To kick off a week-long trip to Washington, Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri met with President Donald Trump on Tuesday to address common security threats and increased economic and security funding. Lebanon is an important U.S. ally in the fight against Islamic State. It also has taken in 1.5 million Syrian refugees, who now comprise about a quarter of its entire population.

But Lebanon is a land of contradictions, largely due to the outsized influence of Hezbollah–an Iranian-backed group that the U.S., the EU, and Israel all consider a terrorist organization–on its politics and security. President Michel Aoun is an ally of the militant group, which is fighting on the side of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, even while Lebanon absorbs scores of refugees displaced by Syria’s intractable civil war.

At a press conference on Tuesday, following a private meeting with Hariri, Trump seemed to fundamentally misunderstand Hezbollah’s role within Lebanon. He said: “Lebanon is on the front lines in the fight against ISIS, al-Qaeda, and Hezbollah.”

While the U.S. and its allies view the group as a terrorist outfit, Lebanon does not. In fact, Hezbollah, which is fighting ISIS in Syria on behalf of the Assad regime, enjoys broad support in Lebanon. Its priorities certainly diverge from those of the U.S.–it is an Iranian proxy force and has vowed to destroy Israel. But Hezbollah (“Party of God”) is key to stabilizing the country, Hariri said in remarks at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington on Wednesday.

Hariri said he has numerous differences with Hezbollah, but “one thing we agree on is that the national interest of Lebanon is to have stability and to have a government that is functional.” And despite Trump’s apparent confusion over Hezbollah, the “administration understand very well the position of Lebanon,” Hariri said.

U.S. lawmakers are currently considering sanctions against Hezbollah, and any Lebanese banks that do business with it. Hariri has opposed any effort to sanction Hezbollah, because he says it would cripple the country’s entire banking system.

The U.S.-Lebanon partnership remains vital, however. In April, the State Department announced it would provide an additional $167 million to Lebanon to help support Syrian refugees. Hariri, during Wednesday’s event, said Trump had promised $140 million more in aid.

“Our approach supporting the humanitarian needs of displaced Syrian citizens as close to their home country as possible is the best way to help most people,” Trump said in the Rose Garden on Tuesday. Aid for Syrian refugees in the U.S. will likely dry up soon. Earlier this month, the U.S. reached its 50,000-refugee limit for the year, a threshold Trump lowered from 100,000 as part of his travel ban that will be heard in the Supreme Court later this year.

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 Lebanese PM Saad Hariri and Donald Trump Discuss ISIS, Syrian Refugees appeared first on Law Street.

The Supreme Court announced Monday that it will hear President Donald Trump’s travel ban case. The hearing will be in October, and until then, the court said parts of the ban will be allowed to go into effect. Trump issued a revised executive order in March, blocking travel from six countries. Two federal courts have since ruled that the ban is unconstitutional and a breach of executive power. The Supreme Court agreed to examine both courts’ decisions.

For the time being, the ban will be reinstated “with respect to foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States,” the justices said. A bona fide relationship includes “a close familial relationship” for individuals. For entities, “the relationship must be formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course, rather than for the purpose of evading [the order].”

“The students from the designated countries who have been admitted to the University of Hawaii have such a relationship with an American entity,” the court added.

Trump’s second attempt at stemming travel from a handful of Muslim-majority countries reined in a few of the tenets of his first order, which was originally issued in January. For one, the revised order dropped Iraq from the list of affected countries–Iran, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, and Syria.

The order stipulates that residents of the six countries are barred from traveling to the U.S. for 90 days, until stricter vetting procedures are in place. The refugee program will be halted for 120 days, and the number of admitted refugees will drop to 50,000 from about 110,000.

This is Trump’s first travel ban-related victory since he issued the updated order in March. Both orders faced a torrent of opposition–thousands of people hit the streets and packed airports across the country in protest. Trump’s directive fared no better in the courts.

Last month, a federal appeals court, the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Virginia, issued an injunction on parts of the travel ban, arguing that it “drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination” and violated the First Amendment.

A few weeks ago, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that the ban violated the president’s authority as granted by Congress. The court said Trump “did not meet the essential precondition in exercising his delegated authority,” which requires “a sufficient finding that the entry of these classes of people would be ‘detrimental to the interests of the United States.'”

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 Supreme Court Reinstates Parts of Trump’s Travel Ban, Will Hear Case in Fall appeared first on Law Street.

Chobani, best known for producing the popular Greek yogurt, has filed a lawsuit against Alex Jones. Jones, the conspiracy theorist who runs the website InfoWars.com, has claimed that Chobani’s choice to hire refugees at its Idaho factory led to a sexual assault case in a local apartment building. Jones, and InfoWars, also claimed that the refugee workers at the factory led to increased crime in the area and an uptick in TB cases. Chobani is now suing Jones and InfoWars; the lawsuit includes two counts of defamation.

The owner of Chobani, Hamdi Ulukaya, has employed about 300 refugees, mostly from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Turkey, at its Idaho and New York factories. In November, news broke that Ulukaya was getting death threats for those hiring decisions, particularly after some right-wing news outlets started reporting the same type of misinformation as InfoWars.

One particular InfoWars segment claimed that Chobani is tied to a case in the city–Twin Falls–where the factory is located. According to reports, three refugee boys sexually assaulted a five-year-old girl in the area. The assault did happen–the boys pled guilty–but there’s no evidence to suggest that the Chobani factory had anything to do with the children. Here’s one clip:

That clip draws a connection between the factory’s presence in the town and the sexual assault case–the title of the segment was “Idaho Yogurt Maker Caught Importing Migrant Rapists.” Another Jones video that implied that Chobani had something to do with the sexual assault case included “MSM Covers For Globalist’s Refugee Import Program After Child Rape Case.” The lawsuit also points out that these claims were repeated on social media platforms, and remain online to this date.

The lawsuit, which was filed in Idaho District Court, accuses InfoWars of knowingly publishing misinformation about the company and about Ulukaya. Chobani is now seeking at least $10,000 in damages.

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 Chobani Sues Alex Jones, Claims He Spread Misinformation 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.

President Donald Trump’s campaign proposal of a “Muslim ban” is coming back to haunt him yet again: on Wednesday, two federal judges blocked Trump’s new travel ban, which would have restricted travel from six largely Muslim countries. The ban was set to go into effect at midnight. These rulings mark the second time Trump’s attempts at implementing such an order–essentially a veiled “Muslim ban”–have failed. 

Both judges ruled that the executive order amounted to religious discrimination. Judge Derrick Watson of the Federal District Court in Honolulu issued a temporary restraining order on Trump’s directive, on the grounds that it was “issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion, in spite of its stated, religiously neutral purpose.”

Hours later in Maryland, U.S. District Court Judge Theodore Chuang ruled that the purpose of the ban was “the effectuation of the proposed Muslim ban” that Trump repeatedly invoked during the campaign. The plaintiff in Honolulu was Ismail Elshikh, the imam of the Muslim Association of Hawaii. Elshikh argued that the ban would have barred his Syrian mother-in-law from visiting him. Syria is one of the six countries–along with Sudan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and Iran–included in Trump’s order.

The Maryland ruling was based on complaints by a cohort of nonprofit groups who work with refugees and immigrants. At a rally in Nashville after the Hawaii judge announced his ruling, Trump said he would take his case to the Supreme Court. He also suggested scrapping the second order, which dropped Iraq from the list of affected countries, and instead pursuing the first one in court.

“Let me tell you something. I think we ought to go back to the first one and go all the way,” Trump said. “The danger is clear, the law is clear, the need for my executive order is clear.” While there is an argument that Trump was within his executive authority in issuing the order, there is not much tangible evidence that the order would alleviate a clear danger to U.S. national security. Americans have never been killed in a terrorist attack by a citizen from one of the six affected countries.

The government’s next move is likely going to be similar to what happened with the first order last month. An appeal of Watson’s ruling–which was broader than Chuang’s–would be heard by the same federal appeals court in San Francisco that upheld the legal challenge to Trump’s first order. That appeal followed a ruling by a judge in Washington.

Since the issuance of his first travel ban in January, Trump has faced stiff resistance from Democrats, advocacy groups, and even some members of his own party. The Trump Administration contends the order–which freezes travel from the six countries for at least 90 days, and pauses refugee admissions for at least 120 days–is legal, and is based on guidelines the Obama Administration originally set.

But so far, Trump’s argument has been defeated by his own backlog of statements that seem to undermine his claim that his actions are just meant to protect national security. The legal battle is sure to continue, but for now at least, Trump might need to go back to the drawing board.

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’s Travel Ban Defeated in Court Once Again appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump’s revised executive order blocking travel from six countries in the Middle East and North Africa faced its first legal challenge on Wednesday. Doug Chin, the attorney general of Hawaii, is suing the Trump Administration. The order, Chin said in his complaint, violates the Constitution and will have deleterious effects on his state’s economy and educational institutions.

A hearing is scheduled for next Wednesday, and the travel ban is set to go live on Thursday. While Trump’s first order, issued during his initial days in office, faced a torrent of litigation, the revised order, released on Monday, did not experience any immediate challenges. Lawyers and state attorneys general are taking a more cautious approach to legal action; they are taking time to examine the new order’s legality, while acknowledging that it was more carefully written than its predecessor.

In the State of Hawaii’s brief, which requests a temporary restraining order on the travel ban, the plaintiffs argue the ban “severely damages the State’s schools and universities.” The plaintiffs also said the executive order “detracts from the University of Hawaii’s diversity and impedes the State’s commitment to international scholarship and global exchange—inflicting the very harms Congress’s prohibition on nationality-based discrimination was designed to prevent.”

Trump’s new travel ban is different from the initial directive. Residents of six countries–Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Iran, and Syria–will not be allowed into the U.S. for at least 90 days. Iraq, which was included in the initial order, has been removed from the list of affected countries. And in what is the new order’s potential bulwark against legal action, green card-holders and people who already have visas from the six countries are allowed entry into the U.S. Like the first executive order, the country’s refugee program will be put on ice for at least 120 days.

Another of Trump’s immigration policies was hit with a legal challenge on Wednesday. Dennis Herrera, the city attorney of San Francisco, asked a federal district court judge to block the president’s January 25 executive order. That order threatens to withhold federal funds from so-called “sanctuary cities,” jurisdictions that shield undocumented immigrants from federal immigration authorities. “This court action is designed to protect our residents and provide financial clarity,” Herrera said in a statement.

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 Hawaii AG Files Lawsuit Over Trump’s Revised Travel Ban appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday morning the White House announced that President Donald Trump–presumably after taking a break from tweeting about everything from wire “tapps” to Arnold Schwarzenegger–signed a new executive order to revise his controversial travel ban.

Unlike the hectic nature of the initial executive order’s rollout, the revised order was announced throughout Monday morning, with Kellyanne Conway going on “Fox & Friends” to explain the alterations, the administration releasing a somewhat comprehensive fact sheet, and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Attorney General Jeff Sessions explaining the legality and importance of the new order. Additionally, unlike the original order, which took effect immediately, the updated version will not be implemented for another 10 days. No cameras were around for the actual signing.

.@POTUS has signed a new executive order that will keep the nation safe. Read it at https://t.co/XcBwwEJJHF pic.twitter.com/Yx2mikXl2A

— Sean Spicer (@PressSec) March 6, 2017

Here’s what you need to know about this new EO:

1. The 90-day travel ban will prohibit the issuance of new visas for people from six countries (Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen). While the initial order targeted seven countries, Iraq is no longer on the list because “the Iraqi government has expressly undertaken steps to enhance travel documentation, information sharing, and the return of Iraqi nationals subject to final orders of removal.”
2. The order only applies to people who do not already have a visa, which was a point of confusion for the last order. Therefore, green card-holders and current visa-holders will not be affected.
3. There is no longer an exception for people of minority religions. The previous order and subsequent comments by President Trump included a not-so-subtle hint that Christian refugees could be prioritized.
4. Decisions on applications for refugee status are suspended for 120 days, just like the old EO.
5. The cap for the number of refugees that the U.S. will take in 2017 is now set at 50,000 people. The Obama Administration had previously set a goal to accept 110,000 refugees in 2017 (which led to that stupid Skittles tweet).
6. The indefinite ban on Syrian refugees has been changed to a ban for a 120-day period, during which the refugee program will be reviewed.

As CNN reported, this new executive order was originally planned to be signed last Wednesday. However, after the unexpectedly positive reception of Trump’s address to Congress, the administration decided to ride the wave of positive coverage before instituting an order that surely would ruffle some feathers.

If you need any proof that the Trump Administration was right to expect that the new order would make people angry, within minutes of the announcement of the order’s signing, organizations like the ACLU  released statements criticizing the new ban.

Just in: @ACLU statement on new Trump travel ban — “a scaled-back version that shares the same fatal flaws” pic.twitter.com/WSaKmTkcSJ

— David Mack (@davidmackau) March 6, 2017

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post What You Need to Know About President Trump’s New Travel Ban appeared first on Law Street.

Imagine taking this test: can you speak English? Can you code? Do you have a college degree? Do you have money saved away? For each “yes,” you get 10 points. If you score enough points, congratulations, you can become a legal resident of America. If not? Sorry, your merits are not up to snuff, and you must return to your home country. This is a crude example of what a “merit-based” immigration system, the kind President Donald Trump mentioned in his Tuesday speech to Congress, would look like.

The idea is hardly new–Congress almost reached a deal to implement such a system in 2007–but with Trump’s comments, it has been brought back to fore of the immigration conversation. Currently, most legal migrants come to the U.S. with immediate family members already living, legally, in the country to sponsor them. This so-called “family-based” system has been in place since the 1960s. Trump, in his remarks on Tuesday, suggested this system is an economic hindrance.

In championing a more “merit-based” system, Trump said “those seeking to enter a country ought to be able to support themselves financially, yet in America, we do not enforce this rule, straining the very public resources that our poorest citizens rely upon.” He said a “merit-based” model would “save countless dollars, raise workers’ wages and help struggling families, including immigrant families, enter the middle class.”

Traditionally politicians are split: some, mostly Democrats, see a shift to a more “merit-based” system as exclusionary and potentially discriminatory against poor people and people of color. Many Republicans support such a system, and say that wages for low-skilled jobs–like kitchen or agricultural work–that are often filled by migrants would increase. Instead of immigrants without high school diplomas filling those jobs, it would be Americans without high school diplomas.

Could Trump Change the System?

Lawmakers, for years, have agreed that the immigration system needs a make-over. But Trump’s tone on immigration, both legal and illegal, has been toxic and incendiary: he has called Mexicans “rapists” and “murderers.” He tried, and failed after a federal court stymied the effort, to enforce a temporary ban on visitors from seven largely Muslim countries. He has ordered a wall to be built on the Mexican border. And his chief strategist, Steve Bannon, sees the West as being “at war” with Islam.

And then there are Trump’s actions on illegal immigration. His administration recently issued an executive order to “take the shackles off” federal agents in deporting people in the U.S. illegally. While President Barack Obama deported record numbers of undocumented immigrants, he focused on high-level criminals, whereas Trump’s order broadens the scope to any lawbreaker–which could apply to all immigrants in the country illegally.

Has “Merit-Based” Been Tried Before?

In 2014, according to data from the Migration Policy Institute, 64 percent of legal immigrants living in the U.S. had been allowed in based on a family member’s sponsorship. Fifteen percent received employment-based preference, and 13 percent were refugees. So in Trump’s view, the weight of legally admitted immigrants to the U.S. would shift from “family-based” to “merit-based.” Such a shift has been attempted before.

President George W. Bush tried to reach a deal with Congress in 2007 to reform the immigration system to prioritize merits over family ties. In exchange for a system overhaul, to placate Democrats, his administration offered to create a legal path to citizenship for the roughly 11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. at the time. The legislation was defeated in the Senate. Republicans have intermittently introduced similar bills in subsequent years but, perhaps until now, have not had sufficient political capital to make real progress.

The Australia Example

In the U.S., where about one million immigrants are granted legal status each year, the economic benefits of a “merit-based” system are unclear. But in Australia, a country that Trump pointed to, along with Canada, as having a “merit-based” system, immigration has a “profound positive impact not just on population growth, but also on labour participation and employment, on wages and incomes, on our national skills base and on net productivity,” according to a recent Migration Council Australia report. 

But comparing the immigration models of the U.S. and Australia is comparing apples to oranges. The U.S. lets in about a million legal immigrants each year. Australia on the other hand let in around 262,000 in 2016. Over half of those were highly skilled; the rest are a hybrid of temporary workers, refugees, asylum-seekers, or people sponsored by family members already in the country legally.

As of today, Trump’s stance on legal immigration is foggy, as is the case with many of his views. Is Bannon or Stephen Miller, a highly influential voice in Trump’s policy proposals, running the show? Do Trump and his team really want more highly skilled immigrants in the U.S., to better its future and the future of other people, no matter their faith or cultural background? Or is it a shrouded attempt at limiting all immigration? These are questions that will take time to answer, but one thing is for sure: changing America’s immigration system is no easy feat, and will not happen overnight.

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 What Would a “Merit-Based” Immigration System Look Like? appeared first on Law Street.

A federal appeals court late Thursday night affirmed a lower court’s decision to block President Donald Trump’s executive order that banned travel from seven countries to the U.S. The ruling is a blow to Trump’s efforts to clamp down on refugees and immigrants from “terror prone” countries the White House says pose a threat to U.S. security. Trump said the ruling was a “political decision,” and pledged to bring the case to the Supreme Court.

For now, refugees and visa-holders–who have already been vetted and admitted to the U.S. by the Department of Homeland Security–from Syria, Yemen, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Somalia, and Libya will be allowed to travel and settle in the U.S. Trump’s executive order, issued on January 27, barred refugees from entering the U.S. for at least 120 days, and visa-holders for at least 90 days. Syrians–refugees and travelers–would have been blocked indefinitely.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, deliberated for two days before coming to a conclusion. The three-judge panel unanimously agreed that the executive order could violate the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits the government from denying “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

The three judges, appointees of Presidents Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter, and George W. Bush, said: “we hold that the Government has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal, nor has it shown that failure to enter a stay would cause irreparable injury, and we therefore deny its emergency motion for a stay.” Trump tweeted his disapproval just moments after the court’s decision:

SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 9, 2017

The road to the appeals court began last Friday, when a district court judge in Seattle granted a temporary restraining order on the travel ban. That judge, James Robart, sided with the states of Washington and Minnesota, the plaintiffs in the case, and said that because of the travel ban, the states “are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief.” The White House immediately appealed to the court in San Francisco, and after a day of oral arguments and two days of deliberations, the appeals court affirmed Robart’s ruling.

The appeals court was unconvinced by the administration’s argument that the judiciary has no authority to question executive actions involving national security. “It is beyond question,” the decision said, “that the federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action.” The court did say the government should enjoy deference in matters of national security, but reiterated that those decisions are not “unreviewable.”

The Trump Administration will likely file an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court within the next few days. With the pending confirmation of Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, the court has eight justices, which many consider ideologically split 4-4. If the case ends up in their docket, a 4-4 vote would keep the appeals court’s ruling in place. A Supreme Court hearing and decision could come as early as next week.

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 Federal Appeals Court Refuses to Reinstate Travel Ban: What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

Starbucks announced Tuesday that it would offer free legal advice to employees regarding President Trump’s immigration executive order.

In a letter to employees, the company announced that the legal support for employees and family members would be provided via a new Immigration Advisory Program, set up in partnership with Ernst & Young. The letter stated that the company would be “leading with humanity” through the action.

Since its signing, the executive order has created massive confusion throughout the country after its hasty implementation and vague language left it unclear who exactly would be affected. As a result, many major U.S. corporations have pushed back against the order, as it would likely impact many of their employees.

Starbucks is proving to be one of the companies at the front and center of this corporate resistance. Last month, CEO Howard Schultz announced a plan to hire 10,000 refugees over the next five years. In the letter to employees, Schultz additionally affirmed his support for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, affordable healthcare for all employees, and the continuation of company business partnerships in Mexico. The letter demonstrated the company’s forceful opposition to many of the new administration’s main policies.

The company’s recent actions have not sat well with some Trump supporters–protestors made plans to boycott the brand as a result of its refugee hiring initiative. However, the #BoycottStarbucks trend also had the opposite effect, drumming up more support for the company.

Conservatives: #BoycottStarbucks

Me: pic.twitter.com/vTGvaWKkaf

— (@goIdenflower) January 31, 2017

Uber, Microsoft, Amazon, and many other big names in the tech industry have also vowed to provide immigration-related legal advice in the wake of the order. However, as BuzzFeed News notes, Starbucks stands out among the rest as an employer of predominantly low-wage workers.

Meanwhile, after a fairly political Super Bowl this past weekend and wave of anti-Trump retail boycotts, it’s clear that corporate America will continue to be pressured to take a stance on the current administration and its policies.

Mariam Jaffery

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

The post Starbucks is Offering Immigration-Related Legal Advice to its Employees appeared first on Law Street.

Hashtag of the day: today is #GroundhogDay! Groundhog Punxsutawney Phil saw his own shadow, predicting six more weeks of winter. But as last year was the warmest on record and global warming is still a fact, spring-like weather may actually be on its way. Read on for our rants of the day:

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:

Trump Rattles Relationships With Australia and Iran

President Donald Trump is not on the best terms with Iran or Australia right now. Yesterday Iran said it had test-fired some new missiles, which the White House was not happy to hear. Currently, per a 2015 U.N. resolution, Iran is not allowed to develop any nuclear weapons. But Iran claims it was only testing regular missiles without any nuclear powers, the same kind of test it has performed several times since the resolution went into effect. The U.S. disagrees, claiming that Iran did violate the resolution with these tests. This was also the first test performed since Trump took office and one of his campaign promises was to stop Iran’s missile program. So his national security adviser Michael Flynn said, “As of today, we are officially putting Iran on notice.” He gave no indication of what “on notice” means.

Flynn delivers stern warning to Iran for recent weapon testing, saying the U.S. is putting the country “on notice.” https://t.co/lQ7rETgsXp pic.twitter.com/69i7FDzzGE

— ABC News (@ABC) February 2, 2017

Yesterday it was also reported that Trump’s Saturday phone call with Australia’s Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull was no walk in the park. Trump allegedly told the U.S. ally’s leader that he had talked to several international leaders that day already but that their exchange was “the worst call by far.” The two leaders clashed over a previous agreement between the two countries that the U.S. will take 1,250 refugees from Australian detention centers, something that Trump reportedly didn’t know about. In a tweet yesterday he called the refugees “illegal immigrants” and the deal “dumb.”

Do you believe it? The Obama Administration agreed to take thousands of illegal immigrants from Australia. Why? I will study this dumb deal!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 2, 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: February 2, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

When Donald Trump signed an executive order that banned travelers from seven predominantly Muslim countries, it came as a shock to most people. All of a sudden, families were stranded abroad, students couldn’t return to school, and refugees from war zones were denied entry. But immigration lawyers had suspected this was coming, based on rumors from the White House, and had already begun to prepare. Last Wednesday, a group of lawyers from the Urban Justice Center called for additional attorneys who could volunteer at airports where refugees were scheduled to arrive, in case an order like the one that came on Friday was announced. When that exact thing happened, lawyers willing to volunteer headed to airports across the country.

In New York, Andre Segura, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) arrived at JFK International Airport and said that one section of the airport was completely flooded by lawyers. “There were attorneys from numerous major law firms, nonprofits, all working together,” he said. “I’ve never seen that immediate coming together of teams to start filing actions to try to protect people.” Thousands of Americans protested outside airports, as lawyers were inside trying to talk to family members of detained travelers and offer their legal services pro bono. Many of these lawyers didn’t sleep all night and didn’t eat. Pictures on social media showed them sitting on floors, with laptops and phones connected to the airport’s power outlets.

Please RETWEET this tweet

Lawyers volunteering their time & knowledge to help free those wrongfully detained at #JFK #MuslimBan pic.twitter.com/Zat5mVToci

— #HeWillNotDivideUs (@HWNDUS) January 29, 2017

On Saturday night, Federal Judge Ann Donnelly announced that people with valid visas could not be sent back to where they came from, as there “is imminent danger” that there will be “substantial and irreparable injury” if they are sent back. Big crowds of people had gathered outside the courthouse and cheered the decision, but the lawyers’ work had just started. The judge’s ruling only specifically said not to send travelers back, but did not say that the detained were free to enter the U.S.

On Sunday, Customs and Border Protection Agents defied the court order, according to several congressmen and lawyers. “Four members of Congress asked CBP officials to enforce a federal court order and were turned away,” wrote Representative Don Beyer on Twitter. In New York, an Iranian Fulbright scholar was put on a plane to be sent back to Iran several hours after the airports had received orders to stop sending people away. She was forced onto an airplane, where she asked the crew to let her out but was ignored. The plane started preparing for takeoff before attorneys finally managed to persuade officials to let the woman out. Becca Heller, director of the International Refugee Assistance Project, said on Sunday that CBP agents handcuffed people, forced them onto departing airplanes, and tried to make detainees surrender their green cards.

As New Yorkers we have no tolerance for intolerance and that’s what we’re going to stand up and say. pic.twitter.com/1b85T3bD6h

— Andrew Cuomo (@NYGovCuomo) January 29, 2017

One of the most difficult tasks for the lawyers was to determine how many people were in custody, as customs officials wouldn’t provide an answer, despite pressure from congressmen and New York Mayor Bill de Blasio’s office. This meant that the lawyers needed to improvise most of their work, handwriting signs stating “immigration lawyer” in the hope that family members of detained people would approach them for help. Many lawyers were also shocked by what they were witnessing. “I’ve never seen anything like this in my practice. Maybe if we look back to Chinese exclusion laws in the 1800s,” said one of the volunteer lawyers, Jonathan Mulligan.

I repeat: A FIVE YEAR OLD BOY was detained and kept from his mother at a US airport. In our name. And Team Trump wonders why the outcry?

— Peter Daou (@peterdaou) January 29, 2017

Some volunteer lawyers were physically at the airports, but other lawyers worked on litigation from their offices. “I was sitting at my desk working on a template habeas petition that could be used by lawyers at airports all around the country,” said Cecillia Wang, deputy legal director of the ACLU. Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU’s Immigrant Rights Project, said getting together the paperwork that led to the judge’s stay was not an easy task; they didn’t have anything prepared in advance but had to rush to get something together when Trump’s order came.

And even after the judge’s order, confusion ruled at airports. On Monday it was still unclear how many people remained detained. Although the Department of Homeland Security claimed that everyone had been released, attorneys say that claim is impossible to verify, as the department still hasn’t released a list of names. Judge Donnelly also ordered government attorneys to hand the ACLU a complete list of names of those who were detained, but they have yet to comply. In Washington D.C., some lawyers who were told there were no detainees left at the airport suspect that they have secretly been taken to detention centers, despite the court order.

We are being told there aren’t any there. We also believe they are being taken to detention facilities. Updates when we get them. https://t.co/zuCHaLD9yE

— Mirriam Seddiq (@mirriam71) January 30, 2017

But a tweet by the volunteer group at JFK suggests that only one person was still in custody late Sunday night. Though those numbers are not officially confirmed, it seems hopeful, largely thanks to the hard work of these lawyers.

Lawyers at #NoBanJFK still going strong. #NoBanUSA#NotOnOurWatchpic.twitter.com/AfMh3LU112

— NoBanJFK (@nobanjfk) January 30, 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 Lawyers Rush to Help Travelers as Confusion Continues appeared first on Law Street.

At almost 5 p.m. on Friday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order, a travel ban, restricting entry to the United States. It has been dubbed by many a “Muslim ban” because of the countries it singles out and Trump’s consistent campaign promises to that effect. Chaos reigned Friday night and into Saturday, as permanent U.S. residents from those seven countries who were traveling abroad were prevented from returning home, protests were launched at numerous domestic airports, and late last night, a federal judge stayed the order for individuals with valid visas who are already in transit or being held in the U.S.

What does the Order Say?

The order is in almost every way a unilateral move by President Trump. It prevents citizens of seven countries–Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen–from entering the U.S. for 90 days. There are some narrow exceptions, but they’re limited mainly to diplomats. The order heavily invokes memories of 9/11, despite the fact that none of the countries listed were ever tied to those attacks.

Refugees, from any nation, are banned for 120 days. And per the executive order, Syrian refugees are banned indefinitely. When refugees are allowed back in, Christian refugees will be prioritized. According to the order:

Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality.

Despite claims from the Trump Administration that this is not a “Muslim ban” Rudy Giuliani claims that Trump asked him how to legally create a “Muslim ban.”

Giuliani admits Trump asked him how to “do a Muslim ban legally.” So they focused on nationality. Start at 3:00. https://t.co/9orjNwQBGy

— Evan McMullin (@Evan_McMullin) January 29, 2017

For a closer look at the order, check out an annotated version by the New York Times.

How Does it Work in Practice?

It’s very unclear how this order is supposed to work, and from the second it was signed, it sparked confusion. Reportedly, the Department of Homeland Security–the department that has to implement it–was not consulted until right before the order was signed. Certain norms, like consulting the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, appear to have not been undertaken. And once the order was signed, the Department of Homeland Security’s legal understanding of how to deal with it was allegedly overridden by Trump’s chief strategist Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller, a top policy aide. The “two Steves” insisted that legal permanent residents, also known as green card holders, from the listed countries be stopped from re-entering the U.S.

That implementation began. People who are legal permanent residents from the seven countries and had left the U.S. for whatever reason–students, individuals visiting family, vacationers–were restricted from coming back in to the U.S. Protests swelled at airports:

“No hate, no fear, Muslims are welcome here”

— Protests at JFK airport where people have been detained after Trump’s executive order pic.twitter.com/SvXba2C0r5

— BuzzFeed News (@BuzzFeedNews) January 28, 2017

The #MuslimBan airport protests. #NoBanNoWall #Resist @realDonaldTrump @POTUS pic.twitter.com/Ulw8xcOARN

— Maxim Dmitriev (@max_dmitriev07) January 29, 2017

Airport protests at #JFK, #LAX, #SFO, Dulles, O’Hare and growing. #NoMuslimBan #NoBanNoWall #RefugeesWelcome #ResistOften pic.twitter.com/OZZ9dexGXo

— Mike Hudema (@MikeHudema) January 28, 2017

Lawyers began suing to block the order, and last night Judge Ann M. Donnelly of the Federal District Court in Brooklyn ruled that the government cannot hold legal residents who are already in the U.S., or restrict those who are in transit from entering. This still leaves a lot of people in flux, and the legal battles are sure to continue. In the meantime, the Department of Homeland Security said it would continue to comply with Trump’s directives.

National Outrage

The ban was immediately met with outrage.

We will not allow a Muslim ban in the United States of America. Here’s what I said at Logan Airport tonight. #NoBanNoWall pic.twitter.com/XqeS9Iy14e

— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) January 29, 2017

If you do support the #MuslimBan today, remember this: you will be remembered as the villains of our children’s history books tomorrow.

— Wajahat Ali (@WajahatAli) January 28, 2017

I want to repeat: Green card holders were handcuffed, their social media was reviewed, and they were asked their views on Trump#MuslimBan

— Trita Parsi (@tparsi) January 28, 2017

It’s unclear what’s next. But the outrage is warranted–this is an unprecedented move on the part of the Trump Administration. It separates families. It screams isolationism and bigotry. It’s likely unconstitutional. And for many, it’s a nightmare.

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 Confusion, Chaos, and Court Orders: What’s Going on With Trump’s Travel Ban? appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order Wednesday that fulfilled, at least partially, his campaign promise of building a “beautiful wall” on the Mexican border. According to Trump’s spokesman Sean Spicer, the order will direct the Department of Homeland Security to use existing funds and resources to begin work on the wall, perhaps as early as next month. Drafts of another executive order signal Trump will enact strict visa bans for immigrants from “terror prone” nations. He is also expected to temporarily bar refugees from Muslim-majority countries.

Those executive orders have yet to be signed, but they imply Trump will follow through with his promise to clamp down on immigration, whether from Latin America or the Middle East and Africa. Trump signed the executive action on the Mexican border wall at the DHS headquarters Wednesday afternoon. Any additional funding for the wall, which Trump has promised will ultimately come from Mexico’s coffers, would need congressional approval.

Big day planned on NATIONAL SECURITY tomorrow. Among many other things, we will build the wall!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 25, 2017

According to another executive order draft on immigration and refugees, Trump will authorize a freeze on refugees fleeing civil wars in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia. Exceptions will be made for religious minorities who are escaping persecution. The order will also temporarily block visas for immigrants from Muslim-majority countries–Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen–until stricter vetting procedures are in place.

“To think that Trump’s first 100 days are going to be marked by this very shameful shutting of our doors to everybody who is seeking refuge in this country is very concerning,” Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center, told The New York Times. “Everything points to this being simply a backdoor Muslim ban.” It is unclear if Trump will block Muslims from other Muslim-dense countries–Indonesia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and others–from coming to the U.S.

A draft of another executive order Trump is considering reviews bringing back CIA “black sites,” all of which President Obama shuttered during his first week in office in 2009. But the draft is clear that the Trump Administration will not bring back water torture, a move he flirted with on the campaign trail. The draft states: “no person in the custody of the United States shall at any time be subjected to torture, or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, as described by U.S. or international law.”

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 Makes Good on Mexican Border Wall Promise appeared first on Law Street.

The locks left in the chain links of Paris’s iconic Pont des Arts bridge have long been contentious–they were seen as an eyesore, a tourist trap, and a threat to the structural integrity of the bridge, as the weight of hundreds upon hundreds of metal locks weighed down the balustrades. Romantics see the love locks as a symbol of commitment, but locals see them as a form of littering. The city began removing the locks en masse last year but the “love lock trend” still exists across Paris and has spread to practically every major city with an attractive set of bridges. Yet as of this month, the Parisian locks will take on a new identity–they are being bundled together and auctioned for charity, specifically to raise money for refugees living in Paris.

The auction is slated for the spring of 2017 and Bruno Julliard, first deputy mayor of Paris, expects to raise approximately 100,000 euros for the refugee community–but there have been no specific plans released for which organizations will receive the profits. Nor has there been a clear outline of what specifically the money would go toward. Refugees are in need of shelter, food, medical care and supplies, legal representation, job training and placement–which of these efforts will be prioritized when the love lock funds roll in?

Julliard has essentially two options before him: donate a massive sum to a single organization, or donate multiple small amounts to the various charities working to secure housing and employment for the thousands of refugees living in Paris. The general statement Julliard released made a vague reference toward funding “organizations” (plural not singular) working to support refugees in Paris but gave no information about whether that means local, neighborhood organizations or larger, international charities. If several different organizations are going to receive funding, then orchestrating the auction becomes a much more challenging task. What if those bidding on the locks only want to give to certain charities that are benefitting from the funds and not others?

While several small donations to multiple causes can help with immediate issues like purchasing supplies, there is an economic argument that a one-time large donation to a single organization will be more impactful in the long run. However, the true efficacy of the donation has more to do with how the organization spends it money than the sum itself. The websites Givewell and CharityNavigator  only exist because we have seen charities mishandle funds time and again, making us wary of where we donate our money.

At the moment, the sale of the love locks may read as a feel-good publicity stunt but if the auction truly does raise the money that Julliard expects, the funds will become an object of public debate, with every non-profit that even tangentially works with refugees looking for a grant and every anti-refugee National Front supporter arguing that the funds should be spent elsewhere. Unless there is a clear plan of which charity the money is going to and how it will be spent when it gets there, the love lock auction will be, at best, a shallow gesture that does not effectively help Paris’s refugees.

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 Auctioning the Love Locks: The Challenges of Charity 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:

There’s Nothing Fiercer Than a Girl and Her Dog

Ehlena Fry was born with cerebral palsy and when she was five years old her doctor recommended she get a service dog to help her become more independent. But when Ehlena brought Wonder to school, she and her family were told that the dog was “unnecessary,” and officials wouldn’t allow Ehlena to enter school premises with her very necessary service dog.

Ehlena, Wonder, their family and their lawyers fighting for children with disabilities at the Supreme Court today pic.twitter.com/DCu14yJoKH

— ACLU National (@ACLU) October 31, 2016

On Monday, Ehlena, several lawyers from the ACLU, and Wonder hit up the Supreme Court to sue their former school district under the American with Disabilities Act and other federal laws. The school district, which is backed by the National School Boards Association, argues that such lawsuits could cost school districts millions if they go through. Ehlena is now 12 years old and in middle school and Wonder is now retired with a pet’s life.

“He helped her bridge that gap,” Ehlena’s mother observes. “Working with him helped her to learn how to not need him as much.”

A decision is expected next summer.

Rant Crush

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: November 2, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

In the Calais refugee camp known as “the Jungle,” 1,500 unaccompanied kids and teenagers are left roaming around on their own. As France and the UK are trying to decide who should do what, the kids are waiting impatiently. Without any adults around to supervise things or provide mental support and a sense of normalcy, many kids are confused, depressed, and frustrated. Boredom often leads to fights and there is often not enough food. The majority of the refugees are boys between 10 and 17 years old, who sleep in cold containers and don’t have drinking water except for when volunteers come to hand out bottles. But there are also around 30 unaccompanied girls, most under 15 but one as young as 12.

No one is allowed into these containers except for security police. But some volunteers work around the clock to provide the kids food–only one hot meal per day–and bottled water. Authorities have only handed out 20 passes in total for volunteers to enter the area, which is not enough considering the amount of help that is needed. Many volunteers hand the kids food through the fence instead.

Whilst the UK and France argue Children are thrown to the Wolves #Calais Write to your MP & Amber Rudd #refugeecommunitykitchen #OLSX pic.twitter.com/QMEPxn7t9I

— Refugee C Kitchen (@RefugeeCKitchen) October 30, 2016

“They’ve left them with no support whatsoever. They’ve just left these 1,500 kids since Friday and gone,” said volunteer Steve Bedlam. He also said the taps have been turned off and the only running water is in the toilets. “This has been confirmed by several of the kids. When we bring water in a truck it goes crazy. People are grabbing at it, like they want to get six bottles.”

Concerned about the children’s safety, the volunteers are now trying to keep some adults around outside of the camp all throughout the night. Lately they have been handing out food from 7 AM to 11 PM, and from the time they leave no grown ups have been present in the camp except for police. Bedlam said:

It’s dangerous. You’ve just literally got 1,500 kids going in and out, wandering around the old burnt out jungle as much as they want. There’s no control, no one stopping them leaving. Thank god for volunteers or it would literally be 1,500 kids sitting in a bombsite.

As winter gets closer and it gets cold, kids are asking the volunteers for shoes and blankets and when they can see their parents, who have often already arrived at their end destination. But there seems to be no information from authorities and no one really knows what is going on. If the kids are heading to other places in France or to the UK remains to be seen and many believe it is just a political problem that no one wants to take responsibility for. “There’s apparently some political system going on, but we have no idea what it is,” said Cecelia Bittner from volunteer organization Calais Kitchens.

#France has failed children in #Calais – @hrw‘s @MichaelBochenek https://t.co/k2P24782Q3 pic.twitter.com/mvcgYBFX1E

— Elaine Pearson (@PearsonElaine) October 31, 2016

France’s president Francois Hollande reportedly phoned Britain’s Prime Minister Theresa May on Sunday to ask her to accept more refugee children, which she declined, saying that the UK already had accepted a “considerable number of unaccompanied minors.” The main problem and the most upsetting issue for the volunteers present in Calais is that both the French and British governments have just left these kids unaccompanied in a refugee camp without food and water, locked up and guarded by security police.

“The French government are basically leaving these kids and going ‘we’ve done our bit, come on do your bit’” said Bedlam. “But they’re messing with kids’ lives. It’s not fair. They’re pawns in a political game.”

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 1,500 Refugee Children Left on Their Own in the Calais “Jungle” appeared first on Law Street.

Mel Brooks Tried Pulling Down President Obama’s Pants

Why? Because he’s Mel Brooks. Best known for his films “Spaceballs” and “Blazing Saddles,” the 90-year-old director was at the White House last night accepting the National Medal of the Arts from President Obama. Which is pretty awesome!

Anyway, Mel Brooks, like many 90-year-olds, doesn’t give a shit about social conduct. So he decided to pull a gag, by pretending to pull down Obama’s pants.

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 23, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

If you watched the 2016 Rio Summer Olympics’ opening ceremony last night, you probably noticed something very different about the traditional procession of athletes from each country. For the first time in history, ten athletes competing without a country walked out under the Olympic flag for the Refugee Olympic Team (ROT), drawing attention to the world’s refugee crisis. Here’s what you need to know:

Who Are They?

The ten athletes consist of five runners from South Sudan, two swimmers from Syria, two judokas from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and a marathon runner from Ethiopia. Their host countries include Kenya, Luxembourg, Brazil, Belgium, and Germany.

Each one of them was forced to flee their countries to avoid violence and persecution. One name you might recognize is Yusra Mardini, an 18-year-old swimmer from Syria. She gained worldwide notoriety after she was forced to swim more than three hours in the sea to get to Greece after the motor in a dinghy carrying 20 people suddenly stopped. Mardini, her sister, and two other swimmers jumped in the water and pushed the boat to shore, saving everyone’s lives.

For more biographies on each of the athletes click here.

Why is this important?

This is the first time ever a team comprised of refugees has been permitted to compete in an Olympics. After identifying 43 athletes that could potentially qualify for the history-making team, the IOC created a fund of $2 million to pay for athlete training.

Symbol of Hope

After fleeing their homelands due to violence and political strife, many of these athletes weren’t sure if their Olympic dreams would come true, but luckily they were able to find a new home and family while in Rio. In a statement on the Olympic website, International Olympic Committee President Thomas Bach said,

These refugees have no home, no team, no flag, no national anthem. We will offer them a home in the Olympic Village together with all the athletes of the word. The Olympic anthem will be played in their [honor] and the Olympic flag will lead them into the Olympic Stadium.

Bach also spoke of the global impact of ROT stating,

This will be a symbol of hope for all the refugees in our world, and will make the world better aware of the magnitude of this crisis. It is also a signal to the international community that refugees are our fellow human beings and are an enrichment to society. These refugee athletes will show the world that despite the unimaginable tragedies that they have faced, anyone can contribute to society through their talent, skills and strength of the human spirit.

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 3 Things You Need To Know About the Olympics First Refugee Team appeared first on Law Street.

Coinciding with World Refugee Day, the United Nations refugee agency released a sobering report on Monday: by the end of 2015, 65.3 million people were forcibly displaced from their homes, the highest number since World War II.

Squatting in temporary, tattered tent camps within their own countries or abroad, wandering, or seeking asylum, 2015 saw 12.4 million people added to the overall tally. Over half of the world’s displaced peoples are children. Over half come from three countries where terrorism, civil war, and tyrannical governance have uprooted cities and towns from any semblance of normalcy: Syria, Afghanistan, and Somalia.

“We are facing the biggest refugee and displacement crisis of our time. Above all, this is not just a crisis of numbers; it is also a crisis of solidarity,” said U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon. It is easy to get lost in incomprehensible figures. To put it in perspective: 65.3 million is nearly a fifth of America’s total population. If the displaced population were a country, it would be the 21st largest on the planet. Every minute, 24 people are displaced. That is 34,000 each day. One of every 113 people on earth is either seeking asylum, a refugee, or internally displaced.

According to the U.N., 21.3 million of the 65.3 million displaced people have been shuffled to a land outside their home country. Turkey is the most generous of host countries, with 2.5 million resettled refugees. Pakistan is second (1.6 million) and Lebanon third (1.1. million). Though it pledges more financial support, food assistance, and humanitarian aid than any other country, the United States resettled fewer than 70,000 refugees in 2015 and roughly 3,252,000 since 1975. President Obama, in a statement released Monday, urged America and the rest of the world to “do more:”

Protecting and assisting refugees is a part of our history as a Nation, and we will continue to alleviate the suffering of refugees abroad, and to welcome them here at home, because doing so reflects our American values and our noblest traditions as a Nation, enriches our society, and strengthens our collective security.

In September, during the U.N. General Assembly Summit in New York, Obama will host a meeting of world leaders to address the crisis, the Leaders’ Summit on Refugees. Filippo Grandi, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, which is the U.N. arm that issued the report on Monday, called on all able governments to address the causes of the tragic and disastrous crisis. “I hope that the message carried by those forcibly displaced reaches the leaderships: We need action, political action, to stop conflicts,” he said. “The message that they have carried is: ‘If you don’t solve problems, problems will come to you.’

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 U.N. Report: 1 in 113 People on Earth Are Displaced appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alexis Evans

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

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

With anti-immigrant sentiment rising amid terrorist attacks and nationalist political movements, many European countries are experiencing cultural clashes. Native identities and practices are being embraced in response to an influx of Muslim refugees, many of whom come from cultures vastly different than those in the West.

The most recent clash occurred in Switzerland, where two brothers sparked a national maelstrom when they refused to shake their female school teacher’s hand. According to Islamic teaching, it is considered haram (forbidden) to touch a member of the opposite sex if the two people are not related or married.

But according to Swiss custom, students shake their teacher’s hand before and after class.

This week authorities in Basel-Landschaft, the canton, or state, where the incident occurred, passed a ruling that religious grounds are not sufficient to validate refusing to shake a teacher’s hand. Parents of children who do so are subject to a fine of 5,000 Swiss francs (about $5,000).

“The public interest concerning the equality of men and women as well as the integration of foreigners significantly outweighs the pupils’ freedom of religion and belief,” the board for education, culture and sport in Basel-Landschaft in a statement. “The social gesture of shaking hands is important if pupils are to be prepared for working life.”

The board acknowledged the new rule as an “intrusion” on religious liberty, though still acceptable because “it did not involve the central tenets of Islam.”

And while one Swiss Islamic advocacy group ceded that shaking hands with a member of the opposite sex could be permissible (though it noted the ruling was “disproportionate” and a “slap in the face”), another group disavowed the mandate wholesale.

As Europe figures out how to assimilate the more than a million Muslim refugees into societies far different than the conservative ones they left behind, cultural debates are popping up throughout the continent.

In January, a small town in Denmark passed a proposal that required public day care centers and kindergartens to serve pork at lunch. The move was aimed at preserving “Danish food culture” as more and more adherents to the Islamic faith–which has dietary laws that prohibit consumption of pork meat–live, work, and learn in Europe.

European governments are also taking steps to more smoothly integrate the refugees. This week, Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel announced a law meant to better amalgamate the refugees, mostly Syrians, by expanding job and German language programs.

As the civil war in Syria rages on and militant groups continue to uproot families in the Middle East and North Africa, the migrant crises will likely not abate any time soon, potentially leading to more of these sorts of cultural skirmishes.

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 Handshake Snafu in Switzerland Turns Into a “Slap in the Face” for Muslims appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alec Siegel

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

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

Responding to “immense security challenges,” the Kenyan government announced in an official statement on Friday that it will no longer be able to host the over half a million people living in the country’s two refugee camps and dispersed throughout its cities.

“The Government of Kenya has been forced by circumstances to reconsider the whole issue of hosting refugees and the process of repatriation… hosting of refugees has come to an end,” Kenya’s National Police Service issued in a Twitter post on Friday.

As of March 2015, according to the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR), Kenya’s two official camps–Dadaab in the east and Kakuma in the northwest–housed 584, 989 refugees. Fleeing civil war, political persecution, and drought in places like Somalia (where 72 percent of refugees hail from), South Sudan (16 percent) and Ethiopia (5 percent), some of the refugees have created a home for themselves in Kenya’s camps, especially the oldest and largest one in Dadaab, near the country’s arid eastern border with Somalia. Over a quarter million people have established lives in Dadaab, most of whom were displaced by war in Somalia when they were children and have since made a home in the “tent city.”

The Kenyan government has been pushing to close the camps for a few years. Last April, the government voiced intentions of shutting down the Dadaab camp, citing security concerns. And though the UNHCR, which runs the camp, agreed to assist Somalian refugees (which comprise the vast majority of Dadaab’s displaced peoples) who volunteered to return home, the organization opposed forced repatriation.

The sprawl of the displaced: One of Dadaab’s five camps. Over a quarter of a million refugees, namely Somalians, call this home. [Image courtesy of United Nations Photo]

Last spring’s announcement followed an attack at Garissa University, where a group of gunmen loyal to al-Shabaab, an al Qaeda linked, Somali-based terrorist group, shot and killed 147 students. Kenya has been mired in a conflict with the Islamic terrorist group for nearly a decade. Al-Shabaab has been committing acts of terror on Kenyan soil for years, killing soldiers and civilians alike, and it is the primary security threat the government referred to in its decision to close the refugee camps.

Following the Garissa attacks, the government alleged al-Shabaab had infiltrated Dadaab and used it to plot and launch attacks. In March, Kenyan newspaper The Star reported an al-Shabaab gun smuggler was caught at Dadaab, with not much more concrete evidence to support the government’s claims.

But the latest announcement seemingly came out of nowhere, following no mass casualty event or obvious security concern.

“I think it’s legitimate to believe that Kenya is issuing the threat as a means to leverage more resources from international donors,” said Mark Yarnell, Senior Advocate at Refugees International in an interview with Law Street Media.

Refugees from the nations that surround it seek a life free from war, drought and political persecution in Kenya. [Image courtesy of greenravine via Flickr]

Pointing out that Kenya’s security concerns certainly are real and legitimate, Yarnell, who has spent time in the field in East and Central Africa, predicted the latest threat by the Kenyan government is meant to extract more resources from the international community to deal with its conflict with al-Shabaab, more as a leverage tool than a step toward abolishing camps and rounding up refugees “at the barrel of a gun.”

“[The camps] are quite entrenched in the country, with their own market systems and infrastructure,” he said, likening the demolition of the two camps to essentially wiping out two cities. “You have people who were born in the camp and kids of people who were born in the camp and all they know is Dadaab or Kakuma.”

He pointed to a recent communiqué from the African Union on the Dadaab camp as the validation the Kenyan government needs to show the rest of the world it is in solidarity with a larger institution to do something in regards to the camps and maintaining Kenya’s security. In the communiqué, the AU Peace and Security Council acknowledged the “legitimate security concerns” facing Kenya, the threat of Dadaab to the security of Kenya, and the need to accelerate the process of repatriating Somali refugees who volunteer to do so.

It also called on international partners, “particularly the United Nations” to “extend necessary financial, logistical and technical support” to the Somalian government, and “to increase funding to Somalia, Kenya, UNHCR and other humanitarian agencies.”

If the Kenyan government follows through with its latest proclamation, hundreds of thousands of refugees will suffer, wandering, with nowhere to settle but the homes they were forced to abandon. Some left those homes decades ago.

That’s not to say Kenya’s refugee camps are perfect, permanent homes. Flooding, disease and malnutrition have wrecked havoc on Dadaab in the past, and according to UNHCR, there were eleven epidemics reported in 2012 alone.

Despite the imperfect conditions of Dadaab and Kakuma, UNHCR expressed “profound concern” over the latest announcement from the Kenyan government in an official statement released on Monday:

In today’s global context of some 60 million people forcibly displaced, it is more important than ever that international asylum obligations prevail and are properly supported. In light of this, and because of the potentially devastating consequences for hundreds of thousands of people that premature ending of refugee hosting would have, UNHCR is calling on the Government of Kenya to reconsider its decision and to avoid taking any action that might be at odds with its international obligations towards people needing sanctuary from danger and persecution. 

Under the leadership of President Uhuru Kenyatta, Kenya would be breaking international law if it went forward with these plans, for which there are various legal statutes assuring the protection of refugees by the host nation. The primary right afforded to refugees worldwide is a promise of non-refoulement, or return to a place where their life and freedoms would be threatened.

“It would be such an egregious violation of basic refugee rights and their own constitution,” Yarnell said.

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 Kenyan Government Signals Shutdown of Refugee Camps appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

— Sophie Long (@S0Long) April 8, 2016

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

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

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

— Nick Squires (@NickSquires1) April 4, 2016

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

Mariam Jaffery

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

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

Do you have a bunch of old flash drives lying around, filled with college essays, or downloaded episodes of TV shows, or even just empty? In the age of online storage and the cloud, flash drives have seemingly joined CD-Roms and floppy disks as practically defunct storage devices. But a new project called “Flash Drives for Freedom” wants to put your old flash drives to work–by sending them to North Korea.

The concept is a lot simpler than it sounds. One of the ways that North Korea’s oppressive regime keeps a hold on its citizens is by constantly exposing them to propaganda. By exposing North Koreans to other media–for example, Korean-language Wikipedia pages, or South Korean TV shows–they can discover the world outside North Korea’s oppressive borders. Some American imports have also been popular, including the parts of the Seth Rogan and James Franco movie about North Korea, “The Interview,” the Hunger Games franchise, and the ABC show “Desperate Housewives.”

The content put on the flash drives is curated by North Korean defectors who have managed to escape, and they’ve done focus groups with refugees to try to figure out what kind of content will be most effective. The project is a joint effort between the Human Rights Foundation and a California-based start up called Forum280, and works with groups that smuggle goods into North Korea. The project is asking for people to donate their old flash drives; according to the project’s website:

Each year, these groups collectively smuggle fewer than 10,000 flash drives. They could send many more, but are limited by the fact that they have to purchase the drives on the internet at retail cost. By gifting them drives, Flash Drives for Freedom allows them to focus in 2016 on programs and future work rather than spend time and money on purchasing equipment.

The flash drives are smuggled in through a few different methods–by foot, as well as by balloon. Obviously, given the difficulty of these methods, some of the flash drives don’t reach their intended destinations. But, the effort is still remarkable. As Alex Gladstein, Chief Strategy Officer at the Human Rights Foundation, told Angela McCormack and Tom Tilley of Hack:

Every single flash drive that we send in is a window to the outside world for someone in North Korea. Now what they do with that information – that’s not up to us, it’s their decision…Perhaps they do nothing, perhaps they decide to escape. Perhaps they decide to challenge their local authority. There could be a million different ways that they end up living their life…It doesn’t really matter what kind of information people are getting, as long as it’s different to the stuff they’re being fed, the propaganda they’re being fed every day.

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 Flash Drives for Freedom: Smuggling Information into North Korea appeared first on Law Street.

Eight men have been arrested following the hundreds of robberies and assaults that occurred on New Year’s Eve in Cologne, Germany. Over 600 criminal reports were submitted regarding New Year’s Eve in Cologne, and over half of those reports involved sexual harassment or assault. A large number of the victims who reported their attacks described their assailants as Middle Eastern, which triggered fears of backlash against Germany’s refugee population. Angela Merkel has remained firm in her commitment to refugee acceptance and integration but the attacks in Cologne may provide a critical groundswell of support for anti-immigration groups. At this time, one 26-year-old Algerian asylum-seeker is in custody for groping a woman and stealing her phone but the refugee status of the other suspects in custody is mostly unknown. Read on for a closer look at the events of New Year’s Eve and what they may mean for Germany in the coming years.

The Attacks across the City

Over 1,000 drunken men gathered outside of Cologne’s central train station, adjacent to its famous cathedral, to ring in 2016. It was within that neighborhood that a large part of the attacks took place, as young women emerged from the train station and headed off into the night. Groups of men who were reported to be of “North African/Arab” origin surrounded young women, groping and assaulting them. Dozens of men would circle women, both those walking alone and those in groups, forcing them to “run a gauntlet” to escape. In addition to sexual attacks, hundreds of people reported theft of money, phones, and valuables.

The identities of the attackers were initially unclear but in the days following the attacks, a significant number of the victims described their attackers as young men of Middle Eastern origin. The majority of the women targeted were German nationals. One woman reported that her rapist told her “German women are just for sex.” Media reports of the incidents were initially only running in local newspapers but within a few days, the story of the horrific night had spread worldwide.

The police have stated that they have never dealt with this kind of situation before and had not created a plan of action to combat such wide-scale criminal activity occurring at once. The preceding year, police officers were deployed in the same volume and had no problems with crowd control. However, with the influx of people outside the station, there were so many attacks happening simultaneously around the central station that security forces were essentially powerless to stop them. The violence was not confined to Cologne, as hundreds of other sexual assault cases poured in from across Germany on New Year’s Eve. However, the collective nature of the attacks in Cologne and the authorities’ disturbingly lackluster response on the ground outside the station mark them as unique. In the wake of the New Year’s Eve attacks, several German cities cancelled other winter celebrations out of fear of similar widespread violence.

Unexpected Implications

Continued Anti-Immigration Sentiment

Right wing protesters, already against the influx of refugees, have doubled down on their positions. During a recent protest, they clashed with police in riot gear, screaming at police officers for not defending local women–although it was unclear if they meant defending them from assault or defending them from refugees. One supporter of the anti-immigration Pegida movement went so far as to refer to the attacks as “bad for the women, but good for us, because the people are being woken up.” Anti-immigration rallies were held across the country in the wake of the attacks, with hundreds of people carrying signs reading “Rapefugees Not Welcome.” Although few of the women who were assaulted have come forward with anti-immigrant positions, Pegida and other groups have taken it upon themselves to be their voices.

Unfortunately, many onlookers worry that the transparent racism and xenophobia of Pegida undermines the validity of the victim’s reports. One young woman named Selina publicly discussed her attack and her attackers (men of Middle Eastern descent who spoke Arabic and did not seem to understand German) and was accused of being racist by a variety of internet sources. Women seeking justice for the crimes committed against them should feel comfortable reporting physical descriptions of their attackers but in the case of  the Cologne attacks, where race and violence are inextricably linked, those who report their attack may become targets for the vitriol of those who assume they are prejudiced.

An Attack on Women

Two weeks after the attack, The Irish Times published an editorial on the violence in Cologne which stated that

Perpetrators of sexual assault against women do have one thing in common, and it’s not religion or ethnicity, it’s gender…Perpetrators of sexual assault are typified by their diversity. But the common denominator is men. Until we are honest with ourselves about that, and until prevention focuses on stopping men from assaulting women – not blaming one demographic of men, or outlining ways in which women can avoid potential assault – we are kidding ourselves. What happened in Cologne, that mass act, was primarily unusual in its collective nature. But all over the world, in every village, town and city, mass acts of misogyny are fragmented daily, manifesting as individual assaults. We ignore them, because they are not as newsworthy. Victims of sexual assault are just as diverse. Being raped transcends all demographics.

A majority of news outlets have chosen to classify the attacks in Cologne as an issue of sexual assault and violence rather than an issue of race. Evidence from police data shows that refugees have, in fact, committed less crime than native Germans since arriving in the country, therefore outside of the right wing rallies, few news outlets have traced the crimes to be associated with race. While the German government has prioritized deporting refugees who are found guilty of sexual and physical assault, women’s advocacy groups argue that this is not about immigration policy–it is about protection for women. The events of Cologne are being attributed to a massive spike in the number of young men in Germany, which changes the demographics of security.

Regardless of race or socioeconomic status, men are more likely to commit violent acts than women. Considering that the majority of sexual assault cases involve the assault of women by men, the shifting gender dynamics of Germany may affect the country’s future. Cologne has been labeled a potential watershed moment for legal reform and creating protections for all women against all forms of sexual harassment and abuse. As Germany adapts to its new population, the legal processes and security of the nation will have to change in tandem. The brutality of New Year’s Eve in Cologne may inspire German officials to create comprehensive legal protection for women who are sexually harassed and assaulted.

Conclusion

The attacks in Cologne will be remembered as an unprecedented night of terror but the implications of the attacks go beyond criminal activity. Angela Merkel’s decision to welcome over a million refugees (and potentially more in the coming year) into Germany was controversial and she will likely have to keep defending it for years to come. Asylum seekers engaging in criminal activity only fuels the fears of Germans who were already opposed to the influx of refugees. The entire refugee population should not be held accountable for the actions of a few, but as security services are sorting through hundreds of potential suspects who often match the description of Middle Eastern refugees, right-wing xenophobes are gaining public support. The German police presence will need to adapt and expand to deal with its swelling population if they want to avoid a repeat of Cologne in the coming years but that will require not only a new style of training, but an increase in the number of staff they have available for deployment at any given time. Cologne will not only be an important marker for the history of women’s rights and violent crime, it may serve as the trigger for an new era of policing in Germany.

Resources

CNN: Eight in Pretrial Custody in Cologne New Year’s Eve Mass Robberies, Sex Assaults

CNN: Cologne, Germany: Hundreds of Sexual Assault Charges from New Year’s Eve

BBC: First Suspect Held Over Sex Assault Claims

The New York Times: As Germany Welcomes Migrants, Sexual Attacks in Cologne Point to a New Reality

Huffington Post: Here’s What We Know So Far About The Sexual Assaults At Cologne’s Train Station

Daily Mail: Migrant Sexually Assaulted 25-year-old Victim after Telling her ‘German Women are Just There for Sex’

NBC News: Cologne Sex Attacks ‘Good for Us,’ Anti-Refugee Protesters Say

Breitbart: Cologne Sexual Assault Victim called a Racist and Harassed after Identifying Her Attackers

The Irish Times: Cologne Assaults a Mass Act of Misogyny

The Local: Police: Refugees Commit Less Crime than Germans

TIME: Reaction to Cologne Attacks Should Focus on Women’s Rights

Psychology Today: Male Aggression: Why are Men More Violent?

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 Impacts of Widespread Sexual Assault in Cologne appeared first on Law Street.

The bone-chilling, stomach-churning sounds of a knife tearing through human flesh followed by the camera panning over a decapitated corpse lying in a pool of the blood that once sustained it played on the screen. Yet, following this savage montage of brutality, no credits rolled. Those nauseating and disturbing sounds were not fabricated in a Hollywood studio. Those haunting images, permanently tattooed into the viewer’s mind, were not created with fake blood and body parts.

The most recent video released by the Muslim extremist group ISIS is a jarring demonstration of the sheer brutality going on in the Middle East today. Immediately after viewing this heinous, offensive act, it took awhile for the feeling to return to my numbed face. I felt as if I had received a massive blow to my gut. Once I could wrap my mind around what I had just seen and the revelation that yes, this was real, I was overcome by a tidal wave of emotion. Rage, sadness, and helplessness were just the tip of the iceberg of what I felt.

After discovering more about the man who was mercilessly slaughtered for all to see as a warning to the United States and its allies, I became even more outraged. Alan Henning was a father of two and dedicated husband from England who had traveled to Syria to partake in aid work. The injustice of his death astounded me. I simply cannot imagine the depth of grief his family is feeling right now, and will continue to feel for the remainder of their lives. I was struck with the revelation that this is exactly how ISIS wanted the viewers of this murder to feel.

Then the questions began swirling dizzyingly in my mind. Why is ISIS committing these unforgivable acts of barbaric violence? In a recent article, Britain’s Telegraph provided insights into the psychological motivation for such public brutality. First on the list is the dissuasive power of fear. One of the reasons the Iraqi people have withheld from engaging ISIS in battle, the article purports, is the sheer element of extreme violence utilized by ISIS fighters. The article makes the insightful inquiry, “which poorly paid soldier wishes to risk decapitation, impalement, or amputation for the sake of a distant, crumbling government? Fear is a uniquely effective weapon.”

Additionally, the members of the Islamic state feel that the United States and its allies will be equally deterred from engaging in militant action against them if it means its citizens will meet such an abhorrent fate. But honestly, I cannot imagine that its enemies ceasing their attempts at military interference would halt ISIS’ streak of terror.

The last point made by the author of the article explains why the murder of an individual rather than a large population affects us so much. Selecting a single person via a methodical, calculated process produces a means of propaganda not likely to be forgotten, which is the nature of terrorist acts. With the detonation of a bomb, the deaths are numerous and quick and lack a specific individual target. Although deaths by any means of violence are horrific, acts of beheading are chilling and terrifying in that they are a complete desecration of the body by the hand of another human.

However, when addressing the effectiveness or lack thereof of these acts, the article points out that they often backfire entirely. When my eyes beheld the merciless slaughter of an innocent man by the ISIS executioner, I was anything but turned to sympathy for their cause. It merely deepened the chasm of my anger and hatred for their “cause,” if you can even call it that. It made me realize the gravity of the challenge imposed by the extremist group in terms of its defeat. By demonstrating the lack of humanity possessed by its members, ISIS has hurled coals into the already blazing fire of animosity and antipathy bore by its enemies.

Has ISIS learned nothing from its predecessors? Engaging in brutal violence that clearly knows no bounds was one of the major downfalls of al-Qaeda. I desire one thing to be the response to the question posed by the article in the Telegraph, “the modern jihadist’s dilemma: when does a strategy of calibrated terror turn into a self-defeating orgy of violence?” I hope that their “strategy” brings about their downfall before anyone else falls victim to it. No child should have to lose a parent, no one should have to lose a dedicated friend, and no innocent person should perish at the hands of hate.

Watching the brutal killing of this man grounded, humbled, outraged, and upset me in ways I never could have imagined. I would never wish my worst enemy to see the video. The menacing voice of the executioner, the sounds of the beheading itself, and the final words of the victim will forever echo in my mind. The images I beheld are forever seared into my retinas. Now, my passionate desire to see the end of violence in the Middle East is stronger than it ever was.

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ISIS: The Mentality of Madness appeared first on Law Street.