https://www.economist.com

  • Building blocs - Belfast’s Catholics wait longer for homes than Protestants | Britain | The Economist

    https://www.economist.com/britain/2018/11/03/belfasts-catholics-wait-longer-for-homes-than-protestants

    Article de2018, carte très intéressante.

    IN BELFAST, THE past is constantly passed. Protestants heading to the shops might walk by a mural of “King Billy”, as they call William of Orange, who helped ensure English domination of Ireland in the 17th century. In a Catholic area the subject might be Bobby Sands, a republican who died on hunger strike in 1981. But even without such clues, it is not hard to get your bearings, for there is more vacant land on one side of the sectarian divide than on the other. “You can tell a Protestant part of the city because it’s green,” says Neil Jarman of the Institute for Conflict Research, a charity.

    #cartographie #irlande_du_nord #belfast #mur

  • Daily chart - Diseases like covid-19 are deadlier in non-democracies | Graphic detail | The Economist
    https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/02/18/diseases-like-covid-19-are-deadlier-in-non-democracies

    de la régression log-log et de la classification binaire entre "démocraties et « non-démocraties », un cas d’école pour @simplicissimus

    #coronavirus et #information

    • #merci !

      joli exercice de régression. Si le résultat de l’exercice donne une différence entre les deux types de régime «  hautement significative statistiquement  », il y a vraiment beaucoup de choses à dire sur son utilisation «  politique  ».

      Note : j’arrive à retrouver sans trop de problèmes les données en utilisant les deux sources mentionnées, ce qui donne un nuage de points a priori à peu près similaire (mais il faudrait voir dans le détail…) ; mais je ne dispose pas d’une classification des pays par année et par type de régime.
      Apparemment, il s’agit de l’ensemble des désastres biologiques, soit les épidémies, celles-ci pouvant être bactériennes, parasitaires ou virales.

      Entre 1960 et 2020, je trouve 1026 «  désastres biologiques  » ayant provoqué au moins 1 mort (il y en a 187 où le nombre de décès n’est pas renseigné) et quelques anomalies (ex. 523 morts pour 2 épidémies virales en Afghanistan en 2000 pour 11 personnes atteintes (affected) soit 4750% de mortalité… Il y a aussi 91 pays (dont la Martinique en 2010) pour lesquels le PNB/hab. n’est pas connu.

      Le modèle utilisé établit donc un lien entre la mortalité de l’épidémie, donc une sorte de réponse sociale au désastre en fonction de la richesse du pays, en fait sa capacité à produire et son type de régime. Indépendamment donc du type de l’épidémie et de la létalité de l’agent pathogène. Avec un effet en niveau (il y a moins de morts dans les démocraties) et en pente (le surcroît de richesse diminue plus la mortalité dans les démocraties).

      Je remarque, en premier, qu’il y a très probablement déjà un lien entre PNB/hab. et type de régime. Et qu’un facteur prépondérant de la réponse est la qualité du système de santé du pays (elle aussi, certainement corrélée au PNB/hab. ce qui fait que les auteurs pourraient affirmer que le PNB/hab. est un bon substitut, mais pour laquelle le lien avec le régime politique n’est pas forcément aussi clair).

      Surtout, si la liaison statistique est hautement significative (les zones colorées nous montrent l’incertitude sur les droites de régression) la capacité prédictive du modèle est vraiment faible. Il n’y a qu’a voir la très grande dispersion des observations autour des 2 droites. De ce fait, les performances du modèle utilisé comme classificateur (prévoir le type de régime en fonction de la mortalité et de la richesse) seraient, me sembleraient, vraiment mauvaises. (calculs à faire…)

      Enfin, il est probable que les pays à la plus forte richesse (> 30 000 $/hab.) soient déterminants (points influents) dans le résultat des deux régressions.

    • La variable année me semble aussi bizarrement absente du « modèle », alors qu’il me semble qu’un trait important de cette histoire est qu’à chaque épisode on apprend à mieux gérer, ce qui fonctionne et ne fonctionne pas.

      En tout cas ça va à l’encontre de l’idée de la « bonne dictature », avec un effet présenté comme négatif (même si on peut argumenter sur la classification à priori et tout un tas d’autres choses).

    • Oui, le PNB/tête est aussi corrélé avec le temps (en gros, à quelques exceptions près, depuis 1960, ça croît) et donc, il y a confusion des facteurs et on ne peut pas isoler ce qui vient de l’avancement du temps (expérience accumulée) de ce qui vient de la « richesse » ou de l’amélioration (ou la meilleure préparation) du système de santé.

  • TikTok time-bomb | The Economist (07/09/2019)
    https://www.economist.com/business/2019/11/07/tiktoks-silly-clips-raise-some-serious-questions

    For his part, Mark Zuckerberg is less worried about data sovereignty and more about competition from TikTok, China’s first runaway web success in America. Facebook is pulling out the big guns it deploys against fast-growing upstarts. In late 2018 it launched Lasso, a TikTok clone. An independent developer recently unearthed a feature hidden in Instagram’s code that apes TikTok’s editing tools. It is cold comfort to Mr Zuckerberg that should his defences fail, Big Tech’s critics will have to concede that digital monopolies are not that invincible after all.

    Critics of artificial intelligence are also watching the Chinese app closely. What users see on Facebook and other Western social media is in part still down to who their friends are and what they share. TikTok’s main feed, called “For You”, is determined by algorithm alone: it watches how users behave in the app and uses the information to decide what to play next. Such systems create the ultimate filter bubble.

    All these worries would be allayed if TikTok turns out to be a passing fad. In a way, the app is only riding on other social networks. It relies on people’s Facebook or Twitter accounts for many sign-ins. TikTok owes part of its success to relentless advertising on rival services. According to some estimates, it spent perhaps $1bn on social-media ads in 2018. At the same time, many who download TikTok quickly tire of its endless digital sugar-rush.

    #tiktok à ne pas confondre avec le #tik-tok de @Fil quoique…

  • #Kristina_Harrison : Dossier trans : L’auto-déclaration de genre met en danger les femmes

    Kristina Harrison, salariée du National Health Service, est une personne transsexuelle qui a subi des opérations chirurgicales et subit toujours un traitement hormonal afin d’être considérée comme une personne du sexe opposé à son sexe de naissance. Elle est également militante et défend l’idée que le passage d’un système de reconnaissance légale fondée sur un diagnostic médical à un système fondé sur une simple déclaration de la personne concernée aurait des conséquences désastreuses sur des jeunes gens vulnérables, sur les mesures spécifiques aux femmes et par ailleurs nuirait également aux personnes trans.

    Le gouvernement conservateur au pouvoir au Royaume-Uni, malgré des tergiversations de façade, a démontré une intention ferme quant à la refonte du Gender Recognition Act (GRA) de 2004. Il bénéficie du soutien du parti travailliste et d’un mouvement transgenriste qui a désormais pignon sur rue. Ce mouvement est imprégné de ce qui est largement vu comme une idéologie de genre intolérante et même extrémiste. Ce n’est pas sans raison que femmes et personnes transsexuelles en nombre croissant ont exprimé leurs inquiétudes. Si la nouvelle mouture du GRA est adoptée, le terme « transgenre », ainsi que les termes « homme trans » et « femme trans » seront désormais des termes vagues désignant toute personne biologiquement femelle qui s’identifie comme étant un homme, ou l’inverse.

    Les personnes trans peuvent être des hommes qui s’identifient comme femmes mais veulent conserver un corps d’homme, des personnes « gender fluid » (qui s’identifient comme femmes certains jours et hommes d’autres jours), ou encore ceux que nous appelions auparavant des travestis, en particulier des hommes qui ont un fétiche sexuel dirigé vers les vêtements et les attributs physiques féminins.

    (Un slogan placardé dans le XIe arrondissement, à Paris. Les « TERFS », c’est quiconque met en doute qu’un homme est une femme s’il prétend en être une.)

    Traduction : #Tradfem
    Version originale : https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/07/03/a-system-of-gender-self-identification-would-put-women-at-risk
    #transactivisme #agresseurs_sexuels #intimidation_des_féministes #chasse_aux_sorcières #antiféminisme #violences_masculines

    • Nous sommes nombreuses à insister sur le fait que les femmes sont avant tout un groupe défini par un sexe biologique et une socialisation spécifique. Le sexe est une réalité, c’est même ce qui est au fondement de l’espèce humaine.

      Lien vers

      Fleur Furieuse - Féminisme radical et abolitionniste : Tribune : les « femmes trans » sont-elles des femmes ?
      https://fleurfurieuse.blogspot.com/2020/02/tribune-les-femmes-trans-sont-elles-des.html

      Selon les féministes radicales et matérialistes, les femmes sont tout d’abord des êtres humains femelles. Elles ont un double chromosome X et, sauf malformation ou anomalie, elles ont un appareil génital qui permet la gestation et l’accouchement d’un enfant.

      Les caractéristiques physiques liés à la procréation correspondent au sexe biologique, notion distincte de celle de « genre », qui désigne une construction sociale, et plus exactement un système d’oppression qui organise l’humanité en deux groupes, l’un dominant et exploitant l’autre.

      Cette exploitation des femmes est intrinsèquement liée à leur biologie. Dans nos sociétés, les petites filles sont éduquées différemment des petits garçons ; en raison de leur sexe de fille.

      Être une femme n’est pas un ressenti. Cela correspond à une réalité physiologique très spécifique et à un vécu social tout aussi spécifique. Tout cela est réel.

      Moui... Il y a une certaine confusion dans les deux textes (surtout le deuxième) entre corps sexué et socialisation genrée. Les deux sont mis ensemble alors que l’expérience des femmes et des hommes trans montrent qu’on peut bien avoir une socialisation genrée sans le sexe qui va avec, lequel est d’ailleurs assez complexe à définir : utérus, certes, chromosome (il y a d’ailleurs des hommes cis XX), sexe hormonal, caractères physiologiques secondaires, etc. Pas non plus parce qu’on dit qu’on est un homme ou une femme. Mais parce qu’on est perçu·e comme homme ou femme et qu’on subit les injonctions qui vont avec. En ce sens, l’auto-identification est une disposition complètement individualiste qui récuse l’option j’ai une identité de genre > je l’exprime > elle est reconnue par les autres et passe direct à j’ai une identité de genre > je m’en fous du regard des autres mais je veux qu’elle soit reconnue et que la société s’organise autour de mon auto-identification, quand bien même elle constituerait un fait social bien moins consistant que les violences subies par les femmes et toutes les dispositions prises pour les mettre vaguement à l’abri.

      Je pense que c’est l’auto-identification le problème, pas la #transidentité et voilà pourquoi je vous remercie, @tradfem, de publier ce texte (alors que par ailleurs vous avez tendance à genrer au masculin toutes les femmes trans, post-op ou jamais-op, féministes ou violeurs se prétendant femmes, ce qui me semble une grave erreur au regard de ce qu’est le genre et de la capacité à faire des alliances aussi précieuses que celles à faire avec les personnes trans elles-mêmes).

      Pour revenir sur le deuxième texte, le féminisme matérialiste se focalise sur le caractère social de cette identité et « Fleur furieuse » tire un peu facilement la couverture à elle, d’une manière très confuse. En tant que rédac chef, j’aurais refusé un tel article parce qu’il est incohérent. Mais si j’ai bien compris c’est un billet de blog et elle a été censurée pour « transphobie ». Pas d’accord avec son propos mais la censure dont elle fait l’objet est inacceptable et exprime bien ce que Harrison raconte de ce débat : accusations de folie haineuse envoyées à la volée, intimidation et censure. Et ça commence juste en France !

    • Je converse pas mal avec des jeunes femmes qui bloquent toute discussion dès qu’elles ont posé l’étiquette TERF sur ma personne, et non pas sur mes propos, c’est assez déprimant.
      Du coup, par souci de diplomatie et parce que je les aime bien, je fais marche arrière en disant que je suis ignorante de ce qui s’annonce, et je leur demande de m’expliquer ce qu’elles souhaitent défendre, et si c’est vraiment le rapport politique des femmes dans le monde qui les intéresse.

    • @touti, et ça marche ? Elles arrivent à l’expliquer ?

      Je vois moi aussi pas mal de jeunes femmes à fond, qui prennent toute divergence d’avec leur violence ou leurs arguments pour une position trans-exclusive (non, pas forcément), qui réduisent le débat à une lutte générationnelle, façon une vague chasse l’autre alors qu’il y a aussi des quadras et des quinquas qui connaissent bien leurs classiques queer (quel âge ont les mecs trans Preciado, Bourcier et #Jack_Halberstam, hum ?) qu’il y a aussi plein de jeunes femmes féministes matérialistes qui ne sont pas dans leurs trips queer, un peu écartelées entre la volonté de ne pas exclure et un peu de bon sens et qui doivent être très intimidées par cette nouvelle doxa (voir l’expression qui fleurit, y compris pour des événements culturels, de « TERF pas bienvenues »).

      J’ai envie de dire à ces meufs queer (ou hétérotes complexées) que c’est trop la classe féministe, d’en remettre une couche sur les hiérarchies patriarcales en gerbant sur des femmes qui sont considérées comme périmées. Et ce que me disent mes copines quinquas qui essaient de militer dans un cadre ouvert et bienveillant avec ces jeunes meufs, c’est que le niveau frôle les pâquerettes.

      Bref !

  • Les agents bloqueurs de puberté de plus en plus contestés (#The_Economist)
    https://tradfem.wordpress.com/2020/02/07/dossier-trans-les-agents-bloqueurs-de-puberte-de-plus-en-plus-con

    L’administration de ces traitements pose l’épineuse question de savoir qui doit décider du devenir du corps d’un enfant, et pourquoi. Laissons de côté les « culture wars », ou querelles idéologiques — si tant est que ce soit possible. Ce débat devrait garder en ligne de mire les intérêts de l’enfant. Et ceux-ci ne sont pas si simples à déterminer qu’il n’y parait.

    Les bloqueurs de puberté empêchent les adolescent.es d’acquérir des signes sexuels secondaires comme des seins ou de la barbe. Ces traitements impliquent quasi-systématiquement une myriade d’interventions, notamment l’injection d’hormones puis éventuellement des actes chirurgicaux de réassignation de genre. L’objectif principal des bloqueurs de puberté est d’apporter du confort aux personnes qui souffrent de dysphorie de genre, en leur permettant d’éviter, par exemple, de ressembler davantage à une femme, si cette personne est une jeune fille qui voudrait être un garçon. Ils permettent aussi des opérations chirurgicales moins lourdes à l’âge adulte.

    Cependant, la combinaison de bloqueurs de puberté et d’hormones pour développer les signes sexuels secondaires de l’autre sexe a des conséquences irréversibles. Si elle intervient tôt dans le processus de la puberté, elle a notamment pour effet de rendre la personne stérile. Par ailleurs, une douzaine d’études portant sur des enfants souffrant de dysphorie de genre mais n’ayant pas pris de bloqueurs de puberté ont démontré que, si ces enfants sont correctement accompagnés et suivis, ils et elles n’éprouveront plus après la puberté le désir de changer de sexe. La proportion de ces jeunes la plus souvent citée est de 85 %. La plupart s’avèrent devenir homosexuel.les. Autre indice qui va à l’encontre du bien-fondé de ces traitements : de plus en plus de personnes ainsi traitées choisissent la « détransition », c’est-à-dire qu’au bout d’une certaine période, elles et ils s’identifient de nouveau à leur sexe biologique. Ce sont pour en majorité des jeunes filles qui voulaient devenir des garçons à l’adolescence. Si elles avaient été traitées à cet âge, elles seraient devenues stériles, même en gardant un appareil génital intact.

    Traduction : #Pauline_Arrighi pour #TRADFEM
    Version originale : https://www.economist.com/united-states/2020/01/30/a-new-push-to-ban-medical-treatments-for-transgender-children
    #transgenrisme #adolescence #dysphorie_de_genre

  • Une série intéressante dans le magazine où on ne l’attendait pas...
    https://www.economist.com/transgender

    La contribution d’une lesbienne noire :

    The gender-identity movement undermines lesbians - Open Future
    https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/07/03/the-gender-identity-movement-undermines-lesbians

    In this current wave of “free to me” gender politics, any man with a penis can claim to be a female and expect entrance into female-segregated spaces, such as locker rooms, sports teams or colleges, without question. But don’t twist it; the generosity does not flow in both directions. Just ask the women who crashed the party at the male lido in Hampstead Heath in London in May: they were promptly escorted out by the police. Lesbian identity is now being dubbed as exclusionary or transphobic. You’re damn right it’s exclusive: lesbians have a right to say no to the phallus, no matter how it’s concealed or revealed. Imagine if white folks ran around claiming they were black or demanded access to our affinity spaces. They would be called deluded racist fools!

    Et celles de deux femmes trans :

    Trans rights will be durable only if campaigners respect women’s concerns - Open Future
    https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/07/13/trans-rights-will-be-durable-only-if-campaigners-respect-womens-concerns

    We are not going to get very far unless it is acknowledged that women and girls, as a sex, are vulnerable to males, who are on average bigger, stronger, more assertive and more violent. It is women’s experience of sexism and misogyny, and their struggle against them, not bigotry, that overwhelmingly motivates opposition to the trans movement’s current agenda. Women are concerned with their own protections from abuse, violence, discrimination and their right to single-sex provision enshrined in the Equality Act (2010), not with needlessly making life hard for trans people. Quite the contrary: many women opposed to gender self-identification are also deeply concerned about the lives, well-being and rights of trans friends, colleagues and family members.

    I’m not arguing that trans women per se are any particular danger to women. There is little evidence to suggest that. However, I am horrified by the number of trans women threatening extreme, misogynistic violence. I see, almost daily, violent threats on social media aimed at women demonised as TERFs (trans-exclusionary radical feminists).

    Trans and feminist rights have been falsely cast in opposition - Open Future
    https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/07/13/trans-and-feminist-rights-have-been-falsely-cast-in-opposition

    I am deeply saddened that in recent years there has been renewed antagonism from a section of feminism towards trans people, and especially towards trans women. The small number of feminists loudly opposing changes to the Gender Recognition Act (which would merely make the administrative process of gender recognition less bureaucratic) are using a simplistic reading of biology that negates the natural diversities of physical sex characteristics and disregards the realities of trans people’s lives. While anti-trans viewpoints are a minority position within feminism, they are championed by several high-profile writers, many of whom reinforce the extremely offensive trope of the trans woman as a man in drag who is a danger to women.

    C’est faux, que le GRA « would merely make the administrative process of gender recognition less bureaucratic » : c’est le cas de la nouvelle procédure française mais les nouvelles procédures dans les autres pays sont entièrement basées sur l’auto-définition et sur la vision très personnelle que des personnes peuvent avoir de ce que c’est d’être une femme ou un homme avant de s’être effectivement engagé·es dans un parcours trans (sans compter que c’est un critère très vulnérable à la mauvaise foi). Des féministes qui sont inclusives des femmes ou des personnes trans mais opposées à l’auto-définition sont caricaturées comme trans-exclusives ou essentialistes.
    #transidentité

    • Trans rights should not come at the cost of women’s fragile gains - Open Future
      https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/07/05/trans-rights-should-not-come-at-the-cost-of-womens-fragile-gains

      Trans people face substantial injustices, most significantly violence (perpetrated, like all violence, largely by men) and discrimination. The process of applying for a gender-recognition certificate is intrusive and burdensome for many, and there are frustrating waiting lists for medical transition, which are compounded when doctors appear unsympathetic or obstructive. Yet rather than confront male violence or lobby the medical system, the focus of trans activism has overwhelmingly been the feminist movement, spaces and services designed for women, and the meaning of the word “woman”.

      It is notable that Cancer Research UK did not test its “inclusive” approach with a male-specific cancer. Its campaign messages about prostate and testicular cancer address “men”, rather than “everyone with a prostate” or “everyone with testicles”. (Addressing “people with a cervix” is, of course, only inclusive of people who know they have a cervix. Many women do not have that detailed knowledge of their internal anatomy. And those who speak English as a second language may well not know the word.)

      In “I Am Leo”, a Children’s BBC documentary about a trans boy (an adolescent natal female), Leo’s mother explains that she knew her child was not a girl when Leo rejected traditionally feminine toys and insisted on having short hair. This naturalisation of stereotypes is compounded by the programme-makers’ decision to illustrate the trans experience with a cartoon of pink (feminine) brains in blue bodies, and blue (masculine) brains in pink bodies. Hormones (pink for oestrogen, blue for testosterone) are shown being showered on the bodies to make them match the brain. Whatever the intent, or the probably more complex story of Leo’s transition, the programme served a very fixed idea of masculinity and femininity to its young audience.

      Pips Bunce, a director at Credit Suisse and a natal male, who has been celebrated for championing gender fluidity in the workplace, presents as Pippa on “female” days, in heels, dress and long blonde wig, and Philip on “male” days, in flat masculine shoes and a suit. Sex is reduced to stereotyped clothing. (Also: what a challenge for Credit Suisse’s reporting of the gender pay gap! Should Philip/Pippa be counted in with men or women depending on how he/she is presenting on the day of the survey?

  • Companies should take California’s new data-privacy law seriously
    https://www.economist.com/business/2019/12/18/companies-should-take-californias-new-data-privacy-law-seriously

    The state’s sweeping online regulations come into force on January 1st HISTORY DOES not repeat but sometimes it rhymes. So, it seems, do efforts to protect netizens’ privacy. The European Union led the world with its General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which came into force in May 2018. That law shook up internet giants and global advertising firms, both of which had previously used—and at times abused—consumer data with little oversight. On December 11th India’s government introduced a (...)

    #[fr]Règlement_Général_sur_la_Protection_des_Données_(RGPD)[en]General_Data_Protection_Regulation_(GDPR)[nl]General_Data_Protection_Regulation_(GDPR) #législation #BigData #data (...)

    ##[fr]Règlement_Général_sur_la_Protection_des_Données__RGPD_[en]General_Data_Protection_Regulation__GDPR_[nl]General_Data_Protection_Regulation__GDPR_ ##publicité

  • Comme on peut s’en douter, les amateurs de rap ont voté Obama, et les amateurs de country ont voté Trump. Mais, plus intéressant, ce sont les amateurs de hard rock qui ont fait pencher la balance, en votant Obama en 2012 et Trump en 2016 !

    Why Obama-Trump swing voters like heavy metal
    The Economist, le 16 novembre 2019
    https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/11/16/why-obama-trump-swing-voters-like-heavy-metal

    Ou sur twitter :
    https://twitter.com/gelliottmorris/status/1195012997682487303

    #Musique #Musique_et_politique #USA #Barack_Obama #Donald_Trump #rap #country #hard_rock #heavy_metal #élections #vote

  • Bolivia Crisis Shows the Blurry Line Between Coup and Uprising
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/12/world/americas/bolivia-evo-morales-coup.html

    Often, they are one and the same: mass public uprisings alongside military defections that compel the resignation or removal of a country’s leader.

    But the overlapping terms often carry moral connotations that could not be more divergent: Coups, in today’s understanding, are to be condemned; revolts are to be championed.

    “People who get hung up on whether or not something is a coup or a revolution are missing the point,” said Naunihal Singh, a leading scholar of power transitions and coups. “The question is what happens next.”

    That has opened space for a kind of linguistic warfare, in which a political takeover can be portrayed as legitimate by labeling it a revolt, or illegitimate by terming it a coup.

    The narrative-building “has consequences” for what kind of government comes next, Mr. Singh said. Transitions like Bolivia’s tend to be fluid and unpredictable. The perception of legitimacy, or a lack thereof, can be decisive.

    • C’est assez largement du flan, cette idée que la proximité entre « coup » et « soulèvement » serait nouvelle. Ça a toujours été comme ça, et ça fait partie de mode d’emploi des coups soutenus par les Américains.

      Relire les prémices du renversement d’Allende au Chili :
      https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d%27%C3%89tat_du_11_septembre_1973_au_Chili
      Le coup fait suite à des mois et des mois de crise, avec beaucoup de manifestations et de blocages. Et une bonne partie des médias occidentaux (j’ai vu passer une copie de The Economist d’époque, récemment, à ce sujet – quasiment les mêmes fadaises qu’aujourd’hui), en ont profité pour mettre la responsabilité du coup sur Allende, en présentant son renversement comme le fruit d’un authentique soulèvement populaire.

      Rien de nouveau sous le soleil. À part que le NY Times n’a guère d’autre choix que de faire semblant de s’interroger (s’agit-il un peu d’un coup, ou un peu d’un soulèvement populaire ?).

    • Merci @Nidal, je ne savais pas comment le prendre : « le NYT fait semblant de s’interroger », c’est parfait.

      The Economist ne fait pas semblant.

      Was there a coup in Bolivia ? - The end of Evo Morales
      https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/11/16/was-there-a-coup-in-bolivia

      Evo Morales (…) resigned on November 10th, fleeing into exile in Mexico. This prompted a chorus of denunciations of a coup from the Latin American left and even some European social democrats. This time, at least, the critics are wrong.

      True, Mr Morales’s term was not due to end until January. His fall followed violent protests and a mutiny by the police, who failed to suppress them. The final straw came when the head of the armed forces “suggested” that he quit. But that is to tell only a fraction of the story.

      Mr Morales, who is of Aymara indigenous descent, long enjoyed broad popular support. He imposed a new constitution, which limited presidents to two terms. Thanks to the commodity boom and his pragmatic economic policy, poverty fell sharply. He created a more inclusive society.

      But he also commandeered the courts and the electoral authority and was often ruthless with opponents. In his determination to remain in power he made the classic strongman’s mistake of losing touch with the street. In 2016 he narrowly lost a referendum to abolish presidential term limits. He got the constitutional court to say he could run for a third term anyway. He then claimed victory in a dubious election last month. That triggered the uprising. An outside audit upheld the opposition’s claims of widespread irregularities. His offer to re-run the election came too late.

      Mr Morales was thus the casualty of a counter-revolution aimed at defending democracy and the constitution against electoral fraud and his own illegal candidacy. The army withdrew its support because it was not prepared to fire on people in order to sustain him in power. How these events will come to be viewed depends in part on what happens now. An opposition leader has taken over as interim president and called for a fresh election to be held in a matter of weeks. There are two big risks in this. One is that ultras in the opposition try to erase the good things Mr Morales stood for as well as the bad. The other is that his supporters seek to destabilise the interim government and boycott the election. It may take outside help to ensure a fair contest.

      That the army had to play a role is indeed troubling. But the issue at stake in Bolivia was what should happen, in extremis, when an elected president deploys the power of the state against the constitution. In Mr Morales’s resignation and the army’s forcing of it, Bolivia has set an example for Venezuela and Nicaragua, though it is one that is unlikely to be heeded. In the past it was right-wing strongmen who refused to leave power when legally obliged to do so. Now it is often those on the left. Their constant invocation of coups tends to be a smokescreen for their own flouting of the rules. It should be examined with care.

      The Economist avait aussi approuvé sans aucun état d’âme les conquêtes coloniales les plus sanglantes de l’Empire britannique. À lire dans le @mdiplo de novembre (en accès libre). https://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2019/11/ZEVIN/60958

  • Open Borders Are a Trillion-Dollar Idea

    Tearing down all barriers to migration isn’t crazy—it’s an opportunity for a global boom.

    The world’s nations, especially the world’s richest nations, are missing an enormous chance to do well while doing good. The name of this massive missed opportunity—and the name of my book on the topic—is “open borders.”

    Critics of immigration often hyperbolically accuse their opponents of favoring open borders—a world where all nationalities are free to live and work in any nation they like. For most, that’s an unfair label: They want more visas for high-skilled workers, family reunification, or refugees—not the end of immigration restrictions. In my case, however, this accusation is no overstatement. I think that free trade in labor is a massive missed opportunity. Open borders are not only just but the most promising shortcut to global prosperity.

    To see the massive missed opportunity of which I speak, consider the migration of a low-skilled Haitian from Port-au-Prince to Miami. In Haiti, he would earn about $1,000 per year. In Miami, he could easily earn $25,000 per year. How is such upward mobility possible? Simply put: Human beings are much more productive in Florida than in Haiti—thanks to better government policies, better management, better technology, and much more. The main reason Haitians suffer in poverty is not because they are from Haiti but because they are in Haiti. If you were stuck in Haiti, you, too, would probably be destitute.

    But borders aren’t just a missed opportunity for those stuck on the wrong side on them. If the walls come down, almost everyone benefits because immigrants sell the new wealth they create—and the inhabitants of their new country are their top customers. As long as Haitians remain in Haiti, they produce next to nothing—and therefore do next to nothing to enrich the rest of the world. When they move, their productivity skyrockets—and so does their contribution to their new customers. When you see a Haitian restaurant in Miami, you shouldn’t picture the relocation of a restaurant from Port-au-Prince; you should picture the creation of a restaurant that otherwise would never have existed—not even in Haiti itself.

    The central function of existing immigration laws is to prevent this wealth creation from happening—to trap human talent in low-productivity countries. Out of all the destructive economic policies known to man, nothing on Earth is worse. I’m not joking. Standard estimates say open borders would ultimately double humanity’s wealth production. How is this possible? Because immigration sharply increases workers’ productivity—and the world contains many hundreds of millions of would-be immigrants. Multiply a massive gain per person by a massive number of people and you end up with what the economist Michael Clemens calls “trillion-dollar bills on the sidewalk.”

    Or do we? An old saying warns, “If it seems too good to be true, it probably is.” Far lower levels of immigration already inspire vocal complaints. After presenting my basic case in Open Borders, I strive to evaluate all the common (and many not-so-common) objections to immigration. My bottom line: While open borders are undeniably unpopular, they deserve to be popular. Like every social change, immigration has downsides. Yet when we patiently quantify the downsides, the trillions of dollars of gains of open borders dwarf any credible estimate of the harms.

    The simplest objection to open borders is logistical: Even the largest countries cannot absorb hundreds of millions of immigrants overnight. True enough, but no reasonable person expects hundreds of millions to come overnight, either. Instead, immigration usually begins slowly and then snowballs. Puerto Ricans have been legally allowed to move to the United States since 1904, but it took almost a century before Puerto Ricans in the United States came to outnumber the population left on the island. Wasn’t the European migration crisis an unmanageable flood of humanity? Hardly. Despite media outcry, total arrivals from 2014 to 2018 came to less than 1 percent of the population of the European Union. Many European countries—most notably West Germany during the Cold War—have swiftly absorbed much larger inflows in the past.

    The standard explanation for these asymmetric public reactions is that resistance to immigration is primarily cultural and political, not economic or logistical. While West Germans welcomed millions of East German migrants, a much lower dose of Middle Eastern and African migration has made the whole EU shiver. Aren’t economists who dwell on economic gains just missing the point?

    Yes and no. As a matter of political psychology, cultural and political arguments against immigration are indeed persuasive and influential. That does not show, however, that these arguments are correct or decisive. Does immigration really have the negative cultural and political effects critics decry? Even if it did, are there cheaper and more humane remedies than immigration restriction? In any case, what is a prudent price tag to put on these cultural and political effects?

    Let’s start with readily measurable cultural and political effects. In the United States, the most common cultural complaint is probably that—in contrast to the days of Ellis Island—today’s immigrants fail to learn English. The real story, though, is that few first-generation immigrants have ever become fluent in adulthood; it’s just too hard. German and Dutch immigrants in the 19th century maintained their stubborn accents and linguistic isolation all their lives; New York’s Yiddish newspapers were a fixture for decades. For their sons and daughters, however, acquiring fluency is child’s play—even for groups like Asians and Hispanics that are often accused of not learning English.

    Native-born citizens also frequently worry that immigrants, supposedly lacking Western culture’s deep respect for law and order, will be criminally inclined. At least in the United States, however, this is the reverse of the truth. The incarceration rate of the foreign-born is about a third less than that of the native-born.

    What about the greatest crime of all—terrorism? In the United States, non-citizens have indeed committed 88 percent of all terrorist murders. When you think statistically, however, this is 88 percent of a tiny sum. In an average year from 1975 to 2017, terrorists murdered fewer than a hundred people on U.S. soil per year. Less than 1 percent of all deaths are murders, and less than 1 percent of all murders are terrorism-related. Worrying about terrorism really is comparable to worrying about lightning strikes. After you take a few common-sense precautions—do not draw a sword during a thunderstorm—you should just focus on living your life.

    The most cogent objection to immigration, though, is that productivity depends on politics—and politics depend on immigration. Native-born citizens of developed countries have a long track record of voting for the policies that made their industries thrive and their countries rich. Who knows how vast numbers of new immigrants would vote? Indeed, shouldn’t we expect people from dysfunctional polities to bring dysfunctional politics with them?

    These are fine questions, but the answers are not alarming. At least in the United States, the main political division between the native- and foreign-born is engagement. Even immigrants legally able to vote are markedly less likely than native-born citizens to exercise this right. In the 2012 U.S. presidential election, for example, 72 percent of eligible native-born citizens voted versus just 48 percent of eligible immigrants. Wherever they politically stand, then, immigrants’ opinions are relatively inert.

    In any case, immigrants’ political opinions don’t actually stand out. On average, they’re a little more economically liberal and a little more socially conservative, and that’s about it. Yes, low-skilled immigrants’ economic liberalism and social conservatism are more pronounced, but their turnout is low; in 2012, only 27 percent of those eligible to vote opted to do so. So while it would not be alarmist to think that immigration will slightly tilt policy in an economically liberal, socially conservative direction, warning that “immigrants will vote to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs” is paranoid.

    Note, moreover, that free immigration hardly implies automatic citizenship. Welcoming would-be migrants is a clear-cut blessing for them and the world. Granting citizenship is more of a mixed bag. While I am personally happy to have new citizens, I often dwell on the strange fact that the Persian Gulf monarchies are more open to immigration than almost anywhere else on Earth. According to the Pew Research Center, 76 percent of people in Kuwait—and 88 percent in the United Arab Emirates—are foreign-born. Why do the native-born tolerate this? Probably because the Gulf monarchies generously share their oil wealth with citizens—and jealously protect the value of citizenship by making naturalization almost impossible. You do not have to ignore the Gulf monarchies’ occasional mistreatment of immigrants to realize that it is much better to welcome immigrants with conditions than to refuse to admit them at all. Migrants—mostly from much poorer parts of the Islamic world—accept this deal, however unfair, exactly because they can still do far better in the Gulf than at home.

    In Open Borders, I have the space to address many more concerns about immigration in more detail. What I can’t do, I confess, is address the unmeasured and the unmeasurable. In real life, however, everyone routinely copes with ambiguous dangers—“unknown unknowns.” How do we cope?

    For starters, we remember Chicken Little. When people’s warnings about measured dangers turn out to be wrong or overstated, we rightly discount their warnings about unmeasured and unmeasurable dangers. This is how I see mainstream critics of immigration. Their grasp of the basic facts, especially their neglect of the tremendous gains of moving labor from low-productivity countries to high-productivity countries, is too weak to take their so-called vision seriously.

    Our other response to unmeasured and unmeasurable dangers, however, is to fall back on existing moral presumptions. Until same-sex marriage was legalized in certain countries, for example, how were we supposed to know its long-term social effects? The honest answer is, “We couldn’t.” But in the absence of strong evidence that these overall social effects would be very bad, a lot of us have now decided to respect individuals’ right to marry whom they like.

    This is ultimately how I see the case for open borders. Denying human beings the right to rent an apartment from a willing landlord or accept a job offer from a willing employer is a serious harm. How much would someone have to pay the average American to spend the rest of his or her life in Haiti or Syria? To morally justify such harm, we need a clear and present danger, not gloomy speculation. Yet when we patiently and calmly study immigration, the main thing we observe is: people moving from places where their talent goes to waste to places where they can realize their potential. What we see, in short, is immigrants enriching themselves by enriching the world.

    Do I seriously think I am going to convert people to open borders with a short article—or even a full book? No. My immediate goal is more modest: I’d like to convince you that open borders aren’t crazy. While we take draconian regulation of migration for granted, the central goal of this regulation is to trap valuable labor in unproductive regions of the world. This sounds cruel and misguided. Shouldn’t we at least double-check our work to make sure we’re not missing a massive opportunity for ourselves and humanity?

    https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/11/01/immigration-wall-open-borders-trillion-dollar-idea

    #ouverture_des_frontières #frontières_ouvertes #économie #migrations #richesse #monde #frontières

  • Free exchange - A scholar of inequality ponders the future of capitalism | Finance and economics | The Economist

    https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2019/10/31/a-scholar-of-inequality-ponders-the-future-of-capitalism

    Fin d’époque. SI même The Economist se met à douter du capitalisme et du libre-échange à outrance, où va-t-on ?

    WHEN COMMUNISM fell, that was supposed to be that. History would continue, but arguments about how to organise society seemed to have been settled. Yet even as capitalism has strengthened its hold on the global economy, history’s verdict has come to seem less final. In a new book, “Capitalism, Alone”, Branko Milanovic of the Stone Centre on Socioeconomic Inequality at the City University of New York argues that this unification of humankind under a single social system lends support to the view of history as a march towards progress. But the belief that liberal capitalism will prove to be the destination has been weakened by financial and political dysfunction in the rich world, and by the rise of China. Its triumph cannot be taken for granted.

  • Exposure to #air #pollution is linked to an increase in violent #crime - Daily chart
    https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/10/09/exposure-to-air-pollution-is-linked-to-an-increase-in-violent-crime

    This is not the first time researchers have identified a relationship between pollution and crime. In the 1970s America banned lead-based paint and began phasing out leaded petrol; two decades later, crime fell. Many researchers now argue that the two developments were linked. In a paper published in 2007, Jessica Wolpaw Reyes, an economist at Amherst College, estimated that the drop in lead exposure experienced by American children in the 1970s and 1980s may explain over half of the decline in violent crime in the 1990s.

    The findings of Mr Burkhardt and his co-authors suggest that cleaner air could reduce violent crime still further. The benefits would be substantial. The authors estimate that a 10% reduction in daily #PM2.5 and #ozone exposure could save America $1.4bn a year through reduced assaults (the savings range from the cost of the immediate police response to lost productivity due to injuries).

  • A massive money-laundering scandal stains the image of Nordic banks - Northern blights
    https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2019/10/17/a-massive-money-laundering-scandal-stains-the-image-of-nordic-banks

    The money-laundering crisis is the most damaging yet for Danske, and for other Nordic banks allegedly involved. Last year the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, a group of investigative journalists, gave Danske its “Corrupt Actor of the Year” award.

    #blanchiment #banques #Danemark #pays_nordiques #air_du_temps

  • A new study tracks the surge in Chinese loans to poor countries - Hey, big lender

    https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2019/07/13/a-new-study-tracks-the-surge-in-chinese-loans-to-poor-countries

    LOAN TALKS with Belarus; funding for bridges in Liberia; a possible gas project in Timor-Leste; accusations of exploitation in Tanzania; a corporate dispute in India; pledges to support the Rwandan private sector. And that was just the past few weeks. Such is the frenetic pace of China’s overseas lending that its outstanding loans have risen from almost nothing in 2000 to more than $700bn today. It is the world’s largest official creditor, more than twice as big as the World Bank and IMF combined. Yet tracking the money is hard because of limited transparency in its disclosures.

    #chine #économi #dette

  • The end of American hegemony - The World in 2019
    https://www.economist.com/the-world-in/2018/12/28/the-end-of-american-hegemony

    Décembre 2018

    Russia is the only country to enjoy friendly relations with all the main regional players, among them Israel, Turkey and, crucially, Iran. The key to any solution in Syria will be in the hands of Russia, not America. Even though Russia has provided air power to the region’s “Shia axis”, Saudi Arabia has co-operated with Russia to manage oil output and push up the price of crude, to the ire of Mr Trump.

    Israel, Saudi Arabia and several Arab leaders have cheered Mr Trump at the risk of damaging future rel­ations with America’s Democrats. But Gulf states think he is a fickle friend, a fear heightened by Mr Trump’s warning that the Saudi king “might not be there for two weeks without us”. Russia thus provides a useful hedge against American indifference.

    China is making inroads, too. It has a naval base in Djibouti and its warships have called at Gulf ports. As the biggest buyer of Gulf oil, it has a vital interest in the security of the region. But China will mostly limit itself to pursuing economic deals. It will leave the maddening political and security problems to America—or failing that, to Russia.

    #hégémonie #états-unis

  • America’s elderly seem more screen-obsessed than the young : seniors spend nearly ten hours a day in front of televisions, smartphones and computers https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/08/14/americas-elderly-seem-more-screen-obsessed-than-the-young

    MANY PARENTS and grandparents will grumble about today’s screen-obsessed youth. Indeed, researchers find that millennials look at their phones more than 150 times a day; half of them check their devices in the middle of the night; a third glance at them immediately after waking up. And yet, when all screens are accounted for, it is in fact older folk who seem most addicted.

    According to Nielsen, a market-research firm, Americans aged 65 and over spend nearly ten hours a day consuming media on their televisions, computers and smartphones. That is 12% more than Americans aged 35 to 49, and a third more than those aged 18 to 34 (the youngest cohort for whom Nielsen has data).

    Most of that gap can be explained by TV. American seniors—three-quarters of whom are retired—spend an average of seven hours and 30 minutes in front of the box, about as much as they did in 2015 (this includes time spent engaged in other activities while the television is blaring in the background). They spend another two hours staring at their smartphones, a more than seven-fold increase from four years ago (see chart).

    The amount of time that millennials devote to their mobile devices has also grown in the same period, from about one hour and 30 minutes to three hours and 30 minutes. But that has been largely offset by their dwindling interest in traditional TV. In fact, Nielsen reckons that daily screen time among 18- to 34-year-olds has increased by barely an hour in the last four years, the smallest rise of any age cohort that it tracks.

    And what about teenagers? Recent data on this group are scarce. However, a report published in 2015 by Common Sense Media, a non-profit group, found that American teens aged 13-18 spent about six hours and 40 minutes per day on screens: slightly more than Nielsen recorded for 18- to 34-year-olds that year, but less than older generations. Today youngsters may waste hours scrolling through Instagram and shooting zombies on Fortnite. But probably no more than their elders fritter on chat-shows and repeats of soaps.

    #écrans #attention

  • The vile experiences of women in tech
    https://www.economist.com/open-future/2019/05/03/the-vile-experiences-of-women-in-tech

    THE TECHNOLOGY industry vaunts itself as a meritocracy. Yet it is roundly criticised for being unwelcoming to women, in ways large and small. In America, women hold just 25% of jobs in computing, and leave the tech and engineering sectors at twice the rate of men. The situation is worse for women of colour : black women hold only 3% of jobs among women in tech, and Latina women just 1% in America. The gender imbalance is a global problem. In Britain, for example, Europe’s main tech hub, (...)

    #algorithme #discrimination #GAFAM #harcèlement

    • Un fait qui va dans le sens de la théorie de Paola Tabet sur la répartition genrée des outils. Depuis que la société à pris conscience de l’importance clé que représente le contrôle de l’outil informatique les hommes en évincent les femmes.
      Ca pose des problèmes pro aux femmes sans être dans l’informatique. Les métiers très masculinisées pratiquent des escroqueries et abus sur les femmes ; le BTP, l’armée, la police, les transports, et donc les informaticiens (liste non exhaustive)

  • #Globalisation is dead and we need to invent a new world order - Open Future
    https://www.economist.com/open-future/2019/06/28/globalisation-is-dead-and-we-need-to-invent-a-new-world-order

    The Economist : Describe what comes after globalisation—what does the world you foresee look like?

    Mr O’Sullivan : Globalisation is already behind us. We should say goodbye to it and set our minds on the emerging multipolar world. This will be dominated by at least three large regions: America, the European Union and a China-centric Asia. They will increasingly take very different approaches to economic policy, liberty, warfare, technology and society. Mid-sized countries like Russia, Britain, Australia and Japan will struggle to find their place in the world, while new coalitions will emerge, such as a “Hanseatic League 2.0” of small, advanced states like those of Scandinavia and the Baltics. Institutions of the 20th century—the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organisation—will appear increasingly defunct.

    The Economist : What killed globalisation?

    Michael O’Sullivan : At least two things have put paid to globalisation. First, global economic growth has slowed, and as a result, the growth has become more “financialised”: debt has increased and there has been more “monetary activism”—that is, central banks pumping money into the economy by buying assets, such as bonds and in some cases even equities—to sustain the international expansion. Second, the side effects, or rather the perceived side-effects, of globalisation are more apparent: wealth inequality, the dominance of multinationals and the dispersion of global supply chains, which have all become hot political issues.

    • global economic growth has slowed, and as a result, the growth has become more “financialised”: debt has increased and there has been more “monetary activism”—that is, central banks pumping money into the economy by buying assets, such as bonds and in some cases even equities—to sustain the international expansion.

      #capitalisme_inversé (cf. La Grande Dévalorisation de Trenkle et Lohoff)

  • Message de @isskein :
    procès de Scott Warren - délit de solidarité aux USA

    29 mai premier jour du procès de #Scott_Warren, membre du groupe #No_More_Deaths qui aide les migrants perdus dans le désert d’Arizona, arrêté le 17 janvier 2018
    il est accusé de « complot criminel de transport et d’hébergement de migrants illégaux » pour avoir hébergé deux migrants dans une grange. Il risque 20 ans de prison.

    à l’été 2017 9 volontaires de No More Deaths, la plupart ne venant pas d’#Arizona, laissent des bidons d’#eau dans le désert ; ils sont accusés d’utilisation frauduleuse de véhicule et d’abandon de possessions - bref de jeter des ordures - dans une réserve fédérale, délits susceptibles d’un maximum de 6 mois
    Scott Warren a été arrêté peu après la publication d’un rapport documentant des abus de la U.S. Border Patrol.
    https://theintercept.com/2018/01/23/no-more-deaths-arizona-border-littering-charges-immigration (article de 2018 ne mentionnant alors que des peines de 5 ans)

    #désert #mourir_dans_le_désert #mourir_aux_frontières #frontières #migrations #asile #réfugiés #USA #Etats-Unis #Mexique #procès #délit_de_solidarité #solidarité

    Plus sur le groupe No More Deaths sur seenthis :
    https://seenthis.net/tag/no_more_deaths

    Et #Scott_Warren est... géographe, « college geography instructor »

    • Extending ’Zero Tolerance’ To People Who Help Migrants Along The Border

      Arrests of people for harboring, sheltering, leaving food and water or otherwise protecting migrants have been on the rise since 2017, when then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions ordered federal prosecutors to prioritize cases covered under the harboring statute.

      Scott Warren, a 36-year-old college geography instructor from Ajo, Ariz., works with a group called called No More Deaths or No Mas Muertes. The group’s volunteers leave water and food for migrants traversing the Arizona desert.

      Warren was arrested in 2017 and faces three felony counts including conspiracy to transport and harbor migrants. In its complaint, the government claims Warren was seen talking to two migrants who sheltered in Ajo. He denies being part of any sheltering plan.

      “It is scary to be intimidated like this and to be targeted but there really is no choice,” said Warren. He believes the government is violating his right to religious freedom by criminalizing his spiritual belief that mandates he help people in distress.

      “For the government, it’s kind of been an expansion of the interpretation of what it means to harbor,” he suggested.

      The stretch of desert near Ajo can be deadly. The Pima County Medical Examiner has documented 250 migrant deaths in the area since 2001. In the same time frame, thousands have died of dehydration and exposure in the Arizona borderlands.

      “It is life or death here. And a decision not to give somebody food or or water could lead to that person dying,” Warren said.

      ’Can I be compassionate?’

      Nine and half hours away by car from Ajo, in the west Texas town of Marfa, another case is unfolding that pits the government against a four-time elected city and county attorney, Teresa Todd.

      She is under investigation for human smuggling after stopping to help three migrants alongside the road at night in February, 2019.

      “I see a young man in a white shirt. He runs out toward the road where I am,” Todd recounted. She says the man was pleading for assistance. “I can’t just leave this guy on the side of the road. I have to go see if I can help.”

      The young man told Todd that his sister, 18-year-old Esmeralda, was in trouble.

      “I mean, she can hardly walk, she’s very dazed,” recalled Todd.

      The migrants took shelter in Todd’s car while she called and texted a friend who is the legal counsel for the local U.S. Border Patrol, asking for advice. Before that friend could reply, a sheriff’s deputy showed up. The deputy called in the U.S. Border Patrol.

      An agent was soon reading Todd her Miranda rights. Eight days later, a Department of Homeland Security investigator accompanied by a Texas Ranger arrived at Todd’s office with a search warrant for her cellphone. Todd says she was told she’d have the phone back in a matter of hours.

      “It makes people have to question, ’Can I be compassionate’?”

      Todd’s phone was returned 53 days later.

      The sheriff of Presidio County, Danny Dominguez, whose deputy called the Border Patrol, defended the action against Todd. He said anyone with undocumented migrants in their car risks arrest.

      A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney for the western district of Texas declined comment on Todd’s case.

      Todd is unrepentant: “I feel like I did the right thing. I don’t feel I did anything wrong.”

      Speaking by phone from the migrant detention center in Sierra Blanca, Texas, Esmeralda said of Todd, “I’m really grateful to her.” She said doctors told her she was on the brink of death by the time she got to the hospital.

      Figures confirmed to NPR by TRAC, the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University, show that in fiscal year 2018 there were more than 4,500 people federally charged for bringing in and harboring migrants. That is a more than 30% increase since 2015, with the greatest rise coming after Sessions’ order to prioritize harboring cases.

      “With these prosecutions, the government is saying, ’we’re extending our zero tolerance policy to Good Samaritans,’” said Ranjana Natarajan, director of the Civil Rights Clinic at the University of Texas School of Law. “People shouldn’t be helping migrants even if they might be at threat of death.”

      Accused of human smuggling

      Ana Adlerstein, a U.S. citizen and volunteer at a Mexican migrant shelter, has her own story to tell. Earlier this month, Adlerstein accompanied a migrant seeking asylum from Sonora, Mexico to the U.S. border crossing at Lukeville, Ariz. Adlerstein was present to observe the process. Instead, she says she was detained by Customs and Border Protection officers for several hours.

      “I was accused of human smuggling,” she stated.

      Border officials had been forewarned that a migrant seeking asylum was coming that day, accompanied by a U.S. citizen. Under current law, once a migrant steps onto U.S. soil, he or she can request asylum.

      “If that’s not how you’re supposed to seek asylum at a port of entry, how are you supposed to seek asylum in this country?” Adlerstein asked.

      U.S. Customs and Border Protection declined comment on Adlerstein’s specific claims. In an email, a CBP spokesperson added:

      “All persons entering the country, including U.S. citizens, are subject to examination and search. CBP uses diverse factors to refer individuals for selected examinations and there are instances when this process may take longer than normal. CBP is committed to ensuring the agency is able to execute its missions while protecting the human rights, civil rights, and dignity of those with whom we come in contact.”

      Adlerstein has not been charged but has received subsequent calls from a DHS investigator.

      In Texas, Teresa Todd is waiting to find out if she will be indicted for human smuggling.

      As for Scott Warren, he faces up to 20 years in prison if convicted on all three felony counts, a prospect he can’t even contemplate.

      https://www.npr.org/2019/05/28/725716169/extending-zero-tolerance-to-people-who-help-migrants-along-the-border?t=1559201
      #statistiques #chiffres

    • Scott Warren Provided Food & Water to Migrants in Arizona; He Now Faces Up to 20 Years in Prison

      An Arizona humanitarian aid volunteer goes to trial today for providing water, food, clean clothes and beds to two undocumented migrants crossing the Sonoran Desert in southern Arizona. If convicted, Scott Warren could spend up to 20 years in prison. Warren, an activist with the Tucson-based No More Deaths, is charged with three felony counts of allegedly “harboring” undocumented immigrants. For years, No More Deaths and other humanitarian aid groups in southern Arizona have left water and food in the harsh Sonoran Desert, where the temperature often reaches three digits during summer, to help refugees and migrants survive the deadly journey across the U.S. border. Warren was arrested on January 17, 2018, just hours after No More Deaths released a report detailing how U.S. Border Patrol agents had intentionally destroyed more than 3,000 gallons of water left out for migrants crossing the border. The group also published a video showing border agents dumping out jugs of water in the desert. Hours after the report was published, authorities raided the Barn, a No More Deaths aid camp in Ajo, where they found two migrants who had sought temporary refuge. We speak with Scott Warren and his fellow No More Deaths volunteer and activist Catherine Gaffney in Tucson.

      https://www.democracynow.org/2019/5/29/scott_warren_provided_food_water_to

    • Daily Trial Updates

      Day 3 – June 3, 2019

      We began the day with a powerful press conference featuring immigrant justice advocates from across the country. Patty Miller (Arivaca, AZ,) spoke on behalf of People Helping People in the Border Zone and the Rural Border Communities Coalition, followed by James Cordero and Jacqueline Arellano from Border Angeles (San Diego), Ravi Ragbir of the New Sanctuary Coalition (NYC) and Kaji Douša, Senior Pastor at The Park Avenue Christian Church in Manhattan.
      The prosecution continued to build their “case” against Scott, spending most of the day playing video recordings of the testimony given by the two undocumented Central American men–José and Kristian–who were arrested with Scott. (Note we will be using only the first names of deposed witnesses to respect privacy).
      Prosecutors attempted to erase the hardships experienced by undocumented people crossing the borderlands. One of the two witnesses, Kristian, testified that he had been traveling since October 4th, 2017 from his home in El Salvador. By the time of the arrest, he had been traveling for over three months and walking in the desert for two days. This is very different from the government narrative which claims the men were traveling for mere hours before they encountered help.
      During their journey, José and Kristian experienced the routine and deadly Border Patrol apprehension method known as chase and scatter–a practice in which Border Patrol agents pursue migrants in vehicles, on foot, or in helicopters, forcing them to scatter into the desert. In the chaos, the two men lost their belongings, including “food and two gallons of water.” The No More Deaths Abuse Documentation Working Group has provided extensive documentation of the lethal impacts of this deadly apprehension method in our report series, The Disappeared.
      José and Kristian testified that after arriving at the Barn, Scott gave them food, water, blankets and a place to rest. There was no evidence that Scott made any plans to transport them, hide them from law enforcement, or instruct them on how to evade any Border Patrol checkpoints.
      Border Patrol Forensic Phone Analyst Rogelio Velasco gave a rundown of the contents of Scott Warren’s phone–he summarized 14,000 pages of emails and texts into a one page report. One part of his analysis showed the day José and Kristian arrived at the barn, Scott called a nurse and a doctor on the No More Deaths medical team. When asked why Velasco didn’t review the myriad other emails and texts discussing Scott’s humanitarian work, he replied, “I was looking for elements of criminality. If it wasn’t relevant then I skipped it.”

      Day 2 – May 30, 2019

      We began the day with Pastor Allison Harrington of Southside Presbyterian Church sharing the poem “Imagine the Angels of Bread” by Martin Espada along with a morning prayer.
      Court opened with Border Patrol Agent John Marquez being cross-examined by the defense. He made it abundantly clear that he relied on racial profiling to determine the two men at the barn were migrants, claiming “they matched the description” of two migrants BP was looking for. However, when pressed by the defense, Agent Marquez admitted that he did not know whether they were “short, tall, fat, skinny, bearded, young, old, or even male.” He stated “In my experience, they appeared to be “Other Than Mexican.”
      Agent Marquez also stated that January 17, 2018 was the first time Border Patrol agents in Ajo set up surveillance at the Barn. This happened just hours after No More Deaths released a report called The Disappeared Part 2: Interference on Humanitarian and video of agents destroying humanitarian aid supplies.
      Second to take the stand was Border Patrol Agent Brendan Burns, who was the one who first referred to the migrants as “toncs”.
      According to Agent Burns, when he approached the Barn that day, defendant Scott Warren told him that it was private property and a humanitarian aid space. He also asked the Agents to leave the property. Burns ignored him because, according to his surveillance, “the aliens didn’t appear to be in need of humanitarian aid.” When asked by the defense whether he has any medical credentials, the agent admitted to having none.
      Five days after the arrests, a search warrant was issued for the Barn. Evidence seized included a receipt for a cherry coke, banana nut muffin and chips, a fridge note saying “bagels from flagstaff!” and a list of supplies for a camping trip.

      Day 1 – May 29, 2019

      After a moving press conference in the morning, a jury was selected of 15 people — 12 jurors and 3 alternates.
      In his opening argument this afternoon, US Attorney Nathaniel Walters claimed that “this case is not about humanitarian aid,” urging jurors to ignore the realities of death and disappearance happening in the desert surrounding Ajo, Arizona.
      The prosecution’s entire case for the charge of “conspiracy to harbor and transport” undocumented migrants appeared to hinge on the fact that two undocumented men arrived at the Barn, “and then Scott showed up” a few hours later.
      The prosecution also harped on the fact that the men had “eaten food” prior to arriving at the Barn, apparently arguing that because the two men split one burrito after walking for two days through the desert, they were not in need of food or water
      Lawyers for the defense firmly asserted in their opening arguments that this case IS about humanitarian aid, and that Scott’s actions must be understood as a part of his deep knowledge of suffering throughout the desert and commitment to working to end it. “Scott intended one thing: to provide basic human kindness in the form of humanitarian aid.”
      The government also argued that Scott was pointing out known landmarks to the two migrants. “Defendant appeared to be pointing out different features, lots of hand motions. I could not hear them but there were hand gestures, up and down, in wave motions, rolling hills, pointing to known points of interest.” However, as the defense firmly stated “orientation is just as much of a human right as is food, water, and shelter.” In the context of death and disappearance in the desert, knowing where you are can save your life.
      The government called their first witness, Border Patrol Agent John Marquez. Marquez testified to setting up surveillance on the Barn on January 17, 2018 and seeing Scott speaking with two men, who he presumed were undocumented based on “ill-fitting clothing” and the fact that they were “scanning the horizon.” No evidence was presented that Scott intended to hide or conceal anyone. Judge Collins called an end to the day before the defense’s cross-examination of Marquez.


      http://forms.nomoredeaths.org/dailytrialupdates
      #procès

      –---------

      Trial continued this afternoon with video testimony from José, the other material witness arrested with Scott, who confirmed that he and Kristian were both hungry, cold, and very tired when they arrived at the barn.

      José also described their experience of being scattered by the #BorderPatrol, and how most of the men in his group had to stop walking because they were so beat up from spending just one day in the desert.

      Chase and scatter is just one of the deadly apprehension tactics used by BP which result in increased numbers of deaths and disappearances. “Prevention through Deterrence” is the name of the overall strategy of pushing migrants deep into the desert.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7Ux__uVfNA

      https://twitter.com/NoMoreDeaths/status/1135690665399017473

    • In Scott Warren’s No More Deaths Trial, Prosecutors Attempt to Paint a Web of Conspiracy

      For nearly a year and a half, U.S. government prosecutors in Arizona have sought to make an example out of Scott Warren. The 36-year-old geographer and border-based humanitarian aid volunteer was arrested with two undocumented migrants on January 17, 2018, and accused of providing the men with food, water, and a place to sleep over three days. A month later, a grand jury indicted him on two counts of harboring and one count of conspiracy, bringing the total amount time he could spend in prison — if convicted on all counts and sentenced to consecutive terms — to 20 years.

      Warren’s trial began in Tucson on Wednesday, marking the start of the most consequential prosecution of an American humanitarian aid provider in at least a decade. On Monday, assistant U.S. attorneys Anna Wright and Nathaniel J. Walters, who together have spearheaded an aggressive and controversial prosecutorial campaign against immigrant rights defenders in the Sonoran Desert, called their final witness to the stand.

      Over three and a half days of testimony, the prosecutors presented the jury with two Border Patrol agents who arrested Warren, a third who examined his phone, and some three hours of video-taped testimony from the young migrants he was arrested with, recorded before their deportations. The arresting agents provided little information beyond the bare facts of their operation as it unfolded, while the agent who testified about phone evidence seemed to paint a more incriminating picture of a man who was not charged in the case than he did of Warren. The migrants who were held as the government’s material witnesses described Warren as a figure who was hardly present during their short time in the U.S., beyond giving them permission to eat, sleep, and drink at a property he did not own, after they showed up with nothing but the clothes on their backs.

      The conspiracy charge in particular has cast an ominous pall over Warren’s case. As a prosecutorial tool, conspiracy charges can afford government attorneys sweeping powers in criminal cases. While the U.S. attorney’s office in Arizona was secretive about the nature of its theory of conspiracy with respect to Warren following his grand jury indictment, The Intercept revealed last month that the government considered Irineo Mujica, a prominent immigrants right advocate, a co-conspirator in the case. A dual U.S.-Mexican citizen, Mujica is the head of Pueblo Sin Fronteras, an immigrant rights organization known for its role in organizing the migrant caravans that have drawn President Trump’s outrage. He also operates a migrant shelter south of Ajo, the unincorporated community where Warren lives and works.

      In opening arguments last week, Walters confirmed that the government considered Mujica a key figure in Warren’s alleged offenses. “They were in contact with Irineo Mujica,” the prosecutor told the jury, referring to 23-year-old Kristian Perez-Villanueva and 20-year-old Jose Arnaldo Sacaria-Goday, the Central American migrants, from El Salvador and Honduras, respectively, whom Warren was arrested with. Not only that, Walters said, Mujica had driven the pair to “the Barn,” a property used by humanitarian volunteers operating in the area. Warren’s relationship to Mujica was that of a “shared acquaintance,” Walters said, and cellphone evidence would show that the two were in contact before the migrants arrived at the Barn.

      Mujica declined to comment for this story and has not been charged with a crime.

      On Monday afternoon, Rogelio Velasco, a Border Patrol agent in the Tucson sector’s intelligence unit, testified about the government’s telephonic evidence, describing how his work excavating cellphones is used to support the agency’s high-priority cases, often executed by its plainclothes “Disrupt” units. “We try to look for bigger cases where more people are involved,” he testified. Warren was arrested by a Disrupt unit.

      Wright and Walters’ interest in Warren and the humanitarian groups he volunteers with, particularly the faith-based organization No More Deaths, began in 2017, when the assistant U.S. attorneys brought federal misdemeanor charges against several members of the group — Warren included — for leaving water and other humanitarian aid supplies on public lands where migrants routinely die. Velasco explained how, after Warren’s arrest, the prosecutors directed him to focus on particular date ranges and communications included in Warren’s phone and a phone carried by Perez-Villanueva.

      As the Border Patrol agent carried out the prosecutors’ request, he said he found a series of communications between Perez-Villanueva and Mujica, beginning in December 2017 and extending through January 2018, when he and Sacaria-Goday, along with Warren, were arrested in Ajo. According to Velasco’s testimony, the messages showed that when the young migrants entered the U.S. on January 14, Perez-Villanueva texted Mujica, “We’re here.” To which Mujica replied, “I’m on my way.”

      The government’s efforts to tie alleged illegal activity between Mujica and Warren appeared to begin after Warren was taken into custody. Four months after Warren was indicted, Jarrett L. Lenker, a supervisory Border Patrol agent in the Tucson sector intelligence unit, submitted a search warrant affidavit for Warren’s iPhone, first uncovered by the Arizona Daily Star and obtained by The Intercept.

      Mujica was a central figure in Lenker’s affidavit. The Border Patrol agent described “a total of 16 phone calls or WhatsApp messages” exchanged between Perez-Villanueva and Mujica in the month before his arrest. Lenker’s affidavit also revealed that, through subpoenas, law enforcement identified two phone numbers “associated with Warren’s Verizon account” following his arrest: one belonging to Warren and the other belonging to his partner.

      In his testimony Monday, Velasco said that Mujica was a contact in Warren’s phone, and that the two had communications up through January 11, six days before his arrest. Warren also sent Mujica’s contact information to another person in his phone in the summer of 2017, Velasco testified.

      Following Velasco’s testimony, the prosecution called Border Patrol agent Brendan Burns, one of the Disrupt unit members principally involved in Warren’s arrest, to the witness stand. Burns described an incident a week after Warren’s arrest, in which Mujica was pulled over at a Border Patrol checkpoint outside Ajo. He drove to the scene and observed that Mujica’s van was the same vehicle featured in a selfie Perez-Villanueva and Sacaria-Goday took after they made it to the U.S. Inside the van were a number of items associated with illegal border crossings, Burns testified, including water jugs and foreign identification cards. The same incident was also described in Lenker’s affidavit, which noted that the ID cards belonged to individuals who had been removed from the U.S. Lenker also recounted an incident the following month, in which Mujica was again stopped at the same Border Patrol checkpoint and his passenger was arrested for being in the country illegally.

      Burns acknowledged having seen the photos of Perez-Villanueva and Sacaria-Goday in Mujica’s vehicle prior to his encounter with Mujica, and his knowledge that the vehicle belonged to Mujica. He testified that he did not, however, ask Mujica about the two young migrants, nor their alleged conspiracy with Scott Warren, nor did he place him under arrest.

      In opening statements last week, defense attorney Greg Kuykendall acknowledged that Warren had been in contact with Mujica days before his arrest, and that was because Mujica had information about a dead body outside Ajo. The remains of roughly 3,000 people have been recovered in the Arizona desert since 2000, the grim consequence of a government policy that deliberately funnels migrants into the most lethal areas of the U.S.-Mexico border. Since 2014, Warren has brought together a network of humanitarian groups working to confront the loss of life in the state’s deadliest region, the so-called west desert. Those efforts have yielded a historic increase in the number of bodies and human remains accounted for in the area.

      On cross examination Monday, Kuykendall zeroed in on the evidence Velasco’s examination of Warren’s phone had uncovered. The defense attorney first established, with Velasco’s admission, that there were no communications recorded between Perez-Villanueva and Warren (Sacaria-Goday tossed his phone while the pair were in the desert). He then focused on Warren’s communications with Mujica.

      “Are you aware that Scott and Irineo are involved in humanitarian aid efforts?” Kuykendall asked.

      “I think I might’ve heard something,” Velasco replied. “But I’m not exactly sure.”

      (Warren’s humanitarian aid work was noted in both internal Border Patrol reports and news accounts before and after his arrest — he and Mujica were featured in a Pulitzer Prize-winning newspaper series in 2017 detailing their efforts to find dead and lost migrants in the desert.)

      Velasco admitted that he had no idea what Warren and Mujica discussed the week before Warren’s arrest, nor had he taken note of what Warren had Googled as soon as the pair got off the phone. Kuykendall informed the jury that those searches included information on backcountry areas south of Ajo, a news report on a humanitarian group conducting search and rescue operations in the region, and the English translation of a Spanish word for scratches. Following the Google searches, Kuykendall told the jury, Warren called Dr. Norma Price, a physician who has long provided medical advice to No More Deaths volunteers.

      Kuykendall questioned Velasco about his testimony regarding Warren’s communications with a woman named “Susannah.” Velasco admitted that he did not know who Susannah was and that he “saw nothing that directly suggested” she and Warren were communicating about criminal activity. Instead, he testified, they were messaging one another about “providing water in different areas.” Moving along, Kuykendall asked if Velasco was aware that Perez-Villanueva worked for Mujica while staying at his shelter in Mexico — a potential explanation for their repeated communications in the winter of 2017. Velasco appeared uncertain, and acknowledged that from January 10 to the afternoon of January 14, when the migrants arrived in Ajo, there were no communications between Perez-Villanueva and Mujica.

      “When he was crossing I didn’t come up with any messages,” Velasco testified.

      In opening arguments last week, Kuykendall explained how, in the days leading up to his arrest, Warren spent his time training new humanitarian volunteers, assisting sheriff’s deputies in the search for a body, and performing his duties as a new instructor at Tohono O’odham Community College, a school for residents of the Native American reservation outside Ajo. In early January 2018, five new No More Deaths volunteers had arrived in Ajo. As the local expert, it was up to Warren to show them the ropes and familiarize them with the organization’s protocols — protocols, Kuykendall said, that are intended to ensure the group’s work is “effective, responsible, and legal.”

      On Thursday, January 11, Warren was at home when Mujica called to inform him about the human remains he had heard about, Kuykendall said, noting that Warren had the experience and know-how to organize a grid search in the area. Efforts to coordinate a search were the extent of communications between Warren and Mujica, the defense attorney said. The following day, Warren took the new volunteers to a migrant shelter in Mexico, where they distributed “harm reduction” kits, consisting of chlorine to purify water, ointment for blisters, combs for removing cholla cactus spines, and lists of emergency numbers, including 911.

      “No More Deaths’ role is to reduce the harm,” Kuykendall told the jury, not to encourage people to cross a desert that has claimed thousands of lives.

      Warren spent much of the following weekend at home with the flu, Kuykendall said, coordinating rescue operations by phone and working to link up Pima County sheriff’s deputies with No More Deaths volunteers in the field. Warren’s responsibilities involved preparing new volunteers, operationally and emotionally, for the possibility of finding a dead body in the desert. On the night of Sunday, January 14, they also included making dinner for the new recruits at the Barn. Warren returned to the building with groceries that afternoon to find two young men — Perez-Villanueva and Sacaria-Goday — already inside.

      “Scott’s spooked,” Kuykendall said of Warren’s reaction.

      In the depositions played for the jury Monday, Perez-Villanueva and Sacaria-Goday described a harrowing journey through the desert that involved being chased by law enforcement and losing many of their supplies. Perez-Villanueva described fleeing problems in El Salvador and said that he had no intention to enter the U.S. until those problems cropped up in Mexico. The pair had crossed in a group of five but were quickly on their own, their companions slowed down by thorns in their feet. “Between the two of us, we made a good team,” Perez-Villanueva said. “We supported each other mutually.” The young men testified to crossing the desert and tossing their food and backpacks when they were chased by immigration agents. They eventually made it to a gas station outside Ajo, where “a gringo” drove them to second gas station in town.

      Neither of the migrants identified the man who then drove to the Barn, though Perez-Villanueva testified that the man told them not to describe his role in delivering them there, and that he honored that request. The pair let themselves in through an unlocked door. Warren arrived approximately 40 minutes later. “They tell him that they’re hungry,” Kuykendall told the jury. “They tell him that they’re thirsty. They tell him that they’re tired.”

      Warren grabbed a form No More Deaths uses to catalog medical evaluations of migrants encountered in the field, the defense attorney said. Warren, a certified wilderness first responder, found that Perez-Villanueva had blisters on his feet, a persistent cough, and signs of dehydration. Sacaria-Goday’s conditions were much the same, though he was also suffering from chest pain. In keeping with No More Deaths’ protocol, Warren called a nurse before starting dinner for the volunteers that were set to arrive — as well as their two new guests.

      “He gives food to hungry men,” Kuykendall told the jury. “They share a meal with the volunteers.”

      By phone, Dr. Price advised the two young migrants to stay off their feet for a couple days, to stay hydrated, and asked the volunteers to keep them under observation, Kuykendall told the jury. Warren came and went in the days that followed, as did other No More Deaths volunteers. “He hardly spent time there,” Sacaria-Goday testified. “I hardly spoke with him,” Perez-Villanueva said.

      On Tuesday, January 16, Warren had his first day teaching at the community college. The following day, he worked from home. A group of high school students were scheduled to visit the Barn that night. Warren pulled up to the Barn in the afternoon, Kuykendall said, as Perez-Villanueva and Sacaria-Goday were preparing to leave. The three spoke outside. Across a desert wash, two plainclothes Border Patrol agents were conducting “covert surveillance,” in the words of Walters, the government prosecutor.

      “Toncs at the barn,” agent Burns wrote in a group text, using a slang word for migrants known to reflect the sound a flashlight makes when it connects with a human skull.

      The lead agent on the arrest operation was John Marquez. In his testimony last week, Marquez’s narrative began the afternoon of Warren’s arrest, though he acknowledged doing a bit of “background research,” in Kuykendall’s words, on Warren before taking him into custody. In fact, texts messages The Intercept has previously reported upon show Marquez repeatedly communicating with local Fish and Wildlife agents about Warren’s whereabouts and No More Deaths’ humanitarian activity in the run-up to his arrest. In a report he filed after Warren was taken into custody, Marquez described him as a “recruiter” for the organization, who regularly comments publicly on immigration issues.

      Under questioning from the prosecution, Marquez highlighted hand gestures Warren allegedly made while standing outside with Perez-Villanueva and Sacaria-Goday as evidence that he was providing them directions north. Upon cross examination, however, he acknowledged that this apparently important detail was not included in his arrest report. Perez-Villanueva and Sacaria-Goday, meanwhile, both testified that Warren did not provide them directions for their journey. He never advised them to hide in the Barn, they said, and they were free to come and go as they pleased.

      Marquez and Burns descended on the Barn with backup provided by a law enforcement caravan that had mustered at a hotel down the road. Warren, Perez-Villanueva, and Sacaria-Goday were all placed under arrest. The migrants were held in government custody for several weeks before providing their testimony and being deported to their home countries.

      “There is one question in this case,” Kuykendall told the jury considering Warren’s actions in the days leading up to his arrest. “Did he intend to violate the law?” The government did not have the evidence to prove that he did, the defense attorney argued.

      “Scott intended one thing,” he said. “To provide basic human kindness in the form of humanitarian aid.”

      https://theintercept.com/2019/06/04/scott-warren-no-more-deaths-trial-conspiracy-phone

    • UN experts urge US authorities to drop charges against aid worker Scott Warren

      GENEVA (5 June 2019) – UN human rights experts* have expressed grave concerns about criminal charges brought against Scott Warren, a U.S. citizen who works for an aid organisation providing water and medical aid to migrants in the Arizona desert.

      Warren’s trial began on 29 May 2019, and if found guilty he faces up to 20 years in jail.

      “Providing humanitarian aid is not a crime. We urge the US authorities to immediately drop all charges against Scott Warren,” the experts said.

      Warren, 36, lives in the desert town of Ajo, Arizona, where he helped to establish the organisation No More Deaths, which provides humanitarian assistance along migration routes. For the past 10 years, he has helped migrants and asylum seekers attempting to cross the Arizona - Mexican border through the Sonora desert.

      Border Control agents arrested the human rights defender on 17 January 2018 at “the Barn”, a humanitarian shelter in the Sonora Desert, while he was providing assistance to two undocumented migrants. His arrest came hours after the release of a report from No More Deaths which documented the implication of Border Control agents in the systematic destruction of humanitarian supplies, including water stores, and denounced a pattern of harassment, intimidation and surveillance against humanitarian aid workers.

      Warren faces charges on two counts of “harboring” migrants and one count of “conspiring to transport and harbor” migrants.

      Arizona has some of the deadliest migrant corridors along the US border, accounting for more than a third of more than 7,000 border deaths recorded by US authorities over the last two decades. The actual numbers are likely to be higher, given the remains of many of those who die are not recovered.

      “The vital and legitimate humanitarian work of Scott Warren and No More Deaths upholds the right to life and prevents the deaths of migrants and asylum seekers at the US-Mexican border,” said the UN experts.

      “The prosecution of Scott Warren represents an unacceptable escalation of existing patterns criminalising migrant rights defenders along the migrant caravan routes.”

      The experts are in contact with the U.S. authorities on the issues.

      https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24675&LangID=E

    • Judge declares mistrial in Tucson trial of aid volunteer accused of harboring migrants

      Jurors in the high-profile felony trial against Scott Warren — a humanitarian-aid volunteer charged with harboring two undocumented immigrants in southwestern Arizona — were unable to reach a verdict, prompting the judge to declare a mistrial in the case.

      U.S. District Judge Raner C. Collins brought the 12-person jury into the Tucson federal courtroom on the afternoon of June 11, after they indicated for a second time that they were deadlocked on all three charges Warren faced.

      The judge dismissed the jury after each member told him that additional time deliberating would not result in a verdict.

      Collins scheduled a status conference on the trial for July 2, when prosecutors with the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Arizona will decide whether to try Warren again before another jury.

      Prosecutors declined to comment after the judge dismissed the jury, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Arizona has not responded to a request for comment.

      Warren, 36, a volunteer with the group No More Deaths, faced up to 20 years in federal prison if convicted.

      He’s accused of conspiring to transport two undocumented immigrants, Kristian Perez-Villanueva and Jose Arnaldo Sacaria-Goday, and of harboring them for several days in January 2018 in Ajo, Arizona.

      Speaking to reporters outside the federal courthouse, Warren acknowledged that he’d be back in court in a month’s time to learn if the legal case against him would continue.

      But he thanked his supporters who filled the courthouse to capacity on each of the seven days of testimony.

      “But the other men arrested with me that day, Jose Sacaria-Goday and Kristian Perez-Villanueva, have not received the outpouring of support that I have,” Warren said. “I do not know how they are doing now. But I desperately hope that they are safe.”

      Warren said that the need to provide humanitarian aid to migrants crossing the desert along the U.S.-Mexico border still is “as necessary” as ever.

      He pointed out that since his arrest on Jan. 17, 2018, the remains of 88 migrants were recovered from the Ajo corridor, a remote and notoriously rugged desert wilderness in southwestern Arizona.

      Greg Kuykendall, the lead attorney in his defense team, praised volunteers, such as Warren, for using their time and resources to help migrants in need.

      He declined to answer questions about the possibility of a retrial.

      “The government put on its best case, with the full force and countless resources, and 12 jurors could not agree with that case,” Kuykendall said. “We remain devoted today in our commitment to defend Scott’s lifelong devotion to providing humanitarian aid.”
      Volunteers say border humanitarian work will continue

      The hung jury in Warren’s felony trial follows the convictions of several other No More Deaths volunteers for carrying out humanitarian aid duties along protected wilderness areas along the Arizona border.

      In January, a federal judge in Tucson convicted four volunteers of misdemeanors for entering a wildlife refuge without a permit and dropping off food and water for migrants. He sentenced them to 15 months probation, ordered them to pay a fine of $150, and banned them from the refuge.

      The following month, four other No More Deaths volunteers pleaded guilty to a civil infraction of entering a wildlife refuge without a permit, and agreed to pay $280 in fines.

      Warren is also awaiting the outcome of a separate misdemeanor case brought against him for entering protected wilderness areas without a permit.

      Page Corich-Kleim, a longtime volunteer with No More Deaths, said despite these results, their work in providing humanitarian aid will continue along southwestern Arizona.

      “This evening, we have a group of volunteers driving out to Ajo to put water out,” she said. “So throughout this whole trial, we haven’t stopped doing our work and we’re not going to stop doing our work.”

      The jury began deliberations midday on Friday, after attorneys presented their closing arguments in Tucson federal court. But after nearly 15 hours of deliberations, they were unable to reach consensus on the three felony counts against Warren.

      The jurors first notified Collins late Monday afternoon that they were unable to reach a verdict in the case. But the judge asked them to try once again on Tuesday morning.

      But after deadlocking once again on Tuesday morning, Collins thanked them and dismissed them from jury duty.

      The jurors left the courthouse without speaking to the media.
      Prosecutors said Warren conspired to harbor migrants

      During the trial, prosecutors with the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Arizona argued that the two migrants were in good health and did not need medical care when they showed up to a building known as “the Barn” on Jan. 14, 2018.

      The prosecutors argued that Warren had conspired with Irineo Mujica, a migrants-rights activist who runs a shelter in nearby Sonoyta, Mexico, to take in the two migrants and shield them from Border Patrol. They also alleged that the humanitarian aid was used as a “cover” to help them further their journey illegally into the United States.

      Agents arrested Warren, as well as Perez-Villanueva and Sacaria-Goday, during a Jan. 17, 2018, raid of the Barn, after they had set up surveillance of the area.

      Defense attorneys for Warren said he had no idea that the two men would be at the Barn when he arrived, and that he had followed the protocols No More Deaths had established to provide a medical assessment, as well as food, water, shelter and orientation to the two migrants.

      Warren’s intent was not to break the law, but rather to provide lifesaving aid, his attorneys said.

      https://eu.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/border-issues/2019/06/11/scott-warren-verdict-aiding-undocumented-immigrants-on-us-mexico-border-no-more-deaths/1387036001

    • Jurors refuse to convict activist facing 20 years for helping migrants

      Jury could not reach a verdict against Scott Daniel Warren who was arrested in 2018 for giving migrants water, food and lodging.

      A US jury could not reach a verdict on Tuesday against a border activist who, defense attorneys say, was simply being kind by providing two migrants with water, food and lodging when he was arrested in early 2018.

      Scott Daniel Warren, a 36-year-old college geography instructor, was charged with conspiracy to transport and harbor migrants in a trial that humanitarian aid groups said would have wide implications for their work. He faced up to 20 years in prison.

      Prosecutors maintained the men were not in distress and Warren conspired to transport and harbor them at a property used for providing aid to migrants in an Arizona town near the US-Mexico border.

      The case played out as humanitarian groups say they are coming under increasing scrutiny under Donald Trump’s hardline immigration policies.

      Outside the courthouse, Warren thanked his supporters and criticized the government’s efforts to crack down on the number of immigrants coming to the US.

      “Today it remains as necessary as ever for local residents and humanitarian aid volunteers to stand in solidarity with migrants and refugees, and we must also stand for our families, friends and neighbors in the very land itself most threatened by the militarization of our borderland communities,” Warren said.

      Glenn McCormick, a spokesman for the US attorney’s office in Arizona, declined to comment on whether Warren would face another trial. The judge set a 2 July status hearing for the defense and prosecution.

      Warren is one of nine members of the humanitarian aid group No More Deaths who have been charged with crimes related to their work. But he is the only one to face felony charges.

      In west Texas, a county attorney was detained earlier this year after stopping her car on a dark highway to pick up three young migrants who flagged her down. Teresa Todd was held briefly, and federal agents searched her cellphone.

      Border activists say they worry about what they see as the gradual criminalization of humanitarian action.

      Warren has said his case could set a dangerous precedent by expanding the definition of the crimes of transporting and harboring migrants to include people merely trying to help border-crossers in desperate need of water or other necessities.

      Warren and other volunteers with the No More Deaths group also were targeted this year in separate federal misdemeanor cases after leaving water, canned food and other provisions for migrants hiking through the Cabeza Prieta national wildlife refuge in southern Arizona.

      In Warren’s felony case, the defense team headed by Greg Kuykendall argued that Warren could not, in good conscience, turn away two migrants who had recently crossed the desert to enter the US.

      Jurors said on Monday that they could not reach a consensus on the charges against Warren, but a federal judge told them to keep deliberating. They were still deadlocked on Tuesday and ultimately dismissed.

      Thousands of migrants have died crossing the border since the mid-1990s, when heightened enforcement pushed migrant traffic into Arizona’s scorching deserts.

      https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/11/arizona-activist-migrant-water-scott-daniel-warren-verdict

    • The gripping case of Scott Warren

      Is offering assistance to illegal immigrants a protected religious practice?

      ONE TROUBLE with liberty is that you never know what people will do with it. In recent years, American conservatives have been passionate defenders of individual religious freedoms, such as the right to have nothing to do with same-sex weddings. But Scott Warren (pictured), an idealistic geographer who is facing felony charges for succouring migrants in the Arizona desert, has now become a standard-bearer for a very different sort of conscientious objection.

      On June 11th his trial, which has been closely watched at the liberal end of America’s religious spectrum, reached deadlock after jurors failed to agree despite three days of deliberation. That was a better result than Mr Warren and his many supporters feared. Prosecutors may seek a retrial.

      https://www.economist.com/united-states/2019/06/15/the-gripping-case-of-scott-warren

    • USA: Decision to retry Dr. Scott Warren is part of wider campaign against human rights defenders

      In response to US federal prosecutors deciding today to retry the human rights defender Dr. Scott Warren after a previous attempt to prosecute him ended in a mistrial, Erika Guevara-Rosas, Americas director Amnesty International, said:

      “By deciding to mount an entirely new trial against Dr. Scott Warren, the Trump administration is doubling down on its attacks against human rights defenders who are doing necessary and life-saving work at the US-Mexico border.”

      “Amnesty International has documented that the criminalization of Dr. Warren is not an isolated incident, but part of a larger politically-motivated campaign of harassment and intimidation by the US government that is in clear violation of US and international law. The US government must immediately halt these campaigns, and Congress should hold authorities accountable for their abuse of power.”


      https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2019/07/usa-decision-retry-scott-warren-part-of-wider-campaign-against-human-rights