• ’The US isn’t an option anymore’: why California’s immigrants are heading back to Mexico | California | The Guardian
    http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/31/california-immigration-mexico-coronavirus-us
    https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/51b3a5c35c1749fad7ddbfe8878668cb108a6ae6/0_144_5000_3000/master/5000.jpg?width=1200&height=630&quality=85&auto=format&fit=crop&overlay-ali

    California’s most vulnerable immigrants have faced unprecedented challenges this year, with some weighing whether it’s worth staying in the United States altogether.Ten months of a pandemic that has disproportionately sickened immigrants and devastated some of the industries that rely on immigrant labor, combined with years of anti-immigrant policies by the Trump administration have exacerbated insecurities for undocumented people and immigrants working low-wage jobs across California.
    For immigrants at the bottom of the economic ladder, it’s never been easy in the US, said Luz Gallegos, the executive director of the immigrant advocacy group Training Occupational Development Educating Communities Legal Center (Todec).“But California was also always a place where my family – my parents and grandparents – believed they could build a better life,” said Gallegos who was born into a family of immigrant activists and organizers. “It was always a place with potential.”“There’s been so much fear and trauma – just layers of trauma,” she said. Workers at mega-farms and massive warehouses across California’s Inland Empire and Central Valley– many of whom have continued to toil through the most severe stretches of the pandemic despite coronavirus outbreaks at many facilities – have been coming to Gallegos for advice on what to do when they get sick.
    One family she spoke with recently asked her if there was a community clinic they could go to for Covid treatment, instead of the county hospital. As green card applicants, they were worried that if they sought government healthcare they could be denied permanent residency due to the Trump administration’s so-called “public charge” rule, which allowed the government to deny residency to immigrants who rely on public benefits. Gallegos said she tried to explain that going to a county hospital wouldn’t disqualify them – and moreover, a federal court had recently blocked the rule from being implemented. “I told them, you should think about your health first. You’ll have no use for a green card if you’re not alive,” Gallegos said.
    But they couldn’t stand the uncertainty. So, the grandmother, mom and two young children instead relocated across the southern border. The kids, both US citizens, are still able to cross the border to attend school.“It’s not even that the country is not welcoming any more, it’s just not an option any more,” said Gallegos. “I hear that all the time from people here, and from friends and family in other countries.” Javier Lua Figureo moved back to his home town in Michoacán, Mexico, three years ago, after living and working in California for a dozen years. Since the pandemic hit, several of his friends and family members have followed his lead, he said.“Things aren’t perfect in Mexico,” Figureo said in Spanish. But at least there’s access to healthcare, and some unemployment benefits for those who need it, he added. “In comparison to what it was in the US, the situation for us in Mexico right now is much better.” Although California’s coronavirus case tracking data doesn’t track immigration status, studies and surveys have found that the pandemic has taken a disproportionate toll on the state’s immigrant population. Or, as researchers at UC Berkeley put it: “Even though the virus is blind to people’s citizenship or visa status, immigrants can be especially vulnerable to infection, serious illness, financial hardship, and hateful discrimination.”
    Immigrants are more likely to work on the frontlines of the pandemic, as healthcare workers, grocery store clerks, delivery drivers and farmers, where their chances of contracting the virus are especially high. A third of all physicians are immigrants, and so are at least half the nation’s farm workers. An estimated 75% of farmworkers in California are undocumented immigrants. Even before the Trump administration implemented its anti-immigrant policies, and even before the pandemic hit, non-citizens had less access to healthcare and health insurance, as well as safety net programs like food stamps and unemployment. In May and June, they didn’t get the $2,000 stimulus check that most Americans with a social security number received.A $125m fund to send a one-time cash grant of $500 offered to workers without legal status dried up quickly, and was a drop in the bucket. The state’s governor, Gavin Newsom, vetoed a bill that would have provided low-income immigrants $600 for groceries. “It feels like discrimination,” said Pedro, who is 41 and works at a cauliflower farm in Riverside county, east of Los Angeles. In March, he lost work, and couldn’t make rent. And as California faces a surge in coronavirus cases, he said still doesn’t know what he’d do if he or his wife contracted Covid-19 – they don’t have health insurance, and without legal documents, they don’t feel safe going to the county-run free testing sites. Meanwhile, it unnerves him to see border patrol agents about town. “I’m scared to even go out to buy things for my daughters,” he said, in Purépecha. The Guardian is not using Pedro’s last name to protect him and his undocumented family members.

    #Covid-19#migrant#migration#etatsunis#mexique#californie#sante#discrimination#systemesante#assurancemaladie#economie#revenu

  • LA’s Covid ’tsunami’ : inside the new center of America’s raging pandemic | Los Angeles | The Guardian
    http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/26/los-angeles-coronavirus-surge-hospitals
    https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/2943816f67cd46a13bf0ba465afef8ead9043300/106_0_4588_2753/master/4588.jpg?width=1200&height=630&quality=85&auto=format&fit=crop&overlay-ali

    In March, LA and California issued some of the earliest shutdowns in the nation, which helped slow the spread and saved hospitals from becoming overwhelmed. But with the US government failing to provide a second round of stimulus amid mass unemployment, officials rushed to reopen in early summer – a move that had devastating consequences in LA.Large sectors of the economy reopened, but the economic crisis – and many restrictions – persisted, leading to severe fatigue among residents at the same time that Covid surged due to holiday travel and gatherings.
    The response from local officials has been a confusing partial lockdown. Officials have issued emotional pleas for people to stay home but have allowed LA’s malls to remain open, leading to packed stores and infections among employees. The county shut down all dining but has allowed Hollywood to continue film shoots.
    The data suggests the public health messaging is not working – and that LA’s essential workers are paying the price.“It’s just been really hard to reinforce what kind of dire situation we are in now,” said Dr Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, a UC San Francisco epidemiologist. “Ten months into the pandemic, individuals and businesses are hurting financially, and that is a drive for people to continue to be out.”LA’s affordable housing crisis, which forces many to live in crowded conditions, also makes the region vulnerable to spread, said Bibbins-Domingo. Her research found that early lockdowns did not protect Latinos or people without high school degrees, probably because they were forced to work.

    #Covid-19#migrant#migration#etatsunis#californie#losangeles#sanfrancisco#latino#sante#systemesante#minorite#inegalite#economie#travailleurmigrant

  • ’Downright dangerous’: Democrats’ alarm as Trump stacks Pentagon with loyalists | US elections 2020 | The Guardian
    http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/11/downright-dangerous-democrat-alarm-as-trump-stacks-pentagon-with-loyali
    https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/12a5a662c0874a0c492ad596ffa50a3bac7c16f0/0_240_3600_2160/master/3600.jpg?width=1200&height=630&quality=85&auto=format&fit=crop&overlay-ali

    Fears that appointment of extreme Republican partisans could endanger or politicise operation of defense department
    (Julian Borger in Washington - Wed 11 Nov 2020 19.27 GMT)

    Extreme Republican partisans have been installed in important roles in the Pentagon, following the summary dismissal of the defense secretary, Mark Esper, at a time Donald Trump is refusing to accept his election defeat.

    Democrats immediately demanded explanations for the eleventh-hour personnel changes and warned that the US was entering dangerous “uncharted territory” with the reshuffling of key national security roles during a presidential transition.

    However defence experts argued there was little the new Trump appointees could do to use their positions to the president’s advantage, given the firm refusal of the uniformed armed services to get involved in domestic politics.

    Anthony Tata – a retired army brigadier general, novelist and Fox News commentator who called Barack Obama a “terrorist leader” – has taken control of the Pentagon’s policy department, following the resignation of the acting undersecretary of defence for policy, James Anderson.

    Tata had been unable to win Senate confirmation after old tweets surfaced in which he expressed virulent Islamophobic views.

    Meanwhile, Kash Patel – a former Republican congressional aide who played a lead role in a campaign to discredit the investigation into Russian election meddling – has been made chief of staff to the new defence secretary, Chris Miller.

    According to Axios, another new Miller adviser is Douglas Macgregor, a retired army colonel who was nominated over the summer, but not confirmed, as ambassador to Germany. Macgregor has referred to immigrants to Europe as “Muslim invaders”, advocated shooting illegal immigrants on the US border, and promoted a range of white nationalists conspiracy theories. He advocated a fast withdrawal from Afghanistan and has said the US should not “rush hundreds of thousands of troops to the Polish border to deal with the Russians”.

    The undersecretary of defence for intelligence, Vice Admiral Joseph Kernan, a retired navy Seal, was also reported to have resigned on Tuesday, and was replaced by Ezra Cohen-Watnick, a former aide to Michael Flynn, Trump’s first national security adviser who pleaded guilty to perjury.

    Lisa Gordon-Hagerty, head of the National Nuclear Security Administration, which oversees the nation’s stockpile of nuclear warheads, was forced to quit on Friday.

    The fate of CIA director, Gina Haspel, was also in question. In a show of support, Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell invited Haspel to his office on Tuesday and Republican Senator John Cornyn tweeted: “Intelligence should not be partisan”. But he was attacked on Twitter by the president’s son, Donald Trump Jr, who asked if he or other Republicans backing Haspel had “actually discussed this with anyone in the Admin[istration] who actually works with her … or are you just taking a trained liar’s word for it on everything?”

    The reasons for the post-election personnel changes 10 weeks before the end of Donald Trump’s tenure were unclear, but they came at a time when the president is refusing to accept election defeat.

    The former defence secretary, Mark Esper, fired by tweet on Monday, had refused to allow active duty troops to be deployed on US streets during the Black Lives Matter protests over the summer.

    In his resignation letter, Anderson, the outgoing Pentagon policy chief, also signalled his unease with the direction the Trump White House was taking in the aftermath of the election.

    “Now, as ever, our long-term success depends on adhering to the US constitution all public servants swear to support and defend,” he wrote.

    Democrats raised the alarm over the wave of staff changes at the Pentagon.

    “It is hard to overstate just how dangerous high-level turnover at the department of defence is during a period of presidential transition,” wrote Adam Smith, the chairman of the House armed services committee, adding that the development “should alarm all Americans”.

    “If this is the beginning of a trend – the president either firing or forcing out national security professionals in order to replace them with people perceived as more loyal to him – then the next 70 days will be precarious at best and downright dangerous at worst.”

    The top Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee, Mark Warner, said the US had entered “uncharted territory” with Esper’s firing.

    “There’s never been a time when a senior official like this has been fired during a transition period between one administration to another,” Warner told MSNBC.

    Former officials and military analysts argued that the post-election changes, while highly unusual, were not a reason to fear that the Pentagon would be weaponised in Trump’s desperate efforts to hold on to power.

    “Remember all the senior military officers are still there,” said Mark Cancian, a retired US marine colonel and former senior defence official. “Their attitudes remain the same. They’ve been quite emphatic that the role of the military is very limited in civilian civil disturbances.”

    Eugene Gholz, a former senior adviser in the Pentagon and the author of US Defense Politics: The Origins of Security Policy, agreed: “Among military officers at all ranks it is deeply, deeply ingrained that the military is not used for settling politics.”

    Gholz, now associate professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame, suggested one possible, more prosaic, reason for the reshuffle, could be to pad the résumés of partisan officials to help smooth confirmation hearings next time Republicans are in office.

    “There’s an opportunity to give someone a credential of a leadership position,” he said. “Now they could at least claim: ‘Hey look, I had this title, even if only briefly, in the Trump administration.’”

  • ’His abuses have escalated’: Barr’s kinship with Trump fuels election fears | William Barr | The Guardian
    http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/25/bill-barr-donald-trump-election-steal-fears
    https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/311563783fad7492aa77174bd7ce3d5b0b015a7c/0_72_5472_3283/master/5472.jpg?width=1020&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=a6ffc508c6c9df75bf183

    Donald Trump’s astonishing suggestion at a campaign rally last weekend that the US president will deploy government lawyers to try to hit the brakes on the counting of ballots on election night relies on the complicity of one federal official more than any other.
    Trump’s most powerful ally in undermining the election: William Barr
    Read more

    That official is attorney general William Barr, who, as leader of the justice department, directs the army of government lawyers who would sue to halt the counting of votes.

    Conveniently for Trump’s stated plan, Barr appears not only ready to acquiesce, he seems eager to bring the lawsuits, having laid groundwork for challenging the election with weeks of misleading statements about the integrity of mail-in voting.

    To some observers, the attorney general appears to have also laid the groundwork for a further alarming step, one that would answer the question of what action the Trump administration is prepared to take if a contested election in November gives rise to large new protests.

    In order for Trump to steal the election and then quell mass demonstrations – for that is the nature of the nightmare scenario now up for open discussion among current and former officials, academics, thinktankers and a lot of other people – Trump must be able to manipulate both the levers of the law and its physical enforcement.

    In Barr, Trump not only gets all of that, critics say, but he also enjoys the partnership of a man whose sense of biblical stakes around the election imbues him with a deep sense of mission about re-electing Trump.

    In a break with the relative reticence of his first 18 month in office, Barr has laid out his own thinking with a series of recent speeches, interviews and internal discussions. Even routine critics of Barr have been struck by the Barr that has now revealed himself.

    The erstwhile mild-mannered Washington lawyer has been spouting attacks on election integrity and hostility toward street protests while describing, in explicitly religious terms, an epochal showdown between the forces of “moral discipline and virtue” – which he believes he represents – and “individual rapacity” manifesting as social chaos, embodied by leftwing protesters among others.

    “His abuses have only escalated as we have gotten closer and closer to the election, and as the president has felt more and more politically vulnerable,” said Donald K Sherman, deputy director of the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington watchdog group, which has called for Barr’s impeachment.

    “I can’t put it more plainly than this: the attorney general is a threat to American citizens having free and fair access to the vote, and is a threat to American having their votes counted.”

    In recent weeks, Barr has reportedly asked prosecutors to weigh charging protesters under sedition laws, meant to punish conspiracies to overthrow the government, and to weigh criminal charges against the Seattle mayor for allowing residents to establish a small “police-free” protest zone. He has designated New York City, Portland and Seattle as “anarchy” zones that he says “have refused to undertake reasonable measures to counteract criminal activities,” threatening federal funding.

    Such designations cleanly feed Trump’s re-election narrative of public safety under threat. They also reflect a constitutionally questionable, and normally non-conservative, eagerness on Barr’s part to reach the arm of federal government into local law enforcement.

    Barr has demonstrated this tendency before. In June, he took the highly unusual step, as attorney general, of personally directing federal officers to use crowd suppression tactics to eject peaceful protesters from Lafayette Square near the White House.

    Barr later denied giving any direct orders, but the White House stated flatly: “It was AG Barr who made the decision.”

    Meanwhile Barr has competed with Trump to erode faith in the upcoming election, peddling baseless conspiracy theories about foreign nations printing counterfeit ballots, spreading tales about mass mail-in ballot fraud – in a lie that was later retracted by the justice department – and expressing frustration that the United States uses mail-in voting and multi-day voting, which are common measures to accommodate voters going back decades.

    “We’re losing the whole idea of what an election is,” Barr complained in an appearance earlier this month at Hillsdale College in Michigan.

    Neil Kinkopf, a Georgia State law professor who worked in the Office of Legal Counsel under Bill Clinton, said that Barr’s solicitousness for Trump’s political wellbeing was historic.

    “I think this attorney general is demonstrably more committed to the political success of the president, and the president’s political agenda than any attorney general in history I can think of,” Kinkopf said.

    What drives Barr? For political observers familiar with Barr’s long Washington career, which included an earlier stint as attorney general under George HW Bush, the notion that he could help lead American democracy off a cliff might provoke some cognitive dissonance. Like other powerful Republicans and everyday voters who have enabled Trump, Barr does not appear to be motivated by personal loyalty to Trump per se, but by a sense of Trump’s role in a greater plan.

    Before his appointment by Trump, many insiders saw Barr as a committed institutionalist who would protect the independence of the justice department from Trump’s most damaging tendencies, though Barr clearly was a strong believer in a muscular presidency.

    But others saw Barr coming. They include Kinkopf, who testified against Barr before the senate at Barr’s January 2019 confirmation hearing. In his testimony, Kinkopf warned about Barr’s subscription to so-called unitary executive theory, which lays out an “alarming” and “dangerously mistaken” view of “an executive power of breathtaking scope, subject to negligible limits,” Kinkopf said.

    “It appears that, if confirmed, William Barr will establish precedents that adopt an enduring vision of presidential power; one that in future administrations can be deployed to justify the exercise of power for very different ends,” Kinkopf warned at the time.

    But today even Kinkopf says he is “deeply surprised” by the extent to which Barr has surpassed that warning (....)