FEBRUARY 2 and 3, 2017


NEWS AND VIEWS


MORE ON LEAKED DRAFT EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND PLANS


CAN AN EXECUTIVE ORDER OVERRULE A SUPREME COURT DECISION?

https://www.thenation.com/article/leaked-draft-of-trumps-religious-freedom-order-reveals-sweeping-plans-to-legalize-discrimination/

Leaked Draft of Trump’s Religious Freedom Order Reveals Sweeping Plans to Legalize Discrimination
If signed, the order would create wholesale exemptions for people and organizations who claim religious objections to same-sex marriage, premarital sex, abortion, and trans identity.
By Sarah Posner
YESTERDAY – FEBRUARY 1, 2017 7:11 PM

Photograph -- Donald Trump speaks to a gathering of clergy at the New Spirit Revival Center in Cleveland Heights, Ohio, September 21, 2016. (Reuters / Jonathan Ernst)

A leaked copy of a draft executive order titled “Establishing a Government-Wide Initiative to Respect Religious Freedom,” obtained by The Investigative Fund and The Nation, reveals sweeping plans by the Trump administration to legalize discrimination.

This article was reported in partnership with the Investigative Fund at the Nation Institute.

The four-page draft order, a copy of which is currently circulating among federal staff and advocacy organizations, construes religious organizations so broadly that it covers “any organization, including closely held for-profit corporations,” and protects “religious freedom” in every walk of life: “when providing social services, education, or healthcare; earning a living, seeking a job, or employing others; receiving government grants or contracts; or otherwise participating in the marketplace, the public square, or interfacing with Federal, State or local governments.”

The draft order seeks to create wholesale exemptions for people and organizations who claim religious or moral objections to same-sex marriage, premarital sex, abortion, and trans identity, and it seeks to curtail women’s access to contraception and abortion through the Affordable Care Act. The White House did not respond to requests for comment, but when asked Monday about whether a religious freedom executive order was in the works, White House spokesman Sean Spicer told reporters, “I’m not getting ahead of the executive orders that we may or may not issue. There is [sic] a lot of executive orders, a lot of things that the president has talked about and will continue to fulfill, but we have nothing on that front now.”

Language in the draft document specifically protects the tax-exempt status of any organization that “believes, speaks, or acts (or declines to act) in accordance with the belief that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, sexual relations are properly reserved for such a marriage, male and female and their equivalents refer to an individual’s immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy, physiology, or genetics at or before birth, and that human life begins at conception and merits protection at all stages of life.”

The breadth of the draft order, which legal experts described as “sweeping” and “staggering,” may exceed the authority of the executive branch if enacted. It also, by extending some of its protections to one particular set of religious beliefs, would risk violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

“This executive order would appear to require agencies to provide extensive exemptions from a staggering number of federal laws—without regard to whether such laws substantially burden religious exercise,” said Marty Lederman, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center and an expert on church-state separation and religious freedom.

The exemptions, Lederman said, could themselves violate federal law or license individuals and private parties to violate federal law. “Moreover,” he added, “the exemptions would raise serious First Amendment questions, as well, because they would go far beyond what the Supreme Court has identified as the limits of permissive religious accommodations.” It would be “astonishing,” he said, “if the Office of Legal Counsel certifies the legality of this blunderbuss order.”

The leaked draft maintains that, as a matter of policy, “Americans and their religious organizations will not be coerced by the Federal Government into participating in activities that violate their conscience.”

It sets forth an exceptionally expansive definition of “religious exercise” that extends to “any act or refusal to act that is motivated by a sincerely held religious belief, whether or not the act is required or compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” “It’s very sweeping,” said Ira Lupu, a professor emeritus at the George Washington University Law School and an expert on the Constitution’s religion clauses and on the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). “It raises a big question about whether the Constitution or the RFRA authorizes the president to grant religious freedom in such a broad way.”

In particular, said Lupu, the draft order “privileges” a certain set of beliefs about sexual orientation and gender identity—beliefs identified most closely with conservative Catholics and evangelical Christians—over others. That, he said, goes beyond “what RFRA might authorize” and may violate the Establishment Clause.

Lupu added that the language of the draft “might invite federal employees,” for example, at the Social Security Administration or Veterans Administration, “to refuse on religious grounds to process applications or respond to questions from those whose benefits depend on same sex marriages.” If other employees do not “fill the gap,” he said, it could “lead to a situation where marriage equality was being de facto undermined by federal employees, especially in religiously conservative communities,” contrary to Supreme Court rulings.

Jenny Pizer, senior counsel and law and policy director for Lambda Legal, said some of the language in the draft order is similar to language in a law passed last year in Mississippi, which a federal district court ruled violated both the Establishment Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. (The case is now on appeal.) Pizer said the draft order would appear to violate the Establishment Clause by listing a “particular set of religious beliefs and giving special government protection to people who hold those beliefs as opposed to different beliefs.”

Section 4 of the order, “Specific Agency Responsibilities,” requires HHS to issue a rule exempting any person or organization with religious objections from complying with the ACA’s preventive-care mandate—42 U.S.C. 300gg-13(a)(4)—which includes contraceptive coverage. It requires HHS to ensure that anyone purchasing insurance on a health-care exchange have the option of purchasing a plan that neither covers abortions nor “subsidize[s] plans that do provide such coverage.”

And it bars HHS from taking any adverse action against federally funded child-welfare organizations, including those offering adoption, foster, or family support services, that deny anyone these services “due to a conflict with the organization’s religious beliefs.”

Pizer said this language constitutes “a license to discriminate with public money in a series of contexts in which people tend to be vulnerable,” such as against LGBT children in foster care, which is federally funded. More broadly, she said, it would permit organizations receiving federal grants or contracts to provide child welfare services not only to refuse necessary care but to refuse even to “refer the child to another agency or setting that would be protective and affirming and instead place the child in an environment that is aggressively hostile to who that child is, on religious grounds.” Even during the George W. Bush administration, she noted, “there were protections in executive orders that beneficiaries of grantees and contractors were not to be discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.”

Section 4 also requires the Department of Justice to establish a new section or working group dedicated to protecting “religious freedom.”

On Tuesday, the White House announced that it would continue President Obama’s executive order protecting federal contractors from anti-LGBT discrimination. Yet the new draft order codifies a laundry list of claims advanced by the Christian right in recent years of indications that the advance of LGBT rights has put the religious freedom of conservative Christians at risk. “They would say this is a nondiscrimination order,” said Lambda Legal’s Pizer. “We disagree. We would say being denied the ability to discriminate against others is not discrimination against you.”

This article was reported in partnership with The Investigative Fund at The Nation Institute.

Updated on 2/2/2017: A White House official, speaking with ABC News, did not dispute the authenticity of the draft religious freedom executive order, but officials said it is one of hundreds circulating, some drafted by the transition team, others by the White House, not all of which are likely to become policy. The official did not say who drafted this particular order.

[GO TO WEBSITE FOR IMAGES OF EXECUTIVE ORDER ITSELF. THE TEXT FOLLOWS.]


Executive Order—Establishing a Government-Wide Initiative to Respect Religious Freedom

EXECUTIVE ORDER

Establishing a Government-Wide Initiative to Respect Religious Freedom

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, in order to guide the executive branch in formulating and implementing policies with implications for the religious freedom of persons and organizations in America, and to further compliance with the Constitution, applicable statutes, and other legal authorities, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1. Policy. The United States Constitution enshrines and protects the fundamental natural right to religious liberty. This Constitutional protection ensures that Americans and their religious organizations will not be coerced by the Federal Government into participating in activities that violate their consciences, and will remain free to express their viewpoints without suffering adverse treatment from the Federal Government. It shall be the policy of this Administration to protect religious freedom.

Sec. 2. Definitions. For purposes of this order:

(a) “Person” shall have the same definition as “person” in 1 U.S.C. 1.

(b) “Religious exercise” includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, and includes any act or any refusal to act that is motivated by a sincerely held religious belief, whether or not the act is required or compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.

(c) “Religious organization” shall be construed broadly to encompass any organization, including closely held for-profit corporations, operated for a religious purpose, even if its purpose is not exclusively religious, and is not limited to houses of worship or tax-exempt organizations, or organizations controlled by or associated with a house of worship or a convention or association of churches.

Sec. 3 Religious Freedom Principles and Policymaking Criteria. All executive branch departments and agencies (“agencies”) shall, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, adhere to the following principles and criteria when formulating and implementing regulations, actions, or policies:

(a) Religious freedom is not confined to religious organizations or limited to religious exercise that takes place in houses of worship or the home. It is guaranteed to persons of all faiths and extends to all activities of life.

(b) Persons and organizations do not forfeit their religious freedom when providing social services, education, or healthcare; earning a living, seeking a job, or employing others; receiving government grants or contracts: or otherwise participating in the marketplace, the public square, or interfacing with Federal, State or local governments.

(c) As required by religious freedom laws such as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq. (“RFRA”) and the religious provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 20003 et seq., agencies shall faithfully discharge their duty to accommodate the religion of federal employees and shall not promulgate regulations, take actions, or enact policies that substantially burden a person’s or religious organization’s religious exercise unless the imposition represents the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. Regulations, actions, or policies shall not be deemed “compelling” simply by virtue of their having been applied neutrally, broadly, or across the Federal Government.

Sec. 4. Specific agency Responsibilities to Avoid Potential Violation of Religious Freedom

(a) The Secretaries of Health and Human Services, Labor, and Treasury shall immediately issue an interim final rule that exempts from the preventative-care mandate set forth in 42 U.S.C. 300gg-13(a)(4) all persons and religious organizations that object to complying with the mandate for religious or moral reasons.

(b) The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall take appropriate actions, through mechanisms to ensure compliance with existing statutory and other protections, if necessary, to ensure that any individuals purchasing health insurance in the individual market (whether through a federally facilitated exchange, a state-sponsored health insurance exchange, or otherwise) has the ability to purchase health insurance that does not provide coverage for abortion and does not subsidize plans that do provide such coverage.

(c) The Secretary of Health and human Services shall take all appropriate actions to ensure that the Federal Government shall not discriminate or take any adverse action against a religious organization that provides federally-funded child-welfare services, including promoting or providing adoption, foster, or family support services for children, or similar services, on the basis that the organization declines to provide , facilitate, or refer such services due to a conflict with the organization’s religious beliefs. The Secretary of Health and human Services shall, where authorized by law, promptly propose for notice and comment new regulations consistent with this policy.

(d) All agencies shall, with respect to any person, house of worship, or religious organization that is a recipient of or offeror for a Federal Government contract, subcontract, grant, purchase order, or cooperative agreement, provide protections and exceptions consistent with sections 702(a) and 703(e) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 20003-I(a) and 2000e-2(e)) and section 103(d) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12113(d)). The Secretary of Labor shall, where authorized by law, promptly propose for notice and comment new regulations consistent with this policy.

(e) The Secretary of the Treasury shall ensure that the Department of the Treasury shall not impose any tax or tax penalty, delay or deny tax-exempt status, or disallow tax deductions for contributions made under 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3), or otherwise make unavailable or deny any tax benefits to any person, church, synagogue, house of worship or other religious organization.

(1) on the basis of such person or organization speaking on moral or political issues from a religious perspective where religious speech of similar character has, consistent with law, not ordinarily been treated as an intervention in a political campaign by the Department of the Treasury, or

(2) on the basis that such person or organization believes, speaks, or acts (or declines to act) in accordance with the belief that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, sexual relations are properly reserved for such a marriage, male and female and their equivalents refer to an individual’s immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy, physiology, or genetics at or before birth, and that human life begins at conception and merits protection at all stages of life.

The Secretary of the Treasure [sic] and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue shall, where authorized by law, promptly propose for notice and comment new regulations consistent with this policy.

(b) No agency shall, to the extent allowed by law, not recognize any decisions or findings made by any federally-recognized accrediting body that revokes or denies accreditation to, or otherwise disadvantages, a religious organization on the basis that such organization believes, speaks, or acts (or declines to act) in accordance with a belief described in section 4(e)(2) of this order.

(g) No agency shall exclude or otherwise make unavailable or deny any person or religious organization admission or access to charitable fundraising campaigns on the basis that such person or organization believes, speaks, or acts (or declines to act) in accordance with the beliefs described in Section 4(e)(2) of this order.

(k) No agency shall take adverse action against any person or religious organization that is a Federal employee, contractor, or grantee on the basis of their speaking or acting in accordance with the beliefs described in section 4(e)(2) of this order while outside the scope of their employment, contract, or grant, and shall reasonably accommodate such speech and action when made within the course of their employment, contract, or grant. This provision shall not be construed to diminish or otherwise limit any other protection provided by this order.

(l) The Attorney General shall establish with the Department of Justice a Section or working group that will ensure that the religious freedom of persons and religious organizations is protected throughout the United States, and shall investigate and, if necessary, take or coordinate appropriate action under applicable religious freedom laws.

Sec. 5. General Provisions.

(a) All agencies shall promptly withdraw or rescind any rulings, directives, regulations, guidance, positions, or interpretations that are inconsistent with this order to the extent of their inconsistency.

(b) The provisions of this order shall prevail in cases of conflict with any existing executive order and with any future executive order unless such future order explicitly refers to, and limited or excludes, the application of this order.

(c) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect (i) the authority granted by law to an agency, or the head thereof, or ii) the functions of the OMB Director relating to budget, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(d) This order shall be carried out subject to the availability of appropriations and to the extent permitted by law.

(e) This order does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies or instrumentalities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nation_Institute

The Nation Institute
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Mission -- "Strengthening the independent press and advancing social justice and civil rights"[1]
Focus -- Journalism
Director -- Taya Kitman
Staff -- 10
Location -- New York, New York
Website -- www.nationinstitute.org

The Nation Institute is a nonprofit media organization associated with The Nation magazine. It sponsors fellows, host forums, publishes, and is involved in awards for journalism.

Orville Schell worked for The Nation Institute. David Weir is a member of the group's editorial board. The Nation Institute fellows have included Wayne Barrett, Chris Hedges,[2] David Moberg and Jeremy Scahill. The group has also funded documentaries by Habiba Nosheen. Chris Hayes was a Puffin Foundation Writing Fellow at The Nation Institute from 2006 through 2007.[3]

The Nation Institute is one of the presenters of the Ridenhour Prize. Antonia Juhasz is a reporter with the Investigative Fund of The Nation Institute.[4] Dana Goldstein is a Puffin Fellow at The Nation Institute. Lee Fang is a reporting fellow at The Nation Institute and a contributing writer at The Nation.[5][6] Tom Engelhardt is the creator of The Nation Institute's tomdispatch.com, an online blog.

The Puffin/Nation Prize for Creative Citizenship is an American award citation given jointly by The Nation Institute and the Puffin Foundation.[7]

The Nation Institute started Nation Books in 2000, in partnership with Thunder's Mouth Press.[8] In 2007, Perseus Books Group acquired Avalon Publishing Group, which was the parent company of Thunder's Mouth Press.




http://www.recode.net/2017/1/31/14454434/trump-cyber-security-executive-order-draft-russia-hacking-infrastructure

Trump doesn’t mention Russia in his executive order draft on cyber security
Yet the CIA concluded Russia hacked servers in the run-up to the election in order to help Trump win.
BY APRIL GLASER@APRILASER
JAN 31, 2017, 2:37PM EST

Photograph -- Drew Angerer / Getty Images
Go to website and scroll down for complete text.

This post has been updated.

Trump is expected to sign yet another executive order today. (Update: Trump won’t do this today.) This time, it’s about ensuring the national security of the executive branch, as well as the nation’s critical infrastructure, in order to protect the country from future cyber attacks, like what the CIA concluded Russia did in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

A draft copy of today’s executive order on cyber security obtained by the Washington Post provides a timeline for conducting a federal assessment of the security vulnerabilities in national infrastructure, as well as information systems used by the military or the federal intellegence [sic] community, like the CIA or the NSA.

The draft notes that the security vulnerability assessment will be co-chaired by Trump’s new secretary of defense, James Mattis, and the new secretary of homeland security, John Kelly; other participants in the vulnerability assessment will include Trump’s yet unnamed director of national intelligence, as well as the president’s national security adviser, Michael Flynn.

There’s nothing in the draft, however, about federal election systems or about Russia’s hacking.

Here’s what else the draft executive order outlines:

It orders an assessment of the country’s cyber adversaries — meaning those who would want to hack the U.S. government — as well as an assessment of the capabilities and resources available to the department of defense, the DHS and the NSA. This should determine if the responsible agencies are properly organized, resourced and provided with the legal authority needed to fulfill their roles.

The draft calls on a group co-chaired by the secretary of commerce to prepare a report on how to incentivize the private sector to adopt effective cyber security protections.

It also calls on the secretaries of defense and homeland security to work with the department of education to asses [sic] how well American youth are being prepared in computer science, mathematics and cyber security in order to make recommendations to “best position the U.S. educational system to maintain its competitive advantage into the future.”

Right before Obama left office, the department of homeland security moved to classify national election systems, like voting machines and voter registration databases, as part of the nation’s critical infrastructure. But it is unclear if Trump’s administration will follow through with the reclassification of election systems, which are not mentioned in the draft order.

Trump did, after all, accuse the intelligence community of running a Nazi-like campaign against him to discredit his election victory after the CIA concluded the Russian government directed hackers to infiltrate servers connected with Hillary Clinton’s campaign in order to sway the election in Trump’s favor.

Trump also claimed he lost the popular vote due to the illegal casting of between three million and five million ballots — a claim that has no evidence — so it’s particularly odd that the draft cyber security order doesn’t call for further measures to be taken to secure election infrastructure.

Update: Trump’s signing of his executive order on cyber security was postponed this afternoon and no further information as to why was provided, according to a tweet from CNBC.

Read the draft executive order on cyber security, as obtained by the Washington Post, here:

The Trump administration's draft of the executive order on cybersecurity obtained by the Washington Post by April Glaser on Scribd



https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-circulates-more-draft-immigration-restrictions-focusing-on-protecting-us-jobs/2017/01/31/38529236-e741-11e6-80c2-30e57e57e05d_story.html?postshare=321485897420408&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.1804e505fe1b
Trump Executive Order Draft: Kick Out Immigrants on Welfare

Trump administration circulates more draft immigration restrictions, focusing on protecting U.S. jobs
By Abigail Hauslohner and Janell Ross
January 31, 2017

Photograph – Day laborers vote on a measure in Bay Parkway Community Job Center in the Brooklyn borough of New York City in 2013. (John Moore/Getty Images)

The Trump administration is considering a plan to weed out would-be immigrants who are likely to require public assistance, as well as to deport — when possible — immigrants already living in the United States who depend on taxpayer help, according to a draft executive order obtained by The Washington Post.

A second draft order under consideration calls for a substantial shake-up in the system through which the United States administers immigrant and nonimmigrant visas, with the aim of tightly controlling who enters the country and who can enter the workforce, and reducing the social services burden on U.S. taxpayers.

[Read the draft executive orders]

The drafts are circulating among administration officials, and it is unclear whether President Trump has decided to move forward with them or when he might sign them if he does decide to put them in place. The White House would not confirm or deny the authenticity of the orders, and White House officials did not respond to requests for comment about the drafts Monday and Tuesday.

[Trump fired acting attorney general who ordered Justice Dept. not to defend president’s travel ban]

Who is affected by Trump’s travel ban VIEW GRAPHIC
Who is affected by Trump’s travel ban

If enacted, the executive orders would appear to significantly restrict all types of immigration and foreign travel to the United States, expanding bars on entry to the country that Trump ordered last week with his temporary ban on refugees and people from seven Muslim-majority countries.

While last week’s move focused on national security and preventing terrorism, the new draft orders would be focused on Trump’s campaign promises to protect American workers and to create jobs, immediately restricting the flow of immigrants and temporary laborers into the U.S. workforce. The administration has accused immigrants who end up receiving U.S. social services of eating up federal resources, and it has said that immigrant workers contribute to unemployment among workers who are U.S. citizens.

“Our country’s immigration laws are designed to protect American taxpayers and promote immigrant self-sufficiency. Yet households headed by aliens are much more likely than those headed by citizens to use Federal ­means-tested public benefits,” reads one draft order obtained by The Post, titled “Executive Order on Protecting Taxpayer Resources by Ensuring Our Immigration Laws Promote Accountability and Responsibility.”

The draft order provides no evidence to support the claim that immigrant households are more likely to use welfare benefits, and there is no consensus among experts about immigration’s impact on such benefits or on U.S. jobs.

[From order to disorder: How Trump’s immigration directive exposed GOP rifts]

The administration would be seeking to “deny admission to any alien who is likely to become a public charge” and to develop standards for “determining whether an alien is deportable . . . for having become a public charge within five years of entry” — receiving a certain amount of public assistance, including food stamps, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Medicaid.

The second order, titled “Executive Order on Protecting American Jobs and Workers by Strengthening the Integrity of Foreign Worker Visa Programs” calls for “eliminating” the “jobs magnet” that is driving illegal immigration to the United States, according to a copy obtained by The Post. The order would rescind any work visa provisions for foreign nationals found not to be in “the national interest” or found to be in violation of U.S. immigration laws.

Trump summarizes his executive actions in first weekly address Play Video2:17
During his first weekly address to the American people, President Trump listed his executive actions from his week in office. (Reuters)
[Scholars: Many more legal challenges likely for Trump’s executive order on immigration]

The order weighs how to make the country’s immigration program “more merit based,” calls for site visits at companies that employ foreign workers, and tasks the Department of Homeland Security with producing a report twice a year on the total number of foreign-born people — not just nonimmigrant visa holders — who are authorized to work in the United States.

It also instructs DHS and the State Department to submit a report on “the steps they are taking to combat the birth tourism phenomenon,” meaning instances in which noncitizens come to the U.S. to have children who in turn gain citizenship, a popular conservative refrain but one that is dismissed by immigration experts as a relatively minor problem.

Together, the orders would aim to give U.S. citizens priority in the job market by preventing immigrants from taking jobs and by pushing some immigrants out of jobs.

“The unlawful employment of aliens has had a devastating impact on the wages and jobs of American workers, especially low-skilled, teenage, and African American and Hispanic workers,” the draft order says.

Immigration advocates reacted with outrage to the draft documents, warning that if enacted the executive orders could harm the U.S. citizen children of undocumented immigrants whose parents could be stripped of public assistance.

“He’s loaded his anti-immigrant Uzi and is firing off another round,” said Angela Maria Kelley, an immigration expert at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. “This time he’s aiming at U.S. citizen kids who have an undocumented parent, and depending how broad the reach of his order, he could deport kids who have received reduced lunches in school. It’s stunning the depth of disruption and chaos he seems hellbent on inflicting on our communities.”

Long-standing U.S. law already makes it difficult for noncitizens to receive most forms of public assistance, which limits how many immigrants receive such taxpayer-funded help. For more than 100 years, the country has had a provision that allows federal officials to bar immigrants who, based on a specific formula, seem likely to need public assistance after arrival.

That test is known as the “public charge” law, which allows federal immigration authorities to deport immigrants who become dependent on social programs; they also can prevent legal immigrants applying for green cards from obtaining them for the same reasons. Individuals living in the United States whose relationships with family members make it possible for their relatives to apply for entry into the United States are required to sign an affidavit attesting to the fact that they earn a sufficient income to support themselves and any family members hoping to immigrate. Anyone signing such an affidavit also agrees to pay back certain public assistance should their relatives who hope to immigrate ever receive it.

In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, popularly known as “welfare reform.” The law severely restricted all immigrant access to social assistance; those who are in the country illegally are barred from almost any federal program designed for the poor. Legal immigrants must live in the United States for a minimum of five years to become eligible for a limited set of social aid programs, and access to Social Security assistance is rarely granted.

Economists are divided on the extent to which illegal immigration impacts wages, but in general they find that immigration, including by low-skilled workers, is good for the economy.

“The overwhelming consensus in the economics academic literature is that immigrants add more to the economy than they take, they create more jobs for Americans, and they are a net benefit to the American economy,” said Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.

Nor have studies shown immigrants to be a greater drain on federal benefits relative to U.S. citizens, he said: “When you compare poor immigrants to poor natives, poor immigrants are less likely to use welfare, and when they do, the dollar value of the benefits they use is lower.”

That is partly because under existing federal law, new permanent residents, or green-card holders, are unable to qualify for welfare and other public benefits during their first five years of residency. Immigrants who entered the United States illegally also are unable to obtain federal welfare benefits.

Refugees are an exception, and advocates note that while those fleeing war and strife at home tend to need assistance upon arrival, they generally begin contributing to the economy within a few years.

The Migration Policy Institute has found that dependence on public assistance falls over time and that “refugee men are employed at a higher rate than their U.S.-born peers.”

David Nakamura contributed to this report.


Abigail Hauslohner is a national reporter who covers Islam, Arab affairs and America. Before coming to Washington in 2015, she spent seven years covering war, politics and religion in the Middle East, and served as the Post’s Cairo bureau chief. She has also covered District politics and government. Follow @ahauslohner
Janell Ross covers race along with the social and political implications of the nation's rapidly changing demographics. Janell's Emerging America beat is part of the Washington Post's National Desk. Follow @janellross



https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-30/trump-s-next-move-on-immigration-to-hit-closer-to-home-for-tech

Trump’s Next Immigration Move to Hit Closer to Home for Tech
by Peter Elstrom and Saritha Rai
January 30, 2017, 1:57 AM EST
January 31, 2017, 2:11 AM EST

RELATED: Executive order draft discusses overhauling work-visa programs
Reforms could impact how tech companies recruit employees
Photograph -- Immigration Ban Fuels Tech Outrage

President Donald Trump’s clash with Silicon Valley over immigration is about to become even more contentious.

After the new president banned refugees and travelers from seven predominantly Muslim countries, Google, Facebook, Salesforce, Microsoft and others railed against the move, saying it violated the country’s principles and risked disrupting its engine of innovation. Trump’s next steps could strike even closer to home: His administration has drafted an executive order aimed at overhauling the work-visa programs technology companies depend on to hire tens of thousands of employees each year.

If implemented, the reforms could shift the way American companies like Microsoft Corp., Amazon.com Inc. and Apple Inc. recruit talent and force wholesale changes at Indian companies such as Infosys Ltd. and Wipro Ltd. Businesses would have to try to hire American first and if they recruit foreign workers, priority would be given to the most highly paid.

“Our country’s immigration policies should be designed and implemented to serve, first and foremost, the U.S. national interest,” the draft proposal reads, according to a copy reviewed by Bloomberg. “Visa programs for foreign workers … should be administered in a manner that protects the civil rights of American workers and current lawful residents, and that prioritizes the protection of American workers -- our forgotten working people -- and the jobs they hold.”

The foreign work visas were originally established to help U.S. companies recruit from abroad when they couldn’t find qualified local workers. In many cases, the companies are hiring for highly technical positions in the fields of science, technology, engineering and math, or STEM. But in recent years, there have been allegations the programs have been abused to bring in cheaper workers from overseas to fill jobs that otherwise may go to Americans. The top recipients of the H-1B visas are outsourcers, primarily from India, who run the technology departments of large corporations with largely imported staff.

“Immigrant STEM workers have contributed an outsize share to founding new companies, getting patents, and helping build up American companies, which in turn because of their success have created tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of jobs,” said Gary Burtless, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who does research in labor markets. “Discouraging such people to apply for visas to enter the United States to work -- I can’t imagine how that can be considered to be in the American national interest.”

The Trump administration did not respond to a request for comment on the draft. The proposal is consistent with the president’s public comments on pushing companies to add more jobs to the U.S., from auto manufacturing to technology.

It’s not clear how much force the executive order would have if it is signed by the president. Congress is also working on visa reforms and the parties will have to cooperate to pass new laws. Zoe Lofgren, a Democratic congresswoman from California, introduced a bill last week to tighten requirements for the H-1B work visa program.

“My legislation refocuses the H-1B program to its original intent – to seek out and find the best and brightest from around the world, and to supplement the U.S. workforce with talented, highly-paid, and highly-skilled workers,” Lofgren said in a statement.

India’s technology companies, led by Tata Consultancy Services Ltd, Infosys and Wipro, have argued they are helping corporations become more competitive by handling their technology operations with specialized staff. They also contend the visa programs allow them to keep jobs in the U.S. and that if they have to pay more for staff, they will handle more of the work remotely from less expensive markets like India.

“Inspections and investigations in the past have shown no cases of wrongdoing by Indian IT services companies, which have always been fully compliant with the law,” said R Chandrashekhar, president of Nasscom, the trade group for India’s information technology sector. “The industry is open to any kind of checks in the system, but they should not cause any hindrance to the smooth operation of companies.”

Wipro and TCS declined to comment for this story.

A spokeswoman for Infosys said the company is monitoring the U.S. visa proposals, but it is too early to assess their impact given the uncertainty of what will be approved.

“We continue to hire and invest locally,” the company said in an e-mail. “However, given the skill shortages in the U.S. and the availability of technically skilled workforce in various global markets, we also rely upon visa programs to supplement these skills. For the long term, we are also exploring new operating models to ensure business continuity as we navigate this dynamic environment. This includes reducing our visa dependency and efforts towards making Infosys a preferred employer in the U.S.”

Wipro, Infosys and TCS shares all tumbled Tuesday along with other Indian tech services companies, pulling down the NSE Nifty Index. Wipro fell the most in nine months, while Tech Mahindra Ltd. dropped the most in almost two years.

Cognizant Technology Solutions Corp., a New Jersey-based company that is one of the heaviest users of the H-1B program, saw shares fall 4.4 percent Monday, the most in four months.

The draft of Trump’s executive order covers an alphabet soup of visa programs, including H-1B, L-1, E-2 and B1. The first is a popular program with technology companies and is aimed at allowing them to bring in high-skill workers when they can’t find local hires with the appropriate skills. The legislation caps the number of people who can enter the U.S. annually at 85,000, including those with undergrad and master’s degrees.

In recent years though, outsourcing companies have received the most H-1B visas, while other tech companies have struggled to get all they want. In 2014, the most recent year for which data is available, the top five recipients were all outsourcing companies, led by Tata Consultancy.

Exclusive insights on technology around the world.
Get Fully Charged, from Bloomberg Technology.

Ron Hira, an associate professor at Howard University, who has done extensive research on the subject, points out workers at outsourcers are typically not treated as well as others. The median wage at outsourcing firms for H-1B workers was less than $70,000, while Apple, Google and Microsoft paid their employees in the program more than $100,000, according to data he collected. That suggests the American companies are going after true, highly skilled employees, while the outsourcers are recruiting less expensive talent, he said.

The proposed Trump order is also aimed at bringing more transparency to the program. It calls for publishing reports with basic statistics on who uses the immigration programs within one month of the end of the government’s fiscal year. The Obama administration had scaled back the information available on the programs and required Freedom of Information Act requests for some data.

Whatever specific changes are implemented, they are likely to add to the expenses for India’s technology companies. That may accelerate a shift to new kinds of services, such as cloud computing and artificial intelligence, said Raja Lahiri, partner at the Mumbai-based partner at consultancy Grant Thornton India

“The visa challenges are not going to go away easily,” he said. “They will continue to be a challenge for Indian IT companies.”



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/california-snowpack-drought-busting-level-water-managers/

California snowpack at drought-busting level, water managers say
AP February 2, 2017, 3:14 PM

Photograph -- State Highway 28, which rings Lake Tahoe, is closed by snow at Crystal Bay, California, Jan. 7, 2017. REUTERS/BOB STRONG

PHILLIPS STATION, Calif. -- Sierra Nevada snowdrifts are at a drought-busting 173 percent of average, with the most snow recorded since 1995, California water managers said Thursday.

State water managers poked rods into drifts as high as tree branches to measure the snowpack.

They found far more snow than at the height of California’s more than five-year drought, when the measurement was done in almost-bare mountain meadows.

“It gives everything a much brighter outlook,” said Frank Gehrke, the state Department of Water Resources who conducted the manual snow measurements.

The overall snowpack is vital to the state, providing a third of water supplies year-round.

This year’s bountiful snowpack came thanks to one of the stormiest Januarys in decades. The storms brought three-fourths of the state’s normal yearly precipitation in just a few weeks.

California hit with snow, rain, flooding
Play VIDEO
California hit with snow, rain, flooding

Gov. Jerry Brown is expected to wait until the end of the rainy season, in April, to decide whether to lift a drought emergency in place since 2014.

In April of that year, Brown stood in a Sierra meadow bare of its usual snow to declare the drought emergency, and ordered mandatory water conservation in cities and towns.

In January, back-to-back-to-back storms from the tropics that each dropped a hurricane’s worth of water on the state put the state at 108 percent of its normal rain and snow for the year, with two months still left in the rainy season, said Michael Dettinger, a hydrologist for the U.S. Geological Survey.

California had received just one-fourth of a normal year’s precipitation when January started, he said. The storm systems, known as atmospheric rivers, “caught us all off guard, how many came in so quickly, and turned everything around,” Dettinger said.

January’s storms lifted the northern half of the state out of drought. This time last year, 95 percent of California was in drought, after the driest three-year stretch in the state’s recorded history.



SO WHY DO THEY HAVE ALL THE RAIN WHEN WE NEED IT SO MUCH?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_river

Atmospheric river
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An atmospheric river is a narrow corridor or filament of concentrated moisture in the atmosphere. Atmospheric rivers consist of narrow bands of enhanced water vapor transport, typically along the boundaries between large areas of divergent surface air flow, including some frontal zones in association with extratropical cyclones that form over the oceans.[1][2][3][4] Pineapple Express storms are the most commonly represented and recognized type of atmospheric rivers; they are given the name due to the warm water vapor plumes originating over the Hawaiian tropics that follow a path towards California.[5][6]

The term was originally coined by researchers Reginald Newell and Yong Zhu of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the early 1990s, to reflect the narrowness of the moisture plumes involved.[1][3][7] Atmospheric rivers are typically several thousand kilometers long and only a few hundred kilometers wide, and a single one can carry a greater flux of water than the Earth's largest river, the Amazon River.[2] There are typically 3–5 of these narrow plumes present within a hemisphere at any given time. In the current research field of atmospheric rivers the length and width factors described above in conjunction with an integrated water vapor depth greater than 2.0 cm are used as standards to categorize atmospheric river events.[6][8][9][10] However, as data modeling techniques progress, integrated water vapor transport (IVT) is becoming a more common data type used to interpret atmospheric rivers. Its strength lies in its ability to show the transportation of water vapor over multiple time steps instead of a stagnant measurement of water vapor depth in a specific air column (IWV). In addition IVT is more directly attributed to orographic precipitation, a key factor in the production of intense rainfall and subsequent flooding.[10]

Atmospheric rivers have a central role in the global water cycle. On any given day, atmospheric rivers account for over 90% of the global meridional (north-south) water vapor transport, yet they cover less than 10% of the Earth's circumference.[2]

They also are the major cause of extreme precipitation events that cause severe flooding in many mid-latitude, westerly coastal regions of the world, including the West Coast of North America,[11][12][13][8] Western Europe,[14][15][16] and the west coast of North Africa.[3]

The significance atmospheric rivers have for the control of coastal water budgets juxtaposed against their creation of detrimental floods can be constructed and studied by looking at California and the surrounding coastal region of the western United States. In this region atmospheric rivers have contributed 30-50% of total annual rainfall.[17] In conjunction Californian land falling Atmospheric Rivers have been historically associated with approximately all major flooding events.[5][8] The inconsistency of California's rainfall is due to the variability in strength and quantity of these storms, which can produce strenuous effects on California's water budget. The factors describe [sic] above make California a perfect case study to show the importance of proper water management and prediction of these storms.[6]



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/undocumented-students-daca-immigrants-fears-under-trump/

"My life is made here": Undocumented students fear fate under Trump
CBS NEWS
February 2, 2017, 6:59 AM

Play – CBS News Video

Under an executive order by President Obama in 2012, the feds have granted protection to immigrants whose families illegally brought them to the U.S. as children. But many students are worried about what comes next, as the Trump administration considers their fate.

Teachers at YES Prep Gulfton in Houston estimate about a third of the students are living under those protections. Several of them said they’ve been living in fear since the day after the election, reports CBS News correspondent Omar Villafranca.

Francisca Medrano and her classmates Olga Lopez and Brandon Martinez were all born in Mexico and raised in Texas.

“You didn’t know at any moment that if you were in class, like immigration could come for you,” said Francisca Medrano. “And I was scared that could’ve happened to me, that I was in class learning and like immigration could’ve came for me.”

DHS says they knew the executive order was coming
Play VIDEO
DHS says they knew the executive order was coming

The three seniors plan to go to college in the fall. But their American dream started after arriving illegally in the U.S. as children. They’ve been living under the protection of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).

“If Trump gets rid of DACA, they have our information, our addresses, and all of that stuff, so they can easily find us and get us and deport us,” Martinez said.

The feds have protected more than 750,000 people from deportation under DACA. Those eligible were born after the summer of 1981, came to the U.S. before their 16th birthday, and meet certain qualifications, like having no felony convictions.

On the campaign trail, candidate Trump talked about ending the program.

Undocumented immigrants voice concerns over Trump plans
Play VIDEO
Undocumented immigrants voice concerns over Trump plans

“Anyone who has entered the United States illegally is subject to deportation,” he said on August 31, 2016.

But he has since softened his tone.

“They shouldn’t be very worried. They are here illegally. They shouldn’t be very worried. I do have a big heart,” President Trump said during a recent interview with ABC News.

According to critics, the program encourages illegal immigration. They point to the recent surge in undocumented minors caught crossing the border.

“The problem is, DACA is illegal,” said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank that supports tighter controls on immigration.

Krikorian wants the DACA program shut down, in hopes it would force lawmakers to come up with a permanent fix.

“Just get it over with: rip off the Band-Aid and give them green cards,” Krikorian said.

In exchange, he said lawmakers should require the use of the e-verify system to confirm employment eligibility, and to impose restrictions so DACA recipients can’t sponsor family members for immigration in the future.

“What was the mood like here with your students after the election?” Villafranca asked YES Prep Gulfton School Director Corey Crouch. She said it’s been heartbreaking to see her students so upset.

“It was somber,” Crouch said. “They need to be allowed to stay, and they should have a path to citizenship.”

“My life is made here,” said student Olga Lopez. “I’m trying to go to college here. And it’s like, devastating to know that we have to go somewhere else.”

They don’t know that yet. A lot could happen between what Mr. Trump decides and what lawmakers do.

A bipartisan group of senators and representatives has co-sponsored a bill called the Bridge Act, that would protect young immigrants from deportation for another three years.


EXCERPT -- “The problem is, DACA is illegal,” said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank that supports tighter controls on immigration.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Center_for_Immigration_Studies#The_SPLC_and_IRC_claims
Talk:Center for Immigration Studies

THE PURPOSE OF ALL THIS IS TO ILLUSTRATE THAT, AS SO OFTEN HAPPENS, THE SOURCE OF THEIR CLAIM THAT DACA IS “ILLEGAL” IS A “CONSERVATIVE” “THINK-TANK.” THIS IS A WONDERFUL FOOD FIGHT ON THE SUBJECT OF CIS AND SPLC. THE SPLC, IT SAYS, HAS STRETCHED ITS’ DATA ON THE NEO-NAZI GROUPS WHO ARE HIDING UNDER THE BLANKET OF “CONSERVATISM.” ON THAT I “HAS ME DOUBTS!” THE FOOD FIGHT IS GREAT READING, BUT MUCH TOO LONG TO INSERT HERE, SO READ IT IF YOU’RE INTERESTED AT THE WEBSITE ABOVE. “TALK: CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES.”



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/homeland-security-ig-announces-review-of-immigration-ban-rollout/

Homeland Security IG announces review of immigration ban rollout
CBS NEWS
February 2, 2017, 7:13 AM

Photograph -- Demonstrators protesting U.S. Donald Trump’s executive order travel ban greet arriving passengers at Logan Airport in Boston, Massachusetts, U.S. January 28, 2017. REUTERS/Brian Snyder BRIAN SNYDER, REUTERS

The Office Inspector General (OIG) for the Homeland Security Department (DHS) announced late Wednesday that it will be reviewing DHS’ implementation of President Trump’s immigration ban, signed by Mr. Trump on Friday.

Beginning Saturday, thousands protested at airports across the U.S. against the detention of refugees, as well as holders of valid U.S. visas and green cards, from seven majority-Muslim nations: Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. Protests expanded on Sunday to numerous cities and airports.

DHS says they knew the executive order was coming
Play VIDEO
DHS says they knew the executive order was coming

Four federal judges issued stays on parts of the executive order, demanding that refugees in transit be released and not returned to their countries of origin, but lawyers representing some detained travelers claimed that CBP and DHS workers were not fully complying with the judges’ orders.

The IG’s review comes in response to requests by members of Congress and by whistleblower and hotline complaints.

Illinois Senators Tammy Duckworth and Dick Durbin requested the review earlier this week. In a statement, the two called the president’s executive order “rushed and poorly drafted,” and they said it might violate immigration law by failing to recognize the due process and equal protection rights of legal permanent residents.

The two also said they were “alarmed” by allegations that CBP officers and other DHS personnel may have disobeyed an order to provide detained legal permanent residents at Dulles International Airport with access to attorneys.

The inspector general will also be looking into DHS’ adherence to court orders, as well as allegations about the misconduct of some DHS personnel.



ABOUT THE “ALPHABET SOUP” ABOVE, CBP MEANS :

https://bertoni-law.com/immigration/immigration-resources/preliminary-faqs/what-do-uscis-cbp-ice-and-dos-mean/

USCIS stands for “United Sates Citizenship and Immigration Services”. It is the agency in charge of granting visas and other immigration benefits. CBP stands for “Customs and Border Protection.” This agency was created to control the flux of persons and goods through U.S. borders. ICE stands for “Immigration and Customs Enforcement.” It is the agency in charge of enforcing immigration laws through various means, including removal operations. All three agencies are parts of the Department of Homeland Security.

DOS stands for “Department of State.” Through its U.S. consulates all over the world and the National Visa Center, the Department of State participates in processing immigrant and non-immigrant petitions.



CONCERNING THE BLACK BLOC MOVEMENT AND AGITATORS, GO TO THE BLOG BY THAT TITLE POSTED A FEW DAYS AGO.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/01/us/milo-yiannopoulos-berkeley/

Berkeley: 'Masked agitators' sparked violence before Milo Yiannopoulos talk
Kyung Lah-Profile-Image
By Madison Park and Kyung Lah, CNN
Updated 5:32 PM ET, Thu February 2, 2017

Video -- Protests turn violent at right-wing event 00:45

Berkeley, California (CNN)Violence erupted Wednesday night at UC Berkeley -- the same campus where the Free Speech Movement began -- to protest a scheduled talk by right-wing commentator Milo Yiannopoulos.

The university blamed "150 masked agitators" for the unrest, saying they had come to campus to disturb an otherwise peaceful protest.

Administrators decided to cancel the event about two hours before the Breitbart editor's speech. UC Berkeley said it removed him from campus "amid the violence and destruction of property and out of concern for public safety."

Black-clad protesters wearing masks threw commercial-grade fireworks and rocks at police. Some even hurled Molotov cocktails that ignited fires. They also smashed windows of the student union center on the Berkeley campus where the Yiannopoulos event was to be held.

At least six people were injured. Some were attacked by the agitators -- who are a part of an anarchist group known as the "Black Bloc" that has been causing problems in Oakland for years, said Dan Mogulof, UC Berkeley spokesman.

More than 1,500 protesters had gathered at Sproul Plaza, chanting and holding signs that read: "No safe space for racists" and "This is war."

The violent protesters tore down metal barriers, set fires near the campus bookstore and damaged the construction site of a new dorm. One woman wearing a red Trump hat was pepper sprayed in the face while being interviewed by CNN affiliate KGO. She was able to respond that she was OK after the attack.

As the scene spiraled out of control, university police warned protesters to disperse and issued a lockdown for campus buildings.

Follow
UC Police, Berkeley @UCPD_Cal
Multiple dispersal orders have been given for the Milo protest. Please leave campus or avoid the area. @UCBerkeley #miloatcal
9:54 PM - 1 Feb 2017
144 144 Retweets 93 93 likes

"We condemn in the strongest possible terms the violence and unlawful behavior that was on display and deeply regret that those tactics will now overshadow the efforts to engage in legitimate and lawful protest against the performer's presence and perspectives," UC Berkeley said in a statement.

"While Yiannopoulos' views, tactics and rhetoric are profoundly contrary to our own, we are bound by the Constitution, the law, our values and the campus's Principles of Community to enable free expression across the full spectrum of opinion and perspective," it stated.

As police dispersed the crowd from campus, a remaining group of protesters moved into downtown Berkeley and smashed windows at several local >banks.

No arrests were made throughout the night.
Yiannopoulos on college speaking tour
'I just want to burn it down' 09:10

Yiannopoulos had been invited to speak by the Berkeley College Republicans. He has been on a college speaking tour and had planned to speak about cultural appropriation on Wednesday.

In a Facebook Live video, Yiannopoulos described what happened as "an expression of political violence."

"I'm just stunned that hundreds of people ... were so threatened by the idea that a conservative speaker might be persuasive, interesting, funny and might take some people with him, they have to shut it down at all costs."

President Donald Trump weighed in on Twitter, suggesting the possibility of cutting federal funds to the public university.

"If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view -- NO FEDERAL FUNDS?" Trump tweeted Thursday morning.

Follow
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view - NO FEDERAL FUNDS?
6:13 AM - 2 Feb 2017
49,681 49,681 Retweets 166,518 166,518 likes

Later, Yiannopoulos posted Trump's tweet to Facebook and proclaimed himself "the catalyst for this change."

"American universities are on notice. The President is watching," he wrote. "The days you could silence conservative and libertarian voices on campus and still expect to collect their tax money are coming to an end."
Yiannopoulos trying to convince colleges hate speech is cool
But some protesters said the Yiannopoulos event wasn't a matter of free speech, because he espouses hate speech.

UC Berkeley said it had prepared security measures following what had happened at Yiannopoulos' previous events. One of his planned speaking engagements at UC Davis was also canceled last month in response to protests.

Protesters shut down Milo Yiannopoulos event at UC Davis
Protesters shut down Milo Yiannopoulos event at UC Davis

"Ultimately, and unfortunately, however, it was impossible to maintain order given the level of threat, disruption and organized violence," UC Berkeley said in a statement.

Controversial speech

Most UC Berkeley students who spoke with CNN said they were relieved that Yiannopoulos wasn't able to speak, but this was not how they wanted to accomplish that goal.

One student told CNN that he didn't agree with what happened.

"It's a sad irony in the fact that the Free Speech Movement was founded here and tonight, someone's free speech got shut down. It might have been hateful speech, but it's still his right to speak," said Shivam Patel, a freshmen who stood outside of Sproul Plaza.

The Free Speech Movement started at UC Berkeley in 1964 after students protested en masse when administrators tried to restrict their political activities on campus.

Patel said he supported peaceful protests, but disagreed with the way things turned out on Wednesday.

"It allows people on the right to say, 'Look at all these liberal Berkeley snowflakes. They're intolerant of speech.' I don't think it's productive at all. It does nothing to help this country."

CNN's Jamiel Lynch and Stephanie Becker contributed to this report.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milo_Yiannopoulos

Milo Yiannopoulos
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about a person involved in a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses, and initial news reports may be unreliable. The last updates to this article may not reflect the most current information.

Milo Yiannopoulos (/jəˈnɒpᵿləs/;[1] born Milo Hanrahan on 18 October 1984[2]) is a British journalist, author, entrepreneur, public speaker, and senior editor for Breitbart News, a far-right news and opinion website based in the United States. He wrote previously using the pseudonym Milo Andreas Wagner.[3][4]

Yiannopoulos founded The Kernel, an online tabloid magazine about technology, which he sold to Daily Dot Media in 2014. He rose to notability that year when he began to provide media coverage and commentary surrounding the Gamergate controversy. As a "cultural libertarian"[5] and "free speech fundamentalist", he is a vocal critic of third-wave feminism,[6] Islam, social justice, political correctness, and other movements and ideologies he deems authoritarian or belonging to the "regressive left". Yiannopoulos has been called a spokesperson for the alt-right, although he denies this even if he recognises that he may share some of their political views.[7] He considers himself a reporter of and "occasional fellow traveller" with the movement.[8] He was permanently banned from Twitter in July 2016 for what the company cited as "inciting or engaging in the targeted abuse or harassment of others".[9][10][11]

Early and personal life

Yiannopoulos was raised in a small town in Kent in southern England.[12] His father is Greek and his mother is British.[13][14][15] His parents divorced when he was a young child and he was raised by his mother and her second husband, with whom he did not have a good relationship. Yiannopoulos described his father as "terrifying" and remarking upon his family's wealth he said "I would think, if my dad is just a doorman, why do we have such a nice house? Then I saw it on The Sopranos." As a teenager, Yiannopoulos lived with his grandmother, who regularly took him for high tea at Claridge's.[14]

He is a practising Catholic; he has also said that his mother or maternal grandmother is Jewish,[16][17] which has put him at odds with neo-Nazi elements of the alt-right.[18] He was educated at Simon Langton Grammar School for Boys. He attended the University of Manchester, dropping out without graduating.[19] He then attended Wolfson College, Cambridge, where he studied English literature for two years before dropping out.[20] Regarding dropping out of university, in a 2012 interview he said "I try to tell myself I'm in good company, but ultimately it doesn't say great things about you unless you go on to terrific success in your own right."[20]

Yiannopoulos published two poetry books under the name Milo Andreas Wagner. His 2007 release Eskimo Papoose was later scrutinised for re-using lines from pop music and television without attribution, to which he replied that it was done deliberately and the work was satirical.[3]

Career

Yiannopoulos originally intended to write theatre criticism, but became interested in technology journalism whilst investigating women in computing for The Daily Telegraph in 2009.[6] He appeared on Sky News discussing social media,[21] and on BBC Breakfast discussing Pope Benedict XVI's visit to the United Kingdom.[22]

Yiannopoulos has debated gay marriage on Newsnight,[23] and on Channel 4's 10 O'Clock Live with Boy George.[24] He opposed the provision of "Soho masses".[25]

In November 2013, he debated with singer Will Young on Newsnight about the use of the word "gay" in the playground,[26] and with rapper Tinchy Stryder on the same programme in May 2014, about copyright infringement and music piracy.[27] In March 2015, he appeared on The Big Questions, discussing topics relating to feminism and discrimination against men in the United Kingdom.[28]

Gamergate

Yiannopoulos played a role in early news coverage of the Gamergate controversy, criticising what he saw as the politicisation of video game culture by "an army of sociopathic feminist programmers and campaigners, abetted by achingly politically correct American tech bloggers".[37][38][39] In December 2014, he announced he was working on a book about Gamergate.[40]

As part of his coverage of Gamergate, he published correspondence from GameJournoPros, a private mailing list used by video game journalists to discuss industry related topics.[41][42] Yiannopoulos said that the list was evidence that journalists were colluding to offer negative coverage of Gamergate.[43] Kyle Orland, the creator of the list, responded to the leak on Ars Technica. Orland disputed the claim that the list suggested collusion among journalists, but said that he had written a message saying several things that he later regretted.[44] Carter Dotson of pocketgamer.biz said that the list was indicative of an echo chamber effect in the gaming press.[45]

During the controversy, Yiannopoulos said that he received a syringe filled with an unknown substance through the post,[46][47] as well as a dead animal.

In May 2015, a meetup in Washington D.C. for supporters of Gamergate arranged by Yiannopoulos and Christina Hoff Sommers was targeted by a bomb threat made over Twitter, according to the local police responding to information supplied by the FBI.[48] Similarly, three months later, an event with Society of Professional Journalists in August 2015 was targeted by bomb threats, forcing the evacuation of an event with Yiannopoulos and Sommers.[49][50][51][52]

Breitbart Tech

In October 2015, the Breitbart News Network placed Yiannopoulos in charge of its new "Breitbart Tech" section. The site has six full-time staff, including an eSports specialist.[53][54]

Yiannopoulos Privilege Grant

In January 2016, Yiannopoulos co-founded the Yiannopoulos Privilege Grant with Margaret MacLennan.[55] The grant plans to disburse 50 grants of $2,500 to disadvantaged white men to assist them with their tertiary expenses, starting in the 2016–17 academic year. 100 grants of the same amount will be dispersed in the second year, and 200 in the third.[56] The Privilege Grant's official website was temporarily taken down due to DDoS attacks.[57] As of August 2016, the grant scheme had not paid out any money or filed paperwork to become a charity in the United States.[

Margaret McLennan, formerly bursary manager of the grant, posted criticism of it on social media in August 2016, saying it was mismanaged and that she had stopped managing the grant the previous March because she hadn't been paid and that the movement had ceased.[59][60] Yiannopoulos apologised for mismanaging the grant and admitted that he had missed a deadline for turning donations into bursaries. He denied speculation he had spent the money and blamed a busy schedule. He appointed a new fund administrator, and a pilot grant had been scheduled to begin the following spring, with full disbursement in the 2017/18 academic year.[59]

Twitter controversies

In December 2015, Twitter briefly suspended Yiannopoulos' account after he changed his profile to describe himself as Buzzfeed's "social justice editor".[61] His Twitter account's blue "verification" checkmark was removed by the site the following month.[61] Twitter refused to give any explanation for the reason of the removal of verification, saying that they do not comment on individual cases.[62] Some news outlets speculated that Yiannopoulos had violated its speech and harassment codes, as with an instance where he told another user that they "deserved to be harassed".[63][64] Others worried that Twitter was targeting conservatives.[65][66][67]

In March 2016, Yiannopoulos acquired accreditation for a White House press briefing for the first time. Prompted by his recent de-verification by Twitter, Yiannopoulos asked Josh Earnest to comment on the free-speech stance of prominent social media platforms.[68][69][70][71]

For his criticism of Islam after the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting, a terrorist attack on a gay nightclub, his Twitter account was briefly suspended in June 2016. His account was later restored.[72][73]

In July 2016, Yiannopoulos panned the Ghostbusters reboot as "a movie to help lonely middle-aged women feel better about being left on the shelf".[74][75] After the film's release, Twitter trolls attacked African American actress Leslie Jones with racist slurs and bigoted commentary. Yiannopoulos wrote three public tweets about Jones, saying "Ghostbusters is doing so badly they've deployed [Leslie Jones] to play the victim on Twitter," before describing her reply to him as "Barely literate" and then calling her a "black dude".[76][77][78] Multiple media outlets have described Yiannopoulos' tweets as encouraging the abuse directed at Jones.[79][80] Yiannopoulos was then permanently banned by Twitter.[81]

Yiannopoulos stated that he was banned because of his conservative beliefs.[82] In an interview with CNBC, he denounced the abusive tweets sent by others at Jones, and said he was not responsible for them.[83] After his suspension from Twitter, the hashtag "#FreeMilo" began trending on the site by those who opposed Twitter's decision to ban him.[84] In an interview at the 2016 Republican National Convention, Yiannopoulos thanked Twitter for banning him because he believed it made him more famous.[85]



I FOCUSED ON YIANNOPOULOS BECAUSE I WANTED TO SEE WHAT KIND OF PERSON HE WAS, AFTER THE REACTION TO HIS WOULD-BE SPEECH AT UC BERKELEY, AND HE CERTAINLY IS CONTROVERSIAL. AS I SUSPECTED HE IS ANOTHER ALT-RIGHT ANTI-EVERYBODY TYPE, EXCEPT FOR DONALD TRUMP, OF COURSE. I WONDER IF IT IS AN ACCIDENT THAT HE WROTE UNDER THE PSEUDONYM “WAGNER?” HE HAS SOME DEEPLY SEATED PROBLEMS WITH WOMEN, OR AT LEAST FEMINIST WOMEN.

AS FOR GAMERGATE, THERE WAS AN ARTICLE A YEAR OR SO AGO ABOUT THE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN IN THE GAMER WORLD, INCLUDING SOME THREATS OF VIOLENCE. WHY CAN’T BOYS PLAY NICE WITH GIRLS? HE IS ONE OF THOSE MEN WHO FEEL THAT THE WORLD IS OUT TO GET WHITE MEN. HIS “PRIVILEGE GRANT” IS REALLY A DILLY.

THE SECTIONS CALLED EARLY AND PERSONAL LIFE, CAREER, GAMERGATE, YIANNOPOULOS PRIVILEGE GRANT, AND TWITTER CONTROVERSIES. HE HAS BEEN PERMANENTLY BANNED FROM TWITTER FOR SEVERAL CRUDE AND HOSTILE INTERACTIONS. HIS PHOTOGRAPH SEEMS TO ME TO SHOW THOSE SLIGHTLY EFFEMINATE AND UBERWEALTHY CHARACTERISTICS THAT HIS ANTIFEMINISM PREDICTS.

ABOUT THE "BLACK CLAD MASKED PROTESTERS, SEE YESTERDAY'S BLOG CALLED "BLACK BLOC ...." I WOULD LOVE TO SAY THAT JUST ANYTHING SHOULD BE ALLOWED UNDER THE HEADING OF "FREEDOM OF SPEECH," BUT I DON'T. HATE SPEECH IS SO COMMON NOW THAT I WOULD LOVE SOME PC COMMENTARY. NOT FINDING ANY, I'M GOING TO WRITE MY OWN: PARAPHRASING THE WORDS OF JESUS AGAIN, SIN IS FIRST FOUND "IN THE HEART," PARTICULARLY VICIOUSNESS. HATE COMES FIRST, HATE SPEECH COMES NEXT, AND MURDER COMES SOON AFTER. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT TOTAL FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS A GOOD THING. IN TIMES LIKE THESE THERE'S NO TIME FOR COMMON SENSE TO MODIFY THE EMOTIONAL REACTIONS THAT WILL INEVITABLY ENSUE. HATE SPEECH IS, WITHOUT QUESTION, "FIGHTING WORDS," AND SHOULD BE ILLEGAL. THAT'S MY VIEW, AT ANY RATE.