Tag: United States of America

U.S. and Cuba Resume Law Enforcement Dialogue   

On January 18-19, 2023, the United States and Cuba in Havana resumed their Law Enforcement Dialogue, which last operated, 2015-18 during President Obama’s efforts to re-establish a more peaceful and collaborative relationship between the two countries.[1]

The Departments of State, Homeland Security, and Justice co-chaired the dialogue for the United States.  The U.S. delegation included representatives from the Department of State’s Bureaus of Western Hemisphere Affairs and Office of the Legal Adviser; the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and U.S. Coast Guard; and the Department of Justice’s Office of International Affairs, and Federal Bureau of Investigation.  Officials from the U.S. Embassy in Havana also participated.

According to the State Department, this “type of dialogue enhances the national security of the United States through improved international law enforcement coordination, which enables the United States to better protect U.S. citizens and bring transnational criminals to justice. These dialogues strengthen the United States’ ability to combat criminal actors by increasing cooperation on a range of law enforcement matters, including human trafficking, narcotics, and other criminal cases.  Enhanced law enforcement coordination is in the best interests of the United States and the Cuban people.  This dialogue does not impact the administration’s continued focus on critical human rights issues in Cuba, which is always central to our engagement.”

The Cuban Foreign Ministry said that the Dialogue was held on January 18 and 19 and that they discussed “cooperation in the fight against scourges that threaten the security of both countries, such as terrorism, smuggling of migrants and immigration fraud, among others.” The Cuban Ministry added that their delegation transferred “information and proposals for cooperation . . . on the activities of persons based in the United States, identified as being linked to terrorism, illegal trafficking of persons and other illicit activities.”  Cuba also said the two countries “agreed to continue this dialogue and to hold other technical meetings between the law enforcement agencies of the two countries in order to materialize bilateral cooperation.”[2]

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

[1] U.S. State Dep’t, United States and Cuba Resume Law Enforcement Dialogue (Jan. 19, 2023); US Sending Delegation to Cuba to Restart Talks on Law Enforcement, VA (Jan. 12, 2023); See posts listed in the following: sections of List of Posts to dwkcommentaries—Topical: Cuba [as of 5/4/20]: U.S. (Obama) and Cuba Relations (Normalization, 2014; U.S. (Obama) and Cuba Relations (Normalization), 2015;U.S. (Obama) and Cuba Relations (Normalization), 2016; U.S. (Obama) and Cuba Relations (Normalization), 2017.

[2] Cuba Foreign Ministry, Cuba and the United States discuss terrorism and migration, (Jan. 20, 2023).

 

U.S. Procedures for Resettlement of Ukrainians

“On April 21, 2022, President Biden announced Uniting for Ukraine, a new streamlined process to provide Ukrainian citizens who have fled Russia’s unprovoked war of aggression opportunities to come to the United States. This represents a key step toward fulfilling the President’s commitment to welcome Ukrainians fleeing Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.”

“Uniting for Ukraine builds on the robust humanitarian assistance the U.S. government is providing as we complement the generosity of countries throughout Europe that are hosting millions of Ukrainian citizens and others who have been displaced.”

To that end, on or about April 21, 2022, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USC&IS) “announced a key step toward fulfilling President Biden’s commitment to welcome Ukrainians fleeing Russia’s invasion. Uniting for Ukraine provides a pathway for Ukrainian citizens and their immediate family members who are outside the United States to come to the United States and stay temporarily in a 2 year period of parole. Ukrainians participating in Uniting for Ukraine must have a supporter in the United States who agrees to provide them with financial support for the duration of their stay in the United States.”[1]

Financial Supporter[2]

“The first step in the Uniting for Ukraine process is for the U.S.-based supporter to file a Form I-134, Declaration of Financial Support, with USCIS. The U.S. government will then vet the supporter to ensure that they are able to financially support the individual whom they agree to support.”

The qualifications for such a supporter is “An individual who holds lawful status in the United States or is a parolee or beneficiary of deferred action or Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) who has passed security and background vetting and demonstrated sufficient financial resources to receive, maintain, and supports the individuals whom they commit to support for the duration of their stay in the United States.”

Eligible Ukrainians[3]

Beneficiaries of such support are those who meet the following requirements:

  • “Resided in Ukraine immediately prior to the Russian invasion (until February 11, 2022) and were displaced as a result of the invasion;”
  • “Are a Ukrainian citizen and possess a valid Ukrainian passport (or are a child included on a parent’s passport), or are a non-Ukrainian immediate family member of a Ukrainian citizen who is applying through Uniting for Ukraine;”
  • “Have a supporter who filed a Form I-134, Declaration of Financial Support, on their behalf that has been confirmed as sufficient by USCIS;”
  • “Complete vaccinations and other public health requirements,” and;
  • “Clear biometric and biographic screening and vetting security checks.”
  • “Immediate family members” in this process include: “the spouse or common-law partner of a Ukrainian citizen; and their unmarried children under the age of 21. NOTE: If a child is under 18, they must be traveling with a parent or legal guardian in order to use this process.”

Advocates for This Program[4]

Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, and his wife are sponsors of three Ukrainians (a husband and wife and their 2-year old daughter) , who arrived in the U.S. less than five weeks after the U.S. government had approved the Somins’ supporter papers. Somin and his wife learned of this new U.S. government program through Welcome Connect, a website that matches potential U.S.sponsors with Ukrainian refugees. As a result, Somin has become a strong advocate for this program.

He says that since April of 2022, at least 94,000 Ukrainians have entered the U.S. under this program. In contrast, the regular U.S. program for admission of refugees is “slow and burdensome” and admitted only 25,400 for all of fiscal 2022.

Nevertheless, Somin sees “two major shortcomings:”

  • “first, the residency and work permits last only two years. Experience shows that many refugees need permanent homes, not just temporary ones. Permanence also enables them to make greater economic and social contributions to our society.”
  • Second, the program is largely the result of executive discretion. If political winds shift and President Biden (or a successor) decides to terminate it, participants could be subject to deportation. Congress should pass legislation to permanently fix these flaws.”
  • Third, this program could be improved by further simplifying the paperwork. . . . Refugee-assistance charities should consider providing linguistic assistance to potential sponsors who don’t speak Russian or Ukrainian; they could potentially recruit volunteer interpreters from immigrant communities in the [U.S.]”

Observations

 This U.S. program for Ukrainians is praiseworthy, but ignores several caveats.

First, the Ukrainians are not “refugees,” as defined in international and U.S. law:  individuals who have been determined by government agencies to meet the legal requirements for such status: “any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality, is outside any country in which such person last habitually resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country  because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”(Emphasis added). [5]

U.N. organizations and the U.S. government have established legal procedures for determining whether an individual has proven that he or she meets these legal requirements for such status as a basis for asylum or other status. As a result, it takes longer to do that than it does for the simplified process for the Ukrainians. But now it takes much longer than it should due to huge demands for such relief and inadequate resources.

Second, the U.S.established a special program for Afghans who have fled their country and who come to the U.S. as evacuees (not refugees) with humanitarian parole or special immigrant visas of limited duration. This is similar to the new program for Ukrainians, and a bill (Afghan Adjustment Act) has been proposed to meet the special legal problems associated with this status. But as been discussed in this blog, that Afghan proposal failed to pass in the last Congress.[6]

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

[1] U.S. Department of Homeland Security, President Biden to Announce Uniting with Ukraine, a New Streamlined Process to Welcome Ukrainians Fleeing Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine (April 21, 2022); U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Uniting for Ukraine (April 21, 2022);  U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services [USC&IS],  Uniting for Ukraine (April 21, 2022).

[2] Id.; Eligibility for Uniting with Ukraine.

[3] Id.

[4] Somin, We sponsored refugees under a new Biden program. The results were astonishing, Wash. Post (Jan. 3, 2023); Somin & El-Chidiac, Americans should be able to sponsor refugees tho can stay permanently, Wash. Post (July 18, 2022).

[5] Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 189 U.N.T.S. 137; 8 U.S.C. sec. 1101(a)(42);

[6] E.g., Congress Fails To Adopt Important Immigration Legislation, dwkcommentaries.com (Dec.  2022).

Pandemic Journal (# 34): Grim Report Lightened by News of Vaccines   

One of the objectives of this Journal is recording what it is like to live during the COVID-19 pandemic. Here is another such report. [1]

Current Status of the Pandemic[2]

The cumulative confirmed pandemic statistics as of November 21-22: the world has 55.6 million cases and 1.36 million deaths; the U.S., 12.2 million cases (the most in the world) and 256,000 deaths; and Minnesota, 262,952 cases and 3,201 deaths.

Minnesota like many other states continues to set record numbers of cases and deaths. As of November 21, the month “is on track to become the state’s deadliest month of the pandemic with 744 fatalities [so far],” accounting for 20% of the state’s total Covid-19 deaths. ” “Colder weather, drier conditions and the movement of people indoors have fueled the spread of the virus” in Minnesota and other states in the Upper Midwest.

This surge has put an enormous strain on hospitals and health care workers. For example, in Minnesota last week 79% of  available ICU beds are filled, and in some parts of the state open ICU beds were down to single digits. “More worrisome are the growing infections among health care workers who then cannot care for patients.”  Many hospitals in the state also do not  have stable supplies of masks and personal protective equipment (PPE) and enacted conservation methods — such as bagging then reusing disposal N95 masks.

On November 18, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz issued a detailed 23-page executive order, effective at the end of November 20 for the next four weeks: continuing the requirement for face masks and social distancing; prohibiting (with certain exceptions) social gatherings of individuals who are not members of the same household; limiting social gatherings to individual households; shutting down bars, restaurants, entertainment venues (movie theaters, museums, bowling alleys and fitness clubs); and pausing amateur sports.

In response to the Governor’s order, the management of our condo building on November 20 announced that “effective at the end of [that day] . . .  all association fitness rooms, indoor pools, community rooms, club rooms, libraries and other similar facilities that are currently open will be closed unless otherwise directed by your Board of Directors.”

This new condo building regulation unfortunately has caused me to cancel a weekly gathering in our entertainment center with two or three other male residents over coffee at a table with distanced chairs. There is no set agenda and instead we just start a conversation that usually lasts 60 to 90 minutes. We thereby learn more about one another and become better friends.

More optimistically, two vaccines with 95% success rates have been announced by two ventures (Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna), one of which last week was submitted to U.S. federal agencies for emergency approval and this coming week the other is expected to make a similar application. In addition, three other companies (AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson and Novaax) are developing other vaccines that are still being tested. Everyone is hoping that the first two of these vaccines will be quickly approved by the federal government agencies and initially distributed to the public in mid-December.

My wife and I continue to be healthy while spending most of our time in our condo, except for trips to buy groceries and other supplies and for walks on nicer days. Yesterday just before the closing of our fitness facilities I walked for one mile in 20 minutes on a treadmill and had exercises in our weight room.  Our Thanksgiving Day will be celebrated in the condo by ourselves.

U.S. Presidential Election [3]

On November 3 the U.S. conducted its presidential election with a total popular vote of 153,628,574, which was 65% of all eligible voters, the highest since 1908.

On November 7 the Associated Press reported that the Democratic ticket (Joe Biden and Kamala Harris) won the election with 79,836,131 and 308 electoral votes while the Republican ticket (Donald Trump and Mike Pence) had 73,792,443 popular votes and 232 electoral votes. Thus, the Democratic margin of victory was 6,043,688 popular votes and 76 electoral votes.

President Trump, however, has refused to accept the above results of the election and has issued many tweets claiming the election was rigged and fraudulent. At his direction, the Republican Party or Campaign Team has commenced many lawsuits challenging the popular election in various states, but all of them have been dismissed or withdrawn with many of the judges castigating the poor legal arguments and the lack of supporting evidence offered by the attorneys for the Republicans. In addition, Trump has been attempting, so far unsuccessfully, to get Republican-controlled agencies in various states to appoint Republican electors to the Electoral College despite their popular vote having been for the Biden-Harris ticket.

As a Biden/Harris voter and as a lawyer interested in the rule of law, I have been, and continue to be, absolutely horrified by Trump’s efforts to steal this election.

In addition, Trump has instructed the official in charge of arranging for the president-elect’s transition to the presidency to refuse the  traditional provision of office space for the president-elect and the transition team and for national security briefings.

There has been a lot of speculation as to Trump’s motivation for not accepting the results of the election and engaging in these efforts to change the result of the election. One is his perceived psychological inability to accept defeat. The other is his realization that he faces immense problems if he is no longer president. One is his personal guaranties of over $300 million of loan liabilities of his various corporations. The other is his potential criminal liability for financial crimes, election-law violations, obstruction of justice, public corruption and partisan coercion. [4]

In any event, the Electoral College, under the Constitution, meets on January 6, 2021 to count the electoral votes and on January 15, the new president is inaugurated.

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

[1] See List of Posts to dwkcommentaries–Topical: Pandemic Journal.

[2} Our World in Data, Statistics and Research: Coronavirus Pandemic (COVID-19);Kumar, 40 more COVID-19 deaths, 7,219 new cases in Minnesota, StarTribune (Nov. 22, 2020); Snowbeck, November already sets record for COVID-19 deaths in Minnesota, StarTribune (Nov. 21, 2000); Howatt, November on track to be Minnesota’s deadliest month for COVID-19., StarTrib. (Nov. 20, 2020); Olson, ‘No beds anywhere’: Minnesota hospitals strained to limit by COVID-19, StarTribune (Nov. 22, 2020); Governor Walz, Emergency Order 20-99 (Nov. 18, 2020); Pfizer, BioNTech Ask FDA to Authorize Their Covid-19 Vaccine, W.S.J. (Nov. 20, 2020); Robbins & Mueller, AstraZeneca Releases Promising Data on Its Coronavirus Vaccine, N.Y. Times (Nov. 23, 2020).

[3] E.g., Riccardi, Biden approaches 80 million votes in historic victory, AP (Nov. 18, 2020); Trump’s legal team cried vote fraud, but courts found none, StarTribune (Nov. 22, 2020); National Archives, Electoral College Timeline of Events

[4] E.g., Choma, Trump Has a Half Billion in Loans Coming Due. They may Be His Biggest Conflict of Interest Yet, Mother Jones (July/August 2020); Mahler, Individual-1, N.Y. Times Magazine at 35 (Nov. 22, 2020); Jacobs, Trump’s post-presidency will be cluttered with potentially serious legal battles, Wash. Post (Nov. 22, 2020).

 

 

 

 

U.S. Reduces Permissible Remittances to Cuba       

On September 6, the U.S. Treasury Department announced that effective October 9, one Cuban-American may remit no more than $1,000 per one family member on the island, per-quarter.[1]

In addition, the new rules forbid remittances to “close family members of prohibited Cuban officials and members of the Cuban Communist Party.” Also prohibited are remittances by non-family members.

On the other hand, the new rules will authorize remittances to certain individuals and independent non-governmental organizations in Cuba “to support the operation of economic activity in the non-state sector by self-employed individuals, in light of . . . [U.S.] policy to encourage the growth of the Cuban private sector independent of government control.”

Treasury’s new rules will also ban “banking institutions subject to U.S. jurisdiction . . . [from processing] certain funds transfers originating and terminating outside the United States, commonly known as “U-turn” transactions.”

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said, “We are taking additional steps to financially isolate the Cuban regime.  The United States holds the Cuban regime accountable for its oppression of the Cuban people and support of other dictatorships throughout the region, such as the illegitimate Maduro regime. . . Through these regulatory amendments, Treasury is denying Cuba access to hard currency, and we are curbing the Cuban government’s bad behavior while continuing to support the long-suffering people of Cuba.”

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

[1] U.S. Treasury Dep’t, Treasury Issues Changes to Strengthen Cuba Sanctions Rules (Sept. 6, 2019; Assoc. Press, US Limits Amounts of Money That Americans Can Send to Cuba, N.Y. Times (sept. 6, 2019).

 

 

 

New Yorker Report on Medical Problems of U.S. Diplomats in Cuba

The November 19, 2018, issue of The New Yorker has a lengthy article about the medical problems experienced by some U.S. diplomats in Cuba starting in late 2016 (and after the U.S. presidential election). [1]

The conclusion, however, is the same as previously reported: some U.S. personnel did suffer injury and the U.S. Government has publicly stated it does not know the cause or perpetrator of these injuries.[2]

But the article does provide greater details about many of the victims having been CIA agents and about the U.S.-Cuba interactions over these incidents.

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

[1] Entous & Anderson, Havana Syndrome, New Yorker at 34  (Nov. 19, 2018).

[2] See posts listed in the “U.S. Diplomats Medical Problems in Cuba, 2017-18” section of List of Posts to dwkcommentaries—Topical: CUBA.

Cuba Protests U.S.’ Cuba Internet Task Force

On January 31 the Cuban Foreign Ministry sent a note protesting the U.S. recent creation of the Cuba Internet Task Force.[1]

The note “expresses its strong protest for the pretension of the US government to violate flagrant Cuban sovereignty, with respect to national competence to regulate the flow of information and the use of mass media, while rejecting the attempt to manipulate the Internet to carry out illegal programs for political purposes and subversion, as part of their actions aimed at altering or changing the constitutional order of the Republic of Cuba.” 

This Task force has “the stated objective of promoting in Cuba the ‘free and unregulated flow of information/’ According to the announcement, this task force will ‘examine the technological challenges and opportunities to expand Internet access and independent media’ in Cuba.

Cuba “again demands that the Government of the United States cease its subversive, interfering and illegal actions against Cuba, which undermine Cuban constitutional stability and order, and urges it to respect Cuban sovereignty, International Law and the purposes of and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.”

The “Cuban Foreign Ministry reiterates the determination of the Government of Cuba not to tolerate any type of subversive activity or interference in its internal affairs and, as a sovereign country, to continue defending itself and denouncing the interfering nature of this type of action.”

“Cuba will continue to regulate the flow of information as is its sovereign right and as is practice in all countries, including the United States. Cuba will also continue advancing in the computerization of its society, as part of the development of the country and in terms of the social justice objectives that characterize its Revolution.”

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

[1] Note from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Cuba (Jan. 31, 2018); The regime sends a protest note to Washington for its plan to expand the internet in Cuba, Diario de Cuba (Feb. 1, 2018).

 

Open Letter to U.S. Congress About U.S. Freedom To Travel to Cuba

To: Senator Flake: As an U.S. and Minnesota citizen, I thank you for sponsoring legislation to grant U.S. citizens freedom to travel to Cuba (S.127 Freedom for Americans to Travel to Cuba Act). I also thank and copy my Minnesota Senators, Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken, for joining 52 other senators in co-sponsoring this bill.

To: Representative Mark Sanford: I thank you for sponsoring a similar bill in the House (H.R.351—Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act of 2017). I also thank and copy the three Minnesota representatives (Tom Emmer, Erik Paulsen and Rick Nolan) who have joined 21 other representatives in cosponsoring the bill. By copies of this open letter, I urge the other Minnesota representatives (Timothy Walz, Jason Lewis, Betty McCollum, Keith Ellison and Collin Peterson) to join the ranks of cosponsors.

Now is the time to push these bills forward for votes in the two chambers before the Trump Administration comes forward with proposed regulations to implement the President’s intention to eliminate individual person-to-person travel to the island. (A copy of this open letter is also being sent to President Trump.)

In addition to the arguments already advanced for supporting these bills, I submit that the new Trump policy is internally inconsistent for the following reasons:

  • The ban on individual person-to-person travel, by all accounts, will reduce the overall amount of U.S. travel to the island and thereby have substantial negative effects on Cuba’s emerging private sector, which has improved the living standards of many Cubans and is a force for change in Cuba and for friendlier relations with the U.S. Remember that President Trump favors measures to improve the lives of ordinary Cubans.
  • Forcing Americans who want to have a person-to-person experience in Cuba to do so only with established tour groups will mean “large tour groups [that] are too big for smaller bed-and-breakfast rentals, and their [Cuban] government-appointed guides tend to ply the well-trodden routes that bypass the new galleries, restaurants and night spots opened by enterprising Cubans and others.” This is a direct negative effect on Cubans’ standard of living, which President Trump does not want.
  • According to Andrea Gallina, an Italian entrepreneur who last year opened a high-end boutique hotel, Paseo 206, with his Cuban spouse, “If independent American travel is cut off, you won’t only hurt the bed-and-breakfasts. It’s also the construction crews, the private tour guides, the taxi drivers, the restaurants and the artists selling handicrafts.” Again, the Cubans now engaged in these private enterprises will be substantially disadvantaged.
  • The larger groups will by necessity have to stay in hotels, most of which are state-owned, rather than individually owned b&bs, and travel in tour buses (again, state-owned), rather than individually owned taxis. The large-group U.S. visitors also probably will be provided with government-provided guides rather than private guides used by people traveling by themselves or in small groups. All of these consequences are contrary to the President’s intent to stop or limit U.S. persons from doing business with enterprises owned or controlled by the Cuban military or security services.
  • The ban on individual person-to-person travel will increase the cost for Americans’ traveling to the island and thereby reduce the amount of such travel. As a result, the U.S. will lose the impact on Cubans of ordinary Americans, who often are the best ambassadors for the U.S., its government, people and values.

====================================================For more details, see This Blogger’s Reactions to Trump Reversal of Some U.S.-Cuba Normalization Policies (June 23, 2017).

Disagreement About the Positive Impacts of Immigration      

A disagreement about the positive impacts of immigration and diversity has emerged between Robert Putnam, the distinguished Peter and Isabel Malkin Professor of Public Policy at Harvard University, and Mark Krikorian, the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies. [1]

The disagreement started with a Wall Street Journal article by Krikorian that was the subject of a prior post although that post did not emphasize one of the article’s points that has given rise to this disagreement. Krikorian argued that immigration will overwhelm American culture by stating the following:

  • “[H]igh levels of immigration actually exacerbate the bowling-alone tendencies in the wider society, overloading it with ethnic diversity than it cannot handle. It is not that diversity causes increased hostility between groups, as one might expect. Rather, it causes people to disappear into their shells like turtles.”

As support for this assertion, Krikorian cited Putnam’s article—E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century (The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture), Wiley Online Library (June 15, 2007).

In addition, Krikorian as additional support for his argument quoted the following from the Putnam article: “Inhabitants of diverse communities tend to withdraw from collective life, to distrust their neighbors, regardless of the color of their skin, to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more but to have less faith that they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television.”

Another quotation from Professor Putnam is also found in the Krikorian article: immigration has made Los Angeles into ‘”among the most ethnically diverse human habitations in history’ and had the lowest level of social trust among all the communities that his team studied.”

Professor Putnam, however, has taken exception to this use of his article,[2] which, he correctly says, provided “empirical evidence for [the following] three major points:

“1. Increased immigration and diversity are not only inevitable, but over the long run they are also desirable. Ethnic diversity is, on balance, an important social asset, as the history of the U.S. demonstrates.”

“2. In the short to medium run, however, immigration and ethnic diversity challenge social solidarity and inhibit social capital.”

“3. In the medium to long run, on the other hand, successful immigrant societies like the U.S. create new forms of social solidarity and dampen the negative effects of diversity by constructing new, more encompassing identities.”

According to Putnam, Krikorian “cherry-picks the middle point but entirely ignores the first and last because they are inconvenient for his policy recommendations. . . . In my 2007 article, I specifically warned against this danger: ‘It would be unfortunate if a politically correct progressivism were to deny the reality of the challenge to social solidarity posed by diversity. It would be equally unfortunate if an ahistorical and ethnocentric conservatism were to deny that addressing that challenge is both feasible and desirable.’ Mr. Krikorian’s tendentious use of my research illustrates precisely how our civic culture, which he claims to value, is being undermined in today’s public dialogue.”

Professor Putnam’s article also concludes with this statement: “One great achievement of human civilization is our ability to redraw more inclusive lines of social identity. The motto on the Great Seal of the United States (and on our dollar bill) and the title of this essay –e pluribus unum– reflects precisely that objective – namely to create a novel ‘one’ out of a diverse ‘many’.”

Conclusion

As an advocate for U.S. immigration, I naturally side with Professor Putnam on this debate. Several other thoughts come to mind. If God created human beings as clones, what a boring world this would be. The social world is always changing. As was said many years ago by the Greek philosopher Heraclitus, who was famous for his insistence on ever-present change as being the fundamental essence of the universe: “No man ever steps in the same river twice.” On the other hand, I also believe there is wisdom in skepticism of grand theories and in favoring incremental, as opposed to revolutionary, change.

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

[1] Professor Putnam also is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the British Academy; past president of the American Political Science Association; recipient of the Skytte Prize, the most prestigious global award in political science; and recipient of the National Humanities Medal, the nation’s highest honor for contributions to the humanities.

[2] Putnam, Letter to Wall Street Journal, W.S.J. (Mar. 31, 2017),

 

Trump and Rubio Share “Similar Views” on Cuba

At President Trump’s rambling press conference on February 16 he said that over dinner the previous night he and Senator Marco Rubio (Rep., FL) “had a very good discussion about Cuba because we have very similar views on Cuba.” Trump added that “Cuba has been very good to me, in the elections. . ., the Cuban people, Americans.” (Torres, Trump: Rubio and I have ‘very similar views on Cuba,’ Miami Herald Feb. 16, 2017).)

No details were provided on which views were similar, but Rubio’s opposition to former President Obama’s normalisation of U.S. relations with Cuba is well known, and during last year’s presidential campaign Trump voiced similar thoughts. (See posts listed in ¨ U.S. and Cuba in the Trump Administration, 2017¨section of List of Posts to dwkcommentaries.com–Topical: CUBA.)

As  an advocate of such normalization, this is disturbing, but unfortunately not surprising, news.

 

Ecuador Continues To Restrict Freedom of the Press

On June 14, 2013, Ecuador’s national legislature adopted the Organic Law on Communications with the following provisions that threaten freedom of the press:

  • Prohibition of “media lynching,” which is defined as “a concerted effort, coordinated by several media or carried out by just one, to destroy a person’s honor or prestige.”
  • Establishment of “everyone’s right that information of public interest received through the media should be verified, balanced, contextualized and opportune” without defining those terms.
  • Establishment of media’s responsibility to accept and promote obedience to the Constitution, the laws and the legitimate decisions of public authorities.
  • Creation of the office of Superintendent of Information and Communication with the power to regulate the news media, investigate possible violations and impose potentially large fines.
  • Creation of the Council for Media Regulation and Development headed by a representative of the President with the power to exact a public apology (and impose fines for repeat offenses) when media fail to accord someone the right to a correction or the right of reply.
  • Retention of the system of “cadenas,” or official messages which all over-the-air TV and radio stations have to broadcast that the President and the National Assembly speaker may use whenever they think it necessary and that other public office holders may use for five minutes per week.

Another provision on the surface may appear to be non-controversial: a requirement for allocation of broadcast frequencies (state, 34%; private, 33%; and community, 33%). Currently an estimated 60% are privately owned. Therefore, this requirement is seen as a means of the government’s closing privately owned media, presumably those critical of the government.

Other provisions of the new law are more benign. It prohibits any form of censorship by government officials or civil servants, guarantees the right of journalists to protect their sources and to maintain professional confidentiality.[1]

Ecuadorian legislators opposing the Communications Law
Ecuadorian legislators opposing the Communications Law

This new law was strenuously challenged by the Ecuadorian legislators opposing the law, who said it will allow the government to control media through loosely defined regulations. (To the right is a photo of the objecting legislators with signs and masks over their mouths.)

Over 50 Colombian newspapers published a joint editorial condemning the law. Some Ecuadorian newspapers     (Hoy and El Commercio) had similar criticisms. Human Rights Watch said the law “is yet another effort by President Correa to go after the independent media. The provisions for censorship and criminal prosecutions of journalists are clear attempts to silence criticism.” The law also was criticized by the Inter-American Press Association, Reporters Without Borders and the Committee To Protect Journalists.

The law was defended by its author who is a member of President Correa’s political party and who said it will “protect freedom of speech with a focus on everybody’s rights, not just for a group of privileged.” Another member of that party who is the president of the legislature predicted that the law would promote more balanced news coverage.

In his TV and radio speech to the country on June 15th President Correa said that law was a precedent that other Latin American countries would follow. Critics of the law, he said, were members of the “gallada” or club that opposes any regulation of the media.

This is not the first effort by Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa to restrict the media. Such prior attempts have been protested by the previously mentioned NGO’s, the U.S. Department of State in its annual human rights reports and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

The Commission’s criticisms have caused Ecuador to launch a full-scale attack on the Commission that was not successful this last past March, but that Ecuador promises to keep pursuing.

[1] This summary of the new law is based upon articles in an Ecuadorian newspaper (Hoy), the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal and a commentary by Reporters Without Borders. As always, I invite others to provide comments to correct any errors of mine and to express other opinions about the new law.