Showing posts with label Trump anti-Latinos. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Trump anti-Latinos. Show all posts

March 16, 2019

The NZ Attacks are Not Enough For TRUMP to Stop His Punt on White Supremacy

Related image
 These are the invaders, the white, young killers. Do You have mass killers on race of any other color? But Trump keeps saying are poor Mexican and brown people.

Once again, President Donald Trump is having a tough time calling out far right-wing white nationalism.
His response to the carnage in New Zealand, where 49 people died in an attack on two mosques, is also raising fresh questions about his attitude toward Islam following a long history of anti-Muslim rhetoric -- and about the extent to which the President has a responsibility to moderate his language given the rise in white supremacy movements across the world.
On Twitter and in remarks in the Oval Office, Trump was clear in condemning the killings. But he did not deliver a message of empathy and support to American Muslims, who may feel scared as security is stepped up at US mosques.
"I spoke with Prime Minister Ardern of New Zealand to express the sorrow of our entire nation following the monstrous terror attacks at two mosques," Trump said in the Oval Office on Friday afternoon after first condemning the attack as "a horrible massacre in the Mosques" on Twitter.
    "These sacred places of worship were turned into scenes of evil killing," the President said. "We've all seen what went on. It's a horrible, horrible thing."
    But asked whether he saw a worrying rise in white supremacy movements around the world, Trump said he did not, blaming a small group of people "with very, very serious problems." He also told reporters that he had not seen the manifesto linked to by a social media account that's believed to belong to one of the attackers, which mentioned Trump by name and saw him as a symbol of renewed white identity.
    While the President did not reach out to Muslims around the world, his daughter offered the kind of language that might have been expected from a more conventional commander in chief.
    "We join New Zealand and Muslim communities around the world in condemnation of this evil as we pray for the families of each victim and grieve together," Ivanka Trump tweeted on Friday morning.
    New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern was asked in a news conference early Saturday what she had told Trump in their telephone call.
    "He asked what offer of support the United States could provide. My message was sympathy and love for all Muslim communities," Ardern said.
    White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders called the Christchurch killings a "vicious attack of hate," though she did not specifically mention that the attack was against Muslims.
    Trump's failure to do more to point out that the worshipers who died in Christchurch were Muslim represents a double standard, given that he has been much clearer in ascribing a religious motivation to other killings.
    Last year, after an attack on a Jewish temple in Pittsburgh, Trump spoke of an "anti-Semitic" motive in the attack, which itself sparked a debate over whether his inflammatory rhetoric was to blame for a rise in hate crimes.
    When 28 Coptic Christians died in suicide bombings in Egypt in May 2017, the President decried the "merciless slaughter of Christians" and warned that the "bloodletting of Christians must end."
    As a candidate, Trump called for a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims" entering the United States, and as President, he eventually succeeded in using executive power to ban travel to the US by citizens of seven nations, five of them mainly Muslim.
    Trump has often been quick to wade in when a Muslim extremist has been a perpetrator of an attack and Muslims are not the victims, or to use such attacks to further his political arguments.
    "Incompetent Hillary, despite the horrible attack in Brussels today, wants borders to be weak and open and let the Muslims flow in. No way!" Trump, for instance, tweeted in March 2016.
    And when he was running for office, he excoriated Democrats as dishonest about the motivation of Muslim extremists who conducted terror attacks.
    "These are radical Islamic terrorists, and she won't even mention the word, and nor will President Obama," Trump said at a presidential debate, referring to Hillary Clinton. "Now, to solve a problem, you have to be able to state what the problem is, or at least say the name."

    Equivocation on white nationalism

    Trump has many times been accused of using rhetoric that emboldens extremists and dehumanizes his targets. He has used vulgar language to criticize NFL stars who took a knee during the National Anthem. In announcing his campaign, he said Mexico was sending "rapists" across the border into the US. On Friday, at the same event in which he bemoaned the attack in New Zealand, he warned of "invasions" of undocumented migrants coming across the southern border.
    And Friday was not the first time that Trump has sought to downplay the threat of white nationalism.
    The question of whether the President's rhetoric has emboldened white supremacists erupted into a multi-day controversy in 2017, when he said there were some "very fine people on both sides" after white nationalist marchers were met by counterprotests in Charlottesville, Virginia.
    Trump's moral leadership also came into question when he initially equivocated after he was endorsed by white supremacist David Duke during the 2016 campaign.
    The President's comment Friday that white nationalism is not a growing problem contrasted with the vehemence with which other world leaders reacted, and their clear condemnations of white supremacist rhetoric and ideology.
    Britain's Prime Minister Theresa May said there was no place in society for "the vile ideology that drives and incites hatred and fear."
    Australia's Prime Minister Scott Morrison condemned a "violent, extremist, right-wing terrorist attack."
    Ardern said the alleged perpetrator of the attack had "extremist views that have absolutely no place in New Zealand and in fact, have no place in the world."
    In a tweet that posted before Trump's comments in the Oval Office, Democratic former Vice President Joe Biden -- a possible White House candidate in 2020 -- appeared to have Trump on his mind.
    "Whether it is antisemitism in Pittsburgh, racism in Charlottesville, or the xenophobia and Islamophobia today in Christchurch, violent hate is on the march at home and abroad. We cannot stand by as mosques are turned into murder scenes," Biden tweeted. 
    "Silence is complicity," he added. "Our children are listening. The time to speak out is now."
    Democratic Rep. Joaquin Castro of Texas condemned Trump for what he styled as extremist rhetoric.
    "There is a cost to that. And the cost is part of what we saw today. There are people out there who are unstable that will be inspired by that and take action," Castro told Wolf Blitzer on "The Situation Room."
    White House director of strategic communications Mercedes Schlapp told reporters Friday that it was "outrageous to even make that connection between this deranged individual that committed this evil crime to the President, who has repeatedly condemned bigotry, racism."
    Trump's dismissal of the idea that white nationalism is on the rise contradicted warnings of his own government, and it was a characteristic example of how he ignores statistics that do not suit his political arguments.
    In a May 2017 intelligence bulletin obtained by Foreign Policy magazine, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security warned of "lethal violence" from white supremacist extremist groups.
      Trump's view also does not take into account the rise of white nationalist groups in politics in Europe, which has seen large marches in some cities.
      According to the Anti-Defamation League, 71% of the deaths linked to extremism in the United States between 2008 and 2017 were committed by far-right attackers.

      December 15, 2018

      We Learn Friday A Criminal President Orders ICE Not to Go After Criminals First to Deport


      Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrests in the last year jumped to their highest levels since 2014, with increases in those picked up who had either no criminal history or whose criminal backgrounds are unresolved, according to data released by the agency Friday.
      The agency has come under fire by advocates who believe its approach toward immigration enforcement has produced fear in the lives of people who are merely trying to get by. President Donald Trump’s executive orders have wiped away previous administrations’ practice of prioritizing those with serious criminal histories for deportation, in favor of an approach that makes nearly all undocumented immigrants a priority. 
      Still, ICE maintains that it focuses on those with criminal histories in its work. To that end, of the 158,581 arrested by the agency this past fiscal year, 105,140 were convicted criminals, a decrease of nearly 600 from the previous fiscal year. The majority of that group had convictions for DUIs, traffic offenses, drug offenses, or immigration offenses.
      But ICE made big jumps in arrests of those without a criminal background — from 15,478 to 20,464 — and those with “pending” criminal cases, which could include individuals who have been arrested and charged, charged, or arrested and not charged, from 22,256 to 32,977. ICE also deported more individuals during the fiscal year 2018 than the previous fiscal year, including individuals who were arrested by the agency, from around 226,000 to more than 256,000.
      “We continued to use our limited resources as effectively and efficiently as possible to enforce the nation’s immigration laws,” said Ronald Vitiello, acting director of ICE, in a call with reporters Friday.
      Vitiello called on Congress, which has often criticized the agency for the resources it uses to detain immigrants, to provide more funding for ICE detention facilities, claiming that the agency would have to make “difficult choices” if the funding levels were not met. 
      Congress has said in the past that the agency has spent at too high of a level.
      “ICE continues to spend at an unsustainable rate,” read a Senate Appropriations Committee report from June 2018. “In light of the Committee’s persistent and growing concerns about ICE’s lack of fiscal discipline, whether real or manufactured and its inability to manage detention resources within the appropriations made by law without the threat of anti-deficiency, the Committee strongly discourages transfer or reprogramming requests to cover ICE’s excesses.”

      November 28, 2018

      Already The Marines Killed A Child at The Border Is Trump Going To Make It Happen Again?


      REDFORD, Tex. — Nowhere else in the United States is President Trump’s troop deployment to the southwest border weighted with more meaning and heartbreak than in the rugged mountain towns near Big Bend National Park in far West Texas. It has nothing to do with politics or border security.
      It’s a reminder of Esequiel Hernandez Jr.
      Mr. Hernandez, a high school sophomore who dreamed of becoming a game warden, was shot and killed as he herded his family’s goats after school one day in May 1997. The killer: a Marine corporal on an anti-drug surveillance team assisting the Border Patrol. Mr. Hernandez was the first civilian killed by American soldiers on domestic soil since National Guard troops opened fire at a Vietnam War protest at Kent State University in Ohio in 1970 and killed four students.
      Mr. Hernandez had brought his grandfather’s rifle with him to protect the goats from wild dogs. The Marines claimed he shot at them twice and was preparing for a third shot when the team’s commander, Cpl. Clemente M. Banuelos, 22, fired once from an M-16 rifle, killing him.
      Mr. Hernandez’s relatives and local prosecutors believed he never saw the Marines — who were hidden in the brush and wearing so-called ghillie suits, fatigues outfitted with foliage to blend into the surroundings. He had turned 18 six days before he was killed.

      “My mom never came out of shock,” said Mr. Hernandez’s brother Margarito, 49. “She died without ever coming out of shock.”
      Esequiel Hernandez Jr., in a photograph provided by his brother Margarito Hernandez.
      Esequiel Hernandez Jr., in a photograph provided by his brother Margarito Hernandez.
      He stood at his brother’s grave at Redford Cemetery as he spoke. He could see the white cross in the distance — the memorial marking the place where his brother died, at an old well on the rocky desert bluffs above the Rio Grande. It was peaceful, lonely country: The mountain silhouettes against a dome of the cloud-streaked sky, the only splash of color from the flowers on the graves. The adobe home where Mr. Hernandez grew up, the filled-in well where he died, the church where his funeral was held, the cemetery where he is buried — the landmarks of Mr. Hernandez’s whole life and death fit neatly in Redford, population 90.
      “He had a poster next to his bed, a Marine poster, one of those posters that the recruiters give away, ‘The Few, the Proud,’ or something like that,” Margarito Hernandez said. “After it happened, my smaller brother, he went over there and grabbed it and tore it down.”
      Two decades after Mr. Hernandez’s death, the shooting in Redford remains a kind of cautionary tale as the president orders thousands of active-duty troops to America’s southern border in response to the caravan of Central American migrants seeking entry into the United States.
      Trump administration officials and military leaders have said that the troops now at the border will serve in a support role only, providing transportation, logistics and other assistance to Customs and Border Protection, the Border Patrol’s parent agency. The soldiers, most of whom are from the Army, are not expected to engage directly with migrants.
      But the warlike posture on the border has intensified recently, as the troops set up base camps with concertina wire. On Sunday, officers with Customs and Border Protection shut down a border crossing that leads into San Diego and fired tear gas on hundreds of migrants, including children, to push them back from the border fence. With Mr. Trump’s aggressive warnings about the caravan — he said rocks would be considered firearms if thrown at the military at the border — those involved in the Hernandez case said they fear it could happen again.
      “Don’t take people who are trained to kill and put them to do a mission on border security, because you’re asking for trouble,” said Bill Weinacht, the lawyer for the Hernandez family. “They’re just not trained for civilian interaction.”
      The troops on the border today appear to have a different role from that of the Marines who took part in anti-drug missions in the 1990s. None of the soldiers on the border now are expected to conduct armed clandestine operations hidden in the brush like the Marine team involved in the Hernandez shooting.
      But 21 years later, the Hernandez shooting provides a textbook case of what could go wrong. The Marines’ training was inadequate: They were given fewer than three days of dedicated instruction for the mission. Their coordination with the Border Patrol was sloppy: No one told the Marines their observation post was near several homes and that Mr. Hernandez had been stopped months earlier by Border Patrol agents for shooting his rifle while herding goats. And the Border Patrol was delayed in responding to the Marines: They arrived 38 minutes after the Marines reported someone was shooting at them but had they arrived sooner, they would have likely defused the situation, investigators said.
      State, federal and military investigations followed the shooting. State and federal grand juries heard the case. But through it all, none of the four Marines on the surveillance team, including the one who fired the single fatal shot, Corporal Banuelos, were ever charged with any criminal wrongdoing. Military and federal officials reached a settlement with the Hernandez family, agreeing to pay nearly $2 million.
      A congressional inquiry in 1998 found that federal and Pentagon officials were negligent in training and preparing for the mission. “The central problem was that the chain of command regarded the mission primarily as a training opportunity for Marines, rather than as a complex real-world mission involving significant risk,” read the House subcommittee report by Representative Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican.
      After the shooting, the Pentagon suspended all anti-drug operations by military forces on the border. But military officials and the Marines’ lawyers defended the actions of the troops, saying that Corporal Banuelos pulled the trigger because he had believed Mr. Hernandez was about to shoot one of his fellow Marines, Lance Cpl. James M. Blood. The Marines, they said, had been briefed that armed scouts often checked the path ahead of drug runners, and other troops on similar border missions had been shot at before the Hernandez shooting.
      Corporal Banuelos was represented by one of the most prominent criminal defense lawyers in Texas, Jack B. Zimmermann, one of two lawyers who represented Branch Davidian leaders in the 1993 siege at the religious sect’s compound near Waco. Mr. Zimmermann described the shooting of Mr. Hernandez as a tragedy, but not a crime. 
      “Because of his fear that he was going to lose one of his teammates, Banuelos acted reasonably under the circumstances,” said Mr. Zimmermann, a retired Marine colonel. “If it had gone to trial, there was no question in anybody’s mind that a jury would have found him not guilty.”
      That afternoon in 1997, Mr. Hernandez came home from Presidio High School at about 4 p.m. and studied his driver’s education handbook. He was, as one teacher described him, “a ranch kid” who had no criminal record; he was a student aide at a recent cattle drive in the area. Shortly before 6 p.m., he took the goats out, a routine chore, and walked away from his house toward the Rio Grande. In his hands he held an antique .22-caliber pump-action rifle. He had told one of his teachers that he often shot the rifle for target practice while tending the goats.
      The four Marines, known as Team 7, had been occupying an observation post along the river for three days, as part of a joint task force conducting surveillance of drug-smuggling routes to support the Border Patrol. Redford residents were unaware that the heavily camouflaged Marines were there.
      Team 7 members had left their hiding site to move up a hill but knelt down after seeing a man on horseback, according to military investigators. Then they saw Mr. Hernandez, the goats, and the rifle. They radioed to headquarters in nearby Marfa that a man herding goats was heading toward them, armed with a rifle. Mr. Hernandez then fired in the direction of the Marines twice from about 200 yards away.
      “We’re taking fire,” Corporal Banuelos said on the radio at 6:07 p.m., according to a military transcript of Team 7’s radio transmissions.
      Mr. Hernandez then walked away, and the Marines followed him. At 6:11 p.m., Corporal Banuelos said on the radio, “As soon as he readies that rifle back down range, we are taking him.” The radio operator in the Marine tactical operations center responded, “Roger, fire back.”
      The Marines, based on their radio transmissions, seemed to believe that Mr. Hernandez had spotted them and was hiding from them, and they drew closer to him. Corporal Banuelos observed Mr. Hernandez raise his weapon and point it in the direction of Lance Corporal Blood when he fired, according to military reports.
      Albert G. Valadez, the former district attorney who investigated the case, said Mr. Hernandez was not pointing the rifle in the Marines’ direction when he was shot. Because the rifle did not have a strap, Mr. Hernandez had been carrying it behind his neck and across his shoulders, as he stood near the well and was shot in the lower chest beneath his right armpit, Mr. Valadez said.
      “He was not even pointing his rifle in their direction,” Mr. Valadez said. “The rifle wasn’t being pointed. It was resting on his shoulders. This is nothing more than a coldblooded murder.”
      Corporal Banuelos’s lawyer in Houston, Mr. Zimmermann, said he had not heard Mr. Valadez’s theory before, adding, “There’s not a single witness that would say that he was draping” the rifle on his shoulders instead of aiming it.
      At Redford Cemetery recently, Margarito Hernandez went to his truck and pulled out the rifle his brother had been carrying that day. The authorities recently returned it to the family. “Now you tell me how they confused him with a drug dealer with this rifle,” he said, holding the thin, small weapon. “There are BB guns that look more like a rifle than this one.”
      He stood for a long time at his brother’s grave, the rifle at his side. He said it’s too hard for him, so he does not come here often. He works now as a police officer in nearby Presidio and is a father of four. His son was born four months after his brother died in 1997. He named him Esequiel.

      November 27, 2018

      This is where The Migrants Were and Where They Faced Barbed Wire and Tear Gas

      Tear gas used
      in this area
      Tear gas used
      in this area
      Tijuana River
      One of three key places
      where migrants tried 
      to cross the border
      Area of detail
      Satellite image by DigitalGlobe via Google
      United States Customs and Border Protection officers used tear gas on Sunday to deter hundreds of migrants who attempted to cross the border into the United States. Migrants tried to enter at three locations near the border crossing in Tijuana, Mexico.

      1The Tijuana River

      Kim Kyung-Hoon/Reuters
      A number of migrants tried to cross into the United States at the nearly dry Tijuana River and were met with a law enforcement blockade with barbed wire and tear gas. In a widely viewed photograph, a woman can be seen pulling her family away from tear gas fired by Customs and Border Protection officers.

      2The Chaparral Crossing

      Mario Tama/Getty Images
      Others crossed the Tijuana River on their way to El Chaparral, a port of entry on the Mexico side of the border, to evade the police blockade.

      3The Train Tracks

      Rodrigo Abd/Associated Press
      Migrants also met tear gas and law enforcement officials at a set of train tracks near the San Ysidro crossing. The United States shut down the crossing in both directions in response to the migrants’ attempt to cross.

      November 21, 2018

      Trump Wont Release Money Approved for Puerto Rico and A Conversation Between a Head of State and Someone Mentally Handicapped

      The money is there because Congress has set it aside but the man does not understand. He keeps saying it's going to paid debt when he has no reason to believe that and it makes no sense. Your house has been blown over and you get a loan, what would you use it for/ To pay the bank or to use it for the reason you ask that money for???????????????????????/ This man mind is destroyed! Nobody can make him understand anything.
      Trump has told senior officials that he would like to retract some of the federal funds Congress has already set aside for Puerto Rico's disaster recovery, Axios' Jonathan Swan reported earlier this month. This is mainly due to Trump's belief that the funds are being used to pay back debt (there is no evidence of this). The members noted in their letter that they would work with Trump to "ensure this never occurs."

      This is going to get to you the hair of your brains straight up but it will make you understand what so many of us have been saying.......

      The transcript of Donald Trump’s discussion with Australian prime minister Malcolm Turnbull obtained by the Washington Post reveals many things, but the most significant may be that Trump in his private negotiations is every bit as mentally limited as he appears to be in public.
      At issue in the conversation is a deal to settle 1,250 refugees who have been detained by Australia in the United States. I did not pay any attention to the details of this agreement before reading the transcript. By the time I was halfway through it, my brain could not stop screaming at Trump for his failure to understand what Turnbull was telling him.
      Australia has a policy of refusing to accept refugees who arrive by boat. The reason, as Turnbull patiently attempts to explain several times, is that it believes giving refuge to people who arrive by boat would encourage smuggling and create unsafe passage with a high risk of deaths at sea. But it had a large number of refugees who had arrived by sea, living in difficult conditions, whom Australia would not resettle (for fear of encouraging more boat trafficking) but whom it did not want to deport, either. The United States government agreed under President Obama to vet 1,250 of these refugees and accept as many of them as it deemed safe.
      In the transcript, Trump is unable to absorb any of these facts. He calls the refugees “prisoners,” and repeatedly brings up the Cuban boatlift (in which Castro dumped criminals onto Florida). He is unable to absorb Turnbull’s explanation that they are economic refugees, not from conflict zones, and that the United States has the ability to turn away any of them it deems dangerous.   
      Turnbull tries to explain to Trump that refugees have not been detained because they pose a danger to Australian society, but in order to deter ship-based smuggling:
      Trump: Why haven’t you let them out? Why have you not let them into your society?

      Turnbull: Okay, I will explain why. It is not because they are bad people. It is because in order to stop people smugglers, we had to deprive them of the product. So we said if you try to come to Australia by boat, even if we think you are the best person in the world, even if you are a Noble [sic] Prize winning genius, we will not let you in. Because the problem with the people —
      At this point, Trump fails to understand the policy altogether, and proceeds to congratulate Turnbull for what Trump mistakes to be a draconian policy of total exclusion:
      Trump: That is a good idea. We should do that too. You are worse than I am … Because you do not want to destroy your country. Look at what has happened in Germany. Look at what is happening in these countries.

      Trump has completely failed to understand either that the refugees are not considered dangerous, or, again, that they are being held because of a categorical ban on ship-based refugee traffic.
      He also fails to understand the number of refugees in the agreement:
      Trump: I am the world’s greatest person that does not want to let people into the country. And now I am agreeing to take 2,000 people and I agree I can vet them, but that puts me in a bad position. It makes me look so bad and I have only been here a week.

      Turnbull: With great respect, that is not right – It is not 2,000.

      Trump: Well, it is close. I have also heard like 5,000 as well.

      Turnbull: The given number in the agreement is 1,250 and it is entirely a matter of your vetting.
      Then Trump returns to his belief that they are bad, and failing to understand the concept that they have been detained merely because they arrived by sea and not because they committed a crime:
      Trump: I hate taking these people. I guarantee you they are bad. That is why they are in prison right now. They are not going to be wonderful people who go on to work for the local milk people.
      Turnbull: I would not be so sure about that. They are basically —
      Trump: Well, maybe you should let them out of prison.
      He still thinks they’re criminals.
      Later, Trump asks what happens if all the refugees fail his vetting process:
      Trump: I hate having to do it, but I am still going to vet them very closely. Suppose I vet them closely and I do not take any?
      Turnbull: That is the point I have been trying to make.
      After several attempts by Turnbull to explain Australia’s policy, Trump again expresses his total inability to understand what it is:
      Trump: Does anybody know who these people are? Who are they? Where do they come from? Are they going to become the Boston bomber in five years? Or two years? Who are these people?

      Turnbull: Let me explain. We know exactly who they are. They have been on Nauru or Manus for over three years and the only reason we cannot let them into Australia is because of our commitment to not allow people to come by boat. Otherwise we would have let them in. If they had arrived by airplane and with a tourist visa then they would be here.

      Trump: Malcom [sic], but they are arrived on a boat?
      After Turnbull has told Trump several times that the refugees have been detained because they arrived by boat, and only for that reason, Trump’s question is, “But they have arrived on a boat?”
      Soon after, Turnbull again reiterates that Australia’s policy is to detain any refugee who arrives by boat:
      Turnbull: The only people that we do not take are people who come by boa. So we would rather take a not very attractive guy that help you out then to take a Noble [sic] Peace Prize winner that comes by boat. That is the point.”

      Trump: What is the thing with boats? Why do you discriminate against boats? No, I know, they come from certain regions. I get it.
      No, you don’t get it at all! It’s not that they come from certain regions! It’s that they come by boat!
      So Turnbull very patiently tries to explain again that the policy has nothing to do with what region the refugees come from:
      Turnbull: No, let me explain why. The problem with the boats it that you are basically outsourcing your immigration program to people smugglers and also you get thousands of people drowning at sea.
      At this point, Trump gives up asking about the policy and just starts venting about the terribleness of deals in general:
      I do not know what he got out of it. We never get anything out of it — START Treaty, the Iran deal. I do not know where they find these people to make these stupid deals. I am going to get killed on this thing.
      Shortly afterward, the call ends in brusque fashion, and Turnbull presumably begins drinking heavily.

      Featured Posts

      A Mob of 10 Men Attacks a Gay Man in Arizona

      Police are investigating, though they aren't calling the attack as a hate crime. BY  MATHEW RODRIGUEZ Ou...