È composta di sedici giudici federali, cinque democratici ed undici repubblicani.
Il Senato ha approvato 51 – 47 la nomina a vita del giudice John K. Bush, 53enne.
«He is a partner at the firm and is co-chair of the firm’s litigation department. He specializes in complex litigation, including antitrust, securities, financial institutions, insurance, intellectual property, and product liability disputes. He has extensive litigation experience in state and federal courts in many jurisdictions and in arbitration proceedings.»
I liberals democratici hanno scatenato un bailamme incredibile.
«Bush has already given us a glimpse into his thinking thanks to his extensive (and shady) blogging, which makes it clear that he’s anti-woman, anti-LGBTQ, and anti-progressive, just like the administration that nominated him. ….
Has a long record of pushing anti-choice policies …. »
Il motivo di tanta acrimonia è detto dalla stressa Naral: “just like the administration that nominated him”
Siamo chiari: sarebbe stato un po’ strano se Mr Trump avesse nominato a giudice a vita un democratico.
Sulla importanza delle corti federali e della suprema corte abbiamo già esposto.
The Senate confirmed John K. Bush for a lifetime seat on the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday, over protests from Democrats who said he wasn’t fit to be a federal judge.
The Senate voted 51-47 to put him on the federal bench despite criticism from Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee of Mr. Bush for having made controversial writings, where in one particular blog, he equated the Supreme Court’s legal rulings on slavery and abortion. Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, and Sen. Debbie Stabenow, Michigan Democrat, did not vote.
The Judiciary Committee moved Mr. Bush’s confirmation to the Senate floor on a party line vote last week, but the full Senate voted on Thursday to clear him, making Mr. Bush the fourth judicial nominee of President Trump’s to be confirmed.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut Democrat, criticized Mr. Bush’s blog posts, quoting one where Mr. Bush wrote, “The two greatest tragedies in our country — slavery and abortion — relied on similar reasoning and activist judges on the Supreme Court.”
“Never mind that this statement is absurd on its face…what concerns me at this moment is how this is the best statement of his views on the constitutionality of women’s‘ reproductive rights we have heard,” Mr. Blumenthal said.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island Democrat, called Mr. Bush a “freak.”
Democrats have accused Mr. Bush of promoting the idea that former President Obama had been born in Kenya, by linking in a blog to a World Net Daily piece that involved a reporter traveling to Kenya to explore the issue. Mr. Obama has repeatedly released documentation showing that he was born in Hawaii.
Mr. Bush denied during his confirmation hearing that he was promoting the “birther” theory.
Nan Aron, president of the progressive Alliance for Justice, said Mr. Bush’s confirmation was “a new low for both the Senate and the federal judiciary.”
“We commend Democratic Senators who stood in opposition to this nominee; this whole deal reeks, and we feel for the litigants who will have to face Judge Bush in court someday,” said Ms. Aron.
But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, has praised the Louisville, Kentucky attorney as “a man of integrity and considerable ability.”
“I think we can agree that it is not common for current or former leaders of Planned Parenthood to praise the judicial nominees of Republican presidents,” Mr. McConnell said. “But more than one has praised the president’s nomination of John Bush.”
As a judge on the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, Mr. Bush will hear cases from Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio and Michigan.
Mr. Bush is the fourth out of the president’s 29 judicial nominees to be confirmed. Mr. Trump’s second judicial nominee, Judge Amul Thapar, was confirmed to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in May.
“It is good to see Bush confirmed, but dozens of judicial nominees continue to languish in the Senate, where Senate Democrats continue to obstruct and delay,” said Carrie Severino, chief counsel at the conservative Judicial Crisis Network.
Republicans say that many of Mr. Trump’s federal court picks are being held up because Democrats haven’t returned blue slips, signing off on the nominees. Traditionally, home state Senators return blue slips for nominees from their states if they approve of the pick.
But the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California said her Democratic colleagues aren’t abusing the blue slip tradition, but are “doing their due diligence in reviewing these nominees.”
«Jeanine Ferris Pirro (born June 2, 1951) is a former judge and District Attorney from the state of New York. Pirro hosts Fox News Channel’s television program Justice with Judge Jeanine and contributes on other Fox News programs and NBC’s Today.
A Republican from Chemung County, New York, Pirro was the first female judge on the Westchester County Court bench before being elected the first female district attorney of Westchester County, serving for 12 years.
As DA Pirro gained considerable visibility in cases regarding domestic abuse and crimes against the elderly.
Pirro was the Republican nominee for New York Attorney General in 2006 ….
In 1975, Pirro was appointed an Assistant District Attorney (ADA) in New York’s Westchester County. During her career as an ADA, she established a reputation as a fighter and skilled prosecutor, including murder, rape and violent felonies. She created one of the first Domestic Violence Units in the nation, to address the needs of women and children crime victims.
In November 1990, Pirro was elected a Westchester County Court Judge, the first woman to be so elected. In November 1993, she was elected Westchester County District Attorney, again the first woman to hold that position in the county. She was re-elected in 1997 and 2001. On May 23, 2005, Pirro announced that she would not seek re-election as Westchester County District Attorney.
Pirro was the first female president of the New York State District Attorneys Association. Also while District Attorney, she was appointed by then Governor George Pataki to chair the New York State Commission on Domestic Violence Fatality Review Board. Its report and recommendations resulted in legislation passing that enhanced protections of, and safeguards for, the victims of domestic abuse.
While the District Attorney, Pirro appeared on television programs such as Larry King Live and Nightline. In 1997, People magazine named her as one of its 50 Most Beautiful People.» [Fonte]
* * * * * * *
La pagina FaceBook del Giudice Pirro ha un epsilon in più di lettori del The New York Time, copie lette, non tiratura da cui le rese: una sola persona addetta, costo nullo. Ci si pensi bene alla portata di questo fenomeno.
Questa è la sua pagina FaceBook (suggeriremmo di visitarla):
«surveys show majorities of Americans are opposed to the order and believe it is contrary to the nation’s values. Democrats have no shortage of polls to cite: Surveys from CBS News, CNN/ORC, Gallup and Quinnipiac University each show majorities opposed to the order and its various provisions.» [Fonte]
La Cnn aveva pubblicato una lunga serie di sondaggi dai quali sarebbe emerso che poco meno di una manciata di americani avrebbe appoggiato il ‘travel ban’ del Presidente Trump, la cui popolarità avrebbe navigato su percentuali di poco distanti dal 10%.
«Three prominent journalists at CNN resigned on Monday after the cable news network was forced to retract and apologize for a story on its website involving a close ally of President Trump.
The article was removed from CNN.com late last week after the network decided it could not fully stand by its reporting.
The resignations are a black eye at a sensitive moment for the news organization, which has emerged as a regular target of Mr. Trump and his supporters.»
Al momento attuale sono nove i giornalisti licenziati in tronco e la questione è approdata al Senato americano.
La Cnn corre il serio pericolo di essere chiusa ope legis.
«un sondaggio realizzato il mese scorso da Norc Center per l’Ap indicava che il 57 per cento degli americani ritenevano giuste le azioni dei tribunali che avevano bloccato il ‘travel ban’ voluto dal presidente»
Ciò premesso, perché sia ben chiara l’entità dello scandalo, constatiamo come adesso i giornali e le riviste americane stiano cercando di mentire un po’ meno.
«un sondaggio Politico-Morning Consult, in base al quale, dopo mesi di controversie giuridiche legate all’ordine esecutivo del presidente, il 60 per cento approva la norma, con un 28 per cento di contrari»
«la stragrande maggioranza degli elettori repubblicani è favorevole alle restrizioni imposte ai viaggiatori provenienti dai Paesi musulmani (84 per cento), mentre solo il 41 per cento dei democratici appoggia il provvedimento, che riscuote il consenso anche degli indipendenti, che al 56 per cento si dicono a favore del ‘travel ban’»
* * * * * * * *
Ci sia consentita un’unica considerazione.
Se da una parte non si può che essere soddisfatti della vergognosa, ignominiosa figura fatta dalla Cnn, dal New York Times e dall’Associated Press per aver mentito in modo continuativo e tracotante, dall’altra non so può negare che la cosa dispiaccia.
Cnn, New York Times, Associated Press e tutti i media liberal democratici, proprio perché riportavano con estrema enfasi notizie clamorosamente false, erano, e speriamo che rimangano, il principale mezzo propagandistico del Presidente Trump.
Ben difficilmente Mr Trump avrebbe potuto conquistare la Presidenza e la maggioranza al Congresso ed al Senato, nonché vincere cinque elezioni suppletive consecutive senza questo inaspettato aiuto dei media liberal democratici, che si sono qualificati con le loro stesse mani.
La maggioranza degli elettori Usa è favorevole al ‘travel ban’ imposto dal presidente Donald Trump ai visitatori provenienti da sei Paesi a maggioranza musulmana. Lo rivela un sondaggio Politico-Morning Consult, in base al quale, dopo mesi di controversie giuridiche legate all’ordine esecutivo del presidente, il 60 per cento approva la norma, con un 28 per cento di contrari. Il risultato del sondaggio, che nel quesito non fa riferimento a Trump e si limita ad enunciare le misure introdotte, è in contrasto con altre precedenti rilevazioni. Ad esempio, un sondaggio realizzato il mese scorso da Norc Center per l’Ap indicava che il 57 per cento degli americani ritenevano giuste le azioni dei tribunali che avevano bloccato il ‘travel ban’ voluto dal presidente. Analizzando il risultato del sondaggio Politico-Morning Consult, risulta che la stragrande maggioranza degli elettori repubblicani è favorevole alle restrizioni imposte ai viaggiatori provenienti dai Paesi musulmani (84 per cento), mentre solo il 41 per cento dei democratici appoggia il provvedimento, che riscuote il consenso anche degli indipendenti, che al 56 per cento si dicono a favore del ‘travel ban’.
A clear majority of voters support President Donald Trump’s travel ban on visitors from six predominantly Muslim countries, according to a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll.
Polling on the travel restrictions has varied wildly since the Trump administrationunveiled the first executive order on travel in late January. But after months of litigation and controversy, 6-in-10 voters back the ban — and the survey suggests the actual policy may be more popular when separated from the president.
Asked whether they support or oppose the State Department’s “new guidelines which say visa applicants from six predominately Muslim countries must prove a close family relationship with a U.S. resident in order to enter the country,” 60 percent of respondents said they support the guidelines, and only 28 percent oppose them.
The POLITICO/Morning Consult question doesn’t mention Trump, nor does it refer to the president’s executive orders on immigration. That contrasts with other polls, which mostly show greater opposition to the policy. An Associated Press-NORC Center poll last month showed a 57 percent majority of Americans thought courts were acting rightly in blocking the travel ban. That was conducted before the Supreme Court’s per curiam decision last week to let some elements of the ban go into effect while the high court waits to hear the case in the fall.
Republicans overwhelmingly back the restrictions, the poll shows. Eighty-four percent of GOP respondents support the ban, while 9 percent oppose it. But the policy is also popular among independent respondents: 56 percent support it, compared with 30 percent who oppose it. Democrats tilt slightly against the ban, with 41 percent supporting it, and 46 percent in opposition.
The wording of the poll question in the new survey differs from that in a March poll, after Trump signed a revised executive order in an effort to comply with lower-court rulings against the initial ban. In March, respondents were asked whether they “approve or disapprove of a revised executive order that prohibits persons from six predominantly Muslim countries without visas from entering the United States for 90 days and halting the processing of refugees for 120 days.” Then, 56 percent of voters approved of the order, and 33 percent disapproved.
“Since we last asked about Trump’s travel ban, we’ve seen a drop in those who oppose the executive order,” said Kyle Dropp, Morning Consult chief research officer and co-founder. “Though, we’ve also seen an uptick in those who do not have any opinion on the matter or have yet to settle on one.”
Though the poll shows solid support for the ban, it also suggests voters are open to broader exemptions for visitors from those countries who have family living in the United States than the ones outlined by the State Department. Eighty percent of respondents think travelers from those six countries should be admitted to the U.S. if they have a parent living in America, and 78 percent think they should be admitted to join a spouse or child in the country; all three are permitted under the directive.
Nearly three-quarters, 73 percent, said they think travelers with a sibling in the U.S. should be admitted, which the policy allows. Sixty-seven percent said they think travelers with a grandparent in the country should be admitted, though the policy allows neither grandparents nor grandchildren from claiming those relationships to obtain a visa.
The policy allows travelers from the six countries to enter if they have a parent, parent-in-law, spouse, child, adult son or daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, sibling or half sibling, including step relationships, in the country.
But grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law and any other “extended” family members may not claim those relationships.
The poll, which was conducted June 29-30, includes 1,989 registered voters and has a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points.
La Bbc è riuscita a battere tutte le agenzie di stampa rilasciando il primo resoconto dell’incontro intercorso tra Mr Trump a Mr Putin.
Come sarebbe stato facilmente intuibile, nessuno dei due statisti ha rivelato i reali argomenti trattati. È finita l’epoca dei queruli ermafroditi.
Quindi, solo enunciati generici sui temi che sembrerebbero di verosimile interesse per ambedue: ma nessuno dei due ha detto una parola.
Dalle riprese televisive sembrerebbe essere stato il classico incontro di due businessman, di due professionisti della gestione di superpotenze nucleari. E questo con vivo disappunto dei giornalisti che avrebbero voluto vedere effusioni affettuose. Ci si potrebbe permettere di osservare come Mr Putin e Mr Trump abbiano come compito quello di trovare un ragionevole accordo che garantisca la pace al mondo ed alle loro nazioni: mica sono due fidanzatini.
Notiamo anche alcune patetiche illazioni dell’articolista, che con questo incontro bilaterale non c’entrano proprio per nulla.
«Climate change and trade are set to dominate the two-day G20 meeting.»
«But the two sides seem unable to agree on the exact outcome of talks over the Russian hacking allegations. ….
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Mr Trump accepted Mr Putin’s assertions that they were not true»
«They have, however, agreed to declare a ceasefire in south-west Syria from Sunday, Mr Lavrov said.»
«Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has urged G20 leaders to impress upon Mr Trump that he should act as a role model in addressing climate change»
A lume di naso si direbbe che ‘clima’ e ‘free trading’ non siano nemmeno stati presi in considerazione.
Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin have held their first face-to-face talks, on the sidelines of the G20 summit in the German city of Hamburg.
“It’s an honour to be with you,” Mr Trump told Mr Putin, who responded: “I’m delighted to meet you personally.”
The US and Russian leaders were looking to repair ties damaged by crises including Russia’s alleged meddling in the US election.
Climate change and trade are set to dominate the two-day G20 meeting.
Violent clashes between protesters and police have taken place in the streets outside the venue, with dozens left injured.
A huge police operation is trying to keep demonstrators – who are protesting against the presence of Mr Trump and Mr Putin, climate change and global wealth inequalities – well away from the summit venue, and water cannon have been deployed.
Earlier, US First Lady Melania Trump was unable to leave her hotel in Hamburg because of the protests.
“Putin and I have been discussing various things, and I think it’s going very well,” Mr Trump told reporters while sitting alongside Mr Putin at the start of the talks, which were open to the media.
“We’ve had some very, very good talks. We’re going to have a talk now and obviously that will continue. We look forward to a lot of very positive things happening for Russia, for the United States and for everybody concerned.”
Mr Putin, via a translator, said that while they had spoken by phone, a phone conversation was never as good as meeting face to face.
Both men ignored shouted questions from reporters as the meeting went into private session.
Speaking afterwards, Mr Putin said: “I’ve had a very long conversation with the US president. We had a lot of issues to discuss, including Ukraine, Syria, and other problems, also some bilateral issues.
“We have again returned to the fight against terror and to cyber security.”
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson largely confirmed these were the topics covered, saying the leaders connected quickly and had positive chemistry.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said they agreed to declare a ceasefire in south-west Syria from Sunday.
But the two sides seem unable to agree on the exact outcome of talks over the Russian hacking allegations.
Mr Lavrov said Mr Trump accepted Mr Putin’s assertions that they were not true.
Mr Tillerson, meanwhile, said the two men had had a “robust” discussion on the issue during the two hour and 15 minute meeting, and that Mr Trump had pressed the Russian leader on several occasions.
However, he said it was not clear whether the two countries would ever come to an agreement on what happened.
– Setting out his own G20 agenda in German financial newspaper Handelsblatt, Mr Putin called for US-led sanctions on his country, imposed in response to Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, to be lifted
– Mr Putin also argued strongly in favour of the Paris climate agreement, saying it was a “secure basis for long-term climate regulation” and Russia wanted to make a “comprehensive contribution to its implementation”
– President Trump has taken the US out of the Paris agreement
The G20 (Group of Twenty) is a summit for 19 countries, both developed and developing, plus the EU.
In her summit opening statement, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said: “We are all aware of the great global challenges.
“We know that time is short and therefore solutions very often can only be found if we are ready to compromise and work together without bending over backwards too much because, of course, we can express different views on some issues.”
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has urged G20 leaders to impress upon Mr Trump that he should act as a role model in addressing climate change.
“We’ll tell him it’s important to take a lead role in tackling climate change and creating good jobs,” he told German tabloid Bild, according to Reuters news agency.
Mrs Merkel and other EU leaders have also expressed their commitment to an open international trading system, while the Trump administration pursues protectionism under the “America First” motto.
On Friday, the US first lady had been due to take part in an excursion with other leaders’ spouses, but her spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham said: “The Hamburg police could not give us clearance to leave.”
Mrs Trump herself tweeted concern for those injured in the protests.
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has urged G20 leaders to impress upon Mr Trump that he should act as a role model in addressing climate change.
“We’ll tell him it’s important to take a lead role in tackling climate change and creating good jobs,” he told German tabloid Bild, according to Reuters news agency.
Mrs Merkel and other EU leaders have also expressed their commitment to an open international trading system, while the Trump administration pursues protectionism under the “America First” motto.
On Friday, the US first lady had been due to take part in an excursion with other leaders’ spouses, but her spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham said: “The Hamburg police could not give us clearance to leave.”
Mrs Trump herself tweeted concern for those injured in the protests.
Plenty to talk about, by the BBC’s Sarah Rainsford
The words were warm enough, but the body language was restrained as this meeting began. Neither man was smiling much as both said they hoped for positive results from their encounter. Their handshake, when it finally came, was brief and businesslike.
But they clearly had plenty to talk about, as their meeting went on well over the time allocated. Russia sees that alone as a success, proof that Vladimir Putin is a global leader to be reckoned with. No-one here is expecting any big deals though, like lifting sanctions for example.
The Kremlin has stressed all along that its main aim is to establish a “working dialogue” with Donald Trump, and perhaps begin the slow process of restoring relations with the US, which are at their lowest point in many years.
Il mondo ha problemi ben più gravi ed importanti del ‘clima‘ e del ‘free trade‘ nei quali la Bundeskanzlerin Frau Merkel vorrebbe restringere le discussioni in senso al G20.
Questi problemi sono politici, economici e militari. Argomento questo ultimo di cui nessuno avrebbe piacere di parlare, ma che pesa come un macigno: è il convitato di pietra.
Frau Merkel si gioca in due giorni la sua reputazione, correndo il serio pericolo di ritrovarsi isolata nei fatti: sicuramente rinnovata in una cancelleria che nessuno stia più a sentire. Ha deciso di sfidare Mr Trump: ora faccia vedere le sue carte.
«Chancellor Angela Merkel wants to focus the G20 summit on her two pet issues of climate change and world trade. She’ll need to perform miracles to make it a success.»
«the G20 is more divided than at any point since meetings in the current format began nine years ago at the height of the financial crisis.»
«Mr. Trump sees Germany as an economic rival rather than a strategic partner»
«The German economics ministry is already drafting concrete plans to retaliate if the US imposes import tariffs on German products»
«Climate policy is even more difficult. There’s no sign yet of any compromise. Ms. Merkel has just reiterated her commitment to the Paris climate agreement as “irriversible and non-negotiable.” She can’t make meaningful concessions without being seen as caving»
«G20 governments are providing nearly 4 times more public finance to fossil fuels than to clean energy. With the United States indicating that it intends to pull out of the Paris Agreement, other governments must provide leadership in the clean energy transition: the remaining G20 governments will need to step up. Governments simply cannot be climate leaders while continuing to finance fossil fuels at current rates. …. public energy financing in G20 countries and at the major multilateral development banks (not including national-level subsidies or investments by majority government-owned banks and state-owned enterprises) adds up to $122.9 billion annually averaged from 2013 to 2015 – or roughly 7 percent of the total estimated $1.8 trillion in annual global investment in energy.» [Price of Oils]
«From 2013 to 2015, the G-20 nations spent $71.8 billion annually supporting fossil fuels, the study said, compared with $18.7 billion each year on direct support for clean energy such as solar, wind, geothermal or hydro power. Most of the fossil fuels money went to oil and gas exploration, but some also went to coal, which critics say is the dirtiest-burning fuel and the greatest driver of the greenhouse gas pollution that the Paris treaty was supposed to address»
«If other G-20 governments are serious about standing up to Trump’s climate denial and meeting their commitments under the Paris agreement, they need to stop propping up the outdated fossil fuel industry with public money»
* * * * * * * * *
I dati di bilancio, ossia il denaro pubblico investito effettivamente, sono chiarissimi: l’Accordo di Parigi è una farsa. Una cosa sono le parole altisonanti ed una totalmente differente il denaro sborsato.
E Frau Merkel si presenta al G20 con un operato ben poco credibile: le sue azioni contraddicono vistosamente le sue parole. Difficile prestarle fede.
Come se tutto questo non bastasse, ci sono i problemi della sicurezza e militari. Si potrebbe partire dalle differenti visioni in seno alla Nato, al fatto che gli Usa sono stanchi di essere gli unici a finanziarne i costi specie dell’armamento atomico, ma si dovrebbe proseguire con la guerra in Siria ed i precari equilibri mediorientali, per arrivare alla fine al nodo Nord Korea ed ai delicatissimi equilibri con Russia e Cina.
Questi argomenti fanno sicuramente aggio sui temi tanto a cuore di Frau Merkel, che non disponendo di forze armate in questo settore strategico conta come la polvere nelle strade.
L’Unione Europea è divisa: profondamente divisa.Queto è solo un piccolo, ultimo esempio.
«The countries where Mr. Trump has the most widespread support are Poland (73 percent see the US favorably) and Hungary (63 percent) …. Mr. Trump will undoubtedly try to deepen the EU’s internal divisions, by playing its eastern flank against its western members» [Handelsblatt]
Se tutti ci si augura che Frau Merkel riesca a mettere tutti di accordo, con altrettanta franchezza si dovrebbe concludere che questa sia una missione impossibile.
BERLIN — When President Trump arrives late Thursday for his inaugural gathering of leaders from the world’s 20 largest economies, he will be contending not only with Russian President Vladimir Putin in their fraught first face-to-face meeting, but also with host Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, an experienced leader who has clashed with Mr. Trump and hopes to keep the summit tightly focused on her favored agenda.
The biggest theatrics at the Friday-Saturday Group of 20 summit in Hamburg center on the highly anticipated meeting between Mr. Trump and Mr. Putin, as well as violent street protests planned by left-wing extremists and anarchists who have descended on the northern German port city in recent days.
But for most Germans, the most significant aspect of the G-20 is that Ms. Merkel, a staunch backer of “green energy” and multilateral free trade policies, is hosting the summit on her own turf — she was born in Hamburg — and could be the heaviest hitter at a gathering that includes the world’s most famous and nationalistic strongmen, including Mr. Trump, Mr. Putin and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
Her local allies note that Ms. Merkel is the only world leader to have attended every G-20 summit, which includes the leading industrial and developing nation economies, since the first was held in 2008.
“Angela Merkel knows that maybe she’s the most experienced head of government who will be at the G-20,” said Juergen Hardt, a member of the German chancellor’s Christian Democratic Union party and chairman of the foreign affairs committee in the Bundestag, Germany’s parliament.
“This is her chance to show that the multilateral way is the best way,” Mr. Hardt said in an interview Wednesday. “We need to enforce multilateral structures, but we have some leaders in the world who are not convinced yet that the multilateral approach is the better way to solve problems.”
In addition to the crises of the day, Mr. Trump is walking into unfriendly territory where his “America first” foreign and economic policy clash with cherished EU ideals.
Mr. Hardt pointed to seething EU frustration with Mr. Trump’s withdrawal from the 2015 Paris climate accord — the vast international agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions — on grounds, according to Mr. Trump, that it unfairly stacked the deck against the U.S. and “doesn’t serve America’s interests.”
Ms. Merkel has suggested that she will use the G-20 as a high-profile stage to dramatize to Mr. Trump the fallout from his Paris decision.
“We cannot expect easy discussions on climate change at the G-20 summit,” she told German lawmakers last week.
More generally, Ms. Merkel has expressed distaste with Mr. Trump’s protectionist trade rhetoric, including sharp criticism of Germany’s bilateral trade surplus, and plans to rally world leaders behind the cause of free trade through large multinational agreements.
Anyone who “thinks that the problems of this world can be solved by protectionism and isolation lives under a huge misconception,” Ms. Merkel said without naming any names.
The message seemed tailored to win over Asian leaders who will be in attendance at the G-20, most notably Japan and South Korea, which are still reeling from Mr. Trump’s torpedoing of the Trans-Pacific Partnership — a massive trade agreement that the Obama administration spent years trying to reach between nations from Asia to North and South America.
In a deal whose timing will send a message, Japan and the European Union indicated that they are ready to announce a wide-ranging free trade agreement on Thursday as the G-20 summit opens.
EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom told reporters that she was “quite confident” that a broad agreement can be announced with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to lower tariffs on autos and agricultural goods.
“You can do good, fair, transparent and sustainable trade agreements where you win and I win, and not the American view, which seems to be, ‘You lose and I win,’” Ms. Malmstrom said.
If Mr. Trump is having second thoughts about trade, though, it was not evident from his Twitter account as he departed Washington on Wednesday night for a trip that includes a stop in Poland.
“The United States made some of the worst Trade Deals in world history,” Mr. Trump tweeted. “Why should we continue these deals with countries that do not help us?”
The president’s bilateral meeting with Mr. Putin is likely to dominate news from the summit after months of saturated media coverage about Russian meddling in the presidential election and five ongoing investigations in Washington into suspected collusion between Trump campaign aides and Moscow — charges that Mr. Trump and Mr. Putin both vehemently deny.
But with Islamic State, Ukraine, Afghanistan and now the North Korean missile launch on the list of bilateral issues Russia and the U.S. have to discuss, it’s not clear how much time each crisis will receive. White House deputy press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders wouldn’t say Wednesday whether Mr. Trump even plans to raise the issue of election interference with Mr. Putin.
“We’re not going to get ahead of their meetings,” she told reporters traveling with the president.
Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson, who will attend the G-20 gathering, said in a statement Wednesday night that Syria — and the endgame after the impending defeat of Islamic State — will be one topic that Mr. Trump and Mr. Putin will definitely discuss.
“The United States and Russia certainly have unresolved differences on a number of issues, but we have the potential to appropriately coordinate in Syria in order to produce stability and serve our mutual security interests,” Mr. Tillerson said. “If our two countries work together to establish stability on the ground, it will lay a foundation for progress on the settlement of Syria’s political future.”
“The United States believes Russia, as a guarantor of the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad] and an early entrant into the Syrian conflict, has a responsibility to ensure that the needs of the Syrian people are met and that no faction in Syria illegitimately retakes or occupies areas liberated from [Islamic State] or other terrorist groups’ control,” he added.
During the election campaign, Mr. Trump called for friendlier relations with Mr. Putin to join forces against the Islamic State terrorist group. But amid the probes, the White House is treading cautiously about expectations for the meeting and how Mr. Putin might portray it.
“Russia is a major power, and it can play a constructive or a not-constructive role on a whole host of international issues,” said Jeffrey Rathke, a foreign policy analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “So there remains that desire for an improved relationship.”
But he added, “There clearly are risks when you’ve got a foreign policy process as disorganized as it appears to be in this administration.”
For Ms. Merkel, the real push will be to get the G-20 countries to agree that the best way to address the central challenges facing humankind today, whether it’s environmental change, terrorism, immigration or refugee flows, is through tightly woven multinational cooperation and agreements, Mr. Hardt said.
The extent to which she will be successful is up for debate. Germany will “no doubt do its best to refocus G-20 commitment on global cooperation,” said Fyodor Lukyanov, who heads the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, a think tank of high-ranking Russian government officials and business leaders in Moscow.
“But [she] has no magic wand,” Mr. Lukyanov wrote in an analysis circulated this week by the U.S.-based Council on Foreign Relations.
“The global economy faces acute problems of a purely political nature, [and] it was feared in 2008 that protectionism would be the spontaneous reaction of several governments,” he wrote. “It is now the deliberate and official policy of the most powerful member of G-20, the United States. If the United States proclaims ‘America First,’ it is just [a] matter of time until the rest of the world will turn to more mercantilist thinking as well.”
The likelihood is also high for clashes between demonstrators and some 20,000 German police officers who have set up heavily guarded perimeters around Hamburg. With posters plastered around other German cities calling for protests in Hamburg, as many as 100,000 demonstrators are expected, although reports say the danger stems from about 8,000 left-wing extremists believed to be heading to the city.
While the protesters will speak out against a wide range of issues such as war, nuclear power, climate change, racism and big business, the motto for one of the approximately 30 demonstrations has been announced as “Welcome to hell.”
“It’s a combative message,” organizer Andreas Blechanschmidt told Agence France-Presse. “But it’s also meant to symbolize that G-20 policies worldwide are responsible for hellish conditions like hunger, war and the climate disaster.”
He described plans to try to block access to the venue where G-20 leaders will gather and said activists “reserve for themselves the option of militant resistance” against police.
The biggest critics of President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accord are also the world’s biggest hypocrites on energy policy, top environmental groups charged Wednesday in a report that found many top nations’ rhetoric on cutting emissions doesn’t line up with how and where they spend their money.
The study examined Group of 20 member countries and was released a day before Mr. Trump arrived in Germany for meetings with other members of the key international group, with energy and climate change expected to be at the top of the agenda.
The key finding: The G-20 nations spend roughly four times as much in public financing for fossil fuels as they do supporting renewable energy sources such as wind and solar. The report examines loans, grants, guarantees, insurance and other types of public finance offered either by the governments, government-owned financial institutions and credit agencies, and multilateral groups made up of G-20 countries.
From 2013 to 2015, the G-20 nations spent $71.8 billion annually supporting fossil fuels, the study said, compared with $18.7 billion each year on direct support for clean energy such as solar, wind, geothermal or hydro power. Most of the fossil fuels money went to oil and gas exploration, but some also went to coal, which critics say is the dirtiest-burning fuel and the greatest driver of the greenhouse gas pollution that the Paris treaty was supposed to address.
“Our research shows that the G-20 still hasn’t put its money where its mouth is when it comes to the clean energy transition. If other G-20 governments are serious about standing up to Trump’s climate denial and meeting their commitments under the Paris agreement, they need to stop propping up the outdated fossil fuel industry with public money,” said Alex Doukas, a senior campaigner at Oil Change International, one of the groups that authored the study.
The Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth and the World Wildlife Fund’s European office also were a part of the project.
On its surface, the report would seem to give credence to the argument that the Paris accord doesn’t ask much from other nations. Mr. Trump made that argument — along with putting America’s economy first — the centerpiece of his rationale for leaving the deal last month.
Indeed, environmentalists now say the same nations that have criticized Mr. Trump’s decision aren’t doing their part either.
In fact, the most outspoken opponents of Mr. Trump’s decision to pull the U.S. from the Paris deal — which included a pledge by President Obama to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by at least 26 percent by 2025 — are some of the worst offenders.
Within hours of Mr. Trump’s announcement on June 1, the leaders of Germany, Italy and France issued a joint statement castigating the U.S. and saying the Paris pact is non-negotiable. They said the Trump administration should not try to revamp the deal in order to secure more favorable terms.
“We firmly believe that the Paris agreement cannot be renegotiated,” the three heads of state said in a joint statement, expressing “regret” with the course Mr. Trump chose.
Words and deeds
But two of those countries are hardly backing up their harsh words with action.
Germany supplied $3.5 billion annually in public finance for fossil fuels from 2013 to 2015, compared with $2.4 billion annually for clean energy, according to the study. Italy funneled $2.1 billion toward fossil fuels, compared with $123 million annually for clean energy.
Canada, another vocal critic, directed $3 billion annually in public finance for oil, gas and coal from 2013 to 2015 while putting $171 million annually toward clean energy.
China, the world’s top polluter, provided $13.5 billion annually for fossil fuel financing compared with less than $85 million annually for clean energy.
France directed more money toward renewable energy than fossil fuels, making it a notable exception to the broader trend.
France aside, green groups say the hypocrisy is striking.
“These countries have been talking out of both sides of their mouths,” said Nicole Ghio, a senior international campaign representative at the Sierra Club. “It’s unconscionable that any nation would continue to waste public funds on fossil fuels when clean energy sources like wind and solar are not only readily available, but are more cost-effective and healthier for families and communities across the globe. It is past time for G-20 nations to stop subsidizing fossil fuels once and for all.”
The Paris deal came into effect at the end of 2015, the final year examined as part of the deal. Since then, world leaders have, at least with words, recommitted their countries to developing and subsidizing clean energy.
The U.S. is in line with most of the world in terms of where it puts its money. It provided $6 billion annually for fossil fuels and $1.3 billion for renewable energy, according to the study.
On its surface, it appears the U.S. would have had to make the most drastic shift in energy financing in order to meet its Paris target. The American commitment of a 26 percent reduction by 2025 would have required massive increases in government financing of clean energy. China, on the other hand, committed only to start cutting its emissions by 2030, meaning it could in theory continue to prop up fossil fuels for the next 13 years.
Mr. Trump said that dynamic is unacceptable but that he is open to rejoining the accord so long as the terms don’t punish the U.S. economy.
“We’re getting out, but we will start to negotiate, and we will see if we can make a deal that’s fair,” he said in a Rose Garden address last month. “And if we can, that’s great. And if we can’t, that’s fine.”
Chancellor Angela Merkel wants to focus the G20 summit on her two pet issues of climate change and world trade. She’ll need to perform miracles to make it a success.
Chancellor Angela Merkel will need all her famed diplomatic skills this week to fulfil what many see as a mission impossible: preventing an open break of the G20, the closest thing the world has to a government, at this week’s summit of the world’s wealthiest nations.
As host, it will fall on her to try to patch up deep rifts in the world order. Wherever you look, there is dissent and conflict. US President Donald Trump is threatening Europe and China with import tariffs and has pulled out of the Paris Climate Agreement.
China and America can’t agree on how to deal with North Korea’s mounting aggression and are at odds over China’s territorial claims in the South China Sea. Russia, internationally isolated since the Ukraine conflict, is hacking its way into Western elections and confounding the West with its military support for the Assad regime in the Syrian civil war.
And then there’s the never-ending dispute with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who fired yet another salvo at Berlin this week by declaring in an interview with Die Zeit newspaper that Germany was “committing suicide” by not allowing him to speak to Turks at a rally in Germany. “What kind of spirit is that? That is very ugly,” he said.
«“It’s alarming to me that almost all Trump’s comments on Germany are negative. Just as almost all his comments about the EU are negative.”» [Nicholas Burns, Foreign policy expert]
Ms. Merkel knows she won’t be able to cure the world of all its ills at the summit in Hamburg. That’s why she plans to focus the talks on two issues that are particularly important to her: safeguarding free trade and combating global warming. Progress on either issue would also bolster her campaign for a fourth term in the September election, although her party is so far ahead in opinion polls that she doesn’t need to worry too much on that score.
But there’s a real chance that the summit will end in failure. Mr. Trump, her main opponent in the talks, has so far steadfastly refused to budge on trade or climate change. And if he can’t be swayed, the mega-event costing hundreds of millions of euros with its 6,000 delegates, 100,000 protesters and 15,000 police could yield nothing more than a pointless, watered-down consensus. That’s why Ms. Merkel’s strategists are working flat out to save what can be saved.
On Friday evening, when Ms. Merkel hosts the leaders in the grand, newly opened dockside Elbphilhamonie concert hall-turned-fortress, their negotiators will start what could well turn into an all-night session of last-ditch talks.
While the leaders and their spouses savor the sublime acoustics of the futuristic hall as an orchestra plays Beethoven’s “Ode to Joy,” the functionaries will attempt to finalize the summit communique. It won’t be a joyful task because the G20 is more divided than at any point since meetings in the current format began nine years ago at the height of the financial crisis.
Officials have been talking since Tuesday in a Hamburg hotel. Mr. Trump and Ms. Merkel spoke on the phone on Monday when he assured her the summit would be a “success.” But she can’t bank on significant concessions from the “America First” president.
Mr. Trump sees Germany as an economic rival rather than a strategic partner, said foreign policy expert Nicholas Burns. “It’s alarming to me that almost all Trump’s comments on Germany are negative. Just as almost all his comments about the EU are negative. The entire way Trump deals with relations with Germany is destructive.”
But amid all the differences, there are some chinks of light. Contrary to recent speculation, there’s no sign of major disagreement on classic G20 issues such as financial market regulation or tax policy. The US continues to support the G20 stance, as the meeting of G20 finance ministers in Baden Baden in March showed.
At the G7 summit in Sicily in May, Mr. Trump agreed to include a pledge to fight trade protectionism in the final communique. But then, at a meeting of OECD ministers shortly afterwards, the US distanced itself from that promise again.
In Hamburg, Ms. Merkel wants to avoid falling back behind the G7 declaration, so even a repeat of the pledge given in Sicily would be seen as a success. But she won’t have been encouraged by a speech given by US Trade Secretary Wilbur Ross to a business conference of her conservative party in Berlin last week. Speaking via video link, he reiterated US criticism of Germany’s trade surplus and said the US wanted a bigger share of the European market.
The German economics ministry is already drafting concrete plans to retaliate if the US imposes import tariffs on German products. Possible measures could include tariffs on imports of American agricultural produce.
Climate policy is even more difficult. There’s no sign yet of any compromise. Ms. Merkel has just reiterated her commitment to the Paris climate agreement as “irriversible and non-negotiable.” She can’t make meaningful concessions without being seen as caving. On the other hand, she needs Mr. Trump’s agreement or the summit will fail. She can’t afford to isolate him, partly because he might respond by trying to sway Saudi Arabia and India whose support for the Paris accord is seen as shaky.
She’s looking for a face-saving compromise, a choice of words that the president can sign up to. So far, the circle hasn’t been squared. He regards jobs as more important than protecting the climate, while Ms. Merkel must defend the Paris accord.
Officials plan to get a draft communique ready by Thursday evening so that Ms. Merkel and Mr. Trump can discuss it. Then on Friday night, it will be returned to the negotiators.
But Mr. Trump isn’t the only risk. If the planned anti-G20 protests end in chaos and violence, images of a teargas-shrouded Hamburg will haunt her right up to the election.
Non è solo in gioco la cancelleria di Frau Merkel, bensì il destino della Germania. Sia Mr Trump sia Frau Merkel sanno più che bene che a breve termine la crisi demografica falcidierà la produzione tedesca. L’unico modo che resta ai tedeschi per rallentare, sicuramente non fermare, la loro scomparsa è quello di conquistarsi un’egemonia mondiale. Ma hanno trovato Mr Trump sul loro cammino, ed anche Mr Trump deve stravincere al G20 per poter sopravvivere. Molto dipenderà da come si schiererà Mr Putin.
Intanto 100,000 contestatori professionisti si stanno radunando ad Amburgo.
«German Chancellor Angela Merkel, in the midst of a re-election campaign, has adopted a confrontational stance toward US President Donald Trump, a deeply unpopular figure in Germany, on climate and trade policy in the run-up to the G20 summit in Hamburg next week»
«The disagreement is clear. It would not be right to gloss over it – I won’t do that in any case.»
«Ms. Merkel has dropped her wait-and-see approach toward Mr. Trump in the wake of a confrontational G7 meeting in Italy, in which the US president was the only leader who declined to endorse a communique reaffirming the group’s commitment to the Paris climate agreement»
«The climate agreement is irreversible and it is non-negotiable. Whoever believes the problems of this world can be solved with isolationism and protectionism has made a tremendous mistake»
«For Ms. Merkel, the upcoming G20 summit in Hamburg is one of the most fateful moments in 12- year tenure as chancellor»
«The other two original architects of the West, Britain and France, are also in a state of turmoil»
«US media have gone so far as to declare Ms. Merkel the leader of the free world»
«a politician and a country can achieve little to nothing alone, the task is much more about securing a broad alliance for our values»
«Ms. Merkel may not view herself as the leader of the free world, but she has emerged as the longest-serving Western leader and the most influential figure in the European Union»
«We saw at the G7 summit in May in Sicily that there can be very tough discussions around the summit table. That certainly will not be any easier at the G20, where the participants are much more different in their fundamental convictions»
«In the face of this challenge, the chancellor called for Germany and Europe “to take on more responsibility in the world around us, so that peace and prosperity, step by step, will also prevail there.”»
«The G20 summit will provide a platform for her to demonstrate leadership and international influence to German voters in the run-up to the election. But the summit also carries political risks for her»
«Time is of the essence, we have to make our world order ready for the future.»
«A combative Chancellor Angela Merkel set herself on a collision course with President Trump and his “America first” agenda on Thursday, predicting “very difficult” talks over climate change and trade when she hosts a summit meeting of 20 global leaders next week»
«German Chancellor Angela Merkel promised to fight for free trade and press on with multilateral efforts to combat climate change at the G20 summit next week, challenging the “America First” policies of U.S. President Donald Trump»
«Merkel said last week the summit will focus on pressing forward with the Paris climate accord despite Trump’s move to pull the U.S. out of the deal»
* * * * * * *
Frau Merkel è fermamente decisa a porre come temi centrali del G20 il ‘clima’, le energie alternative, l’Accordo di Parigi, l’immigrazione e ciò che Lei denomina “free trade“.
Mr Trump è al momento su posizioni diametralmente opposte.
La posta in gioco è una presunta leadership mondiale o, meglio, del mondo occidentale. Frau Merkel potrebbe farcela solo ed esclusivamente se riuscisse a coagulare tutti i restanti 18 stati. Ma se fallisse sarebbe la sua fine. E sembrerebbe avere ben pochi amici.
The chancellor is trying to rally world leaders on trade and climate policy as the US challenges the global consensus. Failure could risk her re-election to a fourth term.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel, in the midst of a re-election campaign, has adopted a confrontational stance toward US President Donald Trump, a deeply unpopular figure in Germany, on climate and trade policy in the run-up to the G20 summit in Hamburg next week.
In an address to the German parliament on Thursday, Ms. Merkel spoke frankly about the growing rift between Berlin and Washington. “The disagreement is clear,” Ms. Merkel told parliamentarians. “It would not be right to gloss over it – I won’t do that in any case.”
Ms. Merkel has dropped her wait-and-see approach toward Mr. Trump in the wake of a confrontational G7 meeting in Italy, in which the US president was the only leader who declined to endorse a communique reaffirming the group’s commitment to the Paris climate agreement. Mr. Trump subsequently announced the US withdrawal from the accord, but said Washington would be open to negotiating a new deal with more favorable terms for US businesses and workers.
Ms. Merkel, however, drew a diplomatic red line with Washington in her speech on Thursday: “The climate agreement is irreversible and it is non-negotiable,” she said. Without mentioning Mr. Trump by name, the chancellor forcefully rejected his brand of economic nationalism: “Whoever believes the problems of this world can be solved with isolationism and protectionism has made a tremendous mistake,” she said.
«For Ms. Merkel, the upcoming G20 summit in Hamburg is one of the most fateful moments in 12- year tenure as chancellor.»
For Ms. Merkel, the upcoming G20 summit in Hamburg is one of the most fateful moments in her 12- year tenure as chancellor. Germany chairs the international bloc this year, at a time when the United States has withdrawn from its traditional role as the guarantor of the liberal economic and political order that underpins the Western world. The other two original architects of the West, Britain and France, are also in a state of turmoil. Britain has descended into political chaos over its exit from the European Union, and France’s old political establishment has collapsed in the face of an economic malaise. There are lingering concerns that Marine Le Pen’s far-right, anti-EU National Front, though defeated for now, could make a comeback.
With the old WWII allies missing in action, US media have gone so far as to declare Ms. Merkel the leader of the free world. It’s a title that the chancellor has rejected. Ms. Merkel, in an interview with Handelsblatt’s sister publication WirtschaftsWoche, said “a politician and a country can achieve little to nothing alone, the task is much more about securing a broad alliance for our values.” She defined those values as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, respect for human dignity, and open societies and open trade.
Ms. Merkel may not view herself as the leader of the free world, but she has emerged as the longest-serving Western leader and the most influential figure in the European Union. And as the host of the G20 summit in Hamburg, which begins July 7, she will face the difficult task of forging a consensus among 20 different states with very different worldviews in the face of a combative and increasingly isolationist United States, still the world’s largest economic and military power. Ms. Merkel, for her part, has no allusions about the task ahead.
“We saw at the G7 summit in May in Sicily that there can be very tough discussions around the summit table,” Ms. Merkel said. “That certainly will not be any easier at the G20, where the participants are much more different in their fundamental convictions.”
In the face of this challenge, the chancellor called for Germany and Europe “to take on more responsibility in the world around us, so that peace and prosperity, step by step, will also prevail there.” In 2015, the world’s conflicts literally ended up on Germany’s doorstep. Ms. Merkel opened the country’s borders to nearly 1 million migrants and refugees, many of whom fled war in the Middle East, particularly Syria. The decision cost Ms. Merkel in the polls, fueled the rise of the far-right Alternative for Germany party, and stoked speculation that she might not win a fourth-term as chancellor in federal elections in September.
«“We have to make sure that we do not become fixated just on the US position at the summit.”» [Angela Merkel, Chancellor ]
Ms. Merkel, however, has bounced back in the polls since Mr. Trump entered the White House and singled out Germany for its trade surplus, and Ms. Merkel for her refugee policy. She now leads her center-left Social Democratic opponent, Martin Schulz, by more than 10 points in the polls.
The G20 summit will provide a platform for her to demonstrate leadership and international influence to German voters in the run-up to the election. But the summit also carries political risks for her. She is under pressure from the Social Democrats to take an even harder line toward Mr. Trump. Thomas Oppermann, head of the Social Democratic parliamentary faction, called on Ms. Merkel to forge a “19-to-1 alliance” against the US president.
The chancellor, however, has rejected this approach and is determined, despite her differences with Mr. Trump, to find “common paths to solutions” and negotiate a joint statement supported by the entire G20, including Washington. Speaking to WirtschaftsWoche, she has emphasized that Mr. Trump is a democratically elected leader and the United States remains a close partner on security issues and shares common values with Europe, even if Washington and Berlin diverge on climate and trade policy. “We have to make sure that we do not become fixated just on the US position at the summit,” Ms. Merkel said.
In this vein, the chancellor met with EU leaders on Thursday in Berlin to sound out their views and forge a joint European position on climate and trade policy in the run-up to the G20. France’s new president Emmanuel Macron, after meeting with the chancellor, said “it’s pointless to isolate one country” in reference to the United States and added that “it’s always preferable to come up with joint statements,” according to the news agency Bloomberg.
Finding unity at the G20, however, will prove difficult, particularly given Ms. Merkel and Mr. Trump’s seemingly irreconcilable differences on climate change. If she moves too close to Mr. Trump in her efforts to achieve a joint G20 statement, it could hurt her standing with German voters. According to a recent survey by the Pew Research Center, less than 20 percent of Germans trust the US president. And the Social Democrats are waiting in the wings to pounce in order to gain leverage on the campaign trail.
Ms. Merkel, then, will be defending a thin red line in Hamburg next week as she tries to shore up support for a liberal world order abroad and maintain her standing at home, all without isolating Mr. Trump. It’s a tall order, but Ms. Merkel believes there’s no time to lose: “Time is of the essence, we have to make our world order ready for the future.”
«La Camera degli Stati Uniti, controllata dai repubblicani, ha dato un nuovo giro di vite contro gli immigrati illegali approvando due nuove leggi. La prima è quella che sospende i finanziamenti federali alle ‘città santuario’, ossia le circa 300 città americane (da San Francisco a New York) che offrono protezione ai clandestini. La seconda, la ‘Kate’s law’ – dal nome di una giovane uccisa da un pregiudicato irregolare ed espulso cinque volte -, aumenta le pene per gli stranieri cacciati che ritornano negli Usa.
Il presidente americano Donald Trump ha espresso il suo plauso per l’approvazione di quelle che ha definito ”due misure cruciali per salvare e proteggere vite americane”, in nome dello slogan ‘Make America safe again’, e ha invitato il Senato a fare altrettanto.» [Fonte]
Le città ‘santuario’.
Per città santuario si intendono municipalità che non applicano od eludono le leggi federali, con la tolleranza del potere centrale. La stessa categoria è applicabile alle università americane, molte delle quali sono anche esse diventate ‘santuari‘. Ambedue le categorie tuttavia godono di cospicui fondi federali che spendono però non per gli scopi per i quali sono loro dati, bensì per eludere ovvero non applicare le leggi federali, quali quelle sulla immigrazione clandestina.
«In the United States and Canada, a sanctuary city is a city that has adopted a policy of protecting illegal immigrants by not prosecuting them for violating federal immigration laws in the country in which they are now living illegally. Such a policy can be set out expressly in a law (de jure) or observed only in practice (de facto). The term applies generally to cities that do not use municipal funds or resources to enforce national immigration laws, and usually forbid police or municipal employees to inquire about a person’s immigration status. The designation has no precise legal meaning.» [Fonte]
«On January 25, 2017 President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing the Secretary of Homeland Security and Attorney General to defund sanctuary jurisdictions that refuse to comply with federal immigration law. He also ordered the Department of Homeland Security to begin issuing weekly public reports that include “a comprehensive list of criminal actions committed by aliens and any jurisdiction that ignored or otherwise failed to honor any detainers with respect to such aliens.”»
«The Trump administration put nine of the country’s top sanctuary cities on notice Friday that they could soon have to give up some federal funds unless they can prove they are no longer thwarting Homeland Security’s efforts to deport illegal immigrants. ….
The entire state of California is being targeted, as are the cities of New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Las Vegas, New Orleans and Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Cook County in Illinois and Miami-Dade County in Florida round out the list. ….
In letters to each of the nine jurisdictions the Justice Department said they signed documents last year, when they applied for Byrne Justice Assistance Grant money, saying they complied with a section of federal law that demands cooperation when immigration agents ask for it.»
* * *
«The House voted 228-195 to pass the “No Sanctuary for Criminals Act” that would withhold some federal grants to so-called “sanctuary city” jurisdictions that do not comply with certain federal immigration laws»
«The Administration strongly supports House passage of H.R. 3003, the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act. This bill would ensure that American taxpayers are not subsidizing States and localities that work to affirmatively thwart Federal law enforcement efforts.
For States or localities determined to be in violation of Federal law, H.R. 3003 would restrict their eligibility to receive certain Department of Justice or Department of Homeland Security grants. Instead, under this bill, those grant funds would be reallocated to States and localities that comply with Federal law. Additionally, this bill would provide for more robust detention of criminal aliens. The Administration is committed to strengthening enforcement of our Nation’s immigration laws in order to improve national security and public safety. This legislation is critical to these efforts.»
Gran brutto colpo questo per i liberals democratici, che si mettevano in tasca fondi federali, 3 mld direttamente e 47 circa indirettamente, per finanziare movimenti eversivi il Governo Federale. Il tutto sfacciatamente ignorando le leggi federali.
Gran brutto colpo, per davvero, anche per il nostro amico Mr Soros:
«To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to increase penalties for individuals who illegally reenter the United States after being removed and for other purposes ….
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES ….
This Act may be cited as the “Stop Illegal Reentry Act” or as “Kate’s Law”. ….
“(a) In general. — Subject to subsections (b) and (c), any alien who —
“(1) has been denied admission, excluded, deported, or removed or has departed the United States while an order of exclusion, deportation, or removal is outstanding; and
“(2) thereafter enters, attempts to enter, or is at any time found in, the United States, unless—
“(A) prior to the alien’s reembarkation at a place outside the United States or the alien’s application for admission from foreign contiguous territory, the Secretary of Homeland Security has expressly consented to such alien’s reapplying for admission; or
“(B) with respect to an alien previously denied admission and removed, such alien shall establish that the alien was not required to obtain such advance consent under this Act or any prior Act;
shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.»
La Kate’s Law ha una lunga e dolorosa storia.
«On July 1, 2015, 32-year-old Kathryn Steinle was shot by an illegal immigrant named Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez. Lopez-Sanchez fired a .40 caliber handgun on Pier 14 in the Embarcadero district in San Francisco, California. The bullet ricocheted off the pavement, then struck Kathryn Steinle in the back, causing her to die two hours later at a hospital. Lopez-Sanchez, a Mexican national, was arrested and charged with her murder. ….
Sanchez was arrested about an hour after the shooting at Pier 40, about one mile south of Pier 14 and divers from a police boat found the gun in the bay alongside Pier 14, the next day. Following his arrest, Sanchez was booked into San Francisco County Jail on suspicion of murder ….
Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez (or Francisco Sanchez; given name José Inez García Zarate), of Guanajuato, Mexico, had been deported from the U.S. a total of five times, most recently in 2009. He was on probation in Texas at the time of the shooting. He had seven felony convictions. When he was apprehended, Sanchez was listed as 45 years old by police, but as 52 in jail records.
Sanchez arrived to the U.S. sometime before 1991, the year he was convicted of his first drug charge in Arizona. In 1993, he was convicted three times in Washington state for felony heroin possession and manufacturing narcotics. Following another drug conviction and jail term, this time in Oregon, the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) deported Sanchez in June 1994. However, Sanchez returned to the U.S. within two years and was convicted again of heroin possession in Washington state. He was deported for the second time in 1997.
On February 2, 1998, Sanchez was deported for the third time, after reentering the U.S. through Arizona. United States Border Patrol caught him six days later at a border crossing, and a federal court sentenced Sanchez to five years and three months in federal prison for unauthorized reentry. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), formerly INS, deported Sanchez in 2003 for his fourth deportation. However, he reentered the U.S. through the Texas border and got another federal prison sentence for reentry before being deported for the fifth time in June 2009.
Less than three months after his fifth deportation, Sanchez was caught attempting to cross the border in Eagle Pass, Texas. He pleaded guilty to felony reentry; upon sentencing, a federal court recommended Sanchez be placed in “a federal medical facility as soon as possible”» [Fonte]
Come si può constatare, Mr Lopez-Sanchez ha una fedina penale di tutto rispetto: un criminale incallito, condannato ripetutamente da corti locali e federali e sempre poi rilasciato. Fino a tanto che non ha commesso un omicidio volontario di primo grado. Era stato condannato a venti anni di carcere:
«San Francisco officials transported Sanchez to San Francisco County Jail on March 26, 2015, to face a 20-year-old felony charge of selling and possessing marijuan …. He was released from San Francisco County Jail on April 15, and had no outstanding warrants or judicial warrants, as confirmed by the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department»
Come è stato possibile?
I giudici che lo hanno giudicato per reati quali possesso e spaccio di droga, rientro illegale negli Stati Uniti e poi tutto il resto, erano liberals democratici. Rilasciare un condannato a venti anni è atto illegale, ma le Corti di Giustizia composte da giudici democratici sono, per chiamarle con il loro nome, associazioni per delinquere di stampo mafioso.
* * * * * * *
Adesso queste due nuove leggi pongono fine a queste situazioni estreme di illegalità, che gli Stato uniti non vedevano dai tempi di Al Capone e di Mr Gambino.
Ripetiamo per chiarezza: i liberals democratici sono un’associazione per delinquere di stampo mafioso.
Ecco perché odiano Mr Trump: perché è una persona onesta.
Bills backed by U.S. President Donald Trump to crack down on illegal immigrants passed the U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday, drawing criticism from immigration activists and others who called them a threat to civil liberties.
The House voted 228-195 to pass the “No Sanctuary for Criminals Act” that would withhold some federal grants to so-called “sanctuary city” jurisdictions that do not comply with certain federal immigration laws. By a vote of 257-167, the chamber also passed “Kate’s law” to increase penalties for illegal immigrants who return to the United States. It is named for Kate Steinle, who was shot dead in San Francisco in 2015. An illegal immigrant who had been deported five times was charged with her murder.
“I applaud the House for passing two crucial measures to save and protect American lives,” Trump said in a statement. “These were bills I campaigned on and that are vital to our public safety and national security.”
Both bills will need approval from the Senate to become law. Trump’s Republicans control both chambers. But Democrats assailed the measures as fear-mongering.
“Although people who illegally re-enter the country do so to reunite with their families, or to flee violence or persecution, this bill considers them all dangerous criminals who deserve lengthy prison sentences,” Democratic Representative Jerrold Nadler said during debate on “Kate’s Law.”
During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump demanded action against sanctuary cities, which provide some protection for illegal immigrants under laws that limit how much cooperation local police may have with federal immigration authorities.
The “No Sanctuary for Criminals Act” prohibits sanctuary cities from adopting policies that restrict police officers from asking individuals about their immigration status or the immigration status of others.
Under the laws, illegal immigrants would face mandatory detention for past convictions of an expanded number of offenses, such as driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
On Wednesday, Trump promoted both bills at the White House with speeches by parents of young people slain by people who live in, or immigrated to, the United States illegally.
The House passed legislation on Thursday to crack down on illegal immigration and enact a key priority of President Trump’s known as “Kate’s Law.”
In largely party line votes, the House approved two bills. One would cut off some federal grants from so-called sanctuary cities that limit cooperation with immigration authorities; the other would impose tougher sentences on criminals who have entered the U.S. illegally multiple times.
“For years, the lack of immigration enforcement and spread of sanctuary policies have cost too many lives,” said House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), the author of both bills.
The sanctuary city bill passed 228-195, while the sentencing bill passed 257-167.
Three Democrats defected from their party to support taking away grants from the sanctuary localities: Reps. Matt Cartwright (Pa.), Henry Cuellar (Texas) and Collin Peterson (Minn.). Seven Republicans voted against the bill: Reps. Justin Amash (Mich.), Carlos Curbelo (Fla.), Mario Diaz-Balart (Fla.), Dan Donovan (N.Y.), Peter King (N.Y.), Dave Reichert (Wash.) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.).
House Democratic leaders encouraged members to oppose the bill to withhold funds from sanctuary cities, but didn’t apply as much pressure on “Kate’s Law,” which establishes higher penalties for criminals who have entered the country illegally.
Twenty-four Democrats voted for “Kate’s Law.” Amash was the only Republican to oppose it.
The sentencing legislation is named after Kate Steinle, who was fatally shot in 2015 in San Francisco by a man who had had seven previous felony convictions and was deported to Mexico on five previous occasions.
Trump had invoked the shooting on the campaign trail to promote his immigration agenda, including at his speech at the Republican National Convention last summer when he accepted the party’s presidential nomination.
The convention featured speeches from parents whose children were killed by immigrants in the U.S. illegally, and the White House has tried to keep a focus on the issue since then.
Three of first lady Melania Trump’s guests at the president’s address to Congress in February were people who had family members killed by undocumented immigrants.
During his address to Congress, Trump announced a new Homeland Security office called Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement (VOICE) to assist victims of crimes committed by immigrants in the country illegally.
“I’m calling on all lawmakers to put the safety of American families first. Let’s pass these bills through the House, through the Senate, and send them to my desk. I will give them the fastest approval, the fastest signature, that you have ever seen.”
Despite the House passage of the two bills on Thursday, Democrats are likely to present a roadblock in the Senate.
Republicans would need at least eight Democrats to break a filibuster on either of the measures. Senate Democrats successfully blocked similar bills in 2015 and 2016.
Law enforcement groups have expressed opposition to the proposal blocking federal grants to localities with sanctuary policies.
The National Fraternal Order of Police this week wrote to House leaders warning that “withholding needed assistance to law enforcement agencies — which have no policymaking role — also hurts public safety efforts.”
“It is unjust to penalize law enforcement and the citizens they serve because Congress disagrees with their enforcement priorities with respect to our nation’s immigration laws.”
The bill includes a provision that ensures immigrants in the U.S. illegally who are charged with a serious crime are detained during their deportation proceedings.
It also requires that localities comply with Immigration and Customs Enforcement requests to detain suspects for extra time, since some jurisdictions currently don’t always cooperate. The extended detentions allow immigration enforcement authorities to pick up suspected criminal immigrants from local jails.
Democrats further accused proponents of the bill of stoking anti-immigrant attitudes.
“These bills are nothing new and they are not really about immigration or fighting crime,” Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, said during House floor debate. “They are about racial profiling and putting Latinos, quote unquote, in our place.”
The House votes come at a time when Republicans have failed to make headway on Trump’s push to authorize funds for a new wall on the U.S.-Mexico border.
The Trump administration pushed for funding for the border wall during negotiations over a government spending bill this spring, but were unsuccessful.
The 2018 budget proposed by the White House calls for $1.6 billion for constructing the wall. The proposal funds about 60 miles of a wall, mostly along the Texas border.
Washington (CNN)House Republicans joined President Donald Trump on Thursday afternoon in declaring war on sanctuary cities — passing legislation targeting the cities’ funding while hammering a message of the dangers posed by undocumented immigrants.
“Kate’s Law” is named for Kate Steinle, a young woman murdered on a busy walkway in San Francisco two years ago allegedly by an undocumented immigrant who was deported multiple times. It would increase maximum penalties for undocumented immigrants who repeatedly enter the country illegally after deportation, especially with criminal records. It passed 257-167.
The “No Sanctuary for Criminals Act” would expand what is required of cities regarding federal immigrant enforcement and allow the government to deny jurisdictions federal law enforcement funds if they don’t comply. It passed 228-195.
Republicans relentlessly hammered a message of restoring “rule of law” Wednesday and Thursday leading up to the vote, highlighting crimes committed by undocumented immigrants and attacking sanctuary cities for lax policies they blame for the crimes.
Trump on Wednesday met with families of victims of crimes committed or allegedly committed by undocumented immigrants, highlighting their deaths as preventable. Attorney General Jeff Sessions did the same on Thursday, and House Speaker Paul Ryan brought Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly to join him at his weekly press conference also Thursday to drive home the message.
“Sanctuary cities are anything but safe,” Kelly said, carrying on the theme. “Instead these are places that allow some criminals to go free.”
“By flagrantly disregarding the rule of law, sanctuary cities are putting lives at risk,” Ryan echoed. “And we cannot tolerate that.”
Democrats accused their colleagues of distorting the issue. Local jurisdictions and law enforcement agencies have argued that their policies are actually about making communities safer — by building trust with local communities — and say that what the government is actually trying to do is co-opt their precious resources to carry out what should be federal officers’ job.
“That’s just bogus,” said California Rep. Zoe Lofgren when asked by CNN about Republicans’ claim that sanctuary cities harbor criminals. “(Immigration and Customs Enforcement) has a job to enforce immigration laws, there’s nothing that any state or locality can or should do to prevent them from enforcing immigration laws. What they want to do is commandeer state and locals to do their job for them, and a lot of police departments object to that because they need to build trust with communities.”
Democrats also slammed what they alleged was an effort to vilify undocumented immigrants, despite studies showing they are no more likely to commit crimes than the general population.
“This bill perpetuates the ugly myth that immigrants are more dangerous and more likely to commit crimes than native Americans,” New York Rep. Jerry Nadler said on the House floor. “This bill demonizes immigrants, punishes communities that seek to build trust between immigrants and law enforcement and allows indefinite detention, … all while making us less safe.”
The sponsor of the bill, Virginia Rep. Bob Goodlatte, said that sanctuary cities are making the choice themselves to ignore safety.
“It is a simple principle that if you are going to receive taxpayer dollars from the federal government to keep people safe, that you have got to follow the law and keep them safe,” Goodlatte told reporters Thursday. “That’s the reason why we do that.”
But it is unlikely the bills will pass the Senate.
Kate’s Law has been introduced before and failed to get the 60 votes needed to advance in the Senate last year. It did pick up three Democratic votes — Indiana Sen. Joe Donnelly, North Dakota Sen. Heidi Heitkamp and West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin — but to pass the Senate, Republicans would need five more Democrats to join all Republicans in voting yes.
Other red-state Democrats have already voted against the bill. The sanctuary cities bill could garner even less support, as lawmakers protest the cuts in law enforcement funding.
Incipit dell’Appendice alla sentenza della Suprema Corte Americana. Si noti l’adozione di stretta osservanza dei principi legali a discapito della visione “interpretativa” prima seguita dai liberals democratici.
«The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory to President Donald».
Sul travel ban introdotto dal Presidente Trump sono state scritte numerosi commenti stesi da commentatori che visibilmente non si erano peritati di leggere il testo originale del provvedimento nella sua interezza.
Anche la lettura della sentenza è propedeutica a quella del seguito dell’articolo.
* * * * * * *
These cases involve challenges to Executive Order No. 13780, Protecting the Nation From Foreign TerroristEntry Into the United States. The order alters practices concerning the entry of foreign nationals into the United States by, among other things, suspending entry of nationals from six designated countries for 90 days. Respondents challenged the order in two separate lawsuits. They obtained preliminary injunctions barring enforcement of several of its provisions, including the 90-day suspension of entry. The injunctions were upheld in large measure by the Courts of Appeals.
The Government filed separate petitions for certiorari, as well as applications to stay the preliminary injunctions entered by the lower courts. We grant the petitions for certiorari and grant the stay applications in part.»
«On January 27, 2017, President Donald J. Trump signed Executive Order No. 13769, Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States. 82 Fed. Reg. 8977 (EO–1).»
«To begin, we grant both of the Government’s petitions for certiorari and consolidate the cases for argument.»
«The equities relied on by the lower courts do not balance the same way in that context»
Tradotto dalla terminologia giuridica al linguaggio corrente, le corti di livello inferiore sono state faziosamente di parte.
«but our discretion must be “guided by sound legal principles,” »
* * * * * * *
«The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory to President Donald Trump by reviving parts of a travel ban on people from six Muslim-majority countries that he said is needed for national security but that opponents decry as discriminatory.»
«The justices narrowed the scope of lower court rulings that had completely blocked key parts of a March 6 executive order that Trump had said was needed to prevent terrorism attacks, allowing his temporary ban to go into effect for people with no strong ties to the United States. [tmsnrt.rs/2seb3bb]»
«The court issued its order on the last day of its current term and agreed to hear oral arguments during its next term starting in October so it can decide finally whether the ban is lawful in a major test of presidential powers.»
«Trump’s March 6 order called for a blanket 90-day ban on people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen and a 120-day ban on all refugees while the government implemented stronger vetting procedures. The court allowed a limited version of the refugee ban, which had also been blocked by courts, to go into effect.»
«Federal courts said the travel ban violated federal immigration law and was discriminatory against Muslims in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Critics called it a discriminatory “Muslim ban.”»
«In an unusual unsigned decision, the Supreme Court on Monday said the travel ban will go into effect “with respect to foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”
«Both bans were to partly go into effect 72 hours after the court’s decision. The Department of Homeland Security and the State Department pledged to implement the decision in an orderly fashion.»
* * * * * * * *
La sentenza è molto dura nei confronti delle Corti che avevano bloccato il bando. Con il forbito linguaggio tecnico usato dai giudici supremi, i giudici di grado inferiore ne escono quasi ridicolizzati e bacchettati.
Adesso che la Suprema Corte si è espressa in materia, è quanto meno di pessimo gusto rispolverare come fossero stati giusti ed equi, legali, i pareri espressi dalle Corti inferiori di grado: se vogliono essere rispettati, i giudici dei livelli inferiori alla Suprema Corte devono obbligatoriamente accettarne il giudizio finale.
«The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory to President Donald».
E questo senza se e senza ma.
Ma questa non è solo una delle tante vittorie del Presidente Trump: è una vittoria strategica che sembrerebbe preludere a quella definitiva.
L’articolista di Reuters lo fa notare alla fine del suo articolo.
«The case was Trump’s first major challenge at the Supreme Court, where he restored a 5-4 conservative majority with the appointment of Neil Gorsuch, who joined the bench in April. There are five Republican appointees on the court and four Democratic appointees. The four liberal justices were silent.»
«Gorsuch was one of the three conservative justices who would have granted Trump’s request to put the order completely into effect»
La Suprema Corte è un organo politico, in grado di approvare o bocciare senza possibilità di appello l’operato di qualsiasi organo dello stato americano, ivi compreso quello del Presidente.
Questi Giudici Supremi, pur essendo carica non elettiva, detengono il vero potere decisionale, quello che conta.
Prima della nomina del Giudice Gorsuch, la Suprema Corte si sarebbe allineata sui giudizi espressi dalle Corti di grado inferiore, tutte in mano a giudici liberal.
Adesso le cose sono cambiate.
E sono cambiate al punto tale che la sentenza reca persino una appendice.
Se, come sembrerebbe essere verosimile, il Presidente Trump avrà la possibilità di nominare tre altri Giudici Supremi al posto di tre verosimilmente dimissionari a breve termine, tutti e tre liberal democratici, la Corte Suprema risulterà essere nella sua quasi totalità repubblicana, e tale rimarrà per circa una trentina di anni.
In tale evenienza, l’ideologia liberal democratica sarebbe destinata a scomparire.
Adesso dovrebbe essere ben chiaro il peso e valore che hanno le numerose istanze legali sottoposte a Corti inferiori nei confornti di altri provvedimenti del Presidente Trump.Alla fine si arriverà sempre alla Corte Suprema.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory to President Donald Trump by reviving parts of a travel ban on people from six Muslim-majority countries that he said is needed for national security but that opponents decry as discriminatory.
The justices narrowed the scope of lower court rulings that had completely blocked key parts of a March 6 executive order that Trump had said was needed to prevent terrorism attacks, allowing his temporary ban to go into effect for people with no strong ties to the United States. [tmsnrt.rs/2seb3bb]
The court issued its order on the last day of its current term and agreed to hear oral arguments during its next term starting in October so it can decide finally whether the ban is lawful in a major test of presidential powers.
In a statement, Trump called the high court’s action “a clear victory for our national security,” saying the justices allowed the travel suspension to become largely effective.
“As president, I cannot allow people into our country who want to do us harm. I want people who can love the United States and all of its citizens, and who will be hardworking and productive,” Trump added.
Trump’s March 6 order called for a blanket 90-day ban on people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen and a 120-day ban on all refugees while the government implemented stronger vetting procedures. The court allowed a limited version of the refugee ban, which had also been blocked by courts, to go into effect.
Trump issued the order amid rising international concern about attacks carried out by Islamist militants like those in Paris, London, Brussels, Berlin and other cities. But challengers said no one from the affected countries had carried out attacks in the United States.
Federal courts said the travel ban violated federal immigration law and was discriminatory against Muslims in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Critics called it a discriminatory “Muslim ban.”
Ahmed al-Nasi, an official in Yemen’s Ministry of Expatriate Affairs, voiced disappointment.
“We believe it will not help in confronting terrorism and extremism, but rather will increase the feeling among the nationals of these countries that they are all being targeted, especially given that Yemen is an active partner of the United States in the war on terrorism and that there are joint operations against terrorist elements in Yemen,” he said.
Groups that challenged the ban, including the American Civil Liberties Union, said that most people from the affected countries seeking entry to the United States would have the required connections. But they voiced concern the administration would interpret the ban as broadly as it could.
“It’s going to be very important for us over this intervening period to make sure the government abides by the terms of the order and does not try to use it as a back door into implementing the full-scale Muslim ban that it’s been seeking to implement,” said Omar Jadwat, an ACLU lawyer.
During the 2016 presidential race, Trump campaigned for “a total and complete shutdown” of Muslims entering the United States. The travel ban was a signature policy of Trump’s first few months as president.
‘BONA FIDE RELATIONSHIP’
In an unusual unsigned decision, the Supreme Court on Monday said the travel ban will go into effect “with respect to foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”
A lack of a clearly defined relationship would bar from entry people from the six countries and refugees with no such ties.
Hawaii Attorney General Douglas Chin, who successfully challenged the ban in lower courts, said that students from affected countries due to attend the University of Hawaii would still be able to do so.
Both bans were to partly go into effect 72 hours after the court’s decision. The Department of Homeland Security and the State Department pledged to implement the decision in an orderly fashion.
“We will keep those traveling to the United States and partners in the travel industry informed as we implement the order in a professional, organized, and timely way,” a State Department spokeswoman said.
Trump signed the order as a replacement for a Jan. 27 one issued a week after he became president that also was blocked by federal courts, but not before it caused chaos at airports and provoked numerous protests.
Even before the Supreme Court action the ban applied only to new visa applicants, not people who already have visas or are U.S. permanent residents, known as green card holders. The executive order also made waivers available for a foreign national seeking to enter the United States to resume work or study, visit a spouse, child or parent who is a U.S. citizen, or for “significant business or professional obligations.” Refugees “in transit” and already approved would have been able to travel to the United States under the executive order.
A CONSERVATIVE COURT
The case was Trump’s first major challenge at the Supreme Court, where he restored a 5-4 conservative majority with the appointment of Neil Gorsuch, who joined the bench in April. There are five Republican appointees on the court and four Democratic appointees. The four liberal justices were silent.
Gorsuch was one of the three conservative justices who would have granted Trump’s request to put the order completely into effect. Fellow conservative Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion in which he warned that requiring officials to differentiate between foreigners who have a connection to the United States and those who do not will prove unworkable.
“Today’s compromise will burden executive officials with the task of deciding – on peril of contempt – whether individuals from the six affected nations who wish to enter the United States have a sufficient connection to a person or entity in this country,” Thomas wrote.
The state of Hawaii and a group of plaintiffs in Maryland represented by the American Civil Liberties Union argued that the order violated federal immigration law and the Constitution’s First Amendment prohibition on the government favoring or disfavoring any particular religion. Regional federal appeals courts in Virginia and California both upheld district judge injunctions blocking the order.
«America’s education systems and workforce development programs are in need of reform»
«In today’s rapidly changing economy, it is more important than ever to prepare workers to fill both existing and newly created jobs and to prepare workers for the jobs of the future»
«Higher education, however, is becoming increasingly unaffordable»
«Furthermore, many colleges and universities fail to help students graduate with the skills necessary to secure high paying jobs in today’s workforce»
«Far too many individuals today find themselves with crushing student debt and no direct connection to jobs»
«Against this background, federally funded education and workforce development programs are not effectively serving American workers. Despite the billions of taxpayer dollars invested in these programs each year, many Americans are struggling to find full-time work. These Federal programs must do a better job matching unemployed American workers with open jobs, including the 350,000 manufacturing jobs currently available»
«Expanding apprenticeships and reforming ineffective education and workforce development programs will help address these issues, enabling more Americans to obtain relevant skills and high-paying jobs»
* * * * * * * * *
Per meglio comprendere la portata di questo executive order cerchiamo di chiarire l’attuale situazione americana.
Trump ha vinto perché metà America è in miseria. – I dati della Fed.
«le spese quotidiane degli statunitensi sono aumentate del 14% in 10 anni, dal 2004 al 2014, ma il reddito medio delle famiglie è diminuito del 13 % …. Negli Stati Uniti, il 33% dei cittadini non riesce a soddisfare i propri bisogni elementari».
«Nel 2014, le spesa quotidiana annua degli americani si è attestata su 38.600 dollari. Ricordiamo che, oggi, il 51% dei lavoratori americani guadagna meno di 30mila dollari l’anno, mentre il 28% guadagna addirittura meno di 20mila dollari. Dieci anni prima, gli americani che riuscivano a far fronte a tutte le spese potevano mediamente contare su un residuo attivo di 1500 dollari l’anno. Dieci anni dopo, quegli stessi americani si trovano un passivo di 2300 dollari.» [Fonte: CNBC].
«La ricchezza della classe media americana è crollata del 20% in dieci anni, tendenza che ha fatto crollare gli USA al 19° posto nella classifica mondiale per ricchezza media. La ricchezza media famigliare era di 137.955 dollari nel 2007, ma oggi si è quasi dimezzata raggiungendo quota 82.725 dollari.» [Fonte]
* * * * * * * * *
Molte potrebbero essere le considerazioni di interesse.
Ne commentiamo solo alcune.
Una nazione non può vivere di sola finanza: qualcosa deve ben produrre.
Ma la produzione di beni e servizi deve restare allo stato dell’arte per poter mantenere un rapporto prestazioni/costi concorrenziale su scala mondiale.
Ciò comporta sicuramente la necessità di iniettare innovazioni nei processi produttivi, ma simultaneamente richiede che si proceda ad una adeguata preparazione professionale delle maestranze specializzate, pena l’esclusione dal sistema.
La scuola deve essere un elemento vitale, capace di rinnovarsi, anche se sia doloroso il tagliare i rami secchi.
«These Federal programs must do a better job matching unemployed American workers with open jobs»
«Furthermore, many colleges and universities fail to help students graduate with the skills necessary to secure high paying jobs in today’s workforce»
Questa è una amara considerazione.
Questi colleges e queste università americane così attente ai problemi etici, morali e sociali, alla fine hanno fallito e falliscono il loro scopo istituzionale di formare persone in grado di entrare dignitosamente nel mondo del lavoro.
Ci si pensi sopra bene. Formano un sistema sbagliat, costoso ed inutile
L’America deve tornare ad essere una grande potenza industriale. Non serve personale indottrinato politicamente: servono maestranze professionalmente allo stato dell’arte.
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and to promote affordable education and rewarding jobs for American workers, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Purpose. America’s education systems and workforce development programs are in need of reform. In today’s rapidly changing economy, it is more important than ever to prepare workers to fill both existing and newly created jobs and to prepare workers for the jobs of the future. Higher education, however, is becoming increasingly unaffordable. Furthermore, many colleges and universities fail to help students graduate with the skills necessary to secure high paying jobs in today’s workforce. Far too many individuals today find themselves with crushing student debt and no direct connection to jobs.
Against this background, federally funded education and workforce development programs are not effectively serving American workers. Despite the billions of taxpayer dollars invested in these programs each year, many Americans are struggling to find full-time work. These Federal programs must do a better job matching unemployed American workers with open jobs, including the 350,000 manufacturing jobs currently available.
Expanding apprenticeships and reforming ineffective education and workforce development programs will help address these issues, enabling more Americans to obtain relevant skills and high-paying jobs. Apprenticeships provide paid, relevant workplace experiences and opportunities to develop skills that employers value. Additionally, they provide affordable paths to good jobs and, ultimately, careers.
Finally, federally funded education and workforce development programs that do not work must be improved or eliminated so that taxpayer dollars can be channeled to more effective uses.
Sec. 2. Policy. It shall be the policy of the Federal Government to provide more affordable pathways to secure, high paying jobs by promoting apprenticeships and effective workforce development programs, while easing the regulatory burden on such programs and reducing or eliminating taxpayer support for ineffective workforce development programs.
Sec. 3. Definitions. For purposes of this order:
(a) the term “apprenticeship” means an arrangement that includes a paid-work component and an educational or instructional component, wherein an individual obtains workplace-relevant knowledge and skills; and
(b) the term “job training programs” means Federal programs designed to promote skills development or workplace readiness and increase the earnings or employability of workers, but does not include Federal student aid or student loan programs.
Sec. 4. Establishing Industry-Recognized Apprenticeships. (a) The Secretary of Labor (Secretary), in consultation with the Secretaries of Education and Commerce, shall consider proposing regulations, consistent with applicable law, including 29 U.S.C. 50, that promote the development of apprenticeship programs by third parties. These third parties may include trade and industry groups, companies, non-profit organizations, unions, and joint labor-management organizations. To the extent permitted by law and supported by sound policy, any such proposed regulations shall reflect an assessment of whether to:
(i) determine how qualified third parties may provide recognition to high-quality apprenticeship programs (industry-recognized apprenticeship programs);
(ii) establish guidelines or requirements that qualified third parties should or must follow to ensure that apprenticeship programs they recognize meet quality standards;
(iii) provide that any industry-recognized apprenticeship program may be considered for expedited and streamlined registration under the registered apprenticeship program the Department of Labor administers;
(iv) retain the existing processes for registering apprenticeship programs for employers who continue using this system; and
(v) establish review processes, consistent with applicable law, for considering whether to:
(A) deny the expedited and streamlined registration under the Department of Labor’s registered apprenticeship program, referred to in subsection (a)(iii) of this section, in any sector in which Department of Labor registered apprenticeship programs are already effective and substantially widespread; and
(B) terminate the registration of an industry-recognized apprenticeship program recognized by a qualified third party, as appropriate.
(b) The Secretary shall consider and evaluate public comments on any regulations proposed under subsection (a) of this section before issuing any final regulations.
Sec. 5. Funding to Promote Apprenticeships. Subject to available appropriations and consistent with applicable law, including 29 U.S.C. 3224a, the Secretary shall use available funding to promote apprenticeships, focusing in particular on expanding access to and participation in apprenticeships among students at accredited secondary and post secondary educational institutions, including community colleges; expanding the number of apprenticeships in sectors that do not currently have sufficient apprenticeship opportunities; and expanding youth participation in apprenticeships.
Sec. 6. Expanding Access to Apprenticeships. The Secretaries of Defense, Labor, and Education, and the Attorney General, shall, in consultation with each other and consistent with applicable law, promote apprenticeships and pre apprenticeships for America’s high school students and Job Corps participants, for persons currently or formerly incarcerated, for persons not currently attending high school or an accredited post-secondary educational institution, and for members of America’s armed services and veterans. The Secretaries of Commerce and Labor shall promote apprenticeships to business leaders across critical industry sectors, including manufacturing, infrastructure, cybersecurity, and health care.
Sec. 7. Promoting Apprenticeship Programs at Colleges and Universities. The Secretary of Education shall, consistent with applicable law, support the efforts of community colleges and 2 year and 4 year institutions of higher education to incorporate apprenticeship programs into their courses of study.
Sec. 8. Establishment of the Task Force on Apprenticeship Expansion. (a) The Secretary shall establish in the Department of Labor a Task Force on Apprenticeship Expansion.
(b) The mission of the Task Force shall be to identify strategies and proposals to promote apprenticeships, especially in sectors where apprenticeship programs are insufficient. The Task Force shall submit to the President a report on these strategies and proposals, including:
(i) Federal initiatives to promote apprenticeships;
(ii) administrative and legislative reforms that would facilitate the formation and success of apprenticeship programs;
(iii) the most effective strategies for creating industry-recognized apprenticeships; and
(iv) the most effective strategies for amplifying and encouraging private-sector initiatives to promote apprenticeships.
(c) The Department of Labor shall provide administrative support and funding for the Task Force, to the extent permitted by law and subject to availability of appropriations.
(d) The Secretary shall serve as Chair of the Task Force. The Secretaries of Education and Commerce shall serve as Vice-Chairs of the Task Force. The Secretary shall appoint the other members of the Task Force, which shall consist of no more than twenty individuals who work for or represent the perspectives of American companies, trade or industry groups, educational institutions, and labor unions, and such other persons as the Secretary may from time to time designate.
(e) Insofar as the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), may apply to the Task Force, any functions of the President under that Act, except for those of reporting to the Congress, shall be performed by the Chair, in accordance with guidelines issued by the Administrator of General Services.
(f) Members of the Task Force shall serve without additional compensation for their work on the Task Force, but shall be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, to the extent permitted by law for persons serving intermittently in the Government service (5 U.S.C. 5701–5707), consistent with the availability of funds.
(g) A member of the Task Force may designate a senior member of his or her organization to attend any Task Force meeting.
(h) The Task Force shall terminate 30 days after it submits its report to the President.
Sec. 9. Excellence in Apprenticeships. Not later than 2 years after the date of this order, the Secretary shall, consistent with applicable law, and in consultation with the Secretaries of Education and Commerce, establish an Excellence in Apprenticeship Program to solicit voluntary information for purposes of recognizing, by means of a commendation, efforts by employers, trade or industry associations, unions, or joint labor-management organizations to implement apprenticeship programs.
Sec. 10. Improving the Effectiveness of Workforce Development Programs. (a) Concurrent with its budget submission to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the head of each agency shall submit a list of programs, if any, administered by their agency that are designed to promote skills development and workplace readiness. For such programs, agencies shall provide information on:
(i) evaluations of any relevant data pertaining to their effectiveness (including their employment outcomes);
(ii) recommendations for administrative and legislative reforms that would improve their outcomes and effectiveness for American workers and employers; and
(iii) recommendations to eliminate those programs that are ineffective, redundant, or unnecessary.
(b) The Director of OMB shall consider the information provided by agencies in subsection (a) of this section in developing the President’s Fiscal Year 2019 Budget.
(c) The head of each agency administering one or more job training programs shall order, subject to available appropriations and consistent with applicable law, an empirically rigorous evaluation of the effectiveness of such programs, unless such an analysis has been recently conducted. When feasible, these evaluations shall be conducted by third party evaluators using the most rigorous methods appropriate and feasible for the program, with preference given to multi-site randomized controlled trials.
(d) The Director of OMB shall provide guidance to agencies on how to fulfill their obligations under this section.
Sec. 11. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of OMB relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
«the district, which was in Democratic hands for more than 100 years»
Le elezioni suppletive in South Carolina avevano ricevuto una attenzione minore rispetto a quelle della Georgia, perché i liberals democratici avevano profuso fiumi di denari, ex-pubblici, in questa ultima competizione elettorale.
Consideravano cosa loro la South Carolina, ma si sbagliavano, e sbagliavano di grosso.
L’America non odia Mr Trump: ha semplicemente in uggia i liberals democratici.
Da novembre il Presidente Trump ha vinto cinque consecutive tornate elettorali suppletive.
Il Senato dovrebbe decretargli il trionfo.
Uno sconsolato The New York Times pubblica questo mesto titolo:
Per fortuna a dirigere il partito democratico non c’è un politico intelligente come Lenin: con la leadership di Mrs Hillary Clinton e Mrs Nancy Pelosi l’insuccesso è garantito, è una certezza.
Checché ne gridino i liberals democratici, loro non rappresentano per nulla gli americani, che non condividono in nulla la loro Weltanschauung, la loro linea politica, le loro ambizioni etiche e morali, il loro smodato affarismo.
Il vero volto degli americani è quello che è uscito dalle urne.
Con la South Carolina Mr Trump ha vinto la quinta consecutiva elezione suppletiva: se prosegue così alla fine avrà i numeri per dichiarare fuori legge i liberals democratici.
Sembrerebbe verosimile che in casa democratica si inizi a fare le grandi pulizie.
Non ci si stupisca quindi di terrificanti incidenti aerei e di morti strane.
Ralph Norman, a Republican, defeated Archie Parnell, a Democrat, in a South Carolina special election on Tuesday in a U.S. House race.
Mr. Norman was expected to have an advantage over Mr. Parnell for the seat, which was vacated by Mick Mulvaney, now director of the Office of Management and Budget. However, Mr. Parnell kept the race relatively close, losing by just a few percentage points.
The race did not receive the same national focus as special elections in Georgia and Montana.
The Fifth District was redrawn to heavily favor Republicans after the 2010 elections. Mr. Mulvaney won his three re-election campaigns easily.
Columbia, S.C. (AP) — The Latest on the race to replace Mick Mulvaney in South Carolina’s 5th District (all times local):
Republican Ralph Norman has won a victory that was closer than expected in a special election to fill the South Carolina congressional seat vacated by Mick Mulvaney.
The Republican won just more than 51 percent of votes cast Tuesday in the 5th District. That’s compared with about 48 percent for Democrat Archie Parnell.
Norman, a former state lawmaker, ran a campaign aligning himself with President Donald Trump. Trump won the district in November by more than 18 percentage points.
Norman emerged as the top vote-getter from a seven-way GOP primary and defeated state lawmaker Tommy Pope by just more than 200 votes in a runoff.
Parnell, a former Goldman Sachs tax adviser, had argued he was best suited to represent the district, which was in Democratic hands for more than 100 years until Mulvaney’s 2010 victory. He said he called Norman Tuesday night to congratulate him on his victory.
Republican Ralph Norman has won a special election to fill the South Carolina congressional seat vacated by Mick Mulvaney, who resigned to work for President Donald Trump’s administration.
The millionaire real estate developer won Tuesday’s special election over Democrat Archie Parnell in the 5th District, which stretches north from Columbia toward the suburbs of Charlotte, North Carolina.
Norman, a former state lawmaker, ran a campaign aligning himself with President Donald Trump, who won this district in November by more than 18 percentage points. He emerged as the top vote-getter from a seven-way GOP primary and defeated state lawmaker Tommy Pope by just more than 200 votes in a runoff.
Parnell, a former Goldman Sachs tax adviser, had argued he was best suited to represent the district, which was in Democratic hands for more than 100 years until Mulvaney’s 2010 victory.
Republican Ralph Norman won a special election Tuesday to fill the South Carolina congressional seat vacated by Mick Mulvaney, battling to a victory closer than many expected to replace the new White House budget director.
“It’s a good win, and we’re excited,” Norman, a real estate developer who aligned himself with President Donald Trump, told The Associated Press. “We’re looking forward to getting to work in Washington.”
Norman, who celebrated his 64th birthday on election night, defeated Democrat Archie Parnell with 51 percent of the vote, with 99 percent of precincts reporting. Parnell had roughly 48 percent of the vote.
Three third-party candidates also ran.
Republicans hoped to extend their hold on the district, where Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in November by more than 18 percentage points. Surrogates like Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and former South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint campaigned with the former state lawmaker, who also received support during a seven-way primary and ultimate runoff from conservative groups like the Club for Growth.
Democrats took interest in the race, too, with Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez campaigning with Parnell. But it was small in comparison to the party’s investment in a special election in Georgia’s 6th District, seen as an early test for the GOP and President Trump: the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee put only $275,000 into South Carolina’s race. That’s compared with a $5 million investment in the special election in Georgia’s 6th District.
In a statement, DCCC Chairman Ben Ray Luj?n congratulated Parnell on a hard-fought campaign that “made huge gains compared to past Democrats who competed here.”
Parnell’s campaign thanked supporters in a statement, saying the stood “against a rising tide of bitterness and division” and offered hope. Parnell also called Norman to congratulate him.
The Democrat put on a strong campaign, outperforming Clinton in a handful of the 11 counties that make up the 5th District, which stretches north from Columbia to the suburbs of Charlotte, North Carolina. In Chester County, which Trump won with 51 percent, Parnell edged out Norman by more than 7 percentage points.
But Norman still performed strongly in the district’s population centers, including his vote-rich home territory of York County.
“Elections are close,” Norman said Tuesday night. “We knew it was going to be close. Archie’s a good candidate.”
Norman, a former state lawmaker, said support from the president resonated positively with voters. Trump recorded a robocall in support of Norman’s campaign and sent out Twitter messages encouraging voters to back him.
“Everybody’s had their differences with President Trump,” Norman told the AP. “He’s a polarizing president, but I think a majority of the people like what he’s doing.”
David L. O’Neal, a retired Army officer and paratrooper from Tega Cay, backed Norman in the primary and said the Republican earned his general election vote in part because of his stance on veterans’ issues.
“As a retired military officer, I feel Ralph is strongest on military issues, wanting a strong defense,” O’Neal said Tuesday. “And I know he is 100 percent with the veterans on their issues.”