therealnews--2020-02-13--El Salvador’s President Militarizes Legislature to Strengthen Police Force

This is a rush transcript and may contain errors .
It will be updated .
Greg Wilpert : It ’ s the Real News Network and I ’ m Greg Wilpert in Arlington , Virginia .
El Salvador ’ s President Nayib Bukele caused outrage last Sunday when he deployed the military and police to occupy and threaten El Salvador ’ s legislature , the National Assembly .
The motive behind Bukele ’ s militarization of the assembly is that he wanted to pressure the legislature into approving a $ 109 million loan for his national security plan .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s police and armed forces with advanced technology .
Even right-wing National Assembly deputies from the ARENA party objected to Bukele ’ s action .
National Assembly President Mario Ponce called it a coup attempt .
Ever since the 1992 peace agreement between the government and the left-wing rebel movement , FMLN , El Salvador ’ s military is strictly prohibited from becoming involved in the country ’ s internal affairs .
Even though the police and military have since withdrawn from the legislature , Bukele continued to issue threats against the National @ @ @ @ @ @ @ once was a mayor of San Salvador for the FMLN , but the party expelled him in 2017 .
He went on to win the presidency last year and took office in June on an anti-corruption and anti-crime platform .
Since then , he has repeatedly sided with the Trump administration on issues involving immigration and regional security .
Joining me now to analyze the current situation in El Salvador is Yesenia Portillo .
She is an organizer with the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador , CISPES and joins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for being here today , Yesenia .
Yesenia Portill… : Thank you for having me .
Greg Wilpert : So let ’ s start with some more details about what happened last weekend when the military and police took over the National Assembly .
What were they hoping to achieve exactly and why did the action cause so much outrage even among the right , even though Bukele himself has been governing from the right ?
Yesenia Portill… : Nayib Bukele ’ s stated purpose for calling for an insurrection actually also and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offices was to pressure the National Assembly to approve the requested loan that you mentioned .
I think ulterior motives that have been pointed to by political analysts in El Salvador and social movement leaders in El Salvador has been that he ’ s deflecting and trying to turn attention away from criticisms that are being made against his administration for their inability to … Particularly , there was a situation in weeks prior where a lot of neighborhoods in the capital were experiencing inadequate water administration and there was like brown water @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there ’ s been some folks that are linking kind of this situation to the questioning of his administration for his handling of that situation with water .
But yeah , I mean what he did was call for an extraordinary session .
His Council of Ministers called for an extraordinary session and under the Constitution claim that they had the authority to do so .
But actually , political analysts and the Supreme Court themselves have said that that article of the Constitution , Article 167 can only be invoked in situations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as war or environmental disasters , for example , and that the approval of a loan doesn ’ t justify the Council of Ministers to call for an extraordinary session .
Greg Wilpert : I want to take a closer look at the security plan that Bukele had proposed .
What is it exactly about and why is it so controversial ?
Yesenia Portill… : Yes .
So the security plan , this is a second loan that he ’ s requesting .
He had already previously requested $ 90 million for his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is now requesting another $ 100 million .
And in addition to these loans that he ’ s requesting , which amount to $ 200 million that are both currently being debated and analyzed and negotiated by the Legislative Assembly , which is the body that the Constitution sets out has the authority to approve such loan requests coming from the executive , in addition to those loans , his budget for this year also increased the military and security budget by an additional $ 200 million from the previous year .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loans and that ’ s a $ 200 million increase .
And so , we ’ re looking at $ 400 million increase with these loans if they get approved .
And I guess the question is if they ’ re controversial , if the security plan is controversial , what it is is at this point somewhat unclear and it is not necessarily something that ’ s a divergence from the way in which previous administrations have addressed crime and security in El Salvador .
It ’ s not what they call @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very punitive that rely heavily on the militarization of police and policing heavily and surveilling heavily of communities .
These things are not new .
These are things that in the past , previous administrations have used usually with a lot of pressure from the US government actually .
The US government has historically spent a lot of money in the region to supposedly address crime and violence there through drug war policies .
So like the Central American Security Initiative and the Alliance for Prosperity are both sources of funding that require @ @ @ @ @ @ @ militarization and criminalization of marginalized communities as a response to crime and violence .
And his plan is not , like I said , it ’ s not a divergence from that .
It ’ s just an exacerbation .
So for this third phase that he ’ s asking for the $ 109 million for , yeah , there ’ s not a lot of transparency .
There ’ s a lack of information actually is what the social movements are denouncing .
And as far as what the public has access @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I don ’ t know if the Legislative Assembly , the commission that ’ s currently debating it might have a little bit more , but as far as what the public knows , it ’ s very , very minimal .
But it includes thousands of security cameras , about a hundred drones and facial recognition technology .
Greg Wilpert : Bukele ’ s focus on crime is , of course , connected to a very real issue , which is that crime is very high in El Salvador .
Now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Watch released a report about how at least 138 Salvadorans who the United States deported back to El Salvador were murdered upon their return .
And Doctors Without Borders also released a similar report this week .
Now the US is sending so many Central American refugees to their death by deporting them is a serious issue of its own of course .
But why is crime actually so bad in El Salvador in the first place , that is , and do others such as the FMLN offer a different solution than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and police ?
Yesenia Portill… : Yeah , I mean I think that the findings from the Human Rights Watch report point to , as you said , like a condemnation of the ways in which the US government has responded to migrants fleeing from the region .
So the report goes back to 2013 , so this covers a time period when the Obama administration was instituting policies of deterrence and including militarization of the Mexican-Southern border and bringing family separation as a part of immigration policy in the US as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And so , what the Human Rights Watch report really shows us is that migrants are fleeing very legitimate threats to their lives .
And , of course , Trump ’ s increasing attacks against asylum seekers , again , it ’ s a condemnation of all of these things that deportees are being sent back to their deaths .
And I think , so your question about what have been the responses from previous administrations , as I was saying earlier , the US has played a major role in shaping the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ addressed in El Salvador specifically , and the FMLN was hard pressed to find funding for alternative solutions to the issue , holistic integral solutions to the issue .
And they were pressured and encouraged to take money for militarization , surveillance and these kinds of punitive measures .
They were able to implement some increases in spending for rehabilitation and social programs more generally .
Under the FMLN , the country saw increase in social spending that was historic .
And so , they had the view that the way to address @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has to include an addressing of the mass inequality that exists .
And so , yeah , I think that it ’ s really important to understand that the United States has been playing a major role , not just in El Salvador , but in Guatemala and Honduras and just in the region in shaping this reality of violence and security .
They ’ ve been spending hundreds of millions of dollars for at least a decade on drug war policies .
And so what has that really led us to ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing is that even under the FMLN , through the kind of security policies that were being championed by the Alliance for Prosperity and CARSI , and these things lead to abuses by the state .
And so , there were many reports of extra judicial killings by police that had been trained by the United States .
And so , this is the same police force that still exists today and that Bukele is trying to get more money and funding for .
And the human rights report indicates that some of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Greg Wilpert : Okay , well , we ’ re going to have to leave it there for now , but we ’ re going to continue to report on this , particularly also on the Human Rights Watch report and the effects that the deportations are having on the people who are being deported .
But as I said , we ’ re going to leave it there for now .
I was speaking to Yesenia Portillo , organizer in Washington , D.C. With the Committee in Solidarity with people of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Yesenia , for having joined us today .
Yesenia Portill… : Thank you so much .
Greg Wilpert : And thank you for joining the Real News Network .

President Nayyib Bukele tried to intimidate lawmakers into approving his national security plan, which is supposed to bring down El Salvador’s sky-high crime rate. But the law and order plan follows US dictates and doesn’t address real causes of crime.
Story Transcript
This is a rush transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.
Greg Wilpert: It’s the Real News Network and I’m Greg Wilpert in Arlington, Virginia.
El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele caused outrage last Sunday when he deployed the military and police to occupy and threaten El Salvador’s legislature, the National Assembly. The motive behind Bukele’s militarization of the assembly is that he wanted to pressure the legislature into approving a $109 million loan for his national security plan. The plan intends to modernize El Salvador’s police and armed forces with advanced technology. Even right-wing National Assembly deputies from the ARENA party objected to Bukele’s action. National Assembly President Mario Ponce called it a coup attempt.
Ever since the 1992 peace agreement between the government and the left-wing rebel movement, FMLN, El Salvador’s military is strictly prohibited from becoming involved in the country’s internal affairs. Even though the police and military have since withdrawn from the legislature, Bukele continued to issue threats against the National Assembly and its members.
Nayib Bukele once was a mayor of San Salvador for the FMLN, but the party expelled him in 2017. He went on to win the presidency last year and took office in June on an anti-corruption and anti-crime platform. Since then, he has repeatedly sided with the Trump administration on issues involving immigration and regional security.
Joining me now to analyze the current situation in El Salvador is Yesenia Portillo. She is an organizer with the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador, CISPES and joins us from Washington, D.C. Thanks for being here today, Yesenia.
Yesenia Portill…: Thank you for having me.
Greg Wilpert: So let’s start with some more details about what happened last weekend when the military and police took over the National Assembly. What were they hoping to achieve exactly and why did the action cause so much outrage even among the right, even though Bukele himself has been governing from the right?
Yesenia Portill…: Nayib Bukele’s stated purpose for calling for an insurrection actually also and for bringing out the military to governmental offices was to pressure the National Assembly to approve the requested loan that you mentioned. I think ulterior motives that have been pointed to by political analysts in El Salvador and social movement leaders in El Salvador has been that he’s deflecting and trying to turn attention away from criticisms that are being made against his administration for their inability to … Particularly, there was a situation in weeks prior where a lot of neighborhoods in the capital were experiencing inadequate water administration and there was like brown water coming out of their taps. So there’s been some folks that are linking kind of this situation to the questioning of his administration for his handling of that situation with water.
But yeah, I mean what he did was call for an extraordinary session. His Council of Ministers called for an extraordinary session and under the Constitution claim that they had the authority to do so. But actually, political analysts and the Supreme Court themselves have said that that article of the Constitution, Article 167 can only be invoked in situations of national security and national emergencies such as war or environmental disasters, for example, and that the approval of a loan doesn’t justify the Council of Ministers to call for an extraordinary session.
Greg Wilpert: I want to take a closer look at the security plan that Bukele had proposed. What is it exactly about and why is it so controversial?
Yesenia Portill…: Yes. So the security plan, this is a second loan that he’s requesting. He had already previously requested $90 million for his second phase of the security plan and is now requesting another $100 million. And in addition to these loans that he’s requesting, which amount to $200 million that are both currently being debated and analyzed and negotiated by the Legislative Assembly, which is the body that the Constitution sets out has the authority to approve such loan requests coming from the executive, in addition to those loans, his budget for this year also increased the military and security budget by an additional $200 million from the previous year. So that budget totals 750 million without these loans and that’s a $200 million increase. And so, we’re looking at $400 million increase with these loans if they get approved.
And I guess the question is if they’re controversial, if the security plan is controversial, what it is is at this point somewhat unclear and it is not necessarily something that’s a divergence from the way in which previous administrations have addressed crime and security in El Salvador. It’s not what they call mano dura policies or policies that are very punitive that rely heavily on the militarization of police and policing heavily and surveilling heavily of communities. These things are not new. These are things that in the past, previous administrations have used usually with a lot of pressure from the US government actually.
The US government has historically spent a lot of money in the region to supposedly address crime and violence there through drug war policies. So like the Central American Security Initiative and the Alliance for Prosperity are both sources of funding that require or that heavily incentivize punitive measures and militarization and criminalization of marginalized communities as a response to crime and violence. And his plan is not, like I said, it’s not a divergence from that. It’s just an exacerbation.
So for this third phase that he’s asking for the $109 million for, yeah, there’s not a lot of transparency. There’s a lack of information actually is what the social movements are denouncing. And as far as what the public has access to, it’s even less. I don’t know if the Legislative Assembly, the commission that’s currently debating it might have a little bit more, but as far as what the public knows, it’s very, very minimal. But it includes thousands of security cameras, about a hundred drones and facial recognition technology.
Greg Wilpert: Bukele’s focus on crime is, of course, connected to a very real issue, which is that crime is very high in El Salvador. Now, just last week, Human Rights Watch released a report about how at least 138 Salvadorans who the United States deported back to El Salvador were murdered upon their return. And Doctors Without Borders also released a similar report this week. Now the US is sending so many Central American refugees to their death by deporting them is a serious issue of its own of course. But why is crime actually so bad in El Salvador in the first place, that is, and do others such as the FMLN offer a different solution than just modernizing the country’s military and police?
Yesenia Portill…: Yeah, I mean I think that the findings from the Human Rights Watch report point to, as you said, like a condemnation of the ways in which the US government has responded to migrants fleeing from the region. So the report goes back to 2013, so this covers a time period when the Obama administration was instituting policies of deterrence and including militarization of the Mexican-Southern border and bringing family separation as a part of immigration policy in the US as a way to deter migrants from fleeing. And so, what the Human Rights Watch report really shows us is that migrants are fleeing very legitimate threats to their lives. And, of course, Trump’s increasing attacks against asylum seekers, again, it’s a condemnation of all of these things that deportees are being sent back to their deaths.
And I think, so your question about what have been the responses from previous administrations, as I was saying earlier, the US has played a major role in shaping the ways in which violence and security is addressed in El Salvador specifically, and the FMLN was hard pressed to find funding for alternative solutions to the issue, holistic integral solutions to the issue. And they were pressured and encouraged to take money for militarization, surveillance and these kinds of punitive measures. They were able to implement some increases in spending for rehabilitation and social programs more generally. Under the FMLN, the country saw increase in social spending that was historic. And so, they had the view that the way to address the crime and violence in the country has to include an addressing of the mass inequality that exists.
And so, yeah, I think that it’s really important to understand that the United States has been playing a major role, not just in El Salvador, but in Guatemala and Honduras and just in the region in shaping this reality of violence and security. They’ve been spending hundreds of millions of dollars for at least a decade on drug war policies. And so what has that really led us to?
And yeah, and then the other thing is that even under the FMLN, through the kind of security policies that were being championed by the Alliance for Prosperity and CARSI, and these things lead to abuses by the state. And so, there were many reports of extra judicial killings by police that had been trained by the United States. And so, this is the same police force that still exists today and that Bukele is trying to get more money and funding for. And the human rights report indicates that some of these victims were victims of the state.
Greg Wilpert: Okay, well, we’re going to have to leave it there for now, but we’re going to continue to report on this, particularly also on the Human Rights Watch report and the effects that the deportations are having on the people who are being deported. But as I said, we’re going to leave it there for now. I was speaking to Yesenia Portillo, organizer in Washington, D.C. With the Committee in Solidarity with people of El Salvador, CISPES. Thanks again, Yesenia, for having joined us today.
Yesenia Portill…: Thank you so much.
Greg Wilpert: And thank you for joining the Real News Network.
Studio: Bababtunde Ogunfolaju, Will Arenas
Production: Genevieve Montinar, Will Arenas
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.


therealnews--2020-02-13--Trump’s Latest Immigration Policy: No More Africans or Muslims

This is a rush transcript and may contain errors .
It will be updated .
Kim Brown : Welcome to The Real News .
I ’ m Kim Brown .
The United States , under the Trump administration , unveiled yet another travel ban aimed at mostly nonwhite nations , reinforcing again that we are a country fully willing to enact racism into our policies under the guise of national security .
Donald Trump : So we have a travel ban .
It ’ s a very powerful ban .
We ’ re adding a couple of countries to it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Our country has to be safe .
You see what ’ s going on in the world .
Our country has to be safe , so we have a very strong travel ban , and we ’ ll be adding a few countries to it .
Kim Brown : On Friday , it was announced by the state department via conference call to reporters that Eritrea , Belarus , Kyrgyzstan , Myanmar , Nigeria , Tanzania , and Sudan face new visa restrictions for immigrants .
Trump ’ s first travel ban of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Muslim countries , was eventually upheld by the Supreme court in a five to four decision .
So what remedies are available for those ensnared in this mess ?
And how are the human effects being felt ?
Joining us today to discuss these daft but incredibly damaging policies are Diala Shamas and Ibraham Qatabi .
Diala is a staff attorney for … I ’ m sorry .
Guys , the prompter stopped working on me .
My bad .
Okay , perfect .
Three , two , one .
Diala is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rights , where she works on challenging government and law enforcement abuses perpetrated under the guise of national security both in the US and abroad .
Ibraham is a senior legal worker at the Center for Constitutional Rights , where he helps coordinate a large network of pro bono counsel representing Guantanamo detainees and assists with attorney-client meetings at the prison .
They ’ re both joining us today from New York .
Thank you guys for being here .
Diala Shamas : Thanks for having us .
Ibraham Qatabi : Thanks for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first batch of banned countries , Iran , Libya , Syria , Somalia , Yemen , North Korea , and Venezuela , people affected by this and the most recent travel ban expansion have described a feeling of being in limbo , being afraid to travel back to their country of origin because of a fear of not being able to return here to the US , or even worse , people coming here with their paperwork fully in order just to be immediately sent back .
So before we get deep into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ share with us some stories about how people ’ s lives have been upended as a result of these bands ?
Diala , go ahead .
You can go first .
Diala Shamas : Absolutely .
I mean the ban did exactly what it was intended to do , the first ban , the one that president Trump announced when he was campaigning and which he issued on the day on his first day in office , which was then amended after it was successfully challenged in the courts .
And now we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it Muslim ban 3.0 , and it fulfilled its role , which was to sow chaos and to separate families and to place all of these families in limbo .
Our organization has been working closely with the Yemeni-American communities and that community has been very hardly hit by the presidential proclamation , or the Muslim ban .
Families have been separated .
Yemen is also a war zone at the moment , and we had to go all the way to Djibouti to be able to even access some of our clients @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chaos that the ban has sowed in the Yemeni-American community .
The chaos is absolutely an intentional part of what the ban was intended to accomplish , as well as the president obviously signaling to his base that he will deliver on his racist , white supremacist policies that he promised on when he ran .
Kim Brown : Ibraham , do you have any stories that you can share with us about how people have just been really sent into disarray as a result of these policies ?
Ibraham Qatabi : Yeah @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worked with dozens of Yemeni-American families and we have seen , for example , in Djibouti where children for three , four years are not able to go to school or have access to health care and these are children of US citizens .
So it ’ s tearing families apart , separating children from their parents .
And basically those who were able to work in the US , I ’ m talking about US citizens here , and saved up some money , now basically out on loans because they have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We know families who sold their buildings .
We know family who sold their stores .
And that ’ s actually a big hit , financially speaking , in the community where people were living the American dream and all of a sudden living a nightmare .
So it ’ s not only designed to prohibit people from foreign countries , but also targeting here people of color , Muslims of U.S. citizens .
Kim Brown : So these new restrictions are slated to go into effect on February 21st and there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enter the United States , including student , tourist , worker , immigration .
So what kinds of visas are being impacted or is it all of them ?
Diala Shamas : Yeah , so this newest iteration is , I think , wrongly named a travel ban .
I mean , we still call it a Muslim ban because it ’ s certainly an expansion of the Muslim ban , and that ’ s certainly how this administration has presented it , but it ’ s also an immigration ban .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ longer going to be available from the nationals of four of the countries are all immigrant visas .
So those countries are Nigeria , Eritrea , Kyrgyzstan , and Myanmar .
And then Sudan and Tanzania have only a ban on diversity visas .
So if you think of , overall , what immigrant visas are , an immigrant visa is a term that basically means that you ’ re coming to the United States to stay here , to be here permanently .
And one of the main ways that people get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so it ’ s a US citizen who is trying to bring their spouse , their children .
And this is a fact pattern that ’ s very common in a lot of these communities , the Yemeni community certainly .
Nigeria is also a significant population that uses immigrant visas .
Diversity visas represent a smaller slice , but a very important slice of immigrant visas .
They ’ re visas that are available to countries that we don ’ t have a lot of immigration from those countries and we want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So there ’ s a certain number of these visas that are allotted .
And what Trump just said is that that will no longer be available to Sudan and Tanzania , as well as Nigeria , Eritrea , Kyrgyzstan , and Myanmar , in addition to the previously banned countries .
I know it gets very complicated , but basically what we ’ re seeing here is a ban on immigration , on all immigrants .
And why that ’ s significant is that , as you might recall , the Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be a matter of security .
But this visa doesn ’ t ban tourists .
It doesn ’ t ban business visas , people who aren ’ t coming here to immigrate .
And that , among many other things , gives lie to the so-called national security argument and really reinforces the fact that this is an anti-immigrant ban , an anti-Muslim ban , and , and basically an anti-anything that ’ s not white ban , and it ’ s really about who we want to become part of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America .
Those are what immigrant visas are for .
Kim Brown : And especially when we look at the map and you look at a map of Africa and the countries that are affected , it ’ s a quarter or nearly a half of the entire continent that is now having some sort of restrictions on bringing immigrants to this nation .
So Ibraham , obviously this is targeted against black and brown people , but the security concerns are what the Trump administration are using to justify it .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to do with improper vetting or improper documentation being asked at some of these countries to issue their passports .
Are any of these concerns legitimate ?
Ibraham Qatabi : These are misleading information and maybe alternative facts .
For example , we know the people that we work with , some of our clients have been waiting to come to the United States for over a decade , one client for 17 years , let alone before even these bans .
For these countries , the immigration processes are already complicated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pure examples that we have seen from all the cases that we work with is that most of these families are kids .
So we don ’ t know how a five years old child of a US citizen can become a national security threat to the United States .
It ’ s actually the opposite .
And so there are a lot of things out there that are not completely true .
These people go through extreme vetting .
They wait for years to come to the United States to join @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so none of that is completely justified .
In some cases we have to file a case in court in order to bring the family members of a US citizens .
That ’ s not a policy to protect national security , that ’ s a policy that ’ s targeting families , separating kids from their parents .
And it ’ s designed , like you said , targeting Muslims and people of color .
And it ’ s crystal clear .
Like I said , a quarter of the African population @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so there is no justification other than what Trump himself said clearly , that it ’ s a complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the United States .
And they just basically go in with that discriminatory policy .
They ’ re not applying it to Norway , they ’ re not applying it to the UK , they ’ re not applying it anywhere else where a nonwhite nation .
So it ’ s completely aimed at people , citing the national security nonsense , but we have seen it that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and people who really want to come here either to study or for medical attention .
Kim Brown : It ’ s completely shameful .
So what remedies are there available for people who are being targeted in this way ?
I was reading , there ’ s a lot of anecdotes , a lot of different personal narratives on Twitter , people describing how they or their families are being impacted .
This one , sad story of a woman who wanted to travel back to Nigeria for a funeral of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ afraid to because she wasn ’ t sure whether or not she would be readmitted back to the US .
So are there legal remedies available for people who are caught up in this ?
Diala Shamas : As I ’ m sure everybody knows , the Supreme Court upheld the third sanitized version of the travel ban or the Muslim ban that President Trump issued .
And so , although there are still ongoing legal challenges , especially in light of the additional evidence of how this ban has played out on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and as lawyers are able to bring that evidence to the courts to sort of make the case , again , that the ban is not about national security , but actually it ’ s about discriminating against Muslims .
Those challenges are still ongoing and they ’ re playing out .
But we know , especially since the Supreme Court issued its ruling , that the courts are not really going to be the solution here .
The majority of the legal challenges right now are about whether or not the waiver @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and is also included by incorporation into the expanded ban , is sufficient , is actually operating the way it should be operated .
So the waiver process is essentially window dressing that the Trump administration has included into the ban to make it look like there is a way out for people who can make a claim that they don ’ t pose a threat to national security and that it would be in the United State ’ s interest to let them in .
We know through our work with our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ available statistics and data is that waiver process has been nothing but a sham .
So there are some legal challenges as to the adequacy of the process that are still unfolding in the courts .
And right now that ’ s the only lifeline to these families and to these communities .
Until Congress does something to reverse the ban or to repeal the ban , families can only seek a waiver and many have .
So we ’ ve been able to obtain waivers for some individuals , but that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resources and time and it certainly has not been sufficient or adequate solution .
The ban in and of itself should be overturned and we believe should be found unlawful .
So the new countries that are on the ban are going to be people who are trying to come and join their families in the US , are going to have to similarly avail themselves of the waiver process .
And that as a process , it ’ s still pretty murky .
It ’ s shadowy intentionally still .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be able to present to meet a consular officer ’ s determination that you meet the criteria .
And we ’ ve challenged that , but unfortunately it ’ s all that we are working with .
So our position as an organization is that we ’ ll do what we can to support families and communities while they all deal in these moments of crises .
But ultimately the solution here is one that Congress needs to act on and the political process needs to act on .
The ban needs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ basis in national security .
It has been extremely damaging .
Our clients have been harmed by the ban and , across the country , communities and families have been suffering as a result of these kinds of draconian measures and it needs to be overturned .
Kim Brown : Ibraham , Diala raises a great point , that congressional intervention is probably needed here .
But in your opinion , is it likely to come ?
Ibraham Qatabi : first of all , let ’ s remember that we are dealing with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the rule of law and diversity in this nation .
They have been targeting black and brown people , which is crystal clear from the beginning of the term of the administration .
What do we need right now , which is what our communities are doing , is to mobilize the communities to do some education about what this administration is doing to people and to their own US citizens .
So it is not fair for a US citizen , for me , to file a case every time I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abroad .
What do we need to do right now is to repeal the Muslim ban , which I think is taking place right now as we speak and in Congress .
What we need to do is keep mobilizing like we see in the Yemeni-American community where we have seen with a bodega strike , like we have seen with the Muslim and the communities at large all across the United States .
And we are in a very important year , the election year .
This come November , people need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make sure that we change this system .
We change this administration in order to make sure that we put an administration in place that would respect the constitution , that respect the people ’ s rights and the immigration policies that we have in place .
The first thing to do , I think many of the democratic presidential running folks are candidates at this point saying if they won , they will repeal the Muslim ban .
Kim Brown : All right guys , we ’ re going to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve been speaking with Ibraham Qatabi and Diala Shamas , both of the Center for Constitutional Rights where Diala is a staff attorney and Ibraham is a senior legal worker .
We ’ ve been discussing the expansion of the Trump Muslim , African ban .
There ’ s no point in calling it a travel ban because it ’ s mainly aimed at Muslim countries and Africa .
So thank you both for your vociferous comments today .
We certainly appreciate you joining us .
Ibraham Qatabi : Thank you for having @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you for watching the Real News Network .

The Trump administration is expanding its travel ban. It now prevents nearly a quarter of Africa from getting immigration visas.
Story Transcript
This is a rush transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.
Kim Brown: Welcome to The Real News. I’m Kim Brown. The United States, under the Trump administration, unveiled yet another travel ban aimed at mostly nonwhite nations, reinforcing again that we are a country fully willing to enact racism into our policies under the guise of national security.
Donald Trump: So we have a travel ban. It’s a very powerful ban. We’re adding a couple of countries to it. We have to be safe. Our country has to be safe. You see what’s going on in the world. Our country has to be safe, so we have a very strong travel ban, and we’ll be adding a few countries to it.
Kim Brown: On Friday, it was announced by the state department via conference call to reporters that Eritrea, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, Myanmar, Nigeria, Tanzania, and Sudan face new visa restrictions for immigrants. Trump’s first travel ban of three years ago, which targeted mostly Muslim countries, was eventually upheld by the Supreme court in a five to four decision. So what remedies are available for those ensnared in this mess? And how are the human effects being felt? Joining us today to discuss these daft but incredibly damaging policies are Diala Shamas and Ibraham Qatabi. Diala is a staff attorney for …
I’m sorry. Guys, the prompter stopped working on me. My bad. Okay, perfect. Three, two, one. Diala is a staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights, where she works on challenging government and law enforcement abuses perpetrated under the guise of national security both in the US and abroad. Ibraham is a senior legal worker at the Center for Constitutional Rights, where he helps coordinate a large network of pro bono counsel representing Guantanamo detainees and assists with attorney-client meetings at the prison. They’re both joining us today from New York. Thank you guys for being here.
Diala Shamas: Thanks for having us.
Ibraham Qatabi: Thanks for having me.
Kim Brown: The first batch of banned countries, Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, North Korea, and Venezuela, people affected by this and the most recent travel ban expansion have described a feeling of being in limbo, being afraid to travel back to their country of origin because of a fear of not being able to return here to the US, or even worse, people coming here with their paperwork fully in order just to be immediately sent back. So before we get deep into the legal weeds, can you both share with us some stories about how people’s lives have been upended as a result of these bands? Diala, go ahead. You can go first.
Diala Shamas: Absolutely. I mean the ban did exactly what it was intended to do, the first ban, the one that president Trump announced when he was campaigning and which he issued on the day on his first day in office, which was then amended after it was successfully challenged in the courts. And now we have the sanitized version, we call it Muslim ban 3.0, and it fulfilled its role, which was to sow chaos and to separate families and to place all of these families in limbo.
Our organization has been working closely with the Yemeni-American communities and that community has been very hardly hit by the presidential proclamation, or the Muslim ban. Families have been separated. Yemen is also a war zone at the moment, and we had to go all the way to Djibouti to be able to even access some of our clients and to be able to report the chaos that the ban has sowed in the Yemeni-American community. The chaos is absolutely an intentional part of what the ban was intended to accomplish, as well as the president obviously signaling to his base that he will deliver on his racist, white supremacist policies that he promised on when he ran.
Kim Brown: Ibraham, do you have any stories that you can share with us about how people have just been really sent into disarray as a result of these policies?
Ibraham Qatabi: Yeah. Like Diala mentioned, we have worked with dozens of Yemeni-American families and we have seen, for example, in Djibouti where children for three, four years are not able to go to school or have access to health care and these are children of US citizens. So it’s tearing families apart, separating children from their parents. And basically those who were able to work in the US, I’m talking about US citizens here, and saved up some money, now basically out on loans because they have to send some money to third countries. We know families who sold their buildings. We know family who sold their stores. And that’s actually a big hit, financially speaking, in the community where people were living the American dream and all of a sudden living a nightmare. So it’s not only designed to prohibit people from foreign countries, but also targeting here people of color, Muslims of U.S. citizens.
Kim Brown: So these new restrictions are slated to go into effect on February 21st and there are several types of visas used to enter the United States, including student, tourist, worker, immigration. So what kinds of visas are being impacted or is it all of them?
Diala Shamas: Yeah, so this newest iteration is, I think, wrongly named a travel ban. I mean, we still call it a Muslim ban because it’s certainly an expansion of the Muslim ban, and that’s certainly how this administration has presented it, but it’s also an immigration ban. So the kinds of visas that are no longer going to be available from the nationals of four of the countries are all immigrant visas. So those countries are Nigeria, Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, and Myanmar. And then Sudan and Tanzania have only a ban on diversity visas.
So if you think of, overall, what immigrant visas are, an immigrant visa is a term that basically means that you’re coming to the United States to stay here, to be here permanently. And one of the main ways that people get immigrant visas has been family reunification, so it’s a US citizen who is trying to bring their spouse, their children. And this is a fact pattern that’s very common in a lot of these communities, the Yemeni community certainly. Nigeria is also a significant population that uses immigrant visas.
Diversity visas represent a smaller slice, but a very important slice of immigrant visas. They’re visas that are available to countries that we don’t have a lot of immigration from those countries and we want to encourage immigration from those countries. So there’s a certain number of these visas that are allotted. And what Trump just said is that that will no longer be available to Sudan and Tanzania, as well as Nigeria, Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, and Myanmar, in addition to the previously banned countries.
I know it gets very complicated, but basically what we’re seeing here is a ban on immigration, on all immigrants. And why that’s significant is that, as you might recall, the Trump administration has made a case for this to be a matter of security. But this visa doesn’t ban tourists. It doesn’t ban business visas, people who aren’t coming here to immigrate. And that, among many other things, gives lie to the so-called national security argument and really reinforces the fact that this is an anti-immigrant ban, an anti-Muslim ban, and, and basically an anti-anything that’s not white ban, and it’s really about who we want to become part of the social fabric of the United States of America. Those are what immigrant visas are for.
Kim Brown: And especially when we look at the map and you look at a map of Africa and the countries that are affected, it’s a quarter or nearly a half of the entire continent that is now having some sort of restrictions on bringing immigrants to this nation. So Ibraham, obviously this is targeted against black and brown people, but the security concerns are what the Trump administration are using to justify it. And some of the concerns that they claim have to do with improper vetting or improper documentation being asked at some of these countries to issue their passports. Are any of these concerns legitimate?
Ibraham Qatabi: These are misleading information and maybe alternative facts. For example, we know the people that we work with, some of our clients have been waiting to come to the United States for over a decade, one client for 17 years, let alone before even these bans. For these countries, the immigration processes are already complicated. They go through extreme vettings and the pure examples that we have seen from all the cases that we work with is that most of these families are kids. So we don’t know how a five years old child of a US citizen can become a national security threat to the United States. It’s actually the opposite. And so there are a lot of things out there that are not completely true. These people go through extreme vetting. They wait for years to come to the United States to join the US citizen family members.
And so none of that is completely justified. In some cases we have to file a case in court in order to bring the family members of a US citizens. That’s not a policy to protect national security, that’s a policy that’s targeting families, separating kids from their parents. And it’s designed, like you said, targeting Muslims and people of color. And it’s crystal clear. Like I said, a quarter of the African population is targeted by this expansion. And so there is no justification other than what Trump himself said clearly, that it’s a complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the United States. And they just basically go in with that discriminatory policy. They’re not applying it to Norway, they’re not applying it to the UK, they’re not applying it anywhere else where a nonwhite nation. So it’s completely aimed at people, citing the national security nonsense, but we have seen it that is only targeting children, mainly children, and people who really want to come here either to study or for medical attention.
Kim Brown: It’s completely shameful. So what remedies are there available for people who are being targeted in this way? I was reading, there’s a lot of anecdotes, a lot of different personal narratives on Twitter, people describing how they or their families are being impacted. This one, sad story of a woman who wanted to travel back to Nigeria for a funeral of a family member, but she was afraid to because she wasn’t sure whether or not she would be readmitted back to the US. So are there legal remedies available for people who are caught up in this?
Diala Shamas: As I’m sure everybody knows, the Supreme Court upheld the third sanitized version of the travel ban or the Muslim ban that President Trump issued. And so, although there are still ongoing legal challenges, especially in light of the additional evidence of how this ban has played out on the ground in reality and as plaintiffs and as lawyers are able to bring that evidence to the courts to sort of make the case, again, that the ban is not about national security, but actually it’s about discriminating against Muslims. Those challenges are still ongoing and they’re playing out. But we know, especially since the Supreme Court issued its ruling, that the courts are not really going to be the solution here. The majority of the legal challenges right now are about whether or not the waiver process that is part of the proclamation and is also included by incorporation into the expanded ban, is sufficient, is actually operating the way it should be operated.
So the waiver process is essentially window dressing that the Trump administration has included into the ban to make it look like there is a way out for people who can make a claim that they don’t pose a threat to national security and that it would be in the United State’s interest to let them in. We know through our work with our clients as well as now very publicly available statistics and data is that waiver process has been nothing but a sham. So there are some legal challenges as to the adequacy of the process that are still unfolding in the courts. And right now that’s the only lifeline to these families and to these communities. Until Congress does something to reverse the ban or to repeal the ban, families can only seek a waiver and many have. So we’ve been able to obtain waivers for some individuals, but that’s with using a significant amount of resources and time and it certainly has not been sufficient or adequate solution.
The ban in and of itself should be overturned and we believe should be found unlawful. So the new countries that are on the ban are going to be people who are trying to come and join their families in the US, are going to have to similarly avail themselves of the waiver process. And that as a process, it’s still pretty murky. It’s shadowy intentionally still. It’s really not clear what you need to be able to present to meet a consular officer’s determination that you meet the criteria. And we’ve challenged that, but unfortunately it’s all that we are working with. So our position as an organization is that we’ll do what we can to support families and communities while they all deal in these moments of crises.
But ultimately the solution here is one that Congress needs to act on and the political process needs to act on. The ban needs to be overturned. It has no basis in national security. It has been extremely damaging. Our clients have been harmed by the ban and, across the country, communities and families have been suffering as a result of these kinds of draconian measures and it needs to be overturned.
Kim Brown: Ibraham, Diala raises a great point, that congressional intervention is probably needed here. But in your opinion, is it likely to come?
Ibraham Qatabi: first of all, let’s remember that we are dealing with Trump administration, which has no respect for the rule of law and diversity in this nation. They have been targeting black and brown people, which is crystal clear from the beginning of the term of the administration. What do we need right now, which is what our communities are doing, is to mobilize the communities to do some education about what this administration is doing to people and to their own US citizens. So it is not fair for a US citizen, for me, to file a case every time I want to bring a family member from abroad. What do we need to do right now is to repeal the Muslim ban, which I think is taking place right now as we speak and in Congress.
What we need to do is keep mobilizing like we see in the Yemeni-American community where we have seen with a bodega strike, like we have seen with the Muslim and the communities at large all across the United States. And we are in a very important year, the election year. This come November, people need to voice what they really believe in to make sure that we change this system. We change this administration in order to make sure that we put an administration in place that would respect the constitution, that respect the people’s rights and the immigration policies that we have in place. The first thing to do, I think many of the democratic presidential running folks are candidates at this point saying if they won, they will repeal the Muslim ban.
Kim Brown: All right guys, we’re going to have to leave it there. We’ve been speaking with Ibraham Qatabi and Diala Shamas, both of the Center for Constitutional Rights where Diala is a staff attorney and Ibraham is a senior legal worker. We’ve been discussing the expansion of the Trump Muslim, African ban. There’s no point in calling it a travel ban because it’s mainly aimed at Muslim countries and Africa. So thank you both for your vociferous comments today. We certainly appreciate you joining us.
Ibraham Qatabi: Thank you for having us.
Diala Shamas: Thank you.
Kim Brown: And thank you for watching the Real News Network.
Studio: Bababtunde Ogunfolaju, Will Arenas
Production: Genevieve Montinar, Will Arenas, Andrew Corkery
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.


therealnews--2020-02-11--The Case for Elizabeth Warren

The Case for Elizabeth Warren

JAISAL NOOR : I ’ m Jaisal Noor in Concord , New Hampshire just two days before the New Hampshire primary , the first primary contest of the year .
And I ’ m here with Nelini Stamp .
She ’ s the director of organizing for the Working Families Party .
Thanks so much for talking with us .
NELINI STAMP : Thank you so much for having me .
JAISAL NOOR : So the Working Families Party came out for Elizabeth Warren .
We ’ re at an Elizabeth Warren rally right now .
You can hear her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why the Working Families Party came out in support of Senator Warren .
NELINI STAMP : Yeah .
Well , we had a process where we interviewed any candidate that actually went through our process and submitted a questionnaire and our organization , which is made up of individuals , organizations , grassroots movements , voted to endorse Senator Warren in September .
And I think it ’ s because for the last decade and even plus , Senator Warren has been working with communities when she fought to pass the CFPB , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did that with outside and not being in the halls of Washington and did that with grassroots organizations , institutions , movements to take on the Republicans , to take on the Democratic establishment and the banks and win .
And so I think she has a vision that our members and our organization really believe in .
JAISAL NOOR : And so is the biggest issue for the Working Families Party defeating Donald Trump , and if so , why is Elizabeth Warren the best candidate do that ?
NELINI STAMP : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the big things for the Working Families Party is defeating Donald Trump .
We also need to make sure that we defeat the Senate .
We also want to make sure that we hold onto the House .
So we see it as a full picture , and we want to flip state legislators across the country ; and not just flip it with Democrats that don ’ t believe in our issues , but actually progressives that are going to fight for things like Fight For 15 , paid family leave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And we do actually believe that Senator Warren is a great person to beat Donald Trump for a few reasons .
One is that even though she ’ s been in Massachusetts for a while , she grew up in Oklahoma , she knows what it ’ s like to grow up working class and can also speak to people across the spectrum .
People see her vision of universal healthcare , universal childcare , breaking up big tech and they want that vision .
And we think we need somebody who has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Democrats and banks and special interests and winning .
And she does from winning the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau .
JAISAL NOOR : And as far as the primary goes , some people have said that Senator Warren doesn ’ t necessarily have the support in communities of color right now , according to some polls , that she would need to secure the primary .
And so she doesn ’ t necessarily have a path to victory .
What ’ s your response to that and what kind of work are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NELINI STAMP : Well , I think that it ’ s evident that still a majority of people of color , communities of color are still undecided in this election .
Because really every four years , people come knocking on our doors and expect us to show up .
And so it ’ s organizations like ours , a bunch of grassroots organizations that are out there that have been doing the work of engaging communities of color year round , all the time that they ’ re going to listen to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to talk to our base .
And I think that one of the things that I would say is that when you saw black women come out doing a process with over a hundred–now 300–black women who are standing with Senator Warren , and when you have all of these communities that are still undecided , I think it ’ s something that we really do need to talk about .
And what I see is , just this weekend or a few days ago , there was a Latino tour through Texas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And that ’ s the commitment that I want to see to our communities .
And I think that she ’ s actually doing the work to make that happen .
JAISAL NOOR : And as far as the issue of taking on big money in politics , taking on the power of big corporations , that has been a fight in the Democratic party for decades and Elizabeth Warren has been a big figure in that .
Do you think that she is the best , will be the best candidate to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and why ?
NELINI STAMP : Yeah .
I mean , I think that… Listen .
It ’ s really great that we have multiple progressives this stage in the race , right .
And I think that the reason why Elizabeth Warren is the best candidate to move that forward is because she has a history of winning .
But also , she actually knows each and every detail of how government works and how to get our issues passed , right .
She has backup plans for if we don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right .
She actually understands what it ’ s like working with Republicans and what it ’ s like working with Democrats , what it ’ s like working in the system that we have .
And I think that that ’ s part of her appeal is that we can actually unite under a vision .
And I think the other thing is that she addresses race , gender , and class in a way that I think no other candidate does .
And I think that can unite a bunch of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidate who ’ s out there who chose her biggest speeches to be Lowell , Massachusetts , where there was a working women ’ s strike years ago , Atlanta , the washer women ’ s strike .
She chose to talk about Francis Perkins and how Francis Perkins was actually the figure behind the new deal .
And I think that that ’ s really important because in telling those stories and talking about radical struggles , she ’ s actually leading us a pathway forward of who can actually lead these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she is a candidate that progressives can get behind .
JAISAL NOOR : Do you have faith that the progressive movement will be able to unite even after this primary because there are still going to be these fights that are ongoing within the party and outside of the party to bring real progressive change because it has gotten kind of ugly in the last few weeks .
NELINI STAMP : Yeah .
I mean , I think the progressives will unite .
I think we see the bigger picture as well .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ are fighting deportations .
We know that people are fighting living paycheck to paycheck .
And for folks who do grassroots organizing community work , grassroots work with rural communities , we ’ re going to put our communities front and center .
And there might be some tiffs , there might be some disagreements along the way , but I do actually fundamentally believe in the power of we and that we ’ ll come together and in a way to actually represent the people that we work for and that represent @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Nelini Stamp says Warren addresses race, gender, and class like no other candidate does.
Story Transcript
JAISAL NOOR: I’m Jaisal Noor in Concord, New Hampshire just two days before the New Hampshire primary, the first primary contest of the year.
And I’m here with Nelini Stamp. She’s the director of organizing for the Working Families Party. Thanks so much for talking with us.
NELINI STAMP: Thank you so much for having me.
JAISAL NOOR: So the Working Families Party came out for Elizabeth Warren. We’re at an Elizabeth Warren rally right now. You can hear her talking behind us. So talk about why the Working Families Party came out in support of Senator Warren.
NELINI STAMP: Yeah. Well, we had a process where we interviewed any candidate that actually went through our process and submitted a questionnaire and our organization, which is made up of individuals, organizations, grassroots movements, voted to endorse Senator Warren in September.
And I think it’s because for the last decade and even plus, Senator Warren has been working with communities when she fought to pass the CFPB, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. She did that with outside and not being in the halls of Washington and did that with grassroots organizations, institutions, movements to take on the Republicans, to take on the Democratic establishment and the banks and win. And so I think she has a vision that our members and our organization really believe in.
JAISAL NOOR: And so is the biggest issue for the Working Families Party defeating Donald Trump, and if so, why is Elizabeth Warren the best candidate do that?
NELINI STAMP: I think yes, part of one of the big things for the Working Families Party is defeating Donald Trump. We also need to make sure that we defeat the Senate. We also want to make sure that we hold onto the House. So we see it as a full picture, and we want to flip state legislators across the country; and not just flip it with Democrats that don’t believe in our issues, but actually progressives that are going to fight for things like Fight For 15, paid family leave, and all of our issues.
And we do actually believe that Senator Warren is a great person to beat Donald Trump for a few reasons. One is that even though she’s been in Massachusetts for a while, she grew up in Oklahoma, she knows what it’s like to grow up working class and can also speak to people across the spectrum. People see her vision of universal healthcare, universal childcare, breaking up big tech and they want that vision. And we think we need somebody who has the experience of going up against Republicans and Democrats and banks and special interests and winning. And she does from winning the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
JAISAL NOOR: And as far as the primary goes, some people have said that Senator Warren doesn’t necessarily have the support in communities of color right now, according to some polls, that she would need to secure the primary. And so she doesn’t necessarily have a path to victory. What’s your response to that and what kind of work are groups doing to build that support?
NELINI STAMP: Well, I think that it’s evident that still a majority of people of color, communities of color are still undecided in this election. Because really every four years, people come knocking on our doors and expect us to show up. And so it’s organizations like ours, a bunch of grassroots organizations that are out there that have been doing the work of engaging communities of color year round, all the time that they’re going to listen to. And so we’re hoping to talk to our base.
And I think that one of the things that I would say is that when you saw black women come out doing a process with over a hundred–now 300–black women who are standing with Senator Warren, and when you have all of these communities that are still undecided, I think it’s something that we really do need to talk about. And what I see is, just this weekend or a few days ago, there was a Latino tour through Texas, through the Rio Grande Valley. And that’s the commitment that I want to see to our communities. And I think that she’s actually doing the work to make that happen.
JAISAL NOOR: And as far as the issue of taking on big money in politics, taking on the power of big corporations, that has been a fight in the Democratic party for decades and Elizabeth Warren has been a big figure in that. Do you think that she is the best, will be the best candidate to sort of lead the progressive movement forward and why?
NELINI STAMP: Yeah. I mean, I think that… Listen. It’s really great that we have multiple progressives this stage in the race, right. And I think that the reason why Elizabeth Warren is the best candidate to move that forward is because she has a history of winning. But also, she actually knows each and every detail of how government works and how to get our issues passed, right. She has backup plans for if we don’t have a Senate that flips, right. She actually understands what it’s like working with Republicans and what it’s like working with Democrats, what it’s like working in the system that we have. And I think that that’s part of her appeal is that we can actually unite under a vision.
And I think the other thing is that she addresses race, gender, and class in a way that I think no other candidate does. And I think that can unite a bunch of progressives, right. You have a candidate who’s out there who chose her biggest speeches to be Lowell, Massachusetts, where there was a working women’s strike years ago, Atlanta, the washer women’s strike. She chose to talk about Francis Perkins and how Francis Perkins was actually the figure behind the new deal. And I think that that’s really important because in telling those stories and talking about radical struggles, she’s actually leading us a pathway forward of who can actually lead these movements. And I really believe that she is a candidate that progressives can get behind.
JAISAL NOOR: Do you have faith that the progressive movement will be able to unite even after this primary because there are still going to be these fights that are ongoing within the party and outside of the party to bring real progressive change because it has gotten kind of ugly in the last few weeks.
NELINI STAMP: Yeah. I mean, I think the progressives will unite. I think we see the bigger picture as well. We know that there are people who are fighting deportations. We know that people are fighting living paycheck to paycheck. And for folks who do grassroots organizing community work, grassroots work with rural communities, we’re going to put our communities front and center.
And there might be some tiffs, there might be some disagreements along the way, but I do actually fundamentally believe in the power of we and that we’ll come together and in a way to actually represent the people that we work for and that represent the people that we work with.
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.


therealnews--2020-02-14--Senate Passes Iran War Powers Resolution, Upsetting Trump

All donations in the US and Canada are tax deductible .
To make a secure donation by credit or debit @ @ @ @ @ location , or select PayPal .

In yet another rebuke to Trump, the Senate passed a binding resolution to prevent Trump from going to war with Iran. Even though Trump will veto it, after it passes the House, it shows growing disagreement with his foreign policy
Story Transcript
TODD YOUNG: The yeas are 55. The nays are 45. The joint resolution as amended is passed.
GREG WILPERT: It’s The Real News Network. I’m Greg Wilpert in Arlington, Virginia.
What we just saw was the U.S. Senate voting in a 55 to 45 vote to pass a binding resolution on Thursday, which invokes the War Powers Act and Article I of the U.S. Constitution. The resolution tells President Trump that he cannot engage in military action against Iran without congressional authorization. Eight Republicans joined all 45 Democrats and two Independents in voting for the resolution.
The day before the vote, on Wednesday, President Trump sent out a tweet stating, “It is very important for our country’s security that the United States Senate not to vote for the Iran War Powers Resolution. We are doing very well with Iran, and this is not the time to show weakness. Americans overwhelmingly support our attack on terrorist Soleimani. If my hands were tied, Iran would have a field day. It sends a very bad signal. The Democrats are only doing this as an attempt to embarrass the Republican Party. Do not let it happen.”
Tim Kaine, Democratic Senator of Virginia, who sponsored the resolution, responded to Trump as follows:
TIM KAINE: If we decide to go to war, we should do it based on careful deliberation. Some view this as an effort to tie President Trump’s hands. It’s not really about President Trump. It’s really not even about the president. It’s about Congress. It’s about Congress fully inhabiting our Article I role to declare war and taking that deliberation seriously. Some thought, “Well, maybe this will send a bad message to adversaries around the world.” We don’t send a message of weakness when we stand up for the rule of law in a world that hungers for more rule of law.
GREG WILPERT: The resolution now goes to the House of Representatives where it is expected to pass easily since Democrats have a majority of votes there. It would then go to Trump, who in all likelihood will veto the resolution. House Democrats already passed a similar but nonbinding resolution last month, which the Senate never took up.
Joining me to discuss the Senate’s resolution of Senate Joint Resolution 68 is Hassan El-Tayyab. He is the lead lobbyist with the Friends Committee on National Legislation on Middle East policy. Thanks again, Hassan, for joining us.
HASSAN EL-TAYYAB: Thanks so much, Greg. Appreciate it.
GREG WILPERT: How significant is the passage of this resolution that invokes the War Powers Act? I mean after all, once it passes the house, Trump will veto it, and it is very doubtful that Congress can override the veto since two thirds of both the House and the Senate are needed to vote for the override. So why is it so important that this bill passed?
HASSAN EL-TAYYAB: Well, yeah. I think it’s a tremendous victory in the peace movement and we should really applaud Senator Kaine, all the Democrats that voted for it, and eight Republicans that joined as well. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution is absolutely clear. Only Congress can declare war, not the president. This was specifically designed by our Framers to make it harder to go to war, and to make sure that the people through their elected representatives had a say in these really critical decisions of whether or not we should go to war or not. It’s also designed to prevent endless wars.
Again, this is the largest bipartisan coalition we’ve ever seen in U.S. history for a war powers resolution. And for them to unequivocally say, “No, the president does not have the authority to go war,” is absolutely significant. I think it sends the right message to the Trump administration and will make sure that he knows that Congress and the American people want restraint with regards to Iran.
I think it’s the right message to send to Iran as well; to show that America, we respect the rule of law as Senator Kaine says, and also to prevent any risk of miscalculation. If the Iranians know that there is a growing movement in the U.S. that’s calling for restraint, it’ll prevent I think miscalculations and accidents from happening, which could spark a larger escalation.
GREG WILPERT: Actually, my next question has to do with what you just said. Trump argues in his tweet that the bill makes the U.S. less safe because now the president’s hands are tied. Can you say a little bit more about what’s your response to that argument?
HASSAN EL-TAYYAB: Well, I think that argument is pretty ridiculous. If you’ve read the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973, and even if you read S.J. Res. 68, the bill that Senator Kaine just passed through the Senate, it basically says this would prevent offensive war against Iran, prevent further assassination attempts, and does nothing to hinder the ability of the commander-in-chief to basically defend the U.S. or its armed forces in case of an attack. So I think that argument by anyone that’s making it, it’s just not really done in good faith, or done out of ignorance because that’s just not how the bill is written.
GREG WILPERT: Now, what this resolution does is basically it invokes both the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which was passed in the wake of the Vietnam War, and Article I of the Constitution, which both state that Congress has the sole power to declare war. Now, if this authority is so clear, why is it even necessary for a resolution to be passed on Iran? Couldn’t Congress simply take the president to court?
HASSAN EL-TAYYAB: Yeah, you ask the million-dollar question. Unfortunately, we’ve had decades of abdication of this critical Article I, Section 8 war authority by Congress. Year after year, the presidents going all the way back to Truman with the Korean War, the Vietnam War, bombing Cambodia, covert action around Latin America, we’ve seen Congress basically just give the presidents a pass. But right now we’re seeing Congress start to claw back that war authority with the passage of the Yemen War Powers Resolution, trying to repeal the 2002 Iraq AUMF that we used to go after Saddam Hussein, and now the Iran War Powers Resolution that just passed.
I think that’s part of a longer-term process of Congress clawing back this war authority, and yes, going to the Supreme Court would be another escalation that Congress could certainly do and probably should do because, again, like you said you should not need a supermajority to prevent the president from launching an unauthorized war.
That’s what we’re seeing now. We’re seeing the early stages of this critical separation of powers battle that’s going on between the White House and the legislature, and I hope it continues. The sheer fact that we had eight Republicans join this chorus of voices calling for no war on Iran, I think is also significant. As much as we can make this a bipartisan issue, one that’s depoliticized … We’re not talking about Trump. This should be the case no matter who the administration is, if it’s a Democrat, or a Republican in the White House, and even an Independent, we just want to make sure that we have that constitutional process that’s adhered to.
GREG WILPERT: Now, many Democrats have been rather lukewarm about condemning Trump’s actions against Iran so far, such as basically the killing of Soleimani. What do you think Democrats ought to be pushing for as a foreign policy towards Iran?
HASSAN EL-TAYYAB: Well, I think we need to return to the JCPOA, or aka the Iran nuclear deal, and we need to find a pathway for diplomacy. Escalation of threats, drone strikes, war planning, hostile rhetoric, that makes the U.S. less safe, and makes the Middle East less stable. That is not good for anybody. A war with Iran would be absolutely catastrophic for human lives, U.S. troops that would be killed in the result of a massive confrontation with Iran. Obviously, it hurts the health of our planet. So we need to find a pathway for diplomacy, hands down.
One, I will say the maximum pressure and sanctions that the Trump Administration has put in place after pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal has been a maximum failure. I mean, we’ve seen a more destabilized the Middle East. We’ve seen the U.S. diplomats being pulled out of Iraq. That is not a safer Middle East, a safer U.S. Again, like I said, diplomacy with the help of the international community is the best way going forward, and maximum pressure sanctions that punish the Iranian people preventing people that may even be sympathetic to not liking the actions of the regime, we’re preventing them from getting cancer meds, I see in no way does that help us.
GREG WILPERT: Now finally, with a vote coming up in the House, first of all, when is the vote going to happen do you think, and what can people do who support this resolution?
HASSAN EL-TAYYAB: Yeah, great question. It’s a little unclear right now when that vote will be. The House is on recess, and they’re not coming back until the week of the 24th. I’ve heard that it could be as early as February 28th that we would have that vote. Folks should just be calling their representatives right now and urging that they vote yes on Senator Kaine’s Iran War Powers Resolution to prevent an unauthorized war against Iran.
This is especially important if you have a Republican representative. We want to make sure we have a large coalition of Republicans that are calling for restraint, calling for the authorization for use of military force. Also, make sure that they come out and do a floor statement. There’s a lot more they can do besides just vote for the resolution. They should be calling for diplomacy, restraint, a reassertion of constitutional war authority, and a return the Iran nuclear deal.
GREG WILPERT: As usual, we’re going to continue to follow this story, but we leave it here for now. I was speaking to Hassan El-Tayyab, lead lobbyist of the Friends Committee on National Legislation on Middle East policy. Thanks again, Hassan, for having joined us today.
HASSAN EL-TAYYAB: Yeah. Thank you so much, Greg.
GREG WILPERT: Thank you for joining The Real News Network.
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.


therealnews--2020-02-14--Coronavirus: Is the Climate Plague Here?

Close window X
We encourage republication of our original content. Please copy the HTML code in the textbox below, preserving the attribution and link to the article's original location, and only make minor cosmetic edits to the content on your site.


therealnews--2020-02-14--First Amendment Activist Hospitalized After Brutal Arrest

An activist known as Blind Justice was arrested after trying to film a state facility to check compliance with the @ @ @ @ @ The encounter illustrates the risks citizens are willing to take to hold the government accountable @

Host & Producer
Stephen Janis is an award winning investigative reporter turned documentary filmmaker. His first feature film, The Friendliest Town was distributed by Gravitas Ventures and won an award of distinction from The Impact Doc Film Festival, and a humanitarian award from The Indie Film Fest. He is the co-host and creator of The Police Accountability Report on The Real News Network, which has received more than 10,000,000 views on YouTube. His work as a reporter has been featured on a variety of national shows including the Netflix reboot of Unsolved Mysteries, Dead of Night on Investigation Discovery Channel, Relentless on NBC, and Sins of the City on TV One.
He has co-authored several books on policing, corruption, and the root causes of violence including Why Do We Kill: The Pathology of Murder in Baltimore and You Can’t Stop Murder: Truths about Policing in Baltimore and Beyond. He is also the co-host of the true crime podcast Land of the Unsolved. Prior to joining The Real News, Janis won three Capital Emmys for investigative series working as an investigative producer for WBFF. Follow him on Twitter.