucracies like the U.S. federal government, administrative errors do occur, but the scope of this issue has raised concerns about who was granted citizenship, where we went wrong, and asking what can we do to make sure this doesn’t happen again.

The Inspector General Report

The Associated Press highlights an Inspector General’s report, titled “Potentially Ineligible Individuals Have Been Granted U.S. Citizenship Because of Incomplete Fingerprint Records,” regarding a review on whether the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services successfully uses its fingerprint record database to access any applicant’s information. The 24-page report showed that Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, is still grappling with digitizing its old records, and this lag in information can spread to other agencies in the attempt to legitimately do background checks on immigrant applicants.

When considering an immigrant from a “special interest country,” places that pose a risk to U.S. national security or have high rates of immigration fraud, applies for citizenship, it becomes very important to conduct a background check. The check makes sure that the immigration applicant does not misrepresent who they are for the sake of admission into the country. Additionally, a background check is a reliable tool for apprehending criminals who are trying to enter the contract for intentionally unlawful purposes. The fingerprint database can be accessed either before or after an interview with an ICE officer. The check into the database allows a verification into the identity of the applicant, and any lapse in consistent ‘digital bookkeeping’ can undermine that responsibility.

This lapse is what allowed the more than 800 immigrant applicants to be granted citizenship (and avoid deportation) because the Department of Homeland Security did not have reliable digital archiving, rendering the appearance that these applicants had clean backgrounds.

While the 858 immigrants that were granted citizenship do not appear to be an imminent threat to the United States, most come from “special interest countries.” Although the report does not define which countries fall under the “special interest” category, countries that are currently in conflicts or have high rates of immigration fraud such as Syria, Iran, or Yemen can be considered to be some of those in question. Applicants may use different names and birthdays, and without cross-checking fingerprint information, it becomes hard to weed out those who are illegally attempting to enter the country.

Once anyone receives their citizenship, they receive the corresponding American rights and privileges. The report shows that three applicants had gone on to receive jobs handling classified information. One received a Transportation Worker Identification Credential, allowing access onto secure naval bases or ships. The other two received Aviation Worker credentials, granting access to secure areas in airports. Another immigrant went into law enforcement. Ever since the Inspector General’s report, all credentials have been revoked.

Apart from the staggering number of immigrants that were admitted wrongfully, the report sheds light on America’s information gap between its federal agencies. Fingerprint records were not consistently acquired in the same way. One agency may have fingerprint files that are not digitized at all, while another may have an entire online archive. This makes it difficult for agencies that need to coordinate with each other in order to successfully perform their operations.

The Agency Info-Gap

In order to talk about what information is needed to successfully complete an immigration application into the United States, it is necessary to point out the steps people need to take to get past the review process in general.

The video below outlines initial actions an applicant needs to take before an interview with an ICE official:

The sample video from ICE below shows how an interview usually happens, including what questions are asked and how to answer them:

Throughout the citizenship process, ICE has to conduct background checks, which includes searching fingerprint information. If you are from a “special interest country,” there are some additional steps necessary to complete the process, such as cross-referencing your information with the FBI fingerprint database.

The problem is that agencies have inconsistent information acquisition, which means that everyone has a different way of receiving and storing their information. The Department of Homeland Security only started to consistently digitally archive its fingerprint bank in 2010. The act of digitally uploading and archiving fingerprints is a tedious process, which may not catch up with the stream of citizenship applications. According to an email that urges DHS employees to speed up their application review process, the end of the year is a time when applications are at an especially high volume. When the priority is to successfully process applications, certain security protocols can slow the down the process, especially if agency cross-referencing is necessary.

The Inspector General’s report points out that 148,000 immigrants who have final deportation orders or who are criminals or fugitives do not have their fingerprints digitized. If these immigrants have any criminal record, it becomes difficult to proceed with a case against them if there is no way to confirm their identity. The FBI can only do so much if there is no digitized record of an individual in its system.

In a statement regarding his report, DHS Inspector General John Roth said:

This situation created opportunities for individuals to gain the rights and privileges of U.S. citizenship through fraud. To prevent fraud and ensure thorough review of naturalization applications, USCIS needs access to these fingerprint records. DHS agreed with our recommendations. ICE has plans to digitize and upload all available fingerprint records, and the Department has told us it plans to review the eligibility of each naturalized citizen whose fingerprint records reveal a deportation order under a different identity. We will continue to monitor DHS’ progress.

Why This Is So Important

Immigration is consistently ranked as one of the top concerns for American voters every election year. After the failed Gang of Eight immigration reform bill, the attempt at reaching consensus on immigration has fizzled. Both sides of the debate have become more partisan in nature, making it very difficult to strike a deal and get a bill passed through Congress. Donald Trump started off his presidential race with a pitch accusing Mexican immigrants of bringing drugs into the country, whereas Democrats are pointing out that illegal immigration amounts to millions of individuals just overstaying their visas.

No matter the root cause of a broken immigration system, one thing that can always streamline the process of admitting new immigrants is by having a uniform background check system that is archived online for easy access. Currently, ICE checks fingerprints through two systems: the FBI’s Integrated Automatic Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) and the DHS Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT). Although an agency may have different reasons for checking a fingerprint file, the archive has to be universal so as to make a search as efficient as possible.

Immigrants make up 13 percent of the total U.S. population as of 2014, according to the Migration Policy Institute, and that percentage only continues to grow. Critics point out that if the issue with immigration is that there are too many people who are here illegally, and that is due to overstayed visas, it may be an administrative issue on the federal government’s end that needs to be resolved. One example is a gap in digitized information that the government needs to archive so that it is easier to catch immigrants that may be of higher concern for the country.

Dennis Futoryan

Dennis Futoryan is a 23-year old New York Law School student who has his sights set on constitutional and public interest law. Whenever he gets a chance to breathe from his law school work, Dennis can be found scouring social media and examining current events to educate others about what’s going on in our world. Contact Dennis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Did the DHS Mistakenly Grant Citizenship to 858 Immigrants? appeared first on Law Street.

Angela Corey Is Out of Office

Today people all over the web are talking about Angela Corey, mostly in celebration of her recent defeat in a re-election bid during last night’s primary. If her name doesn’t sound familiar and you aren’t sure why people are celebrating, here’s what you should know:

1. Angela Corey was the Florida prosecutor who handled George Zimmerman’s case in the shooting of Trayvon Martin. She also prosecuted Marissa Alexander, the woman who fired a warning shot at her husband in self-defense, and was subsequently sentenced to 20 years in prison.
2. According to Huffington Post, “Corey personally boasted one of the highest rates of death sentences in the U.S. and has sentenced more people to death than any other prosecutor in Florida.”

Totally getting wicked witch of the West vibes.

via GIPHY

Now that the attorney is officially out of office, public defenders and academics are rejoicing. Even singer John Legend had a few comments about Corey, as part of his FreeAmerica initiative:

 …Today the voters in Jacksonville and throughout Florida’s 4th Judicial Circuit have decided that Angela Corey failed in that responsibility by aggressively seeking the death penalty and egregiously charging juveniles, particularly those of color, as adults.  Her tactics have been rejected by her community, and we applaud the voters for rejecting them. This is a sign of positive things to come in our fight for a #FREEAMERICA.

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: September 1, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Donald Trump has announced he is going to Mexico on Wednesday to meet with President Enrique Peña Nieto only a few hours before a major immigration speech in Arizona. Last week, Peña Nieto sent out invitations to Trump and Hillary Clinton to come visit. Trump waited until the last minute to accept, and declared on Twitter Tuesday night that he looked “very much forward” to the personal meeting.

I have accepted the invitation of President Enrique Pena Nieto, of Mexico, and look very much forward to meeting him tomorrow.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 31, 2016

But Trump’s trip to Mexico has given birth to the Twitter hashtag #TrumpsMexicoTripSayings, which makes fun of Trump’s distinctive way of speaking.

.#TrumpsMexicoTripSayings
just stopping by to check on my best employees.
no, not the rapists. those are friends.
. pic.twitter.com/YHXB5D2pdD

— ANONYMOUS JOBS (@AnonymousJobsUS) August 31, 2016

"I know walls. Walls love me. I build the best walls. Everyone agrees. They're terrific." #TrumpsMexicoTripSayings pic.twitter.com/tjdNco93d1

— I H Laking (@IHLaking) August 31, 2016

The visit to Mexico may come as a surprise given Trump’s previous statements about Mexicans and Latinos–he has accused them of being rapists and killers who are bringing crime and drugs into the U.S., he kicked a Hispanic journalist out of a news conference, and he wants to build a wall and have Mexico pay for it.

So, maybe this trip is an attempt to win over some Latino votes as Trump’s poll numbers are going down. Trump’s stance on immigration has been questioned during the past couple of weeks, as he has indicated he might be open to a more lenient immigration policy than he has previously stated.

But that doesn’t necessarily go far in Mexico. Former President Vicente Fox apologized on behalf of the country in an interview with CNN, saying that this invitation is a very opportunistic move that he hopes both the U.S. and Mexican public can see through. He said that Trump cannot undo the harm of his offensive remarks about Mexicans and Muslims that have made him so unpopular in many parts of the world.

There was even a Twitter argument going on between Trump and Fox on Wednesday morning. Trump reminded Fox that he also invited him to visit Mexico earlier this year, after apologizing for saying Mexico would not pay for that “f—–g wall”.

Former President Vicente Fox, who is railing against my visit to Mexico today, also invited me when he apologized for using the "f bomb."

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 31, 2016

Fox replied that his invitation only stood if Trump was willing to apologize to the Mexican people.

@realDonaldTrump, I invited you to come and apologize to all Mexicans. Stop lying! Mexico is not yours to play with, show some respect.

— Vicente Fox Quesada (@VicenteFoxQue) August 31, 2016

Writer Andy Borowitz suggested in a satire article in the New Yorker that Obama would pay $5 billion for Mexico to keep Trump.

.@BorowitzReport: Obama Pays Mexico Five Billion Dollars to Keep Donald Trump https://t.co/0mmA0R6WYl pic.twitter.com/7HM6QsKghe

— The New Yorker (@NewYorker) August 31, 2016

But it seems like the Mexican politicians would rather only have a quick visit.

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 #TrumpsMexicoTripSayings Makes Fun of Donald Trump’s Mexico Visit appeared first on Law Street.

A Mexico City teen died after receiving a hickey from his 24-year-old girlfriend. Reports say that the kid was eating dinner with his family when he started having convulsions. The killer hickey had formed a blood clot and caused the young man to have a stroke.

Teen reportedly dies from his girlfriend’s hickey https://t.co/xoAa05GDH0 pic.twitter.com/xNelTbWtHc

— Huffington Post (@HuffingtonPost) August 31, 2016

There’s a reason those things hurt. Stay safe, kids.

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 31, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

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:

What’s With Those Harambe Memes?

Ever since the tragic death of the Cincinnati Zoo gorilla, Harambe, the ape has become an internet sensation in the worst way possible. Harambe died and was reborn a meme. If you are so blessed as to have never seen these memes, today is your last day in the dark…sorry.

“Harambe was just a regular gorilla” pic.twitter.com/pJGqXi0pLS

— nate (@nateidk) July 28, 2016

That’s not even the worst of it. We’re keeping it PG today. 

Harambe is now known as a god, a prophet, and a saint of the internet. It’s actually getting pretty out of hand. It’s taking over people’s lives. 

always great to see people supporting the greatest gorilla to ever live ✊ pic.twitter.com/RA1QtFxXiy

— Harambe (@itsHarambae) July 10, 2016

So much so that the Cincinnati Zoo has asked people stop making the memes. The zoo director, Thayne Maynard, said in a statement to AP: “We are not amused by the memes, petitions and signs about Harambe. Our zoo family is still healing, and the constant mention of Harambe makes moving forward more difficult for us. We are honoring Harambe by redoubling our gorilla conservation efforts and encouraging others to join us.”

Things have only gotten worse.

cincinnati zoo: please stop making harambe memes

me: pic.twitter.com/5F0t8rejnX

— MATT KING (@MattrKing) August 22, 2016

The Cincinnati Zoo has since deleted its Facebook and Twitter accounts.

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 23, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

It looks like it’s going to be easier and cheaper to get to Mexico soon, thanks to the loosening of many regulations on commercial flights. In December 2015, Mexico and the United States agreed to open their aviation markets. According to the State Department:

The new agreement removes limits on the number of airlines serving any U.S.-Mexico city pairs and expands opportunities for travel and trade between the United States and Mexico.

Traditionally, only a few airlines were allowed to fly to each Mexican city (and vice versa). But government officials hope that the deal will increase competition, and as a result, prices will be lowered. Even if prices don’t drop that much, increased choice in times and destinations of flight will probably be welcomed by many customers.

The opening up of the aviation markets has caused airlines to add flights from the U.S. to Mexico–America, Delta, and Southwest have all already announced that they’re expanding their offerings. Due to how busy Mexico City’s airport tends to be, flights under these new regulations are more likely to go to popular vacation destinations. One of Southwest’s executives stated, specifically about the airline’s expanded offerings from California to the Mexican cities of Cancun, San Jose del Cabo/Los Cabos, and Puerto Vallarta:

We are able to do what we have done for decades in California and in cities across the country: enter a nonstop market, bring low fares with unmatched value, and connect people in a more affordable way with places that are important in their lives.

The relationship between the United States and Mexico has been a bit uncomfortable during this year’s contentious election, and so a focus on easier tourism and trade is a welcome piece of good news.

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 It’s About to Get Easier to Visit Mexico: Limits on U.S.-Mexico Flights Lifted appeared first on Law Street.

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

Kim Kardashian Speaks Out Against Senates Decision on Gun Control

Last night, the Senate voted in opposition to strengthening gun control, specifically four amendments that could potentially limit individuals purchasing guns. Like many others, reality TV personality Kim K. took to Twitter to voice her concerns:

So sad! The senate voted against background checks being needed to buy guns. So terrorists on fbi’s wanted lists can legally still buy guns

— Kim Kardashian West (@KimKardashian) June 21, 2016

Oh & mentally ill people can buy guns without a background check too.

— Kim Kardashian West (@KimKardashian) June 21, 2016

The fact that anyone can so easily access guns is so scary & after all of the devastating loss the Senate should have not failed us!!!

— Kim Kardashian West (@KimKardashian) June 21, 2016

It is true the Senate failed to make a crucial decision on gun control, an issue that Americans are increasingly worried about. Perhaps we’ll have to wait until the next mass shooting…again. Until then…

@KimKardashian future First Lady

— . (@sIayallday) June 21, 2016

@KimKardashian Kim for senate 2017

— guylaine (@guylainecoco) June 21, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 21, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Kate del Castillo has had a successful career in Mexican film and television, but she has made headlines this week not for her acting ability but for revelations about her role in brokering a meeting between notorious cartel leader Joaquín Archivaldo Guzmán Loera, also known as El Chapo, and Sean Penn.

Let’s back up a little bit. In January, Penn interviewed Guzman for Rolling Stone, publishing an article which has come under fire both from del Castillo (who argues that Penn misrepresented what he would be writing when he described the article to her) and from law enforcement (who assert that once Penn had knowledge of Guzman’s whereabouts, he should have immediately contacted the police). Penn himself has admitted that the article failed to initiate a meaningful discussion of the war on drugs and the political situation within Mexico.

Del Castillo has published an essay in Spanish that describes how she came to be contacted by Guzman’s lawyers, who thought she could be a value add to a biopic film describing his life. The actress has become a household name in Mexico thanks to her role as the scheming mastermind behind a major drug cartel on the popular telenovela “Reina del Sur,” and it is that role that partially inspired Guzman’s interest in her. His representation also cited her presence on Twitter, in which she had directly addressed Guzman, asking him to consider alternatives to drug trafficking, prostitution and murder.

The Mexican newspaper Milenio secured a string of leaked texts between del Castillo and Guzman, dated from the period during which she was arranging the meet between him and Penn, which suggest a friendly relationship between the actress and the criminal. Guzman’s attitude towards del Castillo has alleged to be one of romantic interest, which further muddies the waters regarding the relationship between the two. Del Castillo wrote in her essay that nothing romantic happened between the two of them, but that hasn’t stopped a flood of thousands of memes and social media posts mocking the tone of her texts with Guzman. The actress was placed under investigation by authorities almost immediately after the Penn article was published and is currently being cooperative with law enforcement.

But Del Castillo’s interaction with Guzman raises interesting questions about the nature of celebrity, and where we draw the line between being qualified to deal with  fearsome characters on television and being able to handle a high-stakes criminal in person. Del Castillo’s essay illustrates how terrified she was meeting Guzman in person, despite the fact that her texts prior to that meeting emphasize how excited she was to be meeting with him. Del Castillo may play a calculating, cold-blooded crime boss on television but that doesn’t mean she has the skills for negotiating a crisis scenario in real life.

Del Castillo’s organization of the meeting with Penn may have contributed to the later capture of Guzman (as without the meeting, he could have remained in hiding indefinitely) but her actions should not be considered intelligent–and should not be duplicated by other public figures who think that they can pacify major criminals by simply impressing them with their celebrity. As Del Castillo’s description of meeting El Chapo face to face demonstrates, dangerous cartel leaders cannot be taken lightly, no matter how much they like a given person’s Twitter account. Her actions must be considered a bizarre cautionary tale, not a template for how celebrities, or anyone else, should act if they are contacted by fugitives.

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 The Odd Couple: Kate del Castillo and El Chapo appeared first on Law Street.

Early in the morning on January 8, the notorious cartel leader Joaquin Guzman, also known as El Chapo, was captured, yet again, by Mexican authorities following a heated gun battle at his hideout. While Guzman’s story has a number of interesting subplots, including his multiple previous escapes and an interview with Sean Penn, it also points to something: the ongoing war on drugs taking place with its epicenter in Mexico. However, this has not always been the state of things, as South America, particularly Colombia, was once home to the heart of drug trafficking and its most infamous leader Pablo Escobar. But the recent arrest highlights how that center has moved north and, not coincidently, much closer to the U.S. border. Read on to see how the heart of the drug trade has shifted in recent years, what impact that has had in Mexico, the role of the United States, and if capturing El Chapo really makes any difference in the larger war on drugs.

It Started in South America Now it’s Here

To understand the importance of capturing someone like El Chapo, or even the Mexican drug trafficking industry in general, it is necessary to travel one step backward to Colombia. The Colombian drug trade really took off in the 1970s when marijuana traffickers began trading in cocaine because of increased American demand for the drug. Trafficking cocaine was considerably more profitable than marijuana and the growth in profits caused a dramatic increase in the scale of smuggling.

The amount of money in this industry led to the formation of two incredibly powerful competing cartels, the Medellin and the Cali Cartels. The Medellin Cartel, known for its ruthlessness and use of violence, was epitomized by its leader, the notorious Pablo Escobar. The Cali cartel, on the other hand, was much more inconspicuous, reinvesting profits in legitimate businesses and using bribery instead of violence to get its way. The competition between these two groups turned violent, eventually involving the Colombian government and even the United States.

In the 1990s, these two groups were finally undone by concerted efforts between the local Colombian government and U.S. advisors that led to their leaders being either imprisoned or killed. Since their peak, these empires have fragmented, as smaller groups took control over various parts of the cocaine-producing process. While the violence in Colombia has decreased, though not disappeared altogether, the dominant player in the drug trafficking world has shifted to Mexico.

Going North

Mexico had originally been the final corridor through which Colombian cocaine passed before entering the United States. Before Mexico, cocaine had been smuggled through the Caribbean to cities like Miami. Ultimately, though, those routes were shut down by the United States. During the peak years of operation in Colombia, Mexico was little more than a path into the United States. However, this began to change with the demise of the Cali and Medellin cartels, coupled with continued American pressure and aid packages to help the Colombian government fight the local drug trade. Due to fragmentation and weakening Colombian cartels, the center of the drug trade shifted north in Mexico. Mexico served as a natural hub due to its earlier involvement in distributing the drugs produced in Colombia.

While the Mexican cartels came to dominate the illegal drug trade, their rise preceded the actual demise of their Colombian brethren. Much of the history of modern cartels in Mexico can be traced back to one man, Miguel Angel Felix Gallardo. Gallardo was responsible for creating and maintaining the smuggling routes between Mexico and the United States. When he was arrested, his network splintered into several parts, laying the groundwork for many of the cartel divisions that exist today. The first major successor was the AFO or Tijuana/Arellano Felix organization. However, its status was usurped by the Sinaloa Cartel under El Chapo’s control.

The Sinaloa Cartel is believed to control between 40 and 60 percent of the drug trade in Mexico with that translating into annual profits of up to $3 billion, but it is only one of nine that currently dominate Mexico. The activities of these cartels have also expanded as they are now involved in other criminal activities such as kidnapping, extortion, theft, human trafficking, as well as smuggling new drugs to the United States.

The rise of the Mexican cartels can be attributed to other factors aside from the demise of the Colombian groups. One such factor was the role of the Mexican government. During the important period of their ascendancy, the cartels were largely left alone by the Mexican government, which was controlled by the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) for 71 years. When the PRI’s grip on power finally loosened, the alliance with the cartels also shredded.

The growth of the Mexican cartels may also have been the result of economic problems in the United States. Stagflation in the United States led to higher interest rates on loans, which Mexico could not pay. In order to avert an economic crisis, several international institutions stepped in to bail Mexico out, which shifted the government’s focus from its economy to repaying debt. As a result of aggressive policies directed toward Mexican workers and because of the deleterious effects of the NAFTA treaty, there was a dramatic loss of jobs and a shift to a more urban population.

In this new setting, there were few opportunities available, making positions with drug cartels one of the few lucrative options along with growing the crops like poppy, which is used to create the drugs themselves. According to farmers interviewed by the Guardian, growing poppy is the only way for them to guarantee a “cash income.” An increase in the availability of firearms and other weapons smuggled south from the United States only added to the violence and chaos. The video below depicts the history of the Mexican drug trade:

Impact on Mexico

These endless wars for control between cartels in Mexico have taken a significant toll on the country. Between 2007 and 2014, for example, 164,000 people were killed in America’s southern neighbor. While not all those murders are drug-related, some estimates suggest 34 to 55 percent of homicides involve the drug war, a rate that is still incredibly high.

Aside from the number of deaths, all of the violence has influenced the Mexican people’s trust in the government as a whole. That lack of faith may be well founded as the weaknesses of the judicial and police forces are widely known. When the PRI was the single ruling party, it had effectively served as patrons to the drug cartels where an understanding was essentially worked out between the two. When the PRI lost its grip on power, this de-facto alliance between the government and the cartels also splintered. Without centralized consent, individuals at all levels of government as well as in the judiciary and police became susceptible to bribes from the various cartels.  In fact, many were often presented with the choice of either going along with the cartels in exchange for money or being harmed if they resisted. The corruption and subsequent lack of trust in authorities have gotten so bad that some citizens are forming militias of their own to combat the cartels.

Role of the United States

In addition to the impact that the U.S. economy has in terms of job opportunities, particularly since the passage of NAFTA, the United States has had a major impact on the drug trade in two other ways. First are the U.S. efforts to curb the supply of drugs, which were organized as part of the overall war on drugs. While the United States has had a variety of drug laws on the books, it was not until after the 1960s that the government took direct aim at eliminating illicit substances. In 1971, President Nixon formally launched a “war on drugs,” taking an aggressive stance implementing laws like mandatory minimum sentencing and labeling marijuana as a Schedule I drug, which made it equivalent to substances like heroin in the eyes of the law.

This emphasis on drug laws only intensified under President Reagan, whose persistence in prosecuting drug crimes led to a large increase in the prison population. During Reagan’s presidency, Congress also passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act in 1986, which forced countries receiving U.S. aid to adhere to its drug laws or lose their assistance packages. These policies more or less continued for decades, often with more and more money being set aside to increase enforcement. Only in recent years has President Barack Obama offered much of a change as he has overseen modifications in sentencing and the perception of medical marijuana laws.

This focus on supply extends beyond the U.S. border as well. First, in Colombia, the United States repeatedly put pressure on the Colombian government to fight the drug traffickers. With these efforts still ineffective and with violence mounting, the United States again poured money into the country, helping to finance needed reforms in the Colombian security forces and for other things like crop eradication. In Mexico, a similar approach followed as a series of presidents, beginning in the 1980s, took on much more combative roles against the cartels with the approval and support of the United States. The United States helped support an armed forces overhaul to combat the traffickers and root out corruption within the Mexican armed forces, which had begun to permeate as a result of low wages. In Mexico, successive governments even went so far as to send the military into cartel-dominated cities and engage in assaults. While Presidents Zedillo, Fox, and Calderon sent in troops and met with some immediate success, in the long term it led to mass army defections, greater awareness of the reach of the drug economy, and ultimately other cartels filling the void where government forces were successful.

Since the inception of the drug war, the United States has spent an estimated $1 trillion. Primarily what the United States has to show for this is a number of unintended consequences such as the highest incarceration rates in the world. Another is one of the highest rates of HIV/AIDs of any Western nation fueled, in part, by the use of dirty syringes among drug users.

The problem is that for all its efforts to eliminate supply, the United States has done much less about demand, its other contribution to the drug trade. In fact, the United States is widely regarded as the number one market in the world for illegal drugs. To address demand instead of concentrating on supply, the United States could shift more of its focus to programs that educate or offer rehabilitation to drug users, which have been shown to be effective in small scale efforts.  Certain states have begun to decriminalize or legalize marijuana, a step which will certainly reduce the number of inmates and may also reduce levels of drug-related violence. Yet there is no single way to outright reduce the demand for drugs and some view decriminalization as actually fueling the problem. The following video provides an overview of the resources invested into the United Stats’ war on drugs:

The Importance of Capturing El Chapo

Considering all of the resources and efforts put in place, it is important to consider how much of an impact El Chapo’s arrest will actually have. Unfortunately, it looks like the answer is not much, if any at all. In fact, even El Chapo himself weighed in on his arrest’s effects on the drug trade, telling Sean Penn in an interview, “the day I don’t exist, it’s not going to decrease in any way at all.” El Chapo’s point is clearly illustrated through the number of drug seizures at the border. While exact amounts fluctuate, nearly 700,000 more pounds of marijuana were seized in 2011 than in 2005. The amount of heroin and amphetamines seized has also gone up as well.

The following video details El Chapo’s most recent capture:

His most recent arrest was actually his third; the first two times he escaped from maximum security prisons in stylish fashions, which is one of the reasons that U.S. authorities want Mexico to extradite him. Regardless of where he is ultimately held, since his first arrest in 1993 the drug trade has not suffered when he or any other cartel leader was captured or killed, nor has it suffered from the growth in seizures.

In fact, one of the major points of collaboration between Mexican and U.S. authorities has been on targeting, capturing, or killing of the kingpins of these cartels. While these operations have been successful in apprehending individuals, what they really result in is the further fragmentation of the drug trade. While some may argue that detaining top leaders and fragmenting the centralized drug trade is a mark of success, evidence suggests this is not so.

Conclusion

Aside from relocating the hub of the drug trade to Mexico, the war on drugs has had several other unintended consequences such as high civilian deaths, persistently high rates of HIV infection, and massive levels of incarceration to name a few. While the United States has had some success targeting suppliers and traffickers, it has been unable to reduce demand domestically.

Those involved in Mexico faced a similar conundrum. Not only do citizens in Mexico not trust their government, many of them have become dependent on the drug trade and shutting it down could actually hurt the economic prospects of many citizens.

While El Chapo’s most recent capture has the potential to provide the government with some credibility, it still may not mean much. Even if he is prevented from escaping again or running his old empire from jail, someone will likely take his place. That is because the drug trade does not rely on individuals but on demand and profits. Until these issues are addressed and Mexican citizens have legitimate alternatives to joining cartels, it does not matter how many cartel leaders are arrested, the situation will remain the same.

Resources

CNN: ‘Mission Accomplished’: Mexican President Says ‘El Chapo’ Caught

Frontline: The Colombian Cartels

Borderland Beat: The Story of Drug Trafficking in Latin America

Congressional Research Service: Mexico: Organized Crime and Drug Trafficking Organizations

Jacobin: How the Cartels Were Born

Frontline: The Staggering Death Toll of Mexico’s Drug War

Council on Foreign Relations: Mexico’s Drug War

Drug Policy Alliance: A Brief History of the Drug War

Matador Network: 10 Facts About America’s War On Drugs That Will Shock You

The Washington Post: Latin American Leaders Assail U.S. Drug ‘Market’

The Huffington Post: Why The Capture of ‘El Chapo’ Guzman Won’t Stop His Cartel

The Guardian: Mexican Farmers Turn to Opium Poppies to Meet Surge in US Heroin Demand

CIR: Drug Seizures Along the U.S.-Mexico Border

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 Finding El Chapo: What his Arrest Means for Mexico and the Drug Trade appeared first on Law Street.

Mexico City is a bustling metropolis that attracts millions of visitors from across the world every year. The city is home to Frida Kahlo’s restored house, the Floating Gardens of Xochimilco, the prestigious Souymaya Museum, and dozens of other historic cultural sites. It is no wonder that it has has been ranked the number one travel destination for 2016 by The New York Times. Yet, through an American lens, the entire nation of Mexico is synonymous with drugs, murder, and corruption.

Mexico City, just like any other urban center, is not a paragon of virtue and safety, but it is also not the national hub of organized crime and violence many think. Mexico City is not included in the U.S. State Department’s Travel Warning for Mexico and is not considered to be unusually dangerous for tourists either by global standards or by domestic standards. In fact, Acapulco, the famous resort city with idyllic beaches and futuristic high rises, is the most dangerous city in the country.

Mexico City did witness a troubling rise in homicide rates in 2015 but it is still considered an oasis for travelers and natives alike. The Northern areas of Mexico are generally considered to be the most dangerous, as they are home to the trading routes for drug cartels, but tourists are more likely to be robbed than they are to be caught up in the drug war. Metro and buses within Mexico City are generally considered to be safe, although tourist buses traveling to the pyramids of Teotihuacan outside the city have been robbed in the past.

Mexico City has lower homicide rates than a great deal of American cities and is safer than the capital cities of many of its Latin American neighbors. The most common crimes against tourists are petty theft and robbery during taxi rides, but Mexico City hoteliers go out of their way to make sure that visitors are as safe as possible. There are areas in the city which tourists are advised not to enter–Tepito, Lagunilla, Iztapalapa, and Nezahualcoyotl–but the same is true for any large city in America or Europe. Making generalizations about an entire country based on its most violent regions is a dangerous step in the wrong direction. Mexico has rich artistic, musical and culinary traditions that travelers will miss out on if they buy into the fiction that all of Mexico is filled with criminals out to take their lives.

Tourists do not eschew visiting the cultural sites of the United States because of our crime rates, therefore we should not write off an entire nation because of regional violence (especially not when our own State Department has not issued a travel warning for the nation as a whole). Superimposing the violence in Acapulco or Ciudad Juarez over Mexico City is a foolish mistake that trivializes the sheer size of Mexico–these cities are not all adjacent! When we view Mexico City through sensational anecdotal evidence rather than the reality on the ground, we cut ourselves off from incredible destinations within our own hemisphere.

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 Myths of Violence in Mexico City: Is it Safe to Travel There? appeared first on Law Street.

In a particularly strange piece of news, Academy Award winning actor Sean Penn secretly met with fugitive Mexican drug kingpin Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán, and wrote an article about it for Rolling Stone. El Chapo has now been arrested, but the article went up on Rolling Stone’s website last night. The entire situation is incredibly odd, but the fun part is that some of the individual facts are even odder. Check out the top five weirdest things about Sean Penn’s interview with El Chapo:

5. El Chapo Doesn’t do Drugs

Despite the fact that El Chapo claims to supply “more heroin, methamphetamine, cocaine and marijuana than anybody else in the world,” he doesn’t do drugs personally. In fact, he hasn’t done any drugs in 20 years.

4. In Fact, He Does Hugs not Drugs

When Sean Penn first met “El Chapo,” the drug kingpin hugged him. Penn wrote that when they met, “he pulls me into a ‘compadre’ hug, looks me in the eyes and speaks a lengthy greeting in Spanish too fast for my ears.”

3. Yet, Sean Penn Still Farted in Front of El Chapo

Sean Penn bizarrely admitted to farting in front of El Chapo, and determined that the drug lord was very chivalrous for pretending not to notice, writing: “At this moment, I expel a minor traveler’s flatulence (sorry), and with it, I experience the same chivalry he’d offered when putting Kate to bed, as he pretends not to notice.”

2. Sean Penn Doesn’t Know How to use a Laptop

I’m going to leave this quote, from Sean Penn, without any context: “At 55 years old, I’ve never learned to use a laptop. Do they still make laptops? No fucking idea!”

Are we supposed to believe that Sean Penn hasn’t even seen a laptop recently?

1. But Somehow, They Still Use BBM

The strangest part of this, somehow, is the fact that part of the interview as well as part of the setup was conducted using BBM, or Blackberry Messenger. Given that Blackberries have become borderline obsolete, it’s a charmingly strange addition to the story. I, for one, am impressed that Sean Penn couldn’t figure out how to use a laptop, but could figure out a Blackberry.

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 Five Weirdest Parts of Sean Penn’s Interview with El Chapo appeared first on Law Street.

As many Americans continue to move toward more conscious eating that places an emphasis on consuming responsible, organic foods, we’ve seen more labels in our supermarkets. The country-of-origin labeling rule (COOL), first authorized in 2002, mandated that our meat labels list the country where the product was produced. However that provision was repealed in the budget bill passed by Congress and signed by President Obama late last week–which means that country-of-origin labels will no longer appear on meat, specifically beef and pork, sold in the United States.

But this move on Congress’s part isn’t about a departure from increased labeling–it’s about the possible international affairs and economic side effects of continuing the labeling. The COOL labeling has been controversial on the world stage from the beginning, because other countries feared it could cause American consumers to discriminate against their meat products for no reason other than that competitors’ products were produced in the United States. Last week, the World Trade Organization (WTO) authorized Canada and Mexico, two of the U.S.’s major trading partners, to tax American products to make up for the cost of the COOL regulations.

The concerns over those costs, as well as the fact that these taxes could be extended to other products, caused Congress to repeal the provision specifically on beef and pork, but labeling will remain on other products. Any meat that comes into the United States from another country will still be inspected by the USDA before it makes it into consumers hands. However, many Americans are unhappy with Congress’s choice to change the labeling requirements overall. Most notably, this comes in contrast to what Americans seemingly want. According to a 2013 study by the Consumer Federation of America:

Eighty-seven percent (87 percent) of adults favored, either strongly or somewhat, requiring food sellers to indicate on the package label the country or countries in which animals were born, raised and processed. Similarly, ninety percent (90 percent) of adults favored, either strongly or somewhat, requiring food sellers to indicate on the package label the country or countries in which animals were born and raised and the fact that the meat was processed in the U.S.

Supporters of COOL have floated particular concerns about Brazilian beef, because the country has had an outbreak of Mad Cow Disease as recently as 2014. According to Willy Blackmore, of TakePart, “there could soon be between 20,000 and 65,000 metric tons of fresh or frozen Brazilian beef—about 1 percent of U.S. beef imports—coming into the country annually.”

So, the vote was kind of a lose-lose for Congress–either way it was going to make some people mad. But for now, we won’t be seeing country-of-origin labels on our beef or pork–we’ll have to see how long that change lasts.

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 Where’s Your Meat From? Congress Repeals Country-of-Origin Labeling appeared first on Law Street.

It seems as though Donald Trump has permeated every aspect of our lives these days. He’s all over the news–particularly social media. So when Fox Soccer put out a promo on Twitter for the United States-Mexico CONCACAF Cup game tomorrow, it wasn’t surprising that it featured good ol’ Donald Trump.

(2/2) Well, now watch this Trump pump up video for the #USMNT! Get ready. #USAvMEX kicks tomorrow on @FS1! https://t.co/1mfnfZiqTo

— FOX Soccer (@FOXSoccer) October 9, 2015

But while it wasn’t surprising, it was upsetting. Fox Sports seemingly made the promo in response to a similar one from Mexican station TV Azteca, which used Trump’s statements to rile up its fan base.

TV Azteca’s #USAvMEX promo (also using Trump). https://t.co/uNDQiuu2hI — Tom Marshall (@mexicoworldcup) October 9, 2015

So, here are two promos, both using footage of Donald Trump’s presidential announcement speech to promote a soccer game. So why does Fox Sport’s really feel like it’s in worst taste? It all comes down to the context.

Trump said some truly horrible, racist things about Mexicans in his announcement speech. The most notable quote was probably this one:

When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

Trump’s incredibly disparaging remarks have continued as consistently as his surges in the polls–the man has been running a campaign rife with racism and xenophobia.

So, that TV Azteca promo was at least in part tongue-in-cheek. It was making fun of Americans for the fact that this buffoon is leading the polls to be the presidential nominee for one of our two major political parties. For Fox Soccer to turn around and also use that footage, it sends a concerning message: yes this guy is an idiot, but he also speaks for us. They validated his xenophobia and racism, and that’s incredibly embarrassing.

Many Twitter users seemed to agree, condemning Fox Soccer for the promo:

@FOXSoccer @FS1 Not clicking. Nope, not gonna do it. Trump obviously doesn’t realize how many USMNT players are immigrants.

— superguppy (@superguppy) October 9, 2015

@FOXSoccer @FS1 Literally the last thing needed in international soccer right now is more xenophobia. Why would you do this? Disgraceful. — Christopher Dwyer (@dwyercd) October 9, 2015

@FOXSoccer @FS1 the other piece was satire, this is disgusting. Horrible way to alienate fans and politicize/corrupt the beautiful game.

— Adrian//Amler (@AdrianAmler) October 9, 2015

.@foxsoccer You might want to check with your market researchers, but I suspect the Fox Soccer audience is not the Fox News audience. — R. H. (@iltuesday) October 9, 2015

Listen, it’s understandable that social media marketers for Fox Soccer want to pump up their audiences however possible, and tapping into already trending topics is certainly a way to do that. But that doesn’t give them an excuse to tacitly endorse racism and xenophobia. Shame on you, Fox Soccer.

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 Fox Soccer’s Donald Trump CONCACAF Cup Promo is in Bad Taste appeared first on Law Street.

During the early morning hours of September 8, Maya Donnelly was awaken by a crash that she believed was just thunder. Later that morning she looked in her garage and noticed pieces of broken wood and signs that Hulk, their large German Shepherd, had been making a mess. Donnelly went outside to get a closer look at things and to her surprise there was a mysterious package wrapped in black plastic. Donnelly stated:

I went out to investigate, and sure enough, I looked up to see the hole, and then my eyes trailed down and the big dog’s house was destroyed. It made a hole in that hard plastic doghouse and the bundle was inside…

Donnelly lives with her husband and three teenage daughters in Nogales, Arizona, near the U.S.-Mexico border. Because of the large amount of smuggling that occurs near the border area, she immediately assumed that the package was drugs and called the police. When the police arrived, they revealed that Donnelly was correct. The package contained 26 pounds of marijuana and was worth nearly $10,000.

Nogales Police Department officers searched their property and other nearby areas for additional bundles but nothing was found. The officers then took possession of the drugs.

Nogales family woke to find a bail of marijuana fell through their roof. http://t.co/Y0gsVpCwCT pic.twitter.com/ZG7pqlJWRZ

— KVOA News 4 Tucson (@KVOA) September 27, 2015

Police are trying to determine if the bundle was transported by an aircraft or a pilotless drone. Authorities told Donnelly that an ultralight aircraft smuggling marijuana from Mexico had probably let part of its load go early by mistake. These aircrafts are one of the tools of the local drug smuggling trade. Nogales Police Chief Derek Arnson stated, “Someone definitely made a mistake, and who knows what the outcome of that mistake might be for them.”

In the United States, ultralight aircrafts are classified as “vehicles” and not aircrafts. They are not required to be registered nor is the pilot required to have a pilot license or certificate, thus making it easy to smuggle drugs. Arnson told Nogales International,

Ultralights, we’ve seen those on occasion. They’ll take a couple, two, three bundles. You can hear those kind of buzzing. They come at nighttime and they don’t land, they just drop and go back to Mexico.

Now, I’m sure some people may be surprised by the Donnellys’ integrity in calling the police and not keeping the bundle to make a profit.

Let 26 pounds of marijuana fall on my house. The last thing Ima do is call the police…the last.

— Bria (@BriaMaria92) September 28, 2015

Despite their friends joking to them that they could have kept the package and illegally sold the drugs, the family did not want to feel any guilt about the situation. “That’s what everybody says: ‘Why did you call 911?” Maya Donnelly stated. “But how can you have a clear conscience, right?”

The Donnellys do not feel any less safe after the incident and doubt that anyone will come looking for the drugs since the bundle is now in police custody. Arnson agreed, but placed patrols in the Donnelly’s neighborhood for now just to be safe. Although the family will have to pay an estimated amount of $500 in roof repairs and a new home for their dog, they are just happy that the package did not come through another part of their home and that no one was harmed.

Taelor Bentley

Taelor is a member of the Hampton University Class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Taelor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Surprise: 26 Pounds of Marijuana Crash Through Arizona Home appeared first on Law Street.

With the United States losing to Jamaica in the semifinals of the CONCACAF Gold Cup the final was projected to be Panama vs. Jamaica. The  regional soccer tournament between the countries in Central America, North America, and the Caribbean is held every two years and draws millions of viewers. However, the success of the Gold Cup this year may have been corrupted by the allegations of inappropriate refereeing to ensure that the final game featured Mexico.

The finals were scheduled to be played in Philadelphia, which is home to many Mexicans. For revenue purposes, it would have been ideal to host a final including Mexico rather than  a Panama-Jamaica final. With the U.S. losing in the semifinals, placing at least one soccer power house, most likely Mexico, in the final was imperative for TV viewership as well. It’s within this context that questionable referee calls took place in the quarterfinal against Costa Rica and  the semifinal against Panama which ultimately granted Mexico a spot in the finals. The head referee of the calls in the semifinals, Mark Geiger, along with CONCACAF, are receiving serious backlash, as many critics, soccer players, and countries feel that there were third member parties involved which made it possible for Mexico to win. Although Geiger apologized for his calls, and CONCACAF admitted mistakes were made, an investigation is pending to truly determine what went wrong.

There were two clear instances in which observers are claiming that the calls made on behalf of Mexico were amiss. The Mexican-Costa Rican semifinal game ended with a winning penalty kick for Mexico, yet the nature of the foul that led to the kick was very much disputed. Many feel that Mexico was given a clear advantage in that game and that the actions embodied by the ref showcased an ulterior motive. Then, the Mexico vs. Panama game shocked athletes and fans around the world. Panama lost a man after a foul call, then a second controversial call allowed Mexico to tie up the game. Mexico then moved onto the final game against Jamaica and won the Gold Cup.

In the moments following the Panama game, spectators and members of the Panamanian Soccer Federation alike were quick to accuse Mexico of fixing the game. Allegations were also made about third party members being involved and paying off the referees. Panama’s federation demanded the removal of CONCACAF’s referee selection panel after describing the officiating in the loss as “insulting and embarrassing.” The statement also accused the match officials of favoring Mexico in a “vulgar and shameless way.” While there may not be any clear answers for some time, if there was any cheating involved, it does not appear to involve the Mexican players. “I didn’t celebrate because that penalty call left me with a bad taste,” said Mexican player Andres Guardado after he scored the controversial penalty kick which ultimately propelled them into the final.

This isn’t the first time CONCACAF has been accused of shady behavior. There was recently a massive investigation which resulted in several lawsuits against individuals working with FIFA and the organization as a whole. Amidst the disaster, two former CONCACAF presidents Jack Warner and Jeffrey Webb were accused of bribery by the United States Justice Department. The United States Department of Justice alleged that for more than two decades, sports-marketing executives paid more than $150-million dollars in kickbacks and bribes to high-ranking soccer officials. The charges are an indication and direct representation of corrupt practices at the highest level of the world’s most popular sport; secret meetings, hidden cash, and bank accounts in Panama and the Cayman Islands were discovered as part of the investigation.

Most recently, CONCACAF acting President Alfredo Hawit announced a review of the refereeing in the Gold Cup. This review will hopefully shed light on the events of the two controversial games. While it may have been more profitable to have Mexico in the finals, it’s important that the integrity of the game remains intact.

Symon Rowlands

Symon Rowlands is a member of the University of Miami Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Symon now blogs for Law Street, focusing mostly on politics. Contact Symon at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Controversial Calls: What Happened at the Gold Cup? appeared first on Law Street.

Just as the search for New York prison escapees David Sweat and Richard Matt recently came to an end, an even bigger manhunt has begun in Mexico. Joaquin Guzman, also known as “El Chapo” and Mexico’s most powerful drug lord, escaped from Altiplano maximum security federal prison on Saturday night.

This isn’t Guzman’s first escape. In 2001 he escaped by hiding in a laundry cart with the help from prison guards who were later prosecuted and convicted. He was not captured again until 2014 during a raid in a condo in Mazatlan, a Pacific resort in Sinaloa state.

After spending almost a year and a half behind bars, the kingpin is on the loose again. Guzman used an intricate escape route that was somehow built without any authorities noticing. According to the National Security Commission, he was last seen in his shower area around 9pm on Saturday. Once he was lost by the prison’s security cameras, his cell was checked. Authorities found it empty and saw a 20-by-20-inch hole near the shower. He climbed down a 30 foot vertical hole and then escaped through a fully ventilated tunnel with lighting according to National Security Commissioner Monte Alejandro Rubid. Guzman’s cartel is known for building tunnels beneath the Mexico-U.S. border to transport cocaine, methamphetamines, and marijuana, often including ventilation, lighting, and even railcars to easily move products. The tunnel ended in a half-built barn, which according to an unidentified woman was bought by outsiders–possibly connected to Guzman–who began to build immediately about a year ago. Tools, oxygen tanks, and a motorcycle adapted to run on rails were also found by authorities.

#ElChapo‘s friends built him an underground tunnel and helped him escape prison on a motorcycle…. My friends don’t even text me back…

— JayDalton (@JayyDalton) July 13, 2015

While Guzman was a fugitive after his 2001 escape, he turned himself into one of the world’s most notorious drug traffickers with an estimated fortune of $1 billion. Forbes magazine listed him among the “World’s Most Powerful People,” and ranked him above the presidents of countries such as France and Venezuela. Michael S. Vigil, retired U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration Chief of International Operations, stated that if El Chapo is not caught immediately he will most likely be back in full command of the Sinaloa cartel within two days. So far thirty employees from Altiplano have been questioned to see if Guzman received any inside help. His escape has embarrassed the Pena Nieto administration, which once received praise for its aggressive approach to top drug lords. President Enrique Pena Nieto said:

This represents without a doubt an affront to the Mexican state. But I also have confidence in the institutions of the Mexican state … that they have the strength and determination to recapture this criminal.

In an interview after Guzman’s 2014 arrest, the president said that allowing him to escape again would be “unforgivable.” The attorney general at the time, Jesús Murillo Karam, said the possibility of another Guzman escape “does not exist.” Clearly both men were wrong. Ana Maria Salazar, a security analyst and former Pentagon counter-narcotics official stated exactly what most people are thinking,

One would have assumed that he would have been the most watched criminal in the world, and apparently, that just didn’t happen. This is a huge embarrassment for the Mexican government. Obviously it’s going to raise a lot of questions as to what’s happening with the Mexican criminal justice system.

Authorities have launched a widespread manhunt to find Guzman and have also closed Toluca International Airport, which is a 45 minute drive away from the prison. The drug lord was very prepared and probably had his escape and post-escape plans well thought out. This scandal should serve as a huge wake up call for the the Mexican government. Officials need to thoroughly examine their prisons and improve the security so that there will be no more chances of criminals escaping. There was no trace of Guzman 24 hours after his escape and officials are going to have to work extremely hard to find him, given his track record.

Taelor Bentley

Taelor is a member of the Hampton University Class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Taelor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Manhunt For Mexico’s Most Notorious Drug Lord Begins appeared first on Law Street.

Heroin addiction is a scary reality for many Americans. It’s often an ongoing roller coaster involving several rehab stints, withdrawal, and lifelong addiction struggles. And it’s unfortunately becoming a more common phenomenon. Today, the drug is no longer an outlier compared to its competitors.  It has been identified by some as the new drug of the upper-middle class. Is this a fair assessment? Here are the facts.

What is heroin?

Heroin received its name from the “hero-like,” invincible effect the drug provides its user. It is also called by other names on the street including: H, Junk, Smack, Big H, Hell Dust, and countless others. Additives can change the color from white (pure heroin) to rose gray, brown, or black. Heroin can be laced with a variety of poisons and/or other drugs. It is injected, smoked, and snorted.

What is the science behind heroin?

From a scientific perspective:

Heroin is an opiate made from the chemical morphine, which is extracted from the dried latex of the opium poppy. Morphine is extracted from the opium latex, and these chemicals are used to make opiates, such as heroin, diamorphine and methadone. Heroin is the 3,6-diacetyl derivative of morphine (hence diacetylmorphine) and is synthesised from it by acetylation.

So what does that mean? Essentially, heroin is an opiate–a drug created from opium that sedates, tranquilizes, and/or depresses the body. It’s similar to a common base in a variety of pain killers–morphine. Opium comes from the cultivation of poppy seeds.

Effects of Heroin                                                     

Heroin users report several effects that differ based on the individual. Heroin can cause a temporary state of euphoria, safety, warmth, and sexual arousal. It can also create a sense of disconnect from other people, causing a dreamlike state and/or sense of floating. It is a depressant, rather than stimulant like cocaine, and it can be used as a self-medicated pain reliever.

Adversely, users can immediately experience vomiting, coughing, constipation, hypothermia, severe itching, and inability to orgasm. Long-term effects include rotten teeth, cold sweats, weakening of the immune system, respiratory illnesses, depression, loss of appetite, insomnia, and tuberculosis. Although this is not a direct effect, the sharing of needles from intravenous injection can often lead to AIDS, Hepatitis C, and other fatal infections.

After the effects wear off, users will start to feel extreme withdrawal symptoms if another dose is not administered. The symptoms of withdrawal can include “restlessness, aches and pains in the bones, diarrhea, vomiting, and severe discomfort.”

How do Americans get heroin?

Afghanistan is the “world’s largest exporter,” producing over 80 percent of the world’s opium. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), the Afghan poppy cultivation and opium industry amassed $3 billion in 2013, a 50 percent increase from 2012.

Overall, Mexico is the largest drug supplier to the United States. Specifically, Mexico produces Black Tar Heroin, one of the “most dangerous and addictive forms of heroin to date.” This variety looks more similar to hash than powder and can cause sclerosis and severe bacterial infections.

Colombia is the second largest Latin American supplier to the United States. Colombian cartels historically distribute from New York City and are in “full control of the heroin market in the Eastern United States.”

The “Golden Triangle” includes the countries of Burma, Vietnam, Laos, and Thailand. Before the escalation of the Afghan opium market, these southeastern Asian countries reigned over the world’s opium production.

Is it true that middle class heroin use is on the rise?

The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) published a study in 2014 about the changing demographics of heroin users in the last 50 years. Over 2,800 people entering treatment programs participated in self-surveys and extensive interviews.

The results do seem to indicate that heroin is transitioning to the middle class. It is leaving the big cities and becoming more mainstream in the suburbs. Of course, there has been heroin drug use in suburbia before; however, now there is a marked increase.

In the 1960s, the average heroin user was a young man (average age of 16.5) living in a large urban area. Eighty percent of these men’s first experiences with an opioid was heroine. Today, the average heroin user is either a male or female in their twenties (average age of 23). Now, 75.2 percent of these users live in non-urban areas and 75 percent first experienced an opioid through prescription drugs. Almost 90 percent of first-time heroin users in the last ten years were white.

In New York City, doctors and drug counselors report a significant increase in professionals and college students with heroin addictions, while emergency rooms also report an increase in opiate overdoses. In Washington D.C., there has been a 55 percent increase in overdoses since 2010.

Why Heroin?

With all this information readily available through school systems and the internet, why is the educated, middle class turning to heroin? Factors may include increases in depression, exposure to painkillers, and acceptance. The perception of the heroin junkie has changed. A user can snort heroin (bypassing the track marks from injection) and go undetected by those around. It can be a clandestine affair–an appealing notion if the user does want to keep their drug use secret.

Anxiety disorders are the largest mental illness in the United States today, affecting more than 40 million Americans. In a country that loves to self-medicate, heroin offers a false yet accessible reprieve from anxiety and depression.

Prescription drug users also move to heroin. Prescription drugs are expensive and only legally last for the prescribed amount of time. To name a few, these gateway prescriptions drugs come in the forms of hydrocodone (Vicodin), fentanyl (Duragesic), and oxycodone (OxyContin). From 1999-2008, prescription narcotic sales increased 300 percent in the United States. Unlike these expensive prescriptions, a bag with approximately a quarter-sized amount of heroin can be sold for $10 off the streets. The transition isn’t hard to imagine, especially when the desired effects are similar.

Case Study: Understanding Suburban Heroin Use

Young upper-middle class adults are generally perceived as being granted every opportunity and foundation for success. Parents can afford a comfortable lifestyle and access to decent education for their children. So the question continues: why are so many from this walk of life turning to heroin? Through the funding of the Reed Hruby Heroin Prevention Project, the Illinois Consortium on Drug Policy conducted a report Understanding Suburban Heroin Use, to “demonstrate the nuanced nature of risk and protective factors among the heroin interviewees.” A risk factor puts a person in danger of using heroin, while a protective factor reduces the chance of use.

The overriding connection among the interviewees is the “experienced degree of detachment between parent and child and the overall lack of communication.” Contrary to common stereotypes, verbal, physical, and/or earlier drug abuse wasn’t vital in providing a pathway to heroin. A large portion of the answers, proved in these case studies, seem to be the previous emotional health of the users.

Example One

Interviewee one is a 31-year-old male who transitioned from pills to heroin. He is described as athletic, articulate, and candid. He was raised in an upper-middle class Chicago suburb. Although his family was close and intact, he experienced a sense of loneliness. His parents practiced a more hands-off approach to parenting that made him feel like an adult at an early age. His parents didn’t drink or abuse drugs during his childhood. His brother was diagnosed with ADHD, while he was not, although he experienced “restlessness.”

He was caught smoking marijuana at age 14 by his father, quit for a couple months, then resumed. His parents assumed he remained clean because he received good grades and they liked his group of friends. At age 17, he chose to work rather than attend college after graduating high school a semester early. He was earning almost as much income as his father. At 17, he tried his first opioid with a friend whose medical condition allowed easy access to OxyContin. When the prescription ran dry, they turned to heroine. He rationalized the transition thinking if he could handle OxyContin, he could handle heroin. Six months later, he was using approximately $100 worth of heroin daily and eventually moved to violent and illegal actions to sustain his supply. He admitted:

Heroin gave me something. It made me feel the best I have ever felt…Maybe I think love was missing. Like, love. I think. I that, uh, because I always felt like alone. Like even though I had good family, I always felt alone. Different.

Example Two

Interviewee two is a 27-year-old female from the western suburbs of Illinois. She is described as attractive, cheerful, and helpful. She was raised in an educated, wealthy family. She was a cheerleader in high school and earned good grades. There aren’t any psychological or substance abuse problems in her family. She felt disconnected from her siblings as they were much older and felt distant from her parents, as well. Her parents often “bickered” but never had big fights. When she confided in her mother as a child that she might be depressed, her mother seemingly brushed it off.

She started smoking pot in junior high at age 15. Although social, her group of friends was not part of the most popular crowd. This was a constant concern. She maintained a B average and continued with sports, while starting to smoke marijuana every day. An after-school job paid for this habit. When her parents found drug paraphernalia in her room, they didn’t probe the situation and just sent her to her room. Searching for a personal connection, she started dating an older boy. She connected with his parents in a way she could not with her own. During senior year, they both started using cocaine, which became a daily habit. She eventually transitioned to heroin, because as she put it in an answer to one question:

Heroin made me feel real mellow like I had not a care in the world. I had a lot of “what am I doing with my life” and physical pain that I was covering up.

After losing her job, she pawned her belongings with a variety of her parents’ things, and stole from others. She refrained from turning to prostitution, although she heard of other girls going down that road. She finally sought out help after witnessing her boyfriend get pistol-whipped and robbed during a drug exchange.

What does this tell us about heroin use?

There are similarities and differences to all of the case studies in this project. In these two examples, the users come from seemingly sturdy homes and backgrounds. The stereotypes of drug users aren’t present in these cases; however, they both felt distant from the people around them at an early age in life. They also wanted to avoid internal and external pressures. This glimpse into the lives of users offers some potential answers to the question of why relatively well educated, middleclass Americans may turn to heroin.

Fighting Back

In March 2014, the United States Department of Justice and the Attorney General Eric Holder vowed to take action against the “urgent public health crisis” of heroin and prescription opiates. Holder claimed that between 2006-2010, there was a 45 percent increase in heroin overdoses. To start, Holder pushed law enforcement agencies to carry the “overdose-reversal drug” Naloxone and urged the public to watch the educational documentary “The Opiate Effect.” Holder also outlined the DEA plan as follows:

Since 2011, DEA has opened more than 4,500 investigations related to heroin. They’re on track to open many more. And as a result of these aggressive enforcement efforts, the amount of heroin seized along America’s southwest border increased by more than 320 percent between 2008 and 2013…enforcement alone won’t solve the problem. That’s why we are enlisting a variety of partners – including doctors, educators, community leaders, and police officials – to increase our support for education, prevention, and treatment.

Conclusion

Heroin has seen a migration to the middle class. But what can we do to stop it? Many of these new users are already educated on the adverse effects of heroin and know the bottom line. A fear of health concerns isn’t enough. We need to stop it at the source, whether it is gateway prescription drugs or emotional health. Substance abuse is a disease to be cured, not the label of a criminal. The Affordable Care Act and Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act aim to expand behavioral health coverage for 62.5 million people by 2020. Every addict, regardless of demographics, should have the ability and necessary tools to recover.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Justice Department: Attorney General Holder, Calling Rise in Heroin Overdoses ‘Urgent Public Health Crisis,’ Vows Mix of Enforcement, Treatment

JAMA Psychiatry Releases: Demographics of Heroin Users Change in Past 50 Years

Reed Hruby Heroin Prevention Project: Understanding Suburban Heroin Use

Additional

About Health: What Heroin Effects Feel Like

Anxiety and Depression Association of America: Facts & Statistics

The New York Times: The Middle Class Rediscovers Heroin

Original Network of Resources on Heroin: Heroin By Area of Origin

RT: America’s $7.6 Billion War on Afghan Drugs Fails, Opium Production Peaks

Tech Times: Study Profiles New American Heroin Addicts

Foundation For a Drug Free World: The Truth about Heroin

WTOP: Heroin Use Rises in D.C. Among Middle, Upper Class

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Heroin: The New Drug of the Middle Class? appeared first on Law Street.

There are two lessons I learned from the following story:

1. Never go on a cruise if you owe the government money (or even if the government erroneously thinks that you owe it money); and
2. Yellowstone National Park is all about collecting its debts so don’t think you can get away with cheating it out of even a dime.

It all started in 2003 when Hope Clarke forgot to put her hot chocolate and marshmallows away one night when she was visiting Yellowstone. Helpful hint: if you are visiting a national park, do not forget to put away your food. There is actually a good reason for this: animals that eat people-food. So, when she forgot to put away her food she received a $50 fine that was probably reasonable and frankly would in no way inspire me to write about it. So why am I?

Courtesy of giphy.

To answer that, let’s move forward to 2004. Clarke, in another travel-related expedition, went on a cruise to Mexico. Everything was going great, and–I assume, but I did not ask her this myself–if you had asked her right before she exited the cruise when it landed back in the US, she probably would have told you that she had a good time; however, the government had something to say about this smooth sailing.

You see, Clarke did not exit the ship of her own accord. She was escorted out of the ship in handcuffs after having been awakened at 6:30am by federal agents. The agents then dragged her before a judge in leg shackles.

What happened?

Well, customs agents who meet ships at the port and perform random checks of passenger lists had found an interesting thing on Ms. Clarke’s record: that year-old $50 fine from Yellowstone. They did what they would have done to any hardened criminal and immediately threw her before a judge.

Clarke tried to come up with some defense for her horrid deed. She said something really lame like that Yellowstone would not let her leave until she paid the fine, and thus, since she was not still in the park, she must have already paid it. Of course, she might have said that a little more respectfully, but I wouldn’t know since I wasn’t there.

Clearly she was lying, though. There was no way this would have happened if that fine had already been paid. So basically, she should have been thrown in jail for both the unpaid fine and perjury. Only wait, the judge went a different way. Instead of buying either the story of the criminal or the claims of the feds, he looked at the citation itself, which said that the fine had indeed been paid. Understandably after that he dropped the case and Clarke was free to go while the government was left to ponder what exactly had gone wrong.

Courtesy of giphy.

All I know is that my mom was right: if you don’t clean up your mess right now, young lady, bad things are going to happen.

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Happens in Yellowstone Does Not Stay in Yellowstone appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

I have always been partial to the ‘Don’t Mess With Texas’ slogan; it gives a good heads up to anyone who wants to break the law or cause a ruckus in this great state! Osiel Cárdenas Jr., however, apparently did not get that memo.

Osiel Jr., son of former drug lord Osiel Cardenas Guillen, was reportedly arrested by U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agents after they discovered nearly 500 rounds of ammunition and tactical weapons gear hidden in different parts of his sweet Cadillac Escalade SUV. Junior was attempting to cross a bridge going over the Rio Grande that connects South Texas to Mexico but got caught. He admitted to the items being his and to knowing that it was illegal to smuggle them into Mexico. What a winner–his dad must be so proud.

The inspection of the Cadillac Escalade SUV uncovered 290 rounds of 9mm ammunition, 161 rounds of .223 caliber ammunition, 29 rounds of 7.62 mm ammunition, two .223 rifle magazines, and other tactical weapons gear hidden in various parts of the car that included the glove box, center console, and a factory compartment behind the stereo buttons. A pat down of Osiel Jr. also brought to light 14.2 grams of marijuana hanging out in his underwear. That’s a strange place to keep your pot but hey, to each his own.

Osiel Cárdenas Jr. is scheduled for a hearing at a detention center tomorrow. The realities of smuggling across the border are real. If that is going into Mexico I can only wonder what is being brought into the states that we know nothing about. Border Patrol is a vital part of keeping this country safe and a lot of that comes through Texas.

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Son of Drug Kingpin Busted for Smuggling Weapons, Drugs at Border appeared first on Law Street.

Last Friday, July 25, 2014, three Central American leaders  — Presidents Juan Olando Hernádez of Honduras, Otto Pérez Molina of Guatemala, and Salvador Sánchez Cerén of El Salvador — convened at the White House to discuss with President Obama the recent wave of Central American immigrants, specifically unaccompanied minors, to the United States.

“Washington must understand that if you have a Central America with violence because of the drug traffic crime, a Central America without opportunities, without growth in the economy, it is going to always be a problem for the United States,” said President Hernández of Honduras. The root causes, Hernández went on, are not America’s lax border polices, but rather the demand for illegal drugs in North America, which fuels violence in Central America, causing migrants to flee their homes. In a joint statement on Friday, President Obama and the three Central American leaders pledged to address the “underlying causes of immigration by reducing criminal activity and promoting greater social and economic opportunity.”

What this estimation overlooks, though, are the perspectives of the immigrants themselves. What causes them to submit to a perilous exodus, vulnerable to a harsh desert climate, drug violence, and personal injury crossing rivers and fences, all at the likelihood of being detained by U.S. border security, and possibly being sent back? Drug violence may very well be a cause for the flight of immigrants, but I am skeptical to hear this from leaders of governments who have vested interests in the economic exploitation, and repression of their citizens. Rather, we should listen to the people.

In Central America, graffiti is a voice for a voiceless people: the agrarian peasants and the urban poor. Graffiti is an alternative medium of communication that broadcasts messages that corporate media outlets such as radio and television fail to incorporate. It is an open forum of dissent, writ large on the side of a government building, or across a freight car, traveling throughout the region. More importantly, graffiti is a vantage point from which we can discern the perspective of Central American immigrants, and the pressures behind their flight.

Ciudad de Juárez, the capital of Oaxaca, Mexico, six hundred miles from the Guatemalan border, is home to the Assembly of Revolutionary Artists of Oaxaca (ASARO). Comprised of multiple graffiti crews and independent artists, ASARO was forged in the summer 2006 following the violent state-oppression of teachers demanding better pay and working conditions. Forty-five hundred federal police forcibly removed the teachers from the streets, injuring 92 protesters and killing 17, including an American news correspondent. The brutal government crackdown on protests mobilized disparate activist groups against the government, which they saw as a common cause of their plights, and ASARO emerged as a visual amplification of their dissent through the streets of Ciudad de Juárez.

“Arte Del Pueblo y Para el Pueblo” (Art of the People for the People) courtesy of ian m via Flickr

What is more interesting, though, in regard to immigration to the United States, is the political motive and content of the ASARO graffiti. In their images and slogans, we find the root cause of strife afflicting the people in Mexico and Central America, and ultimately the systemic causes for the massive waves of immigration to the U.S. over the last five years.

“The assembly of revolutionary artists arises from the need to reject and transcend authoritarian forms of governance and institutional, cultural, and societal structures, which have been characterized as discriminatory for seeking to impose a single version of reality and morality[.]” – ASARO Manifesto

In Oaxaca, where 80.3 percent of the population lack sanitation services, street lighting, piped water, and paved roads, ASARO illuminated institutional prejudices against ethnicity, class, and sex, keeping eight out ten people in extreme poverty. Their graffiti critiqued the violence of the Mexican government in the 2006 uprising, but also demanded  equal rights for disenfranchised groups like farm workers, indigenous people, and women, as well as exposing the hypocrisies and corruption of the ruling elite. Slogans such as “Todo el Poder al Pueblo. Colonos en Pie de Lucha” (All the Power to the People. Neighbors on our feet to fight!) incited reflection and fiery debates on issues ranging from the privatization of public goods, to gender equality, democratic participate, and Indigenous rights. Moreover, images of the Oaxacan governor labeled “Cynic, Thief, Autocrat, Repressor, Murders,” and “End Fascism in Mexico!” rallied protesters against the government.

Courtesy of natarén via Flickr

“Todo el poder al pueblo. Colonos en lucha” (All Power to the people. Neighbors, on their feet for the fight). Courtesy of nataren via Flickr.

In addition to social struggles in Mexico, ASARO’s political graffiti illustrate issues that affect Central America broadly, such as the economic exploitation of natural resources and labor by transnational corporations, as well as documenting the physical and emotional trauma of immigration. ASARO’s political graffiti critiqued the extraction of oil and minerals from Oaxacan land, which is exported by the Mexican government at an exorbitant profit, without benefit to the Oaxacan people. One ASARO poster featuring a barefoot peasant tilling the land read, “La Tierra es de queen la Trabaja” (The earth belongs to those who work it); a wood-cut block print depicted Uncle Sam under an eagle drinking from an oil can, kicking miniature figures with guns, who represent the Mexican people.

These critiques of foreign exploitation not only speak to conditions in Mexico and Central America, but suggest a system of global colonization by transnational corporations. A block print called Body Parts on Railroad (2010) documents the perils of immigration. Body parts litter train tracks leading to the U.S.: a leg labeled “Salvador,” a finger labeled “Mexico,” a hand “Honduras,” and a head “Guatemala.” Similarly, another block print depicts small animals standing at the opening of a sewer drain like those used by some immigrants to enter the U.S., that runs under a border fence replete with police and an American flag.

In all, the political graffiti of Oaxaca, Mexico demonstrates that there is much more to the immigration debate than just the quips of politicians. In order to understand the root cause of the recent wave of unaccompanied child immigrants, and in order to address this crisis adequately, discussions must include the perspectives of the immigrants themselves. Drug violence is not the only cause for immigration from Central America; but rather a host of systemic issues force immigrants to travel to the U.S. Government corruption and economic exploitation are, perhaps, the most intolerable conditions for the people, as evidenced by the ASARO graffiti. Only from the oppressed can we fully understand their oppression; graffiti is the voice of the subaltern.

 —
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 [Fabricator77 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 Describes the Struggle of Immigrants and Undocumented Minors appeared first on Law Street.

In Arizona, if you are within 75 miles of the Mexican border, you might just come across a “temporary” border control checkpoint. The goal of these checkpoints is to help control drug trafficking and stop illegal immigration. But the legality of these checkpoints, and what the Border Patrol agents are actually allowed to do is far from clear. The American Civil Liberties Union has now filed an administrative complaint with the Department of Homeland Security on behalf of 15 individuals who claim that their constitutional rights have been violated at checkpoints in Arizona.

Of the individuals involved in the ACLU complaint, the majority say they were never asked about their identity, the supposed purpose of the checkpoints. Some of the complainants claim they were held for over half an hour for not giving the Border Patrol officer consent to search their cars. Other complaints include a gun being pulled on a individual, and the Border Patrol agents attempting to take someone’s cell phone. If these allegations are true, they most likely violate the existing laws on checkpoints.

The highest court of the land has only ruled on interior checkpoints once, almost forty years ago, in United States v. Martinez-Fuerte. Amado Martinez-Fuerte was transporting two illegal immigrants when he was stopped at a fixed interior checkpoint in Southern California. When asked, the two illegal immigrants admitted to their status. Martinez-Fuerte reacted by suing, saying that the checkpoint violated his Fourth Amendment right to not be subject to unreasonable searches. SCOTUS ruled that his rights were not violated, because if there is a reasonable collective suspicion, then individuals can be searched in the interest of public safety. The court stated that Border Patrol agents could briefly question and ask people for identification, without individual suspicion, if they’re at reasonably located checkpoints. The court did not give the Border Patrol the right to search vehicles or occupants without probable cause. The question in Arizona today is if the Border Patrol is abiding by this ruling.

It seems like this administrative complaint may lead to a new look at our laws. These checkpoints have expanded their focus to include more work in drug control, instead of just looking for illegal immigrants. This is problematic because Martinez-Fuerte only serves as a precedent for checkpoints searching for illegal immigrants. Currently at checkpoints, vehicles are examined by drug-sniffing dogs. In Illinois v. Caballes, the Supreme Court ruled that a drug-sniffing dogs could be used during a routine traffic stop, but no court has explicitly ruled that they can be used at Border Patrol checkpoints.

Furthermore, in 2000, the Supreme Court ruled that using these checkpoints for general law enforcement acts violates the Fourth Amendment. James Duff Lyall, the attorney who filed the complaint stated:

The restrictions in the Martinez-Fuerte ruling don’t mean that agents have to turn a blind eye to obvious evidence of drugs or crime, but if you have cases where people are not even being asked about residency status, it raises serious questions about the legitimacy of these checkpoints.

In 1976, the Supreme Court made the Martinez-Fuerte ruling because they felt that in an area with a high number of illegal immigrants, it was not unreasonable to have ID checkpoints on major roads. Using that logic as precedent, I think that it could be argued that due to the large amount of narcotics crossing the border, it is not unreasonable to have cars drive through a checkpoint where drug-sniffing dogs are present. However, there’s no legal basis for that argument yet, and this is not an excuse for the unreasonable searches that the ACLU is alleging are taking place. If the point of these checkpoints is to find drugs, a car should only have to stop for a few moments while the dog sniffs, and then be allowed to move on. Anything beyond that, or a simple examination of a person’s ID, is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Border Patrol in Arizona needs to realize this if they want to keep operating their checkpoints.

—

Matt DeWilde (@matt_dewilde25) is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Ken & Sharon Lotts via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

Matt DeWilde is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Interior Checkpoints in Arizona Draw Complaints appeared first on Law Street.

The latest news from Northwestern Law School seems eerily reminiscent of the TV show “Suits.” Just a few months before graduation, Northwestern University Law School discovered that one of its students, Mauricio Celis, was a Texas felon infamous for posing as a lawyer. Celis was expelled in March from the school’s International Law LLM program as soon as they discovered his criminal history. He is now suing Northwestern over the decision.

Northwestern Law argued that the 42-year-old LLM student misled admissions officials by failing to inform them of his criminal history during the admissions process. Celis’ record includes a felony conviction for falsely presenting himself as a lawyer and a misdemeanor conviction for misidentifying himself as a police officer in an incident involving a woman wandering nude from his hot tub to a local convenience store. According to Northwestern Law, Celis’ criminal history makes him an “undesirable candidate” for their program. School officials say he would not have been admitted had they known of his past.

Celis is arguing, however, that they never asked about his criminal history during the admissions process. He was accepted to the prestigious program in 2012, spent about $76 thousand on tuition and fees, and was never once asked about his criminal history in the process.

While Celis has not commented on the lawsuit, he mantains that he is innocent in the Texas cases, despite the fact that both ended in convictions. He told the Chicago Tribune, “I’ve been trying to put this thing behind me for many, many years already”. According to his Northwestern application, Celis holds dual citizenship in the United States and Mexico. He worked in the legal field in Mexico and then co-founded a personal injury law firm in Texas in 2005.

In 2006, Celis made headlines in Chicago. After six children died in an apartment fire, he read a statement outside their wake. The Chicago Tribune picked up the story, and quoted Celis as the family’s attorney. According to Celis, he has no idea how the Tribune got the impression that he was the family’s attorney. He believes that he was brought in to help because he speaks Spanish, like the victims’ family members.  He has also stated that he has “never allowed anyone to have the impression” that he was licensed to practice law in the United States, and that while he was happy to help, he “let the lawyers do the lawyering.”

In 2007, Celis was indicted in Texas on charges that he illegally presented himself as a lawyer. Based on the court records, the argument was over whether or not Celis could technically be considered a lawyer from Mexico, despite the fact that he never obtained a license to practice law in the United States. Celis argued that the legal education that he received in Mexico qualified him to practice certain types of law there, although he was unable to provide any official documentation of his certification. He also maintained that he never actually practiced law in the United States.

However, the jury wasn’t buying it. They found Celis guilty on 14 counts in 2009, and he was sentenced to 10 years of probation. In response to the jury’s verdict, Celis said, “they looked at me as being some shyster faking my credentials, I am a Mexican lawyer.”

Regardless, Celis was convicted, and the issue at stake here is that Northwestern Law really should have caught it. If they were truly concerned about having convicted felons in their program, then that is something that they should ask about on their application. At the very least, they could have googled him. One quick search and you have access to public criminal records. That way, they wouldn’t have had to kick a student out just months before he was set to graduate. Paul Campos, a University of Colorado law professor and frequent critic of law schools put it best, stating,  “the fact that this guy got into Northwestern … it’s, I think, kind of revelatory of how much checking goes on even at a top program.” If a school doesn’t manage to ask its applicants a question that is found on every McDonalds application, then that’s on them.

Northwestern is arguing that Celis should have known that his criminal history was a problem, and should have voluntarily disclosed the information to admissions. However, I would disagree: if you don’t ask, what would stop someone with a criminal history from applying to your program? If someone with a criminal past wants to do something positive in their life, like get an education, why would they voluntarily disclose information that could stand in their way? It’s the school’s responsibility to ask the right questions of their applicants, not the applicants’ responsibility to anticipate possible issues.

According to court records filed in Chicago, Celis and Northwestern both agreed to a voluntary dismissal of the lawsuit. No details of a settlement were disclosed. While they were able to work something out this time, hopefully this situation will make law schools rethink their application processes so something like this does not happen again.

—

Brittany Alzfan (@BrittanyAlzfan) is a student at the George Washington University majoring in Criminal Justice. She was a member of Law Street’s founding Law School Rankings team during the summer of 2014. Contact Brittany at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Chris Devers via Flickr]

Brittany Alzfan

Brittany Alzfan is a student at the George Washington University majoring in Criminal Justice. She was a member of Law Street’s founding Law School Rankings team during the summer of 2014. Contact Brittany at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Too Much, Too Late: Northwestern Law Expels LLM Student for Former Crimes appeared first on Law Street.

Mexican citizen Edgar Tamayo Arias was executed last Wednesday night in Texas for the fatal shooting of a police officer, despite pressure from the Mexican government and U.S. State Department to reconsider.

Tamayo’s execution by lethal injection marks the first of 2014 for Texas, a state that carried out 16 executions last year, according to The Bureau of Justice preliminary statistics. In fact, since capital punishment was reinstated in 1976, Texas has been the most active death penalty state with 509 executions – roughly 37 percent of the 1,360 total executions that have taken place nationwide.

While capital punishment has been a divisive issue for years, Tamayo’s case was especially controversial.  In January 1994, Officer Guy Gaddis was transporting Tamayo and another suspect from a robbery scene. Tamayo, who was carrying a concealed pistol, reached for the weapon and shot Gaddis three times in the back of the head. Tamayo fled on foot and was arrested a few blocks away. Despite the heinous nature of his crime, the Mexican government claimed Tamayo’s trial was tainted because he had not been properly informed of his right to diplomatic assistance following his arrest.

This right, granted by a 1963 international agreement known as the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, “requires all countries who signed it to provide foreign nationals accused of a crime with notice and an opportunity to seek assistance from their consulate.” The Mexican government called Tamayo’s case “a clear violation by the United States of its international obligations.”

According to Diann Rust-Tierney, executive director of the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, “assistance would likely have been critical. Language barriers and intellectual disabilities hampered his [Tamayo’s] ability to receive a fair trial. It might have made the difference between an execution and a more appropriate means of holding him accountable.”

Tamayo’s case is not the first in which allegations of a violation of consular rights have been raised. Within the past five years, the state of Texas has executed two other Mexican citizens amid disputes regarding international rights. Jose Ernesto Medellin and Humberto Leal Garcia Jr., both convicted of rape and murder, were executed in 2008 and 2011 respectively.

Tamayo’s lawyers and supporters were not the only ones questioning Texas’ legal procedures. In 2004, the International Court of Justice – the primary judicial body of the United Nations – ruled that the United States had violated its obligations under the Vienna Convention. According to the ICJ, the U.S. had failed to inform Mexican consulates immediately after the arrests of nearly 50 Mexican citizens, Tamayo included. In what became known as the “Avena decision,” the ICJ ordered the U.S. to reconsider the convictions and sentences of the Mexican nationals. In 2005, then-president George W. Bush backed the ICJ, calling for states to abide by the court’s ruling. In the end however, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 2008 Medellín v Texas case that “although the ‘Avena decision’ is a binding obligation under international law, without a statute from Congress the president does not have the power to force states to comply with ICJ rulings.” Without the proper legislation, Texas was essentially free to circumvent international law.

While Texas is not bound by the Vienna Convention, Rust-Tierney points out that Texas’ decision may challenge the U.S. Constitution. She states, “the Constitution places the authority to define and engage in foreign policy with the federal government [and also] some argue that by refusing to follow the dictates of the Vienna Convention, Texas is setting international law and policy.”

Even more troublesome, the legal ramifications from the Tamayo case could have an impact for Americans who find themselves in legal trouble overseas. In a letter written to Texas Governor Rick Perry last month, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry urged him to grant Tamayo a new hearing, calling the decision to set an execution date “extremely detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

Kerry wrote “I want to be clear: I have no reason to doubt the facts of Mr. Tamayo’s conviction, and as a former prosecutor, I have no sympathy for anyone who would murder a police officer [but] this is a process issue I am raising because it could impact the way American citizens are treated in other countries.”

In the end, despite appeals and diplomatic pressure, Texas would not back down. According to Lucy Nashed, spokeswoman for Gov. Perry, the state was simply enforcing its laws. “It doesn’t matter where you’re from – if you commit a despicable crime like this in Texas, you are subject to our state laws, including a fair trial by jury and the ultimate penalty.”

Twenty other foreign citizens, including 11 Mexicans, remain on death row in Texas.

[CNN] [Fox News Latino] [The Guardian] [LA Times]

—

Matt DiCenso (@MattDiCenso24)

Featured image courtesy of [Zaldylmg via Flickr]

Matt DiCenso

Matt DiCenso is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mexican National Executed Despite Pressure from Mexican and U.S. Governments appeared first on Law Street.

Democrats are usually the ones to promote more government control, but President Nixon was a Republican. Though he achieved many things during his presidency, like most people, he is remembered for his scandal. The Watergate Scandal was named after the Watergate Complex in Washington D.C., the location of the Democratic Party headquarters where Nixon’s men were caught breaking in. This was not the limit of the illicit activities Nixon led. His surveillance was far more meticulous, bugging offices of his opponents and creating transcripts from the tapes. Public outrage fueled the nation, and talks of impeachment spewed from most mouths. After much denial, Nixon accepted the blame, publicly apologized for his mistake, and acquiesced to the public consensus about his misbehavior by resigning. The matter of right and wrong was obvious.

Less obvious but very similar is the situation with the National Security Agency. They are not only analyzing domestically, but also internationally. NSA’s interactions with other nations are mirroring Nixon’s ideology. NSA permits the US to monitor our competitors and alter our diplomacy respectively. Although NSA’s spying had been justified as a security precaution against terrorism, NSA is towing a fine line. Germany, France, Mexico, and Brazil have all officially complained to the US about NSA’s interference. The famous fugitive and ex-NSA member, Edward Snowden claimed that NSA was monitoring the phone calls of 35 world leaders, among many other political officials, sparking the debate about NSA’s morality. Since then, resentment, both foreign and domestic, has prevailed.

Last month, Dilma Rousseff, the Brazilian president, spoke at the UN general assembly, bringing to light her discontentment with NSA activities pertaining to her nation, “tampering in such a manner in the affairs of other countries is a breach of international law and is an affront of the principles that must guide the relations among them, especially among friendly nations. A sovereign nation can never establish itself to the detriment of another sovereign nation. The right to safety of citizens of one country can never be guaranteed by violating fundamental human rights of citizens of another country,” she condemned. The NSA, she announced, collected personal information of Brazilian citizens, along with information about specific industries, primarily oil industries. The German Chancellor, Merkel also confronted the US about NSA recent activities, “we need to have trust in our allies and partners, and this must now be established once again. I repeat that spying among friends is not at all acceptable against anyone, and that goes for every citizen in Germany.”

Similarly, Le Monde, a reputable French newspaper, released information on NSA’s french metadata, “the NSA graph shows an average of 3 million data intercepts per day with peaks at almost 7 million on 24 December 2012 and 7 January 2013.” Le Monde also claimed the NSA planted bugs in the French embassy in Washington, and hacked tens of millions of computers in France this year. Prior to the news leak by Le Monde, French foreign minister, Mr Fabius, told the US president,”I said again to John Kerry what Francois Hollande told Barack Obama, that this kind of spying conducted on a large scale by the Americans on its allies is something that is unacceptable.” With the shocking new information about NSA’s unlawful actions being published, the situation,  on US-French relations are exacerbated.

The difference in our ease to distinguish right and wrong in the Watergate scandal and the NSA security breaches test our morals. Are American morals contingent to our context only? Our action so far indicate that spying domestically on our opponents is a mortal sin, but internationally, it is okay. The freedoms we are allotted and the restrictions we face are variables of time, as is our living constitution, but what about our morals? The Watergate Scandal demonstrated American tenacity for ethics and caused for an eradication of a wrongdoer, will the NSA breach result in a fix too?- Will government policies adjust to current times to keep stable our set of values?

 [Press TV] [BBC] [Le Monde] [Euronews]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Mike Herbst via Flickr]

Vasudha Sadana

The post NSA: A Repeat of Watergate appeared first on Law Street.