History – Page 3 – dwkcommentaries

Will Cuba Lose Almost Half Its Population by 2100?

Yes, according to a study by CEU San Pablo University in Madrid, Spain.

The head of this study, Alejandro Macarrón, said that Cuba’s population is “very aged due to the drop in the rate of children per woman and the loss of the young population.” He added, “Those who have left, logically, are mainly young people. That leaves the population older. Cuba has had more deaths than births, for years now. Approximately 2.1 children per woman are needed for what we call population replacement or generational change to occur, and Cuba is well below its threshold.”

===================

Suarez, Cuba will lose almost half of its population before the end of the century, according to a study, Diario de Cuba (Dec,13, 2024).

U.S. Announces that Cuba Is Still a State Sponsor of Terrorism

On December 12, 2024, the U.S. State Department released its 2023 Country Reports on Terrorism.[1] its introduction stated the following:

“The Department of State has issued the 2023 Country Reports on Terrorism (CRT), which provide a detailed look at how the counterterrorism environment and associated threats have evolved over the past year, fulfilling an important Congressional mandate. Each year, the CRT provides insight on important issues in the fight against terrorism and helps the United States make informed decisions about policies, programs, and resource allocations as we seek to build counterterrorism capacity and resilience around the globe.”
“Amid a constantly changing threat landscape, the CRT provides an overview of how we marshal international efforts to counter terrorism. Among the many accomplishments highlighted in the 2023 report are our efforts to refine the focus of the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS to address new regions of concern; the continued designation of racially or ethnically motivated violent extremist groups and their leaders; and the repatriation of more than 5,500 foreign terrorist fighters from detention facilities and associated family members from displaced persons camps in northeast Syria.”
“As the United States adapts its counterterrorism approach to keep pace with evolving threats, the CRT continues to serve as a valuable resource in assessing the global terrorism landscape.”

The Report also stated, “To designate a country as a State Sponsor of Terrorism, the Secretary of State must determine that the government of such country has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism. Once a country is designated, it remains a State Sponsor of Terrorism until the designation is rescinded in accordance with statutory criteria requiring the President to certify either a) that a designated country has not provided any support for acts of international terrorism during the previous six months and has provided assurances that it will not support acts of international terrorism in the future or b) that there has been a fundamental change in the leadership and policies of the designated country, that the country is not supporting acts of international terrorism, and that the country has provided assurances that it will not support acts of international terrorism in the future.” (Emphasis added.)

That report stated the following regarding Cuba as a State Sponsor of Terrorism::

“On January 12, 2021, the Department of State designated Cuba as a State Sponsor of Terrorism. The Secretary of State determined that the Cuban government repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism in granting safe harbor to terrorists.“
“Cuba was previously designated as a State Sponsor of Terrorism in 1982 because of its long history of providing advice, safe haven, communications, training, and financial support to guerrilla groups and individual terrorists.”
“Cuba’s designation was rescinded in 2015 after a thorough review found the country met the statutory criteria for rescission. In 2021 the Secretary of State determined Cuba had repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism in the six years since its designation had been rescinded. Citing peace negotiation protocols, Cuba refused Colombia’s request to extradite 10 Ejército de Liberación Nacional (ELN, or the National Liberation Army) leaders living in Havana after that group claimed responsibility for the 2019 bombing of a Bogotá police academy that killed 22 people and injured 87 others.”
“The Cuban government did not formally respond to the extradition requests for ELN leaders Victor Orlando Cubides (aka “Pablo Tejada”) and Ramírez Pineda (aka “Pablo Beltrán”) filed by Colombia.”
“In November 2022, pursuant to an order from Colombian President Petro, the U.S. Attorney General announced that arrest warrants would be suspended against 17 ELN commanders, including those whose extradition Colombia had previously requested. In May 2023 the Colombian government and ELN convened the third round of Colombia-ELN peace talks in Cuba.”
“Cuba continues to harbor several U.S. fugitives from justice wanted on charges related to political violence, many of whom have resided in Cuba for decades.”

================================

[1] U.S. State Department, On the release of the 2023 Country Reports on Terrorism (Dec. 12, 2024). See also The Cuban regime will remain on the US list of state sponsors of terrorism for another year, Diario de Cuba (Dec. 12, 2024).

Analysis of Recent U.S.Immigration Surge

A New York Times columnist, David Leonhardt, has provided an analysis of the recent surge in U.S. immigration. Here are the seven highlights of that analysis.[1]

“1. The immigration surge since 2021 has been the largest in U.S. history, surpassing even the levels of the late 1800s and early 1900s. Total net migration — the number of people coming to the country minus the number leaving — will likely exceed eight million people over the past four years, government statistics suggest. That number includes both legal and illegal immigration.”

“Never before has annual net migration been close to two million for an extended period, according to data from the Census Bureau and the Congressional Budget Office.”

“2. Even after adjusting for today’s larger population, the surge is slightly larger than that during the peak years of Ellis Island traffic, when millions of Europeans came to the United States.”

“3. The share of the U.S. population born in another country has reached a record high as a result. That share hit 15.2 percent in the summer of 2023 (and continued rising over the past 18 months). The previous high of 14.8 percent occurred in 1890, and the share remained high for decades afterward.”

“It began to decline after the passage of a tough immigration law in 1924. That restrictive era lasted until 1965, when a new law expanded immigration.”

“4. President Biden’s welcoming immigration policy has been the main reason for the recent surge. During his 2020 campaign, Biden encouraged more people to come to the U.S., and he loosened several policies after taking office.”

“Biden administration officials sometimes argue that outside events, such as the turmoil in Haiti, Ukraine and Venezuela, have been the main cause of the surge, and those events did play a role. But the sharp decline of migration levels since this past summer — when Biden tightened the rules — indicates that the administration’s policies were the biggest factor.”

“5. More than half of net migration since 2021 has been among people who entered the country illegally. Of the roughly eight million net migrants who came to the U.S. over the past four years, about five million — or 62 percent — were unauthorized, according to an estimate by Goldman Sachs.”

“6. The unprecedented scale of recent immigration helps explain why the issue played such a big role in the 2024 election. Polls showed that the sharp rise in immigration was unpopular with most Americans, especially among working-class voters, some of whom complained of strained social services, crowded schools and increased homelessness.”

“The issue appears to have been Kamala Harris’s second biggest vulnerability, after only the economy. Donald Trump made striking gains near the border in Texas, winning six counties along the Rio Grande that he lost badly only eight years ago. And Democrats who outpaced Harris and won tough congressional races — in Arizona, Michigan, Ohio, New York and elsewhere — often criticized Biden’s immigration policies.”

“7. The recent immigration surge has probably ended. Trump has promised to impose even tougher border rules next year than Biden recently imposed. Trump also campaigned on a plan to deport millions of immigrants who entered the country illegally.”

“It remains unclear how far Trump will go and whether his plan will remain popular once he begins to implement it. Either way, the pace at which immigrants enter the U.S. has already fallen significantly from the peak levels of 2022 and 2023 and may continue to fall after Trump takes office. Historically, in both the U.S. and other countries, very high levels of immigration often cause a political backlash that leads to new restrictions.”

==========================

[1] Leonhardt, The Largest Immigration Surge in U.S. History, N.Y. Times (Dec. 11, 2024). More details are contained in Leonhardt’s longer article, Recent Immigration Surge Has Been Largest in U.S. History, N.Y. Times (Dec. 11, 2024).. See also David Leonhardt (background).

Criticisms of the Recent U.N. General Assembly Resolution Against the U.S. Embargo of Cuba

As discussed in a previous blog post, on October 30, the U.N. General Assembly overwhelmingly passed Cuba’s resolution condemning the U.S. embargo pf the island (187 to 2 with 4 abstentions).The U.S. and Israel again voted against the resolution while the abstentions came from Moldova, Ukraine, Somalia and Venezuela.[1]

Here now is a summary of some of the criticism of that resolution.

U.S.-Cuba Economic and Trade Council ‘s Criticism of the Resolution[2]

The U.S.-Cuba Economic and Trade Council, a private U.S. business group, stated that this U.N. resolution “will not fix Cuba, nor will it force others to fix it.” This is because “the Government of Cuba [does] not take advantage of, and actively do so, all commercial, cultural, economic, financial and political opportunities with the United States that are authorized by the policies, regulations and statutes implemented by the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) of the United States Department of Commerce, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the United States Department of the Treasury and the Department of State.”[3]

According to this Council, Cuba repeatedly and falsely claims that “the economic blockade and the aggression against the Cuban economy have not changed” since the end of the Trump-Pence Administration (2017-2021), [and] since the sanctions . . .have been “faithfully applied by the Biden Administration.”

However, the U.S.-Cuba Economic and Trade Council says, “in 2016, the importation of coffee from Cuba into the United States was authorized for the first time. Since 2016, Cuban health care products (medicines) have been imported into the United States for evaluation. In 2017, the importation of charcoal from Cuba into the United States was authorized for the first time. New York-based Nespresso USA Inc., a subsidiary of Lausanne, Switzerland-based Nestlé SA, exports products to the United States and imports products from the Republic of Cuba.”

This Council also states the “in 2001 Cuba made its first purchase of U.S. agricultural and food products ($4.8 million). In the subsequent 23 years, “Cuba is ranked each year among the top 60 export markets for U.S. agricultural and food products out of the 220 commercial destinations that the US has for these items.”

In addition, “starting in 2015, there were companies based in the United States that made commitments to the Republic of Cuba” despite the fact that “they had claims certified by the United States Foreign Claims Settlement Commission (USFCSC)” derived from the confiscations of American companies undertaken by Fidel Castro.”

“There are 8,821 [such] claims, of which 5,913 seek compensation valued at $1,902,202,284.95, which were certified by the USFCSC and have not been resolved for more than 60 years. (…) The Government of Cuba [has] had the opportunity to provide some claimants with certificates of full or partial settlements, at a low cost to their pockets.”

“During the Obama-Biden Administration, some of the highest-profile certified claimants had engaged with the Cuban market. The proceeds earned in Cuba by these claimants would have easily provided funding not only for the original value of the certified claim, but also for the interest value.”

“Had that small number of certified claimants resolved their claims against the Government of Cuba, the result would have been a substantial increase in interest from U.S.-based companies.”

“The Cuban government’s decision to ignore these pleas was the commercial equivalent of self-flagellation. The conclusion was then, and remains today, that the Cuban government would rather see its people suffer.”

“On May 10, 2022, the Biden-Harris Administration instructed OFAC to issue the first license authorizing direct investment and direct financing to a private company located in Cuba owned by a Cuban national. More than two years later, the Government of Cuba has still not published regulations for the provision of investment and financing. (…) The Government of Cuba is carrying out collective punishment of its businessmen,”

“Recently, the Díaz-Canel-Valdés Mesa Administration prohibited private Cuban companies from maintaining commercial bank accounts in the United States, which [were] recently authorized by the Biden-Harris Administration.”

“The Cuban government had the means, the motive, and the opportunity during the Obama-Biden and Biden-Harris Administrations to create a broad and deep commercial, economic, and financial landscape across the country, from Havana to Santiago de Cuba. But they were painfully squandered.”

Moreover, the Cuban government has taken many actions aimed at “antagonizing the White House and the United States Congress.” These include ““engaging with and supporting China, Iran, North Korea, Russia;”; “criticizing Israel;” “supporting (or failing to condemn) Hezbollah and Hamas”; “failing to strongly support Ukraine”; “allowing Russian warships to visit Cuban ports”; “failing to enact laws and regulations that respond positively to OFAC-issued licenses authorizing direct investment and financing to the re-emerging private sector in Cuba”; “refusing to authorize private companies to have operating bank accounts in the U.S.,” and “failing to assume all decisions of the Biden-Harris Administration that benefit the re-emerging private sector in Cuba.”

Established in 1994, this Council provides an efficient and sustainable educational structure in which the United States business community may access accurate, consistent, and timely information and analysis on matters and issues of interest regarding United States-Republic of Cuba commercial, economic, and political relations..” It “does not take positions with respect to United States-Republic of Cuba political relations. The organization is a private, not-for-profit, membership-based corporation that accepts neither United States government funding nor non-United States government funding.”

Its members have included Decatur, Illinois-based Archer Daniels Midland Company; Minneapolis, Minnesota-based Carlson Companies; Detroit, Michigan-based General Motors Corporation; Schaumburg, Illinois-based Motorola, Inc.; New York, New York-based American International Group; Springdale, Arkansas-based Tyson Foods; Memphis, Tennessee-based FedEx Corporation; Stuttgart, Arkansas-based Riceland Foods, Inc.; Bentonville, Arkansas-based Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.; Greenford, United Kingdom-based GlaxoSmithKline plc; Indianapolis, Indiana-based Eli Lilly and Company; Cleveland, Ohio-based The Sherwin-Williams Company; St. Paul, Minnesota-based 3M; Cincinnati, Ohio-based Chiquita Brands International; Minneapolis, Minnesota-based Medtronic; Oak Brook, Illinois-based Ace Hardware Corporation; Greenwood Village, Colorado-based First Data Corporation; Houston, Texas-based Enron Corporation; Berkshire, United Kingdom-based Cable & Wireless plc; London, United Kingdom-based Barclays Capital PLC; Wiltshire, United Kingdom-based Burmah Castrol Ltd.; and Paris, France-based Credit Lyonnais S.A. amongst other automotive, energy, financial services, healthcare, communications, entertainment, publishing, transportation, real estate, retail, consumer product, and other types of companies from the United States and other countries.

DDC FORUM

Last week in Madrid, Spain, Diario de Cuba, which is Cuba’s daily electronic newsletter (in Spanish and English), conducted its DDC FORUM with many speakers discussing Cuba’s many problems. For example, one of the sessions concluded, “It is the political system model that is hindering Cuba’s development and the beginning of its recovery.”3

Cuban Journalist Rafaela Cruz

Rafaela Cruz, a Cuban journalist, rejected the Cuban government’s opposition to the U.S. embargo. In summary, she asserts, Cuba’s “real blockade [is the one] that it has imposed on individual freedom since 1959, destroying more than the economy, the entire nation.”[4]

==========================

[1] U.N. General Assembly Overwhelmingly Adopts Resolution Condemning U.S. Embargo of Cuba, dwkcommentaries.com (Oct. 30, 2024).

[2] “UN resolution on embargo will not fix Cuba or force others to fix it,’ Diario de Cuba (Oct. 30, 3024); U.S. Cuba Trade and Economic Council, Inc.,

[3] DDC FORUM: ‘It is the political system model that is hindering Cuba’s development and the beginning of its recovery, dwkcommentaries.com (Oct. 28, 2024)..

(4) Cuban Journalist Rejects U.S. Embargo as Cause of Cuba’s Turmoil, dwkcommentaries.com (Oct. 26, 2024).

Cuban Journalist Rejects U.S. Embargo as Cause of Cuba’s Turmoil

A Cuban journalist, Rafaela Cruz, rejects its government’s claim that the U.S. embargo is the cause of the island’s poor exports.[1]

She asserts that “the embargo’s limitations are directed primarily against the Cuban government and not against the rest of the nation, as demonstrated by the fact that after only three years of private entrepreneurs in Cuba, they are already, with relative ease, trading with U.S. ports.”

“It is Castro’s totalitarianism, for whom the Government, State, party and people are the same thing, that is responsible for extending to the rest of the body of the nation economic limitations conceived against the Government, thus using the people as a hostage and shield against its political enemies.”

And the Cuban government has chosen to expand the impact of the embargo by choosing to limit the number of privately owned businesses.

“It is Castroism, not Washington, that prevents peasants from being true owners of the land they work. It is Castroism that prevents them from harvesting what they want. It is Castroism that prevents them from selling where and how they want. It is Castroism that prevents them from importing and exporting directly. And it is Castroism that prevents commercial and financial intermediation in the Cuban agricultural market, which would make possible the specialization of labor that, since the 18th century, has been known to be the basis for increased productivity.”

“The reality is that, today, Cuba does not export because it has nothing to export since Castroism destroyed industry and agriculture, first by taking over everything, then by managing it in the worst way. It is not a blockade, but socialist centralized planning that has annihilated the productive fabric of the country.”

Cuba’s “real blockade [is the one ] that it has imposed on individual freedom since 1959, destroying more than the economy, the entire nation.”

=========================

[1] Cruz, The cost of the blockade against Cuba, Diario de Cuba (Oct. 28, 2024).

DDC Forum: For the Cuba of Tomorrow

The Latin American Conference on Investigative Journalism (COLPIN) is holding its 2024 sessions in Madrid, Spain, October 23-26, with participants from more than 15 countries.

A major event at this Conference on October 24 and 25 was the production of the “DDC Forum: For the Cuba of Tomorrow” organized by Diaria de Cuba (DDC), the Cuban daily Internet diary about Cuba (in Spanish and English).[1] Here is a list of 20 of the Forum’s programs:[2]

“We are experiencing a national crisis that affects all families”
“The recovery of historical memory and the status of citizen in Cuba is essential”
“Cuban citizens want a change of system”
“Creating spaces for dialogue is one of the fundamental roles of civil society”
“I hope Cuba will be free soon, the current situation is decisive”
“Cuba, democratic transition and international panorama”
“It is the political system model that is hindering Cuba’s development and the beginning of its recovery”
“Cuban society is democratizing itself in a fast, open and plural way”
“The situation in Cuba is unsustainable, we are getting closer to change”
“Changes in Cuba depend on our ability to articulate”
“Is the current crisis in Cuba an opportunity?”
“Cuba needs to reconcile with itself and its diaspora”
“The crisis taking place today in Cuba is induced and irreversible”
“Cuba: What moves or paralyzes citizens today?”
“Power in Cuba is undergoing mutations that deepen its most negative features”
“If we do not analyze today’s problems, we will not be able to think of solutions for the Cuba of tomorrow”
“The system’s narrative is exhausted and it is imperative to approach the formation of a possible Cuba”
Trying to negotiate a transition with Miguel Diaz-Canel today would be a farce”
“Achieving a sustainable energy matrix depends on a progressive economy”
“With GAESA there is no country”

Reactions

These programs deserve careful study by everyone who is interested in the future of Cuba as it struggles with its many problems, including its current electrical crisis. These programs also indirectly and strongly support the United States ending its embargo (blockade) of the island and its designation of Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism and returning to the Obama Administration’s many decisions to normalize U.S. relations with Cuba.[3]

===================

[1] COLPIN, the great event of investigative journalism in Latin America, will be held in Madrid, Diario de Cuba (Sept. 25, 2024); Rosas, DDC in forum: ‘For the Cuba of tomorrow,”’ Diaria de Cuba (Sept. 25, 2024);

[2] [Details on 20 of DDC Forum’s Programs], Diario de Cuba (10/25/24). [Actual details on these programs will be discussed in future posts as they are revealed on Diario de Cuba.]

[3] See list of posts to dwkcommentaries in U.S. (Obama) & Cuba (Normalization), 2014; U.S. (Obama) & Cuba (Normalization ), 2015; U.S. (Obama) & Cuba (Normalization), 2016; U.S. (Obama) & Cuba (Normalization), 2017 in List of Posts to dwkcommentaries—Topical: Cuba [as of 5/4/20].

Support for Immigration from Nicholas Eberstadt and George Will

Nicholas Eberstadt , the Henry Wendt Chair in Political Economy at Washington, D.C.;’s American Enterprise Institute (AEI), has authored a penetrating 23-page article about the upcoming new era of history he calls “the age of depopulation.”[1]

Eberstadt “researches and writes extensively on demographics and economic development generally, and more specifically on international security in the Korean peninsula and Asia. Domestically, he focuses on poverty and social well-being.” The AEI is a “public policy think tank dedicated to defending human dignity, expanding human potential, and building a freer and safer world [and advancing] ideas rooted in our belief in democracy, free enterprise, American strength and global leadership, solidarity with those at the periphery of our society, and a pluralistic, entrepreneurial culture.”[2]

George Will’s Endorsement of Eberstadt’s Article

George Will, the noted columnist for the Washington Post, has endorsed the importance of the Eberstadt article, in a two-page column that distills at least some of Eberstadt’s important points.[3]

Here are the key points of that distillation.

“Earth’s population is going to decline. A lot. This will create social hazards that will challenge political ingenuity. Still, it will be, primarily, a protracted reverberation of a relatively recent, and excellent, event in humanity’s story: the emancipation of women.”

Eberstadt “says a large excess of deaths over births will be driven not by a brute calamity like the bubonic plague but by choices: those regarding fertility, family structures and living arrangements, all reflecting ‘a worldwide reduction in the desire for children.’”

“Today, two-thirds of the world’s population lives in countries with below-replacement levels (2.1 births per woman) of fertility. Since the Soviet Union collapsed, Russia has had 17 million more deaths than births. The 27 European Union countries are, collectively, 30 percent below replacement. Last year, France had fewer births than in 1806, when Napoleon won the Battle of Jena. Italy had the fewest since its 1861 unification, Spain the fewest since it started keeping track of this in 1859. America’s “demographic exceptionalism” is despite its fertility rate (1.62 last year), thanks to immigration.”

“Eberstadt says, as the world has become richer, healthier, more educated and more urbanized, ‘the most powerful national fertility predictor’ has been something related to these changes: changes in ‘what women want.’ Volition shapes birth rates because now people everywhere are ‘aware of the possibility of very different ways of life from the ones that confined their parents.’”

“It is possible that ‘the pervasive graying of the population and protracted population decline will hobble economic growth and cripple social welfare systems in rich countries,’ Eberstadt writes. Also: ‘A coming wave of senescence,’ smaller family units, fewer people getting married, ‘high levels of voluntary childlessness,’ ‘dwindling workforces, reduced savings and investment, unsustainable social outlays, and budget deficits’ are the fate of developed nations — unless they make ‘sweeping changes.’”

“Eberstadt is, however, tentatively cheerful: ‘Steadily improving living standards and material and technological advances will still be possible.’ The Earth ‘is richer and better fed than ever before — and natural resources are more plentiful and less expensive (after adjusting for inflation), than ever before,’ and the global population is more ‘extensively schooled’ than ever. What is required is ‘a favorable business climate,’ which is Eberstadt’s shorthand for allowing market forces to wring maximum efficiency from fewer people: ‘Prosperity in a depopulating world will also depend on open economies: free trade in goods, services, and finance to counter the constraints that declining populations otherwise engender.’”

“The ‘demographic tides’ are, Eberstadt writes, running against the quartet of nations (China, Russia, Iran, North Korea) that, oblivious of demography, are exaggerating their future powers. China’s next generation ‘is on track to be only half as large as the preceding one.’”

“Furthermore, ‘demographic trends are on course to augment American power.’”

“Although the United States is ‘a sub-replacement society, it has higher fertility levels than any East Asian country and almost all European states,’ Eberstadt says. Even more important, thanks to immigration, ‘the United States is on track to account for a growing share of the rich world’s labor force, youth, and highly educated talent.’”

“One issue in this year’s presidential campaign is germane to the convulsive demographic changes that are coming: immigration. Concerning this, Donald Trump is obtuse, and Kamala Harris has, as about most things, vagueness born of timidity.”

Conclusion

Many thanks to Eberstadt and Will for their illumination of these exceedingly important issues.

This blog has written many posts about the aging and declining population of the U.S. and many of its states and other countries in the world and the challenges that presents and to the importance of the U.S. continuing to develop policies that encourage and welcome immigrants.[4]

With some exceptions, most U.S. citizens should be glad to think and say “I am a proud descendant of immigrants to the U.S.” and support reforms of U.S. immigration law to welcome more immigrants.

=======================

[1] Eberstadt, The Age of Depopulation: Surviving a World Gone Gray, Foreign Affairs (Nov/Dec 2024)

[2] Nicolas Eberstadt, Bio & Experience; About {AEI}.

[3] Will, If demography is destiny, bring on immigration. We’re going to need it, Wash. Post (Oct. 23, 2024)

[4] Here is a list of some of the posts to dwkcommentaries regarding the challenges to public policy presented by low birthrates for the U.S. and many other countries and hence the need for more immigrants: U.S. States That Could Have Greatest Benefit from Immigrants Labor (February 28, 2024); Another Documentation of the U.S. Need for Immigrants (April 12, 2024); U.S. Fertility Rate Falls to Record Low (April 25, 2024); Will the World’s Population Cease To Expand? (May 15, 2024); Foreign Physicians Needed To Solve U.S. Doctor Shortage, (June 1, 2024);“Economist” Magazine Also Predicts Lower World Population (June 3, 2024):Pew Research Center Proposes Framework for U.S. Immigration Reform (10/2/24);The Significance of the U.S. Low Birth Rate (10/7/24);.Government Difficulties in Raising Birthrates (10/14/24)..

Derek Chauvin’s Motions for New Trial for Killing George Floyd

Derek Chauvin was the senior police officer leading three other Minneapolis policemen in the May 2020 killing of George Floyd on a Minneapolis street.

This resulted in criminal cases against Chauvin and the other three policemen in both Minnesota state and federal courts. The state court cases, after trials (and a guilty plea by Thomas Lane), are now completed with convictions of all four policemen and they are now serving their sentences (concurrently) in federal prisons. The same is true for the federal criminal cases against the four policemen [1]

However, the federal criminal case against Derek Chauvin is still being litigated, which is discussed below.

Initial Proceedings in Federal Criminal Case Against Chauvin

On May 7, 2021, the U.S. District Court filed criminal charges against Chauvin and the other three policemen over the killing of George Floyd.

On December 15, 2021, in federal court Chauvin pleaded guilty to two counts of depriving Mr. Floyd of his federally-protected civil rights and ultimately causing his death and to charges for Chauvin’s 2017 misconduct with John Pope (in an unrelated matter) and under a negotiated and detailed Plea Agreement the prosecution and Chauvin agreed that the court could impose imprisonment of 20 to 25 years for these crimes.

On May 4, 2022, U.S. District Court Judge Magnuson approved the guilty plea agreement and said the federal sentence would be in accordance with the plea agreement.

On July 7, 2022, Judge Magnuson sentenced Chauvin to 245 months (20.4 years) in federal prison for (a) his depriving George Floyd of his federal civil rights by pinning his knee against Floyd’s neck and ultimately causing his death; and (b) Chauvin’s holding down with his knee John Pope, then a 14-year old boy in 2007, and failing to provide medical care to the boy and thereby causing non-fatal injuries.

Chauvin’s Pending Challenge to His Federal Court Conviction and Sentencing and, Therefore, for a New Trial

On November 13, 2023, Chauvin (without legal counsel) filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota to vacate his conviction and sentencing by that court. The asserted basis for this new motion was the opinion of a pathologist, Dr. William Schaetzel, who had never examined the Floyd corpse and never testified in any of the criminal cases, but who said based on review of certain papers that Floyd did not die from asphyxia from Chauvin’s actions, but from complications of a rare tumor called paragangliona that can cause a fatal surge of adrenaline.

On January 12, 2024, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for Minnesota and the U.S. Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division submitted their opposition to this Chauvin motion with the following major points:

Chauvin in his guilty plea agreement “waive[d] the right to petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 except based upon a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.”
Chauvin “failed to show . . .that counsel’s performance was deficient . . . because ‘counsel is strongly presumed to have rendered adequate assistance and made all significant decisions in the exercise of reasonable professional judgment’. . . and [because Chauvin failed to show that] such “acts or omissions . . . [fell] “outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance.”
Chauvin also failed to show that “there is a reasonable probability that but for counsel’s error, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial” and that the opinion of William Schaetzel “likely would have changed the outcome of the trial.” Thus, Chauvin failed to show that he suffered prejudice.
The ”files and records of this case—including the exhibits cited by Defendant in his motion—conclusively show that Defendant is not entitled to relief, and a hearing is not necessary.”

On July 31, 2024, Chauvin, now represented by counsel, filed his Reply Brief in the proceeding on his habeas corpus motion in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The asserted basis for this new brief was the alleged ineffective assistance of his trial counsel by failing to advise Chauvin of the previously mentioned opinion of Dr.Schaetzel and counsel’s failure to ask for tests of Mr. Floyd for catecholamines and their metabolites.

On August 14, 2024, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Minnesota and the Assistant U.S. Attorney General filed the Government’s Surreply in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion To Set Aside, or Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.C. sec. 25255. It asserted the following points:

Under his guilty plea of December 15, 2021, Chauvin waived the right to petition under section 25255 except based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Any convicted person’s claim of ineffective-counsel must establish (1) that his “counsel’s performance was so deficient it actually prejudiced the defense.and “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness” and (2) counsel’s deficient performance actually prejudiced the defendant’s defense.
Even if counsel did not inform Chauvin of the opinion of Dr. Schaetzel, it was a tactical decision by his counsel not to explore an untested (and in any event cumulative) opinion by someone who claimed to be an expert. Such a decision is a “paradigmatic example” of an attorney’s strategic choice, which, when made after a reasonable investigation, is “virtually unchallengeable” in effectiveness claims.”
Chauvin’s self-serving statement that had he known of the unsolicited medical opinion, he would have exercised his right to trial is an example of “post hoc assertions” that are insufficient to establish the necessary prejudice.
Chauvin’s expert witness at trial, who was selected by Chauvin’s attorney, provided testimony that was not meaningfully different, factually or legally, from that of Dr. Schaetzel.

Conclusion

Chauvin’s pending motion appears to be barred by the prosecution’s arguments. The motion also appears to be barred by Chauvin’s guilty plea under oath, where Chauvin admitted in writing that “certain facts were true . . .[and] established his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt].” The following are some of those Chauvin admissions:

Chauvin, ‘while acting under color of law . . . willfully deprived George Floyd of . . . the right to be free from an unreasonable seizure, which includes the right to be free from the use of unreasonable force by a police officer. [Chauvin] . . . held his left knee across Mr. Floyd’s neck, back, and shoulder, and his right knee on Mr. Floyd’s back and arm. As Mr. Floyd lay on the ground, handcuffed and unresisting, [Chauvin] . . . kept his knees on Floyd’s neck and body, even after Mr. Floyd became unresponsive. This offense resulted in bodily injury to, and the death of, George Floyd.”
Chauvin “admits that in using this unreasonable and excessive force, he acted willfully and in callous and wanton disregard of the consequences to Mr. Floyd’s life. [Chauvin] . . . knew that what he was doing was wrong, in part, because it was contrary to his training as an MPD officer.. .”
Chauvin “also knew there was no legal justification to continue his use of force because he was aware that Mr. Floyd not only stopped resisting, but also stopped talking, stopped moving, stopped breathing, and lost consciousness and a pulse.’ [Chauvin] . . .chose to continue applying force even though he knew Mr. Floyd’s condition progressively worsened. . . . [Chauvin] also heard Mr. Floyd repeatedly explain that he could not breathe, was in pain, and wanted help.”
Chauvin “knew that what he was doing was wrong—that continued force was no longer appropriate and that it posed significant risks to Mr. Floyd’s life—based on what he observed and heard about Mr. Floyd.”
Chauvin “admits that he failed to render medical aid to Mr. Floyd, as he was capable of doing, and trained and required to do.”

Therefore, Chauvin’s motion should be denied and he needs to remain in prison for the balance of his sentence of 245 months (20.4 years).

================================

[1] Since the horrible killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis in May of 2020, this blogger has written many posts about that crime and the subsequent criminal litigation in Minnesota state and federal courts. (See List of Posts to dwkcommentaries: Topical: George Floyd Killing; List of Post–Chronological (2020); List of Posts–Chronological (2021); List of Posts–Chronological (2022); List of Posts– Chronological (2023); List of Posts–Chronological (2024).

Noted Critic of Cuba Lambasts EU Aid to Cuba

The Wall Street Journal’s columnist, Mary Anastasia O’Grady, has penned a severe criticism of the European Union’s financial aid to the island. This July, for example, the EU “sent E500,000 to Cuba, ostensibly for ‘public health’” and its “Multiannual Indicative Programme (MIP) for Cuba for 2021-2024 amounts to €91 million.”[1]

“Anna Fotyga, a former Polish minister of foreign affairs and a former member of the European Parliament, wrote in the European Conservative last week that it’s ‘estimated that the EU is currently funding 80 projects in Cuba at a cost of nearly 155 million euros. Every single one of these projects is run by organizations with close ties to the Raul Castro regime.’”

In short,”there is no such thing as an independent nongovernmental organization that receives money from abroad in Cuba. . . . Sending money to Cuba is sending money to the regime.”

Moreover, “European aid . . . also goes against European interests because Havana is helping Russia in its effort to take Ukraine.”

“[B]ankrupt Havana is desperate for hard currency. First because its economy doesn’t grow. Second because it needs to maintain its repressive police state, at home and in Venezuela where the Cuban agents have infiltrated the military.”

“J11 (the day of mass arrests of Cuban protesters) “revealed the raw brutality the regime uses to keep the lid on popular discontent. Condemnation came from all quarters. Hollywood apologists went silent.”

“Dissident leader Daniel Ferrer is in a prison on the other end of the island. The website Ciber Cuba reported on Aug. 22 that the 56-year-old ‘is in a sealed cell, where hardly any air circulates’ and there is no daylight. He ‘perceives a constant noise within the cell’ and suffers “severe headaches, ringing in the ears, bleeding in the mouth, loss of vision, cramps, and momentary paralysis in his hands.”

===========================

[1] O’Grady, The EU Funds Havana—and Helps Moscow, W.S.J. (Sept. 1, 2024); O’Grady’s bio.

U.S. Border Crossings Have Sharply Declined

Despite the anti-immigration rhetoric at last week’s Republlican convention, the number of Illegal immigrant crossings at the U.S. southern border has been declining.[1]

For this year’s June, there were 83,000 apprehensions of such immigrants, the lowest monthly total since January 2021 and down from the 117,000 for this year’s month of May and from 250,000 for last December. And it appears likely that the figure for this July will be about 60,000.

After Congress failed to pass a bipartisan immigration bill that was structured reduce such crossings, President Biden in June issued an executive order that would close the southern border after U.S. apprehensions of border-crossers reached a certain number and swiftly deport those who could not prove that their lives would be endangered if they were returned to their home countries. Mexico also helped by beginning to intercept more migrants traveling throuth their country. .

============================

[1] Jordan & Goodman, Amid Talk of Border Chaos, Crossings Have Sharply Declined, N.Y. Times (July 20, 2024).