vox--2020-12-10--The Supreme Court hands down a loss for rogue law enforcement officers — and a win for the religious

The Supreme Court hands down a loss for rogue law enforcement officers — and a win for the religious right

Let ’ s get one thing out of the way first : The Supreme Court ’ s 8-0 decision in Tanzin v. Tanvir on Thursday is almost certainly correct as a matter of law .
Justice Clarence Thomas ’ s majority opinion was unanimous ( Justice Amy Coney Barrett , who joined the Court too late to hear this case , did not participate ) , and it relies on a fairly straightforward reading of a federal religious liberty law .
Tanzin holds that federal officials may be personally liable if they violate an individual ’ s religious rights — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ liberty plaintiffs with genuinely heartbreaking claims against government officials , including the plaintiffs in this case .
But it also potentially hands a new weapon to conservative culture warriors who seek broad exemptions from federal law .
The facts underlying Tanzin are enraging .
The plaintiffs are Muslims who claim that FBI agencies placed them on the no-fly list in retaliation for the plaintiffs ’ refusal to act as informants against other members of their Muslim communities .
One of these plaintiffs , Muhammad Tanvir , alleged that he was unable to see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he had to quit his job as a long-haul trucker because he could no longer fly home after a one-way delivery .
The Court ’ s decision in Tanzin means that these Muslim plaintiffs will be allowed to seek money damages from the FBI agents who allegedly violated their religious rights — although it is possible that the agents will escape liability because of a doctrine known as “ qualified immunity.
” As the Supreme Court held in Harlow v. Fitzgerald ( 1982 ) , the qualified immunity doctrine provides that “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.
” Yet , while providing money damages to the Tanzin plaintiffs could help cure a terrible injustice , there ’ s a broader context to be mindful of beyond the details of this particular case .
In recent years , the Court ’ s conservative majority has also appeared very eager to expand the rights of religious conservatives to sue government officials , and some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggest that such officials violate the law if they commit fairly minor slights against certain people of faith .
In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission ( 2018 ) , for example , the Court scolded a state civil rights commissioner who made the objectively true statement that “ freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history.
” So one implication of Tanzin is that religious conservatives may now be able to seek money damages from federal officials for violations that , until recently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entirely benign .
The policy implications of Tanzin , in other words , are likely to spark ambivalence among liberals and conservatives alike .
Outside of the religious liberty context , conservative judges have generally been hostile to efforts to make law enforcement officers personally liable for their illegal actions .
Liberals , meanwhile , will undoubtedly have sympathy for the Tanzin plaintiffs .
But the Court ’ s decision is also likely to empower religious conservatives who seek exemptions from anti-discrimination laws and other policies favored by liberals .
Tanzin only applies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ indicate that state officials can also be liable for “ religious liberty ” violations It ’ s worth noting that the rule announced in Tanzin applies only to federal officials .
The case arises under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ( RFRA ) , which allows someone whose religious faith has been unlawfully burdened to “ obtain appropriate relief against a government.
” Yet , as Justice Thomas ’ s opinion explains , the word “ government ” is defined broadly and somewhat counterintuitively to include “ a branch , department , agency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other person acting under color of law ) of the United States.
” Thus , as Thomas writes , the term “ ‘ government ’ ... extends beyond the term ’ s plain meaning to include officials.
” So individual officials can be sued directly , and may potentially be personally liable .
The Supreme Court held in City of Boerne v. Flores ( 1997 ) that RFRA applies solely to the federal government — states and state officials are not bound by RFRA — and the law ’ s explicit text applies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States.
” So Tanzin ’ s holding does not directly apply to state officials .
That said , Thomas ’ s opinion spends considerable time discussing the statutory framework that allows civil rights plaintiffs to sue state officials who violate the Constitution — a framework that does permit money damages against those officials .
And the Supreme Court ’ s conservative majority reads the Constitution ’ s provision protecting the “ free exercise ” of religion quite expansively .
So it is likely that federal and state officials will ultimately risk personal liability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ever-expanding definition of what constitutes a religious liberty violation .
The good news is that FBI agents and other law enforcement officers are likely to think twice before committing violations similar to the ones alleged by the Tanzin plaintiffs .
But government officials may become more cautious about enforcing civil rights and other laws against religious objectors — because those officials could potentially pay a personal price if they do so .

Let’s get one thing out of the way first: The Supreme Court’s 8-0 decision in Tanzin v. Tanvir on Thursday is almost certainly correct as a matter of law. Justice Clarence Thomas’s majority opinion was unanimous (Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who joined the Court too late to hear this case, did not participate), and it relies on a fairly straightforward reading of a federal religious liberty law.
Tanzin holds that federal officials may be personally liable if they violate an individual’s religious rights — a ruling that could benefit many religious liberty plaintiffs with genuinely heartbreaking claims against government officials, including the plaintiffs in this case. But it also potentially hands a new weapon to conservative culture warriors who seek broad exemptions from federal law.
The facts underlying Tanzin are enraging. The plaintiffs are Muslims who claim that FBI agencies placed them on the no-fly list in retaliation for the plaintiffs’ refusal to act as informants against other members of their Muslim communities. One of these plaintiffs, Muhammad Tanvir, alleged that he was unable to see his ailing mother in Pakistan, and that he had to quit his job as a long-haul trucker because he could no longer fly home after a one-way delivery.
The Court’s decision in Tanzin means that these Muslim plaintiffs will be allowed to seek money damages from the FBI agents who allegedly violated their religious rights — although it is possible that the agents will escape liability because of a doctrine known as “qualified immunity.”
As the Supreme Court held in Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982), the qualified immunity doctrine provides that “government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”
Yet, while providing money damages to the Tanzin plaintiffs could help cure a terrible injustice, there’s a broader context to be mindful of beyond the details of this particular case.
In recent years, the Court’s conservative majority has also appeared very eager to expand the rights of religious conservatives to sue government officials, and some of the Court’s recent decisions suggest that such officials violate the law if they commit fairly minor slights against certain people of faith.
In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018), for example, the Court scolded a state civil rights commissioner who made the objectively true statement that “freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history.”
So one implication of Tanzin is that religious conservatives may now be able to seek money damages from federal officials for violations that, until recently, the courts would have viewed as entirely benign.
The policy implications of Tanzin, in other words, are likely to spark ambivalence among liberals and conservatives alike. Outside of the religious liberty context, conservative judges have generally been hostile to efforts to make law enforcement officers personally liable for their illegal actions. Liberals, meanwhile, will undoubtedly have sympathy for the Tanzin plaintiffs. But the Court’s decision is also likely to empower religious conservatives who seek exemptions from anti-discrimination laws and other policies favored by liberals.
Tanzin only applies to federal officials, but other laws indicate that state officials can also be liable for “religious liberty” violations
It’s worth noting that the rule announced in Tanzin applies only to federal officials. The case arises under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which allows someone whose religious faith has been unlawfully burdened to “obtain appropriate relief against a government.”
Yet, as Justice Thomas’s opinion explains, the word “government” is defined broadly and somewhat counterintuitively to include “a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, and official (or other person acting under color of law) of the United States.” Thus, as Thomas writes, the term “‘government’ ... extends beyond the term’s plain meaning to include officials.” So individual officials can be sued directly, and may potentially be personally liable.
The Supreme Court held in City of Boerne v. Flores (1997) that RFRA applies solely to the federal government — states and state officials are not bound by RFRA — and the law’s explicit text applies only to officials “of the United States.” So Tanzin’s holding does not directly apply to state officials.
That said, Thomas’s opinion spends considerable time discussing the statutory framework that allows civil rights plaintiffs to sue state officials who violate the Constitution — a framework that does permit money damages against those officials. And the Supreme Court’s conservative majority reads the Constitution’s provision protecting the “free exercise” of religion quite expansively.
So it is likely that federal and state officials will ultimately risk personal liability if they violate the Court’s ever-expanding definition of what constitutes a religious liberty violation.
The good news is that FBI agents and other law enforcement officers are likely to think twice before committing violations similar to the ones alleged by the Tanzin plaintiffs. But government officials may become more cautious about enforcing civil rights and other laws against religious objectors — because those officials could potentially pay a personal price if they do so.


vox--2020-12-10--Joe Biden’s Justice Department will inherit an investigation into Hunter Biden

President-elect Joe Biden ’ s son Hunter is under investigation by the Justice Department , Hunter confirmed in a statement issued by the Biden transition Wednesday .
“ I learned yesterday for the first time that the U.S. Attorney ’ s Office in Delaware advised my legal counsel , also yesterday , that they are investigating my tax affairs , ” the statement reads .
“ I take this matter very seriously but I am confident that a professional and objective review of these matters will demonstrate that I handled my affairs legally and appropriately , including with the benefit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ announcement , several news outlets , including CNN , Fox News , Politico , and the New York Times , provided more details on the probe , citing anonymous sources “ with knowledge of ” or “ familiar with ” the inquiry .
The investigation was reportedly opened in late 2018 , before Bill Barr became attorney general .
It has focused on Hunter ’ s business dealings in China and began as a money laundering probe , but is now focusing on potential violations of tax law .
The investigation was kept @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election , and Hunter was indeed only told of it Tuesday .
And Joe Biden “ is not implicated , ” per CNN .
President Trump has long seized on Hunter ’ s work for foreign interests to try to argue that Joe Biden was corrupt .
Trump ’ s 2019 effort to pressure Ukraine ’ s president into announcing an investigation of the Bidens eventually led to his impeachment .
More recently , in October , Trump allies leaked emails , texts , and images — purportedly from a hard drive owned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Hunter — to media outlets , in an effort to swing the election in Trump ’ s favor .
With news of the investigation , some of these Trump allies have claimed vindication .
But the main argument they and Trump made at the time was that Joe Biden was corruptly involved in Hunter ’ s dealings — and that has not been shown to be true .
The inquiry is “ focused on Hunter Biden and some of his associates , not the president-elect or other family members , ” the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ questions for both the outgoing Trump administration and the incoming Biden administration .
One question is whether Trump himself knew of the investigation or improperly influenced it in any way , or whether it ’ s a legitimate probe that ’ s proceeded without political interference .
The second question is how Biden ’ s Justice Department will handle an investigation of the new president ’ s son — and whether , if there really are violations of the law here , Biden appointees will vigorously pursue them .
The investigation reportedly focuses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ business interests Hunter Biden ’ s questionable ethical choices have been the subject of media scrutiny on and off for over 20 years , but particularly after his father became vice president and Hunter started doing highly lucrative work with foreign companies or businesspeople , while also dealing with drug and alcohol addiction .
( The New Yorker ’ s Adam Entous wrote an excellent profile of Hunter summing up these issues last year . )
In particular , Hunter ’ s 2017 and 2018 work with the Chinese energy tycoon Ye Jianming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scrutiny from investigators , CNN reports .
Entities tied to Ye ended up sending nearly $ 5 million to an account held by Hunter , according to a Senate committee report .
This took place as Hunter tried to negotiate a gas deal for the company in Louisiana .
There are some red flags around this company .
One of Ye ’ s associates , Patrick Ho , was indicted in the US in 2017 and then convicted for violating bribery and money laundering laws .
Ye Jianming himself was then detained by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ye at one point gave Hunter a large diamond that Hunter claimed to have given away , and CNN reports that investigators have “ examined ” what happened to it . )
According to the New York Times ’ s Adam Goldman , Katie Benner , and Kenneth Vogel , the investigation into Hunter originally focused on whether he had violated laws prohibiting money laundering — but “ that aspect of the case failed to gain traction after F.B.I .
agents were unable to gather enough evidence for a prosecution , ” per @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it appears , the question of whether Hunter properly paid taxes on this money that was coming in .
( He claimed in his statement that he acted “ legally and appropriately , including with the benefit of professional tax advisors.
” ) The investigation has at least surface similarities to the probe of Trump ’ s former campaign chair Paul Manafort , who had similarly made large amounts of money from questionable foreign sources and freely spent it in the US .
Special counsel Robert Mueller eventually convicted Manafort of a series @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from foreign accounts to buy expensive clothes and other items without paying taxes on it , and he failed to disclose his foreign accounts on his tax returns ) as well as other crimes .
Both Trump ’ s Justice Department and Biden ’ s Justice Department will face questions about how they handled this probe Given Trump ’ s obsession with Hunter Biden and his long-evident willingness to try to interfere with Justice Department investigations , there will naturally be questions about whether this investigation is on the level .
There are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Times reports that the US attorney ’ s investigation began in “ late 2018 , ” before Bill Barr became attorney general .
That is around the same time Rudy Giuliani began working to try to dig up dirt about Hunter Biden in Ukraine , but there ’ s no evidence the US attorney ’ s investigation was connected to that effort .
And the US attorney himself , David Weiss , wasn ’ t brought in by Trump for a hit job — he ’ d worked in the office during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Justice Department did appropriately manage to keep quiet about this during the 2020 campaign — well , mostly .
An anonymous Justice Department official did tell the conservative outlet Sinclair Broadcast Group , shortly before the election , that Hunter was actively under investigation .
( No mainstream outlet confirmed this report , and the department said nothing publicly . )
Also , FBI officials speedily interviewed one of Hunter ’ s business associates who went public with claims of corruption , rather than waiting until after the election to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ close to then-FBI Director James Comey ’ s 2016 announcements and proclamations regarding the Clinton email investigation .
But soon it will be Joe Biden who gets to staff the top layers of the Justice Department , so his team will also have some questions to weigh here .
Biden himself has pledged not to interfere with criminal investigations at the Justice Department , but he will have some decisions to make .
For instance , it ’ s customary for a new president to ask all US attorneys to resign .
Will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attorney for Delaware , who is overseeing the Hunter probe ?
If not , who will he choose to replace Weiss ?
And what will Biden ’ s other top Justice Department nominees say during their confirmation hearings about how they ’ ll handle the thorny question of investigating the president ’ s son ?
“ President-elect Biden is deeply proud of his son , who has fought through difficult challenges , including the vicious personal attacks of recent months , only to emerge stronger , ” the transition team said in Wednesday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Hunter ’ s challenges will continue to loom over his father ’ s presidency .

President-elect Joe Biden’s son Hunter is under investigation by the Justice Department, Hunter confirmed in a statement issued by the Biden transition Wednesday.
“I learned yesterday for the first time that the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Delaware advised my legal counsel, also yesterday, that they are investigating my tax affairs,” the statement reads. “I take this matter very seriously but I am confident that a professional and objective review of these matters will demonstrate that I handled my affairs legally and appropriately, including with the benefit of professional tax advisors.”
After this announcement, several news outlets, including CNN, Fox News, Politico, and the New York Times, provided more details on the probe, citing anonymous sources “with knowledge of” or “familiar with” the inquiry.
The investigation was reportedly opened in late 2018, before Bill Barr became attorney general. It has focused on Hunter’s business dealings in China and began as a money laundering probe, but is now focusing on potential violations of tax law. The investigation was kept “covert” to avoid influencing the election, and Hunter was indeed only told of it Tuesday. And Joe Biden “is not implicated,” per CNN.
President Trump has long seized on Hunter’s work for foreign interests to try to argue that Joe Biden was corrupt. Trump’s 2019 effort to pressure Ukraine’s president into announcing an investigation of the Bidens eventually led to his impeachment. More recently, in October, Trump allies leaked emails, texts, and images — purportedly from a hard drive owned by Hunter, or provided by associates of Hunter — to media outlets, in an effort to swing the election in Trump’s favor.
With news of the investigation, some of these Trump allies have claimed vindication. But the main argument they and Trump made at the time was that Joe Biden was corruptly involved in Hunter’s dealings — and that has not been shown to be true. The inquiry is “focused on Hunter Biden and some of his associates, not the president-elect or other family members,” the Times reports.
But the news raises questions for both the outgoing Trump administration and the incoming Biden administration. One question is whether Trump himself knew of the investigation or improperly influenced it in any way, or whether it’s a legitimate probe that’s proceeded without political interference. The second question is how Biden’s Justice Department will handle an investigation of the new president’s son — and whether, if there really are violations of the law here, Biden appointees will vigorously pursue them.
The investigation reportedly focuses on money Hunter Biden made from Chinese business interests
Hunter Biden’s questionable ethical choices have been the subject of media scrutiny on and off for over 20 years, but particularly after his father became vice president and Hunter started doing highly lucrative work with foreign companies or businesspeople, while also dealing with drug and alcohol addiction. (The New Yorker’s Adam Entous wrote an excellent profile of Hunter summing up these issues last year.)
In particular, Hunter’s 2017 and 2018 work with the Chinese energy tycoon Ye Jianming and his company CEFC Energy has drawn scrutiny from investigators, CNN reports. Entities tied to Ye ended up sending nearly $5 million to an account held by Hunter, according to a Senate committee report. This took place as Hunter tried to negotiate a gas deal for the company in Louisiana.
There are some red flags around this company. One of Ye’s associates, Patrick Ho, was indicted in the US in 2017 and then convicted for violating bribery and money laundering laws. Ye Jianming himself was then detained by Chinese authorities in early 2018. (Ye at one point gave Hunter a large diamond that Hunter claimed to have given away, and CNN reports that investigators have “examined” what happened to it.)
According to the New York Times’s Adam Goldman, Katie Benner, and Kenneth Vogel, the investigation into Hunter originally focused on whether he had violated laws prohibiting money laundering — but “that aspect of the case failed to gain traction after F.B.I. agents were unable to gather enough evidence for a prosecution,” per their sources.
Which has left, it appears, the question of whether Hunter properly paid taxes on this money that was coming in. (He claimed in his statement that he acted “legally and appropriately, including with the benefit of professional tax advisors.”)
The investigation has at least surface similarities to the probe of Trump’s former campaign chair Paul Manafort, who had similarly made large amounts of money from questionable foreign sources and freely spent it in the US. Special counsel Robert Mueller eventually convicted Manafort of a series of tax crimes (Manafort wired money from foreign accounts to buy expensive clothes and other items without paying taxes on it, and he failed to disclose his foreign accounts on his tax returns) as well as other crimes.
Both Trump’s Justice Department and Biden’s Justice Department will face questions about how they handled this probe
Given Trump’s obsession with Hunter Biden and his long-evident willingness to try to interfere with Justice Department investigations, there will naturally be questions about whether this investigation is on the level.
There are some encouraging signs on that front. The Times reports that the US attorney’s investigation began in “late 2018,” before Bill Barr became attorney general. That is around the same time Rudy Giuliani began working to try to dig up dirt about Hunter Biden in Ukraine, but there’s no evidence the US attorney’s investigation was connected to that effort. And the US attorney himself, David Weiss, wasn’t brought in by Trump for a hit job — he’d worked in the office during the Obama administration as well.
Additionally, the Justice Department did appropriately manage to keep quiet about this during the 2020 campaign — well, mostly.
An anonymous Justice Department official did tell the conservative outlet Sinclair Broadcast Group, shortly before the election, that Hunter was actively under investigation. (No mainstream outlet confirmed this report, and the department said nothing publicly.) Also, FBI officials speedily interviewed one of Hunter’s business associates who went public with claims of corruption, rather than waiting until after the election to do so. But there was nothing anywhere close to then-FBI Director James Comey’s 2016 announcements and proclamations regarding the Clinton email investigation.
But soon it will be Joe Biden who gets to staff the top layers of the Justice Department, so his team will also have some questions to weigh here. Biden himself has pledged not to interfere with criminal investigations at the Justice Department, but he will have some decisions to make.
For instance, it’s customary for a new president to ask all US attorneys to resign. Will Biden make an exception for the US attorney for Delaware, who is overseeing the Hunter probe? If not, who will he choose to replace Weiss?
And what will Biden’s other top Justice Department nominees say during their confirmation hearings about how they’ll handle the thorny question of investigating the president’s son?
“President-elect Biden is deeply proud of his son, who has fought through difficult challenges, including the vicious personal attacks of recent months, only to emerge stronger,” the transition team said in Wednesday’s statement. But it seems that Hunter’s challenges will continue to loom over his father’s presidency.


vox--2020-12-10--France’s mass protests against a controversial police security bill, explained

Protests against a police security bill and the arrest of an unarmed Black man have rocked France for three consecutive weekends — with the past two Saturdays turning particularly violent .
The rallies , which started on November 21 , have been fueled by public outcry against police brutality and a new draft law that would make it a crime to publish photos or videos of on-duty police officers “ with the aim of harming their physical or psychological integrity.
” If convicted , violators of the law could face fines of more than $ 50,000 and up to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Macron ’ s government has argued the measure is needed to protect police officers and their families from online abuse that could end in violence .
But critics say it will curb both civil liberties and police accountability .
France has experienced a series of high-profile incidents in recent months of police using heavy-handed tactics , mostly against people of color .
Security camera footage showing white police officers beating 41-year-old Black music producer Michel Zecler , a French man of Malian descent who is well known in the French rap scene , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ went viral on social media .
The graphic video contradicted the story the officers involved had initially provided to justify their actions : that Zecler had resisted arrest and acted violently toward them .
The incident further inflamed the protests , with many arguing the proposed security law would potentially have made sharing such a video illegal .
But without the video , Zecler told the New York Times , he ’ d likely be in prison right now .
In response to the video and the backlash , Macron ’ s government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ completely rewrite Article 24 , the specific part of the broader security bill that would have restricted the sharing of videos and photos of police .
But demonstrators weren ’ t appeased .
This past weekend , tens of thousands of people across France took to the streets in protests that in some cases turned violent .
At least 60 people were arrested and several police officers were injured , according to France ’ s interior minister .
And the protests are expected to continue .
The government says the proposed law is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it will stifle free speech .
Article 24 is a provision of the Global Security Law , which Macron presented to the National Assembly ( the lower house of the French Parliament ) on November 17 .
Macron ’ s government says the measure was intended to protect police officers and their families from harassment and threats , and has insisted press freedoms will not be compromised by it .
“ Article 24 aims to ban their exposure and their harassment on social networks , by malicious and dangerous individuals .
No worries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do their job , ” Jean-Michel Fauvergue , a key sponsor of the bill , told Parliament in defense of the measure .
Fauvergue is the former head of the police anti-terrorism unit .
Some experts agree that there is reason for the new security law .
“ The government is trying to answer a very legitimate concern over the rise of crime and violence against police officers , ” Benjamin Haddad , the director of the Future Europe Initiative at the Atlantic Council think tank in Washington , DC , told me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ several attacks against police in France .
Some 40 people tried to rush a police station in the suburbs of Paris on the night of October 10 , wielding metal bars and shooting off fireworks .
Back in 2016 , a police commander and his wife were stabbed to death by a man who had been previously convicted of terrorism and who claimed to be connected to ISIS .
After stabbing the officer outside of his home , the attacker entered the residence and killed his wife .
The couple ’ s 3-year-old @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stormed the home , killing the assailant .
However , some see the proposed law as part of an attempt by Macron to appeal to more right-wing voters in the 2022 election .
Haddad , though , isn ’ t convinced by that argument .
“ The truth is [ these ] concerns go way beyond the right and far right .
If you look at polling , Macron won overwhelmingly in 2017 against the far right and Marine Le Pen , ” referring to France ’ s last presidential election .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right is such a looming threat .
I think there ’ s just a concern over some of these issues that are shared by a lot of French citizens , ” Haddad added .
Bloomberg reported that 58 percent of the French public supported the law .
But critics are skeptical that Article 24 is necessary .
“ It doesn ’ t seem to me to be the case where police officers need more protection than everyone else , ” Emma Pearson , the Paris-based editor of the Local France news site , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Twitter is already illegal in France .
And on December 9 , a draft bill targeting hate campaigns and making threats on social media was presented to Parliament .
The far-reaching scope of Article 24 explains why anger toward the proposed law is so widespread in the country .
Journalists , civil liberties groups , social justice advocates , and victims of police brutality are all fundamentally opposed to the measure .
“ It constitutes a serious infringement of freedom of expression .
There will be great reluctance [ for the public and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to film , ” Thomas Hochmann , professor of public law at the University of Paris Nanterre , told Al Jazeera November 20 .
There ’ s also a logistical and legal problem , noted Jeremie Gauthier , an expert on policing in France and Germany at the University of Strasbourg : “ How could a police officer working during a demonstration prove that someone , a journalist or a citizen , is filming the police to harm the officer ’ s physical or psychological well-being ?
” Haddad , who previously served @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Macron ’ s political movement , En Marche , and who supports the government ’ s intention behind presenting the measure , agreed that proving intent to harm during filming would be a concern .
“ The problem they ’ re trying to address is a real one .
It ’ s fraught .
It ’ s decisive .
So , you need to be super careful in how you address this problem , ” he told me .
The problem is that the French government wasn ’ t super careful , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intent and purpose wasn ’ t entirely clear .
Mass demonstrations were the result .
To placate the public and members of Macron ’ s own party , the French government is now rewriting the police-filming law to make its intentions clearer .
No one knows how long the revisions will take or when the changes will be made public .
So the protests are likely to continue .
And now , the police are launching their own protests — against Macron ’ s attempts to address the systemic issues of police violence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 4 interview with Brut , a French outlet known for reaching younger audiences , Macron acknowledged the truth that many Arab and Black people across France and several human rights groups have raised about racial profiling by French police , particularly when conducting ID checks in poorer neighborhoods with large immigrant populations .
“ Today , when you have a skin color that is not white , you are much more likely to be stopped , ” Macron said .
“ You are identified as a problem factor and this is unsustainable.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s comments .
“ No !
The police aren ’ t racist and they do not choose who is a delinquent , ” the Alliance Police Union tweeted that same day .
The police in France have always been powerful , the University of Strasbourg ’ s Gauthier told me .
French law enforcement is centralized , unlike in the United States , which means police unions are influential players in the government .
They gained even more influence after law enforcement helped quash 2018 ’ s nationwide “ yellow vests ” protests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gain more and more cachet with Macron with each unruly rally they help rein in across the country .
Critics , though , say French police have abused that power .
And they ’ ve consistently balked at attempts to reform their institution .
For instance , in June , following the Interior Ministry ’ s announcement of a government ban on the police use of chokeholds amid protests accusing police of racism and use of excessive force against minorities , police officers in cities across France staged protests in which they threw @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the government .
And just this week , in response to a plan Macron put forward to address police violence and racism , two of France ’ s largest police unions called on its members to stop performing ID checks or even responding to call-outs or making arrests .
“ You decide to discriminate and cloister people in the suburbs and then make us pay for it ?
No .
It won ’ t happen like that , ” the Unité SGP police union said in a statement .
Macron is now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that doesn ’ t further inflame the situation on all sides .
On December 7 , he wrote a letter to the Unité SGP union announcing he would be convening a summit in January to bring together members of the police , members of the public , and members of the government in January .
The meeting will address issues including police staffing , discrimination training , and the use of video cameras during operations , according to the BBC .
“ It is urgent to act to beef up the trust between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Macron said in the letter .
“ We owe [ the police ] support and protection , ” Macron wrote .
“ I will see to it.
” In the meantime , the protests have kick-started an important debate in France that now has time to play out .
“ I think it ’ s good to take a little pause , ” the Atlantic Council ’ s Haddad said , and “ to be as inclusive as possible in engaging civil rights groups to make sure the intention [ of the law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the outcome of the redrafting of the bill and the summit , protesting is a part of French society , and this debate will not go away .
“ Even if we see a form of decrease [ in protests ] this weekend , there ’ s a movement on these issues that ’ s here to stay , that ’ s part of the French conversation , ” Haddad added .
Pearson , the Local France editor , echoed that sentiment , saying three weekends in a row of protests may have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the government say that they will rewrite it .
So there ’ s a sense that protests worked and maybe they ’ re listening to what we say .
”

Protests against a police security bill and the arrest of an unarmed Black man have rocked France for three consecutive weekends — with the past two Saturdays turning particularly violent.
The rallies, which started on November 21, have been fueled by public outcry against police brutality and a new draft law that would make it a crime to publish photos or videos of on-duty police officers “with the aim of harming their physical or psychological integrity.” If convicted, violators of the law could face fines of more than $50,000 and up to a year in prison.
French President Emmanuel Macron’s government has argued the measure is needed to protect police officers and their families from online abuse that could end in violence. But critics say it will curb both civil liberties and police accountability.
France has experienced a series of high-profile incidents in recent months of police using heavy-handed tactics, mostly against people of color. Security camera footage showing white police officers beating 41-year-old Black music producer Michel Zecler, a French man of Malian descent who is well known in the French rap scene, in the lobby of his music studio went viral on social media.
The graphic video contradicted the story the officers involved had initially provided to justify their actions: that Zecler had resisted arrest and acted violently toward them. The incident further inflamed the protests, with many arguing the proposed security law would potentially have made sharing such a video illegal. But without the video, Zecler told the New York Times, he’d likely be in prison right now.
In response to the video and the backlash, Macron’s government announced in late November that it would completely rewrite Article 24, the specific part of the broader security bill that would have restricted the sharing of videos and photos of police.
But demonstrators weren’t appeased. This past weekend, tens of thousands of people across France took to the streets in protests that in some cases turned violent. At least 60 people were arrested and several police officers were injured, according to France’s interior minister.
And the protests are expected to continue.
The government says the proposed law is necessary to protect police. Critics say it will stifle free speech.
Article 24 is a provision of the Global Security Law, which Macron presented to the National Assembly (the lower house of the French Parliament) on November 17.
Macron’s government says the measure was intended to protect police officers and their families from harassment and threats, and has insisted press freedoms will not be compromised by it.
“Article 24 aims to ban their exposure and their harassment on social networks, by malicious and dangerous individuals. No worries: Journalists will still be able to do their job,” Jean-Michel Fauvergue, a key sponsor of the bill, told Parliament in defense of the measure. Fauvergue is the former head of the police anti-terrorism unit.
Some experts agree that there is reason for the new security law.
“The government is trying to answer a very legitimate concern over the rise of crime and violence against police officers,” Benjamin Haddad, the director of the Future Europe Initiative at the Atlantic Council think tank in Washington, DC, told me in an interview.
There have been several attacks against police in France. Some 40 people tried to rush a police station in the suburbs of Paris on the night of October 10, wielding metal bars and shooting off fireworks.
Back in 2016, a police commander and his wife were stabbed to death by a man who had been previously convicted of terrorism and who claimed to be connected to ISIS. After stabbing the officer outside of his home, the attacker entered the residence and killed his wife. The couple’s 3-year-old son was rescued alive after police units stormed the home, killing the assailant.
However, some see the proposed law as part of an attempt by Macron to appeal to more right-wing voters in the 2022 election.
Haddad, though, isn’t convinced by that argument. “The truth is [these] concerns go way beyond the right and far right. If you look at polling, Macron won overwhelmingly in 2017 against the far right and Marine Le Pen,” referring to France’s last presidential election.
“I don’t think the far right is such a looming threat. I think there’s just a concern over some of these issues that are shared by a lot of French citizens,” Haddad added.
Bloomberg reported that 58 percent of the French public supported the law.
But critics are skeptical that Article 24 is necessary. “It doesn’t seem to me to be the case where police officers need more protection than everyone else,” Emma Pearson, the Paris-based editor of the Local France news site, told me. Besides, harassment on Twitter is already illegal in France. And on December 9, a draft bill targeting hate campaigns and making threats on social media was presented to Parliament.
The far-reaching scope of Article 24 explains why anger toward the proposed law is so widespread in the country. Journalists, civil liberties groups, social justice advocates, and victims of police brutality are all fundamentally opposed to the measure.
“It constitutes a serious infringement of freedom of expression. There will be great reluctance [for the public and journalists] to disseminate images or even to film,” Thomas Hochmann, professor of public law at the University of Paris Nanterre, told Al Jazeera November 20.
There’s also a logistical and legal problem, noted Jeremie Gauthier, an expert on policing in France and Germany at the University of Strasbourg: “How could a police officer working during a demonstration prove that someone, a journalist or a citizen, is filming the police to harm the officer’s physical or psychological well-being?”
Haddad, who previously served as the Washington, DC, representative of Macron’s political movement, En Marche, and who supports the government’s intention behind presenting the measure, agreed that proving intent to harm during filming would be a concern. “The problem they’re trying to address is a real one. It’s fraught. It’s decisive. So, you need to be super careful in how you address this problem,” he told me.
The problem is that the French government wasn’t super careful, and it presented a bill whose real intent and purpose wasn’t entirely clear. Mass demonstrations were the result.
To placate the public and members of Macron’s own party, the French government is now rewriting the police-filming law to make its intentions clearer. No one knows how long the revisions will take or when the changes will be made public.
So the protests are likely to continue. And now, the police are launching their own protests — against Macron’s attempts to address the systemic issues of police violence and racial discrimination.
France’s powerful police unions are resisting reforms
During a December 4 interview with Brut, a French outlet known for reaching younger audiences, Macron acknowledged the truth that many Arab and Black people across France and several human rights groups have raised about racial profiling by French police, particularly when conducting ID checks in poorer neighborhoods with large immigrant populations.
“Today, when you have a skin color that is not white, you are much more likely to be stopped,” Macron said. “You are identified as a problem factor and this is unsustainable.”
French police unions immediately decried Macron’s comments. “No! The police aren’t racist and they do not choose who is a delinquent,” the Alliance Police Union tweeted that same day.
Non ! La #police n'est pas raciste, elle ne choisit pas sa délinquance. pic.twitter.com/n7LPIcCI1X — ALLIANCE PN (@alliancepolice) December 4, 2020
The police in France have always been powerful, the University of Strasbourg’s Gauthier told me. French law enforcement is centralized, unlike in the United States, which means police unions are influential players in the government.
They gained even more influence after law enforcement helped quash 2018’s nationwide “yellow vests” protests over tax hikes, and French police gain more and more cachet with Macron with each unruly rally they help rein in across the country.
Critics, though, say French police have abused that power. And they’ve consistently balked at attempts to reform their institution.
For instance, in June, following the Interior Ministry’s announcement of a government ban on the police use of chokeholds amid protests accusing police of racism and use of excessive force against minorities, police officers in cities across France staged protests in which they threw down their handcuffs and demanded more support from the government.
And just this week, in response to a plan Macron put forward to address police violence and racism, two of France’s largest police unions called on its members to stop performing ID checks or even responding to call-outs or making arrests.
“You decide to discriminate and cloister people in the suburbs and then make us pay for it? No. It won’t happen like that,” the Unité SGP police union said in a statement.
Macron is now scrambling to figure out a way forward that doesn’t further inflame the situation on all sides.
On December 7, he wrote a letter to the Unité SGP union announcing he would be convening a summit in January to bring together members of the police, members of the public, and members of the government in January. The meeting will address issues including police staffing, discrimination training, and the use of video cameras during operations, according to the BBC.
“It is urgent to act to beef up the trust between the French and the police,” Macron said in the letter. “We owe [the police] support and protection,” Macron wrote. “I will see to it.”
In the meantime, the protests have kick-started an important debate in France that now has time to play out. “I think it’s good to take a little pause,” the Atlantic Council’s Haddad said, and “to be as inclusive as possible in engaging civil rights groups to make sure the intention [of the law] is better understood.”
Regardless of the outcome of the redrafting of the bill and the summit, protesting is a part of French society, and this debate will not go away. “Even if we see a form of decrease [in protests] this weekend, there’s a movement on these issues that’s here to stay, that’s part of the French conversation,” Haddad added.
Pearson, the Local France editor, echoed that sentiment, saying three weekends in a row of protests may have paid off. “We have had the government say that they will rewrite it. So there’s a sense that protests worked and maybe they’re listening to what we say.”


vox--2020-12-11--Progressives are getting ready to push Biden on immigration reform

Progressive Democrats in Congress are calling for President-elect Joe Biden to dismantle the federal government ’ s deportation machine , broaden immigrants ’ access to social safety net programs , and rely far less on detention to ensure that immigrants show up for court hearings .
During the Democratic primaries , progressive candidates pushed not just to undo some of President Donald Trump ’ s more draconian changes to the immigration system , but to rethink a system that had , with bipartisan consensus , “ criminalize [ d ] desperation ” of immigrants seeking a better life in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Castro put it .
With Biden elected , immigrant advocates now see reform , which lawmakers have punted for more than a decade , as an imperative — and say they are ready to hold Biden to account on his promises to act .
Washington Rep. Pramila Jayapal , chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus , will introduce a resolution once the new Congress is seated outlining priorities for comprehensive immigration reform , covering everything from progressives ’ vision for a humane immigration enforcement system to a plan for the federal government to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The resolution — which she shared with Vox and is co-sponsored by Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Yvette Clarke of New York , Judy Chu of California , Jesús García of Illinois , and Veronica Escobar of Texas — was drafted in collaboration with immigrant advocates , who want it to be the gold standard for measuring Biden ’ s actions .
“ We will really push hard .
I think we have had hard lessons in negotiating away too quickly , ” said Roxana Norouzi , deputy director of OneAmerica Votes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Whatever proposal comes out of the Biden administration in the first 100 days , we will use this resolution to measure the gap.
” Biden told NBC News after the election that , within his first 100 days in office , he plans to send his own immigration reform bill to the Senate that would create a path to citizenship for the estimated 10.5 million undocumented immigrants living in the US .
But whether the Senate will consider such a proposal could hinge on the outcome of the Georgia Senate runoffs , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the chamber .
Republican Sens .
Susan Collins , John Cornyn , Thom Tillis , and Marco Rubio , who spoke at a recent summit on immigration reform , appeared willing to engage Democrats in conversations around the topic , but if Republicans keep Senate control , the fate of a bill would ultimately lie with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell .
Jayapal and the immigrant advocates behind the resolution intend to lobby Biden to incorporate their policy proposals in that package .
But they also acknowledge that change could come in many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for example , that Congress could build consensus around bills protecting specific groups of immigrants , such as undocumented essential workers and Dreamers who came to the US as children , while putting forward more systemic reforms in a separate bill .
“ There are multiple pathways to winning relief and legalization for people , ” said Lorella Praeli , president of Community Change Action , which helped develop the resolution .
“ This [ resolution ] is what it would look like if we were able to fully realize our vision for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s a call to action to go big , to be relentless and also to be nimble.
” The resolution ’ s boldest demands concern humane immigration enforcement and access to the social safety net Biden ’ s own proposals already reflect many of the immigrant advocacy community ’ s priorities to make the immigration system more humane and effective for those seeking to come to the US and those already living in the country .
But the resolution demands that the federal government pursue more aggressive reforms .
Under the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only one available penalty against those who commit civil immigration violations or who have been convicted of crimes : deportation .
For many , deportation means uprooting their lives and being separated from their families in the US .
But those dire consequences often don ’ t align with the severity of the violations or crimes an immigrant has committed .
The resolution argues that judges should instead be able to impose scalable penalties based on the severity of the offense , such as fines , community service , treatment programs , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seeking to sort of disentangle this idea that all criminals should be deported , ” Jayapal said in an interview .
The resolution also advocates for improving immigrants ’ access to health care and housing and “ eliminating barriers that deter immigrant communities from accessing crucial public services for which they are eligible.
” Those barriers have become particularly visible amid the pandemic : Even legal immigrants who arrived in the US in the last five years remain ineligible for federally funded public insurance programs , and unauthorized immigrants , including those covered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ program , or DACA , were ineligible for stimulus checks in many states .
Jayapal said she is specifically considering changes to the 1996 Welfare Reform Act .
The law made legal permanent residents ineligible for food stamps and Social Security income benefits and created a five-year waiting period before they became eligible for Medicaid and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families , despite the fact that they pay taxes and are on the road to citizenship .
She sees expanding the social safety net to immigrants as a critical missing piece of Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s politically inconvenient , ” she said .
“ There are a lot of people who still are worried about taking on the idea of immigrants draining our economy and contributing nothing , which are just myths — complete myths that Trump has been continuing to perpetuate.
” Jayapal also believes that it is time to fundamentally rethink the immigration detention system , just as there was a national reckoning around the criminal justice system , which led to the passage of a bipartisan bill in 2018 that took modest steps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal level .
That bill was rooted in a realization that private jails and prisons carry a heavy price tag for the federal government and that investing in education , rehabilitation , and the social safety net would ultimately be cheaper .
She said it ’ s the same story with the immigration detention system , which holds around 50,000 people on any given day , costing taxpayers $ 208 per detainee daily .
Instead , the resolution asserts that the US should embrace a “ presumption of liberty for all immigrants , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the controversial 287 ( g ) program , under which local law enforcement can question people about their immigration status and detain them on immigration charges .
Biden has not committed to either of those proposals so far but has suggested that he would “ aggressively limit ” 287 ( g ) and focus enforcement resources on people who present threats to public safety and national security , rather than families .
The resolution also calls for ending for-profit detention and investing in community-based case management programs that are designed to ensure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without putting them in detention , both proposals that Biden has already embraced .
“ So many of those people do not need to be in detention , ” Jayapal said .
“ It is an expensive , inhumane way to deal with immigration.
” There is overlap between the resolution and Biden ’ s agenda The resolution does share common ground with what Biden has already proposed to accomplish legislatively .
It calls for better protections for the rights of immigrant workers .
Biden , for his part , has pledged to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rights of immigrants working in the agricultural and domestic care industries , many of whom are undocumented .
That includes the Fairness for Farm Workers Act , which would allow farmworkers to be paid overtime for working more than 40 hours a week and improve their minimum wage protections , and the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights , which would give domestic workers common workplace rights such as paid overtime and protection from harassment and discrimination .
The resolution advocates for facilitating cooperation with regional partners to address the underlying causes of migration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ put forth a $ 4 billion foreign aid package for Central America that would be delivered over the course of four years , incentivizing governments to reduce gang- and gender-based violence , improve their legal and educational systems , and implement anti-corruption measures .
Instability in Central America ’ s Northern Triangle countries — Guatemala , El Salvador , and Honduras — has driven many to seek refuge at the US southern border .
Biden also suggested in an interview with NBC News in June that he would push for legislation that would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the US annually ( Trump has unilaterally slashed refugee admissions to just 18,000 this year , the lowest it has ever been ) and seek to streamline the naturalization process .
Those proposals represent genuine progress , but advocates continue to question his commitment to making immigration a priority beyond merely undoing the worst of Trump ’ s policies .
Biden claims that he would not simply return to the Obama-era status quo on immigration , which involved record-level deportations and an expansion of family detention .
“ Even [ former President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t go back to what it was , ” he told NBC .
“ I have a program that is significantly different and builds upon where we left off and tries to undo the damage that Trump has done.
” But advocates are watching the president-elect ’ s next moves closely to see whether he will be as aggressive in advancing pro-immigrant policies as Trump and his senior adviser Stephen Miller were in pursuing a nativist agenda .
Immigrant communities , who have been under siege for the last four years , deserve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If they go back to Obama-era immigration policies , they will have failed , ” she said .

Progressive Democrats in Congress are calling for President-elect Joe Biden to dismantle the federal government’s deportation machine, broaden immigrants’ access to social safety net programs, and rely far less on detention to ensure that immigrants show up for court hearings.
During the Democratic primaries, progressive candidates pushed not just to undo some of President Donald Trump’s more draconian changes to the immigration system, but to rethink a system that had, with bipartisan consensus, “criminalize[d] desperation” of immigrants seeking a better life in the US, as former presidential candidate Julián Castro put it.
With Biden elected, immigrant advocates now see reform, which lawmakers have punted for more than a decade, as an imperative — and say they are ready to hold Biden to account on his promises to act.
Washington Rep. Pramila Jayapal, chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, will introduce a resolution once the new Congress is seated outlining priorities for comprehensive immigration reform, covering everything from progressives’ vision for a humane immigration enforcement system to a plan for the federal government to better serve immigrant communities in the US.
The resolution — which she shared with Vox and is co-sponsored by Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Yvette Clarke of New York, Judy Chu of California, Jesús García of Illinois, and Veronica Escobar of Texas — was drafted in collaboration with immigrant advocates, who want it to be the gold standard for measuring Biden’s actions.
“We will really push hard. I think we have had hard lessons in negotiating away too quickly,” said Roxana Norouzi, deputy director of OneAmerica Votes, who worked on the resolution. “Whatever proposal comes out of the Biden administration in the first 100 days, we will use this resolution to measure the gap.”
Biden told NBC News after the election that, within his first 100 days in office, he plans to send his own immigration reform bill to the Senate that would create a path to citizenship for the estimated 10.5 million undocumented immigrants living in the US.
But whether the Senate will consider such a proposal could hinge on the outcome of the Georgia Senate runoffs, which will determine whether Republicans maintain control of the chamber. Republican Sens. Susan Collins, John Cornyn, Thom Tillis, and Marco Rubio, who spoke at a recent summit on immigration reform, appeared willing to engage Democrats in conversations around the topic, but if Republicans keep Senate control, the fate of a bill would ultimately lie with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
Jayapal and the immigrant advocates behind the resolution intend to lobby Biden to incorporate their policy proposals in that package. But they also acknowledge that change could come in many forms. It’s possible, for example, that Congress could build consensus around bills protecting specific groups of immigrants, such as undocumented essential workers and Dreamers who came to the US as children, while putting forward more systemic reforms in a separate bill.
“There are multiple pathways to winning relief and legalization for people,” said Lorella Praeli, president of Community Change Action, which helped develop the resolution. “This [resolution] is what it would look like if we were able to fully realize our vision for a just and humane system. ... It’s a call to action to go big, to be relentless and also to be nimble.”
The resolution’s boldest demands concern humane immigration enforcement and access to the social safety net
Biden’s own proposals already reflect many of the immigrant advocacy community’s priorities to make the immigration system more humane and effective for those seeking to come to the US and those already living in the country.
But the resolution demands that the federal government pursue more aggressive reforms. Under the current system, immigration judges can levy only one available penalty against those who commit civil immigration violations or who have been convicted of crimes: deportation. For many, deportation means uprooting their lives and being separated from their families in the US. But those dire consequences often don’t align with the severity of the violations or crimes an immigrant has committed.
The resolution argues that judges should instead be able to impose scalable penalties based on the severity of the offense, such as fines, community service, treatment programs, or probationary periods. Deportation should not be the consequence of minor offenses, such as shoplifting or a traffic violation, Jayapal said in an interview.
“We’re seeking to sort of disentangle this idea that all criminals should be deported,” she said.
The resolution also advocates for improving immigrants’ access to health care and housing and “eliminating barriers that deter immigrant communities from accessing crucial public services for which they are eligible.” Those barriers have become particularly visible amid the pandemic: Even legal immigrants who arrived in the US in the last five years remain ineligible for federally funded public insurance programs, and unauthorized immigrants, including those covered by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, were ineligible for stimulus checks in many states.
Jayapal said she is specifically considering changes to the 1996 Welfare Reform Act. The law made legal permanent residents ineligible for food stamps and Social Security income benefits and created a five-year waiting period before they became eligible for Medicaid and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, despite the fact that they pay taxes and are on the road to citizenship.
She sees expanding the social safety net to immigrants as a critical missing piece of Biden’s plans.
“Frankly, it’s politically inconvenient,” she said. “There are a lot of people who still are worried about taking on the idea of immigrants draining our economy and contributing nothing, which are just myths — complete myths that Trump has been continuing to perpetuate.”
Jayapal also believes that it is time to fundamentally rethink the immigration detention system, just as there was a national reckoning around the criminal justice system, which led to the passage of a bipartisan bill in 2018 that took modest steps to reduce punitive prison sentences at the federal level. That bill was rooted in a realization that private jails and prisons carry a heavy price tag for the federal government and that investing in education, rehabilitation, and the social safety net would ultimately be cheaper.
She said it’s the same story with the immigration detention system, which holds around 50,000 people on any given day, costing taxpayers $208 per detainee daily.
Instead, the resolution asserts that the US should embrace a “presumption of liberty for all immigrants,” bringing an end to family detention and the controversial 287(g) program, under which local law enforcement can question people about their immigration status and detain them on immigration charges. Biden has not committed to either of those proposals so far but has suggested that he would “aggressively limit” 287(g) and focus enforcement resources on people who present threats to public safety and national security, rather than families.
The resolution also calls for ending for-profit detention and investing in community-based case management programs that are designed to ensure immigrants show up for their immigration appointments without putting them in detention, both proposals that Biden has already embraced.
“So many of those people do not need to be in detention,” Jayapal said. “It is an expensive, inhumane way to deal with immigration.”
There is overlap between the resolution and Biden’s agenda
The resolution does share common ground with what Biden has already proposed to accomplish legislatively.
It calls for better protections for the rights of immigrant workers. Biden, for his part, has pledged to support preexisting bills that would improve the rights of immigrants working in the agricultural and domestic care industries, many of whom are undocumented. That includes the Fairness for Farm Workers Act, which would allow farmworkers to be paid overtime for working more than 40 hours a week and improve their minimum wage protections, and the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights, which would give domestic workers common workplace rights such as paid overtime and protection from harassment and discrimination.
The resolution advocates for facilitating cooperation with regional partners to address the underlying causes of migration. Biden has said that he would put forth a $4 billion foreign aid package for Central America that would be delivered over the course of four years, incentivizing governments to reduce gang- and gender-based violence, improve their legal and educational systems, and implement anti-corruption measures. Instability in Central America’s Northern Triangle countries — Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras — has driven many to seek refuge at the US southern border.
Biden also suggested in an interview with NBC News in June that he would push for legislation that would create a floor of 95,000 refugees admitted to the US annually (Trump has unilaterally slashed refugee admissions to just 18,000 this year, the lowest it has ever been) and seek to streamline the naturalization process.
Those proposals represent genuine progress, but advocates continue to question his commitment to making immigration a priority beyond merely undoing the worst of Trump’s policies. Biden claims that he would not simply return to the Obama-era status quo on immigration, which involved record-level deportations and an expansion of family detention.
“Even [former President Barack Obama] acknowledges we can’t go back to what it was,” he told NBC. “I have a program that is significantly different and builds upon where we left off and tries to undo the damage that Trump has done.”
But advocates are watching the president-elect’s next moves closely to see whether he will be as aggressive in advancing pro-immigrant policies as Trump and his senior adviser Stephen Miller were in pursuing a nativist agenda. Immigrant communities, who have been under siege for the last four years, deserve nothing less, Praeli said.
“If they go back to Obama-era immigration policies, they will have failed,” she said.


vox--2020-12-11--The FDA is preparing to authorize the first Covid-19 vaccine in the US

An advisory committee to the Food and Drug Administration has voted 17 to 4 , with 1 abstention , to recommend emergency use authorization ( EUA ) to the first vaccine for Covid-19 in the United States .
In response , FDA officials said Friday the agency will accept the committee ’ s recommendation and work to issue the EUA as soon as possible .
The highly anticipated vote means health workers facing high exposure to the disease and residents of long-term care facilities could start receiving the first doses of the two-dose vaccine , developed by Pfizer and BioNTech @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million doses could ship as soon as Friday once the EUA is issued .
The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee held the vote Thursday after an all-day public meeting to consider the emergency use authorization request ( EUA ) for Pfizer and BioNTech ’ s Covid-19 vaccine candidate .
The committee specifically voted on whether the benefits of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine outweigh the risks in people aged 16 years and older .
That a vaccine for a disease only discovered late last year would be ready so quickly is already an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that it ’ s also based on a new technology that yielded 95 percent efficacy in preventing disease makes the announcement all the more remarkable .
“ We will take what we have heard today into consideration when deciding not only the EUA issuance here but also how to move forward on the end licensure of this product , ” said Marion Gruber , director of the Office of Vaccines Research and Review at the FDA .
The approval of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine in the US follows green lights from regulatory agencies in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week , the vaccine advisory committee will consider another EUA for the Covid-19 vaccine using a similar approach developed by Moderna .
But a vote for authorization isn ’ t the final word for getting people immunized against the deadly disease .
The FDA must still issue a formal EUA .
Then the vaccine will be shipped to health facilities and administered in two doses .
These steps present their own challenges , ranging from keeping the vaccine at the frigid temperatures it requires to getting patients to come back for a follow-up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health systems administering shots are struggling to care for a huge surge of hospitalized Covid-19 patients .
This rollout will be part of the largest vaccination effort in history .
But there will not be enough doses for everyone at the outset , even for people placed at the front of the line .
Pfizer and BioNTech expect to produce 50 million doses of their vaccine around the world before the end of the year , enough for 25 million people — half of which has been pledged for the US .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a crucial test of the vaccine distribution system in the United States , as well as a test of public acceptance and of the integrity of the clinical trial process .
The Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine is cleared for emergency approval .
Now what ?
One of the first challenges for the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine is getting it where it needs to go .
That ’ s complicated by the fact that the vaccine requires temperatures of minus 70 degrees Celsius ( minus 94 degrees Fahrenheit ) or lower , some of the coldest temperature constraints @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Maintaining the cold chain from factories to distribution hubs to hospitals is crucial ; otherwise , the vaccine may spoil and become ineffective .
Pfizer has developed its own temperature-controlled shipping containers that use dry ice to maintain the recommended temperatures for their vaccine for up to 10 days .
But longer storage will require ultra-cold freezers , and not many clinics have the requisite hardware , so timing the shipments will be key .
There may also be shortages of dry ice .
The next hurdle is figuring out who gets the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ available at the outset are nowhere near enough to quench the raging Covid-19 pandemic that is still reaching new peaks in daily hospitalizations and fatalities .
An advisory committee to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention voted at the beginning of this month on a set of guidelines that prioritize health care personnel , as well as staff and residents of long-term care facilities .
But these groups alone add up to about 24 million people , so states and local governments and health groups are having to narrow these groups further @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also has to be administered as two doses spaced 21 days apart .
That poses a problem because experiences with other vaccines show that people are really bad at getting follow-up shots .
As many as half of patients failed to get their second dose of the hepatitis B vaccine , for example .
For the Covid-19 vaccine , side effects from the first dose , scheduling conflicts , or supply shortages may inhibit recipients from getting the second dose .
The good news is that the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine may offer some protection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ although it takes a few days for the shielding to build up .
In fact , some experts , including former FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb , argued that the entire allotment of doses should be given to as many people as possible , as fast as possible , rather than withholding injections to give to people as second shots .
“ We should get as many shots in our arms as possible right away , ” he told USA Today on Monday .
“ The idea that we need to cut ( the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of it now and hold onto it , so we have supply in January to get the second dose … I just fundamentally disagree with that.
” But other experts say there isn ’ t yet enough data on a single dose to know whether it will provide enough protection from the virus for the broader population .
Meanwhile , the FDA is likely to authorize another Covid-19 vaccine in the coming weeks , clearing the way for the distribution of 25 million doses of the Moderna vaccine , enough for 12.5 million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Slaoui , the scientific lead for Operation Warp Speed , the program from the Department of Health and Human Services to accelerate and deploy Covid-19 vaccines , said he expects 20 million Americans will be vaccinated in December , 30 million more in January , and 50 million more in February as more vaccines with promising early results are approved .
The clinical trials for Covid-19 vaccines must continue , but they ’ re going to get harder to complete as placebo participants leave to get vaccinated An EUA is a critical step @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approval , and it signals that the FDA still wants answers to key questions , like long-term safety .
The standards for an EUA for a vaccine is that there is an urgent public health need , the proposed vaccine may have a beneficial effect , and that there are no approved alternatives .
The FDA also set a minimum threshold of 50 percent efficacy for a Covid-19 vaccine , a line that several vaccines have completely vaulted .
So far , Pfizer and BioNTech are only reporting two months of observational safety @ @ @ @ @ @ @ although the companies have committed to continue monitoring their more than 43,000 trial participants .
But at the same time , Covid-19 is spreading rampantly in the United States , and more than 20,000 people in Pfizer and BioNTech ’ s trial have received a placebo rather than the actual vaccine , leaving them vulnerable to the disease .
Of the 178 reported cases of Covid-19 in the trial pool , 169 were in the placebo group .
Of those , 9 in the placebo group and 1 in the vaccine group experienced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , more people in the placebo group will likely get sick and some will fall severely ill , requiring hospitalization .
Without intervention , some of these people in the placebo group may die .
The EUA now presents a huge dilemma for the clinical trial .
People in the placebo group may be at risk of Covid-19 , but if they receive the vaccine , it would diminish the value of the trial and make it harder to answer questions about safety and efficacy , particularly in vulnerable subgroups like older adults @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clinical trial , neither the recipients nor the companies know who received the vaccine and who received the placebo .
Vaccinating the placebo group would require breaking this blind , and if participants find out which group they ’ re in , they could change their behavior .
People who received the vaccine may engage in riskier behavior while people in the placebo group may end up taking more precautions if they decide not to get vaccinated themselves .
Those changes in behavior will make it harder to isolate the effects of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vice president for vaccine clinical research and development for Pfizer , told the FDA vaccine advisory committee on Thursday that the company has an ethical obligation to inform trial participants that the vaccine has received an EUA , but they are working on coming up with ways to maintain the integrity of the trial as much as possible .
“ Eligible participants in the placebo group will have the option to receive the vaccine , ” Gruber said .
“ We are currently in discussions with the FDA about the best way to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the study will continue for 24 months regardless , with ongoing monitoring of the trial participants .
This sort of large-scale and long-term follow-up is key because there may be rare complications that emerge that weren ’ t detected over a shorter time frame or were not present in the selected pool of participants in the trial .
Already , the rollout of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine in the UK has revealed that people with severe allergies could face complications .
“ [ T ] he expectation would be that subjects with known severe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take the vaccine until we understand exactly what happened here , ” Slaoui told reporters on Wednesday .
More people receiving this inoculation will further clarify any problems and concerns .
But it will take months before the vaccine will start to constrain new Covid-19 cases since tens of millions of people would need to have immunity before the spread starts to slow down .
And while the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine has demonstrated effectiveness against disease , it ’ s still not clear how well it prevents asymptomatic infection .
Scientists don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could still transmit the virus to other people without getting sick themselves .
That means that until there is widespread vaccination , hospitals will still be battling severe Covid-19 as case numbers reach grim new heights .
And handwashing , social distancing , and mark-wearing will remain the orders of the day for months to come , even for people lucky enough to receive a vaccine .

The Food and Drug Administration on Friday evening granted an emergency use authorization (EUA) to the Covid-19 vaccine developed by Pfizer and BioNTech, making it the first Covid-19 vaccine in the United States to begin distribution outside of clinical trials.
The first 6.4 million doses could ship within days.
The announcement came after an advisory committee to the Food and Drug Administration, the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, voted 17 to 4, with 1 abstention, to recommend and EUA for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. The committee specifically voted on whether the benefits of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine outweigh the risks in people aged 16 years and older.
The highly anticipated regulatory green light means health workers facing high exposure to the disease and residents of long-term care facilities can now start receiving the first doses of the two-dose vaccine.
That a vaccine for a disease only discovered late last year would be ready so quickly is already an unmatched scientific feat, but the fact that it’s also based on a new technology that yielded 95 percent efficacy in preventing disease makes the announcement all the more remarkable.
“The tireless work to develop a new vaccine to prevent this novel, serious, and life-threatening disease in an expedited timeframe after its emergence is a true testament to scientific innovation and public-private collaboration worldwide,” said FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn in a statement.
The approval of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine in the US follows green lights from regulatory agencies in Canada and the United Kingdom. Next week, the vaccine advisory committee will consider another EUA for the Covid-19 vaccine using a similar approach developed by Moderna.
But an EUA is only one step forward.
The vaccine must then be shipped to health facilities and administered in two doses. These steps present their own challenges, ranging from keeping the vaccine at the frigid temperatures it requires to getting patients to come back for a follow-up shot. Meanwhile, many of the health systems administering shots are struggling to care for a huge surge of hospitalized Covid-19 patients.
This rollout will be part of the largest vaccination effort in history. But there will not be enough doses for everyone at the outset, even for people placed at the front of the line. Pfizer and BioNTech expect to produce 50 million doses of their vaccine around the world before the end of the year, enough for 25 million people — half of which has been pledged for the US. The first doses to roll out will be a crucial test of the vaccine distribution system in the United States, as well as a test of public acceptance and of the integrity of the clinical trial process.
The Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine is cleared for emergency approval. Now what?
One of the first challenges for the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine is getting it where it needs to go. That’s complicated by the fact that the vaccine requires temperatures of minus 70 degrees Celsius (minus 94 degrees Fahrenheit) or lower, some of the coldest temperature constraints of any Covid-19 vaccine under development. Maintaining the cold chain from factories to distribution hubs to hospitals is crucial; otherwise, the vaccine may spoil and become ineffective.
Pfizer has developed its own temperature-controlled shipping containers that use dry ice to maintain the recommended temperatures for their vaccine for up to 10 days. But longer storage will require ultra-cold freezers, and not many clinics have the requisite hardware, so timing the shipments will be key. There may also be shortages of dry ice.
The next hurdle is figuring out who gets the vaccine first. The 6.4 million doses available at the outset are nowhere near enough to quench the raging Covid-19 pandemic that is still reaching new peaks in daily hospitalizations and fatalities.
An advisory committee to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention voted at the beginning of this month on a set of guidelines that prioritize health care personnel, as well as staff and residents of long-term care facilities. But these groups alone add up to about 24 million people, so states and local governments and health groups are having to narrow these groups further.
Pfizer and BioNTech’s vaccine also has to be administered as two doses spaced 21 days apart. That poses a problem because experiences with other vaccines show that people are really bad at getting follow-up shots. As many as half of patients failed to get their second dose of the hepatitis B vaccine, for example. For the Covid-19 vaccine, side effects from the first dose, scheduling conflicts, or supply shortages may inhibit recipients from getting the second dose.
The good news is that the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine may offer some protection against Covid-19 from the first dose, although it takes a few days for the shielding to build up. In fact, some experts, including former FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb, argued that the entire allotment of doses should be given to as many people as possible, as fast as possible, rather than withholding injections to give to people as second shots.
“We should get as many shots in our arms as possible right away,” he told USA Today on Monday. “The idea that we need to cut (the doses) in half and give half of it now and hold onto it, so we have supply in January to get the second dose … I just fundamentally disagree with that.”
But other experts say there isn’t yet enough data on a single dose to know whether it will provide enough protection from the virus for the broader population.
Meanwhile, the FDA is likely to authorize another Covid-19 vaccine in the coming weeks, clearing the way for the distribution of 25 million doses of the Moderna vaccine, enough for 12.5 million people on the two-dose regimen.
Moncef Slaoui, the scientific lead for Operation Warp Speed, the program from the Department of Health and Human Services to accelerate and deploy Covid-19 vaccines, said he expects 20 million Americans will be vaccinated in December, 30 million more in January, and 50 million more in February as more vaccines with promising early results are approved.
The clinical trials for Covid-19 vaccines must continue, but they’re going to get harder to complete as placebo participants leave to get vaccinated
An EUA is a critical step, but it’s not full approval, and it signals that the FDA still wants answers to key questions, like long-term safety. The standards for an EUA for a vaccine is that there is an urgent public health need, the proposed vaccine may have a beneficial effect, and that there are no approved alternatives. The FDA also set a minimum threshold of 50 percent efficacy for a Covid-19 vaccine, a line that several vaccines have completely vaulted.
So far, Pfizer and BioNTech are only reporting two months of observational safety for their phase 3 clinical trial, although the companies have committed to continue monitoring their more than 43,000 trial participants.
But at the same time, Covid-19 is spreading rampantly in the United States, and more than 20,000 people in Pfizer and BioNTech’s trial have received a placebo rather than the actual vaccine, leaving them vulnerable to the disease. Of the 178 reported cases of Covid-19 in the trial pool, 169 were in the placebo group. Of those, 9 in the placebo group and 1 in the vaccine group experienced severe Covid-19. As time goes on, more people in the placebo group will likely get sick and some will fall severely ill, requiring hospitalization. Without intervention, some of these people in the placebo group may die.
The EUA now presents a huge dilemma for the clinical trial. People in the placebo group may be at risk of Covid-19, but if they receive the vaccine, it would diminish the value of the trial and make it harder to answer questions about safety and efficacy, particularly in vulnerable subgroups like older adults.
And since this is a double-blind clinical trial, neither the recipients nor the companies know who received the vaccine and who received the placebo. Vaccinating the placebo group would require breaking this blind, and if participants find out which group they’re in, they could change their behavior. People who received the vaccine may engage in riskier behavior while people in the placebo group may end up taking more precautions if they decide not to get vaccinated themselves. Those changes in behavior will make it harder to isolate the effects of the vaccine.
William C. Gruber, senior vice president for vaccine clinical research and development for Pfizer, told the FDA vaccine advisory committee on Thursday that the company has an ethical obligation to inform trial participants that the vaccine has received an EUA, but they are working on coming up with ways to maintain the integrity of the trial as much as possible.
“Eligible participants in the placebo group will have the option to receive the vaccine,” Gruber said. “We are currently in discussions with the FDA about the best way to vaccinate placebo recipients.”
Gruber added that the study will continue for 24 months regardless, with ongoing monitoring of the trial participants. This sort of large-scale and long-term follow-up is key because there may be rare complications that emerge that weren’t detected over a shorter time frame or were not present in the selected pool of participants in the trial.
Already, the rollout of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine in the UK has revealed that people with severe allergies could face complications.
“[T]he expectation would be that subjects with known severe reaction — allergic reaction — should not take the vaccine until we understand exactly what happened here,” Slaoui told reporters on Wednesday.
More people receiving this inoculation will further clarify any problems and concerns. But it will take months before the vaccine will start to constrain new Covid-19 cases since tens of millions of people would need to have immunity before the spread starts to slow down. And while the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine has demonstrated effectiveness against disease, it’s still not clear how well it prevents asymptomatic infection. Scientists don’t yet know if people who are vaccinated could still transmit the virus to other people without getting sick themselves.
That means that until there is widespread vaccination, hospitals will still be battling severe Covid-19 as case numbers reach grim new heights. And handwashing, social distancing, and mark-wearing will remain the orders of the day for months to come, even for people lucky enough to receive a vaccine.


vox--2020-12-11--RSVP now: Dr. Fauci joins Today, Explained for a live conversation

Worldwide , as of December 11 , 2020 , the coronavirus has taken nearly 1.6 million lives — and changed billions .
Join Dr. Anthony Fauci and Today , Explained host Sean Rameswaram on Monday , December 14 , at 4 pm ET for a live virtual discussion on how this year has changed all of us and how it has impacted Fauci personally and professionally .
Vox reporter Umair Irfan will also join to talk about what ’ s next for the coronavirus pandemic , including the latest Pfizer/BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine news , and answer some of your questions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US .
This event is free for everyone .
RSVP now to reserve your spot .
This live conversation will become part of the Today , Explained upcoming podcast series “ You , Me , and Covid-19 , ” looking back on how the coronavirus has fundamentally reshaped our world .
Through reporting , listener reflections , and interviews , the team will examine how Covid-19 changed our relationships with each other and the places we live , upended our livelihoods , and redefined what we thought of as “ normal.
” The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Monday , December 21 , and continues through that week .
Subscribe to Today , Explained wherever you listen to podcasts — including Apple Podcasts , Google Podcasts , and Spotify — so you don ’ t miss an episode .

Worldwide, as of December 11, 2020, the coronavirus has taken nearly 1.6 million lives — and changed billions.
Join Dr. Anthony Fauci and Today, Explained host Sean Rameswaram on Tuesday, December 15, at 12:30 pm ET for a live virtual discussion on how this year has changed all of us and how it has impacted Fauci personally and professionally. Vox reporter Umair Irfan will also join to talk about what’s next for the coronavirus pandemic, including the latest Pfizer/BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine news, and answer some of your questions about the upcoming vaccine rollout in the US.
This event is free for everyone. RSVP now to reserve your spot.
This live conversation will become part of the Today, Explained upcoming podcast series “You, Me, and Covid-19,” looking back on how the coronavirus has fundamentally reshaped our world. Through reporting, listener reflections, and interviews, the team will examine how Covid-19 changed our relationships with each other and the places we live, upended our livelihoods, and redefined what we thought of as “normal.”
The first episode of the series drops on Monday, December 21, and continues through that week. Subscribe to Today, Explained wherever you listen to podcasts — including Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, and Spotify — so you don’t miss an episode.