vox--2020-06-25--The House just passed a sweeping police reform bill

The House on Thursday passed Democrats ’ police reform bill , the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020 , by a 236-181 vote .
Three Republicans joined Democrats to vote in favor of the bill , which now heads to the Senate , where it isn ’ t expected to get much traction .
Thursday ’ s vote underscores an ongoing stalemate : Over the past few weeks , congressional Democrats and Republicans have been at an impasse over the next steps on police reform , with each party respectively introducing its own bill .
Senate Democrats rejected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , earlier this week , on the grounds that it wasn ’ t expansive enough in its policies .
And Republicans are now poised to stall Democrats ’ offering in the upper chamber , meaning progress on these reforms is effectively at a standstill .
The two parties ’ bills were introduced as protesters across the country condemn the police killing of 46-year-old George Floyd and demand measures that address systemic racism and violence by law enforcement .
Their proposals overlap some : Both would ramp up the use of body cameras , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incentivize state and local police departments to ban the use of chokeholds .
But the Democrats ’ bill , led by Rep. Karen Bass ( D-CA ) , who chairs the Congressional Black Caucus , is more expansive than Republicans ’ .
It would curb “ qualified immunity , ” a legal provision that shields police from accountability for misconduct , and impose a ban on both chokeholds and no-knock warrants in drug cases at the federal level .
Meanwhile , Republicans ’ legislation , led by Sen. Tim Scott ( R-SC ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does not include a federal chokehold ban .
Democrats have argued that Republicans ’ bill centers too heavily on data collection and not enough on legal changes that would directly address police misconduct and use of force .
Republicans , however , have said that “ qualified immunity ” is an area they aren ’ t particularly interested in tackling .
Neither bill , meanwhile , goes as far as what protesters have called for : Both shy away from the idea of “ defunding the police ” and shifting money from law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When we pass this bill , the Senate will have a choice , ” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday at a press event about the legislation .
But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has already signaled that he ’ s not likely to take up the legislation , and President Donald Trump recently indicated he ’ d veto the bill if it passed both chambers .
“ They want to take away a lot of the strength from our police and from law enforcement generally , and we can ’ t live @ @ @ @ @ @ @ live with it , ” Trump said Wednesday .
The main question now is whether Democrats and Republicans will ultimately be able to navigate the key differences in their proposals to arrive at a compromise .
While there ’ s plenty of public pressure and interest in implementing reforms , lawmakers ’ disagreements could well prevent a measure from coming to fruition in the near term .
The Justice in Policing Act is a wide-ranging bill that attempts to get at the problem of police brutality toward Black Americans through a number of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Republicans ’ proposals — including an emphasis on ramping up the use of body cameras — but goes much farther in provisions concerning legal accountability for police misconduct .
For example , one tenet of the bill would change the law to make it easier to prosecute police officers who harm or kill someone , as well as those who are charged with other forms of misconduct .
Other measures include mandatory racial bias training at the federal level and the establishment of a national registry to track police misconduct , plus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to create new standards for law enforcement accreditation .
Here are some of the bill ’ s key parts : Revising federal law on criminal police misconduct and qualified immunity reform : The new bill would change one very significant word in federal law when it comes to prosecuting police : “ willful.
” That word means prosecutors charging police have to demonstrate there was willful intent on the part of the police officer to kill or harm someone — which can be extremely difficult to prove and successfully prosecute .
The bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ knowingly or with reckless disregard.
” It would also define a “ death resulting ” as any act that was a “ substantial factor contributing to the death ” of an individual .
In addition , the bill changes something called qualified immunity , which courts have interpreted to give police officers and other public officials broad immunity from being sued in civil court if they have violated the constitutional rights of an individual .
The bill would make it easier for plaintiffs to recover damages against police officers if the officer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Qualified immunity is something that has evolved over time .
It ’ s not written into any law , ” Sen. Cory Booker ( D-NJ ) previously told NPR ’ s Weekend Edition .
“ But our highest courts in the land have decided that police officers are immune from civil cases unless there ’ s been specifically in the past a case of generally the exact circumstances that has led towards a successful action .
It creates this bar towards civil action against a police officer for violating your civil rights.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the federal level : The use of a no-knock search warrant in Louisville on March 13 had fatal consequences .
Police shot and killed 26-year-old Breonna Taylor after using a battering ram to break down her door and exchanging fire with Taylor ’ s boyfriend .
The police were executing a search warrant for a drug case , pursuing two other men , but broke down Taylor ’ s door because they believed the men were receiving packages at her apartment .
The Democratic bill would ban these kinds of no-knock warrants in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal funding for state and local law enforcement agencies on prohibiting their use as well .
Republicans ’ bill would commission a study of the use of no-knock warrants , but stop short of a ban .
Ban chokeholds at the federal level : In 2014 , Eric Garner was killed by New York police , who used a chokehold to restrain him during an arrest .
And in May , Floyd died after a police officer placed his knee on Floyd ’ s neck for more than eight minutes .
The legislation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the use of police chokeholds , which is defined by the bill as an act putting pressure on an individual ’ s throat or windpipe that impedes their ability to breathe .
Such bans have already been supported by localities across the country including , most recently , Minneapolis .
A federal chokehold ban would further condemn the use of this tactic by police and give the Justice Department more power to levy charges against law enforcement officers who use this maneuver .
Activists have raised questions about the efficacy of such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Department banning chokeholds in 1993 , police using the method killed Eric Garner in 2014 .
Both the Democrat and Republican bills condition federal funding on state and local departments adopting such bans .
Establish a national registry of misconduct by law enforcement officers : There ’ s currently very little data available about police misconduct , making it difficult to pin down past offenders and ensure that they don ’ t receive jobs in new places .
According to a USA Today report , punishment for misconduct also varies at the state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decertify while others are far less punitive .
Creating a national registry about misconduct would enable lawmakers to better understand its frequency and craft targeted responses to combat it .
The Republican bill would not establish a national registry of police misconduct but does require local and state agencies to maintain disciplinary records for law enforcement officers ; it also conditions funding on these practices .
Require states to report use of force to the Justice Department : Similarly , little is currently known about the frequency with which police officers currently use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to change .
By mandating state documentation of use of force , law enforcement agencies can begin to determine how often police engage in such actions .
The Republican measure , too , calls for state and local agencies to report use of force to the federal government on an annual basis .
Mandate racial bias training at the federal level : A reform that ’ s been implemented in some police stations across the country , racial bias training is aimed at getting law enforcement officers to recognize their own explicit and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ affect the way they respond in different situations .
Researchers have found implicit racial biases could be tied to officers being quicker to shoot black subjects versus white subjects .
The training involves providing officers with evidence of these biases playing out so they are forced to recognize their existence .
In addition to requiring it at the federal level , the bill would condition funding for state and local police based on their commitment to implementing racial bias training programs .
Among critics of racial bias training , questions remain about how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and disparate use of force .
Require that deadly force be used only as last resort : The bill would change the use-of-force standard for federal officers from “ reasonableness ” to only when it is necessary to either prevent death or “ serious bodily injury.
” It would require federal officers to use deescalation techniques and only resort to force as a last resort , and would condition federal funds to state and local agencies on their adoption of the same standard .
Make lynching a federal crime : The killings of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jogger who was shot by two white men in Georgia while he was out on a run , have been described as modern-day lynchings .
Despite more than 200 attempts to consider bills addressing such acts , there remains no law on the books classifying lynchings as a federal crime .
While the House and Senate have respectively passed their own legislation that would do so , the two have yet to approve one bill and get it signed into law .
Both the Democratic and Republican bills would guarantee that lynching — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as “ the premeditated , extrajudicial killing by a mob or group of people to instill fear ” — would be treated as a federal crime .
The Justice in Policing Act would also classify conspiring to commit civil rights offenses , such as a hate crime , as a lynching .
Require police to use more body and dashboard cameras : The bill would require federal police officers to wear body cameras and put dashboard cameras on all federal police vehicles .
It requires state and local departments to use existing federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which has been on the rise since the 2014 shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson , Missouri .
However , research has shown that more cameras aren ’ t the whole story ; police don ’ t always turn them on or review the footage while writing an incident report , and footage is not always made public .
The Republican bill also encourages the use of body cameras and establishes a grant program for police to obtain such technology .
Limit the transfer of military equipment to local police departments : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ distribute excess equipment including armored vehicles and ammunition to local law enforcement agencies under the 1033 program .
The bill would prohibit the distribution of some “ controlled ” military equipment by the Department of Defense , such as firearms , grenades , vehicles , and weaponized drones .
There are scenarios when departments could waive this rule , however , such as when police need a vehicle for a natural disaster response .
The next steps for police reform are uncertain Given the differences in the Democratic and Republican proposals , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In a letter to McConnell earlier this week , Democrats called for Republicans to engage in negotiations before holding another floor vote .
“ This bill is not salvageable and we need bipartisan talks to get to a constructive starting point , ” wrote Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ( D-NY ) , Sen. Kamala Harris ( D-CA ) , and Booker .
McConnell , too , has said a Senate bill has the potential to come up for another vote later down the line .
Whether such talks will lead to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ open question .
Because both Democrats and Republicans view “ qualified immunity ” as a key sticking point , it ’ s possible any compromise could stall over this — and other — provisions .
A similar dynamic has played out in the past over other policy areas : Prior efforts at gun reform , which had significant public support , have been stymied by partisan differences .
After the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland , Florida , in 2018 , Democrats and Republicans proposed multiple gun reform @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flag ” laws , many of which foundered .
Additionally , as Fox News ’ s Chad Pergram notes , Democrats may be interested in waiting for the outcome of this fall ’ s elections : If the party is able to retake a Senate majority , it could have added leverage to advance a more comprehensive set of police reforms at that time .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today @

The House on Thursday passed Democrats’ police reform bill, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020, by a 236-181 vote. Three Republicans joined Democrats to vote in favor of the bill, which now heads to the Senate, where it isn’t expected to get much traction.
Thursday’s vote underscores an ongoing stalemate: Over the past few weeks, congressional Democrats and Republicans have been at an impasse over the next steps on police reform, with each party respectively introducing its own bill. Senate Democrats rejected Republicans’ proposal, the Justice Act, earlier this week, on the grounds that it wasn’t expansive enough in its policies. And Republicans are now poised to stall Democrats’ offering in the upper chamber, meaning progress on these reforms is effectively at a standstill.
The two parties’ bills were introduced as protesters across the country condemn the police killing of 46-year-old George Floyd and demand measures that address systemic racism and violence by law enforcement. Their proposals overlap some: Both would ramp up the use of body cameras, make lynching a federal crime, and incentivize state and local police departments to ban the use of chokeholds. But the Democrats’ bill, led by Rep. Karen Bass (D-CA), who chairs the Congressional Black Caucus, is more expansive than Republicans’. It would curb “qualified immunity,” a legal provision that shields police from accountability for misconduct, and impose a ban on both chokeholds and no-knock warrants in drug cases at the federal level. Meanwhile, Republicans’ legislation, led by Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC), would not address qualified immunity and does not include a federal chokehold ban.
Democrats have argued that Republicans’ bill centers too heavily on data collection and not enough on legal changes that would directly address police misconduct and use of force. Republicans, however, have said that “qualified immunity” is an area they aren’t particularly interested in tackling. Neither bill, meanwhile, goes as far as what protesters have called for: Both shy away from the idea of “defunding the police” and shifting money from law enforcement budgets to social services.
“When we pass this bill, the Senate will have a choice,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday at a press event about the legislation.
But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has already signaled that he’s not likely to take up the legislation, and President Donald Trump recently indicated he’d veto the bill if it passed both chambers. “They want to take away a lot of the strength from our police and from law enforcement generally, and we can’t live with it. We can’t live with it,” Trump said Wednesday.
The main question now is whether Democrats and Republicans will ultimately be able to navigate the key differences in their proposals to arrive at a compromise. While there’s plenty of public pressure and interest in implementing reforms, lawmakers’ disagreements could well prevent a measure from coming to fruition in the near term.
What’s in Democrats’ police reform bill
The Justice in Policing Act is a wide-ranging bill that attempts to get at the problem of police brutality toward Black Americans through a number of different means. It has some overlap with Republicans’ proposals — including an emphasis on ramping up the use of body cameras — but goes much farther in provisions concerning legal accountability for police misconduct.
For example, one tenet of the bill would change the law to make it easier to prosecute police officers who harm or kill someone, as well as those who are charged with other forms of misconduct. Other measures include mandatory racial bias training at the federal level and the establishment of a national registry to track police misconduct, plus a requirement for the US attorney general to create new standards for law enforcement accreditation.
Here are some of the bill’s key parts:
Revising federal law on criminal police misconduct and qualified immunity reform: The new bill would change one very significant word in federal law when it comes to prosecuting police: “willful.” That word means prosecutors charging police have to demonstrate there was willful intent on the part of the police officer to kill or harm someone — which can be extremely difficult to prove and successfully prosecute. The bill would change that word to the phrase “knowingly or with reckless disregard.” It would also define a “death resulting” as any act that was a “substantial factor contributing to the death” of an individual.
In addition, the bill changes something called qualified immunity, which courts have interpreted to give police officers and other public officials broad immunity from being sued in civil court if they have violated the constitutional rights of an individual. The bill would make it easier for plaintiffs to recover damages against police officers if the officer is sued and found guilty.
“Qualified immunity is something that has evolved over time. It’s not written into any law,” Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) previously told NPR’s Weekend Edition. “But our highest courts in the land have decided that police officers are immune from civil cases unless there’s been specifically in the past a case of generally the exact circumstances that has led towards a successful action. It creates this bar towards civil action against a police officer for violating your civil rights.”
Ban no-knock warrants in drug cases at the federal level: The use of a no-knock search warrant in Louisville on March 13 had fatal consequences. Police shot and killed 26-year-old Breonna Taylor after using a battering ram to break down her door and exchanging fire with Taylor’s boyfriend. The police were executing a search warrant for a drug case, pursuing two other men, but broke down Taylor’s door because they believed the men were receiving packages at her apartment. The Democratic bill would ban these kinds of no-knock warrants in federal drug cases, but also condition federal funding for state and local law enforcement agencies on prohibiting their use as well. Republicans’ bill would commission a study of the use of no-knock warrants, but stop short of a ban.
Ban chokeholds at the federal level: In 2014, Eric Garner was killed by New York police, who used a chokehold to restrain him during an arrest. And in May, Floyd died after a police officer placed his knee on Floyd’s neck for more than eight minutes.
The legislation would put a federal ban in place on the use of police chokeholds, which is defined by the bill as an act putting pressure on an individual’s throat or windpipe that impedes their ability to breathe. Such bans have already been supported by localities across the country including, most recently, Minneapolis.
A federal chokehold ban would further condemn the use of this tactic by police and give the Justice Department more power to levy charges against law enforcement officers who use this maneuver. Activists have raised questions about the efficacy of such bans: Despite the New York Police Department banning chokeholds in 1993, police using the method killed Eric Garner in 2014. Both the Democrat and Republican bills condition federal funding on state and local departments adopting such bans.
Establish a national registry of misconduct by law enforcement officers: There’s currently very little data available about police misconduct, making it difficult to pin down past offenders and ensure that they don’t receive jobs in new places. According to a USA Today report, punishment for misconduct also varies at the state level, with some requiring police to decertify while others are far less punitive. Creating a national registry about misconduct would enable lawmakers to better understand its frequency and craft targeted responses to combat it.
The Republican bill would not establish a national registry of police misconduct but does require local and state agencies to maintain disciplinary records for law enforcement officers; it also conditions funding on these practices.
Require states to report use of force to the Justice Department: Similarly, little is currently known about the frequency with which police officers currently use force, something the bill is striving to change. By mandating state documentation of use of force, law enforcement agencies can begin to determine how often police engage in such actions. The Republican measure, too, calls for state and local agencies to report use of force to the federal government on an annual basis.
Mandate racial bias training at the federal level: A reform that’s been implemented in some police stations across the country, racial bias training is aimed at getting law enforcement officers to recognize their own explicit and implicit biases — and how these attitudes affect the way they respond in different situations. Researchers have found implicit racial biases could be tied to officers being quicker to shoot black subjects versus white subjects. The training involves providing officers with evidence of these biases playing out so they are forced to recognize their existence.
In addition to requiring it at the federal level, the bill would condition funding for state and local police based on their commitment to implementing racial bias training programs. Among critics of racial bias training, questions remain about how effective it is in deterring police abuses and disparate use of force.
Require that deadly force be used only as last resort: The bill would change the use-of-force standard for federal officers from “reasonableness” to only when it is necessary to either prevent death or “serious bodily injury.” It would require federal officers to use deescalation techniques and only resort to force as a last resort, and would condition federal funds to state and local agencies on their adoption of the same standard.
Make lynching a federal crime: The killings of Floyd and Ahmaud Arbery, a black jogger who was shot by two white men in Georgia while he was out on a run, have been described as modern-day lynchings. Despite more than 200 attempts to consider bills addressing such acts, there remains no law on the books classifying lynchings as a federal crime.
While the House and Senate have respectively passed their own legislation that would do so, the two have yet to approve one bill and get it signed into law. Both the Democratic and Republican bills would guarantee that lynching — described by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer as “the premeditated, extrajudicial killing by a mob or group of people to instill fear” — would be treated as a federal crime. The Justice in Policing Act would also classify conspiring to commit civil rights offenses, such as a hate crime, as a lynching.
Require police to use more body and dashboard cameras: The bill would require federal police officers to wear body cameras and put dashboard cameras on all federal police vehicles. It requires state and local departments to use existing federal funds to increase body camera use, which has been on the rise since the 2014 shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. However, research has shown that more cameras aren’t the whole story; police don’t always turn them on or review the footage while writing an incident report, and footage is not always made public.
The Republican bill also encourages the use of body cameras and establishes a grant program for police to obtain such technology.
Limit the transfer of military equipment to local police departments: Currently, the military is able to distribute excess equipment including armored vehicles and ammunition to local law enforcement agencies under the 1033 program. The bill would prohibit the distribution of some “controlled” military equipment by the Department of Defense, such as firearms, grenades, vehicles, and weaponized drones. There are scenarios when departments could waive this rule, however, such as when police need a vehicle for a natural disaster response.
The next steps for police reform are uncertain
Given the differences in the Democratic and Republican proposals, the next steps for police reform remain uncertain. In a letter to McConnell earlier this week, Democrats called for Republicans to engage in negotiations before holding another floor vote.
“This bill is not salvageable and we need bipartisan talks to get to a constructive starting point,” wrote Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), and Booker. McConnell, too, has said a Senate bill has the potential to come up for another vote later down the line.
Whether such talks will lead to tangible progress, however, is an open question. Because both Democrats and Republicans view “qualified immunity” as a key sticking point, it’s possible any compromise could stall over this — and other — provisions.
A similar dynamic has played out in the past over other policy areas: Prior efforts at gun reform, which had significant public support, have been stymied by partisan differences. After the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, in 2018, Democrats and Republicans proposed multiple gun reform bills regarding background checks and “red flag” laws, many of which foundered.
Additionally, as Fox News’s Chad Pergram notes, Democrats may be interested in waiting for the outcome of this fall’s elections: If the party is able to retake a Senate majority, it could have added leverage to advance a more comprehensive set of police reforms at that time.


vox--2020-06-25--Why America’s police look like soldiers

Why America’s police look like soldiers

Across the country , Americans protesting racial injustice and police brutality — the overwhelming majority of them peacefully — have been met by police forces that look more like an army .
Officers have shown up to protests with riot gear , armored trucks , and military rifles .
And this isn ’ t new : The protests in Ferguson , Missouri , in 2014 saw a similarly militarized response from police .
So where did police get all these weapons ?
Over several decades , as part of the war on drugs , the US implemented policies intended to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ together .
The most impactful of those , which began in 1990 , is what ’ s now known as the 1033 Program — it allowed the military to loan its surplus equipment to law enforcement agencies .
By the mid-1990s , local police departments across the US , including even university police , had acquired gear like armored trucks , automatic rifles , and grenade launchers .
Today that equipment is standard in American police departments .
But what ’ s changed since the ’ 90s is that the 1033 Program no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Today the culture of militarization is baked into how the country ’ s police see themselves .
You can find this video and all of Vox ’ s videos on YouTube .
And if you ’ re interested in supporting our video journalism , you can become a member of the Vox Video Lab on YouTube .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Across the country, Americans protesting racial injustice and police brutality — the overwhelming majority of them peacefully — have been met by police forces that look more like an army.
Officers have shown up to protests with riot gear, armored trucks, and military rifles. And this isn’t new: The protests in Ferguson, Missouri, in 2014 saw a similarly militarized response from police.
So where did police get all these weapons?
Over several decades, as part of the war on drugs, the US implemented policies intended to bring law enforcement and the military closer together. The most impactful of those, which began in 1990, is what’s now known as the 1033 Program — it allowed the military to loan its surplus equipment to law enforcement agencies. By the mid-1990s, local police departments across the US, including even university police, had acquired gear like armored trucks, automatic rifles, and grenade launchers.
Today that equipment is standard in American police departments. But what’s changed since the ’90s is that the 1033 Program no longer drives the militarization of police. Today the culture of militarization is baked into how the country’s police see themselves.
You can find this video and all of Vox’s videos on YouTube. And if you’re interested in supporting our video journalism, you can become a member of the Vox Video Lab on YouTube.


vox--2020-06-25--The US military will stay on the US-Mexico border, even with migration falling

The Pentagon will officially keep as many as 4,000 troops at the US-Mexico border in October — ensuring President Donald Trump ’ s military deployment continues throughout the election season despite no signs of an actual crisis .
In a Thursday statement , Army Lt. Col. Chris Mitchell , a Defense Department spokesperson , said Defense Secretary Mark Esper approved the Department of Homeland Security ’ s request for assistance at the border .
Most military backup will come from the National Guard , he noted , which will help monitor the frontier , provide logistics , and offer transport @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t engage in law enforcement activities .
In a follow-up comment to Vox as to why such a decision was made months in advance , Mitchell said , “ The current mission is set to expire at the end of September .
This is just an extension of the mission through the next fiscal year.
” The new authorized number of troops would actually be a decrease from the 5,500 military personnel currently at the border .
William Banks , an expert on national security law at Syracuse University , told Vox @ @ @ @ @ @ @ previous ones , is clearly legal .
But , he added , “ I continue to question whether the wall construction itself is lawful , ” noting that multiple lawsuits proceed .
All this sounds well and good , but the issue is that what was supposed to be a temporary backfill at the border has now become a perpetual solution , and it ’ s not clear the military is even needed at the Mexico frontier anymore .
In October 2018 , President Donald Trump sent thousands of US troops to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” of migrants from Central America seeking asylum in America .
They were sent to provide support at the border and free up Border Patrol agents to do their jobs instead of paperwork or wall upkeep .
Critics saw that as nothing more than an electoral play ahead of the midterms since Trump ’ s hardline immigration policy is central to his and the Republican party ’ s political fortunes .
At the time , Pentagon leadership and other administration officials said such a support mission would be temporary and disband when troops @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it seems , the Department of Homeland Security has deemed it necessary to continue having soldiers around , all but sure to rekindle critiques Trump may be trying to bolster his immigration bona fides ahead of his reelection fight in November .
Last year , top Pentagon officials said the military deployment would last as long as needed .
“ We ’ re not going to leave until the border is secure , ” former acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan said in May 2019 .
The administration ’ s argument at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it doesn ’ t really have a good case .
Migration is down , but Trump is cracking down on the border anyway Trump is charging ahead with the troop deployment and enacting other measures to secure the border despite the fact that migration overall has declined amid the pandemic .
US Customs and Border Protection ( CBP ) arrested about 23,000 migrants in May , a decrease from 114,000 in the same month in 2019 .
While Central American families previously accounted for the majority of those arrested , single adult @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The border remains closed to nonessential travel through mid-July , and that closure could be extended until officials decide that immigration no longer poses a public health risk to Americans .
Countries that have produced the largest number of asylum seekers — including Guatemala , Honduras , and El Salvador — have also closed their borders and implemented restrictions even on domestic travel , making movement difficult .
Smugglers who help migrants cross the border have also largely ceased operations for now .
Even if migrants were able to reach the US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but impossible for them to pursue asylum claims or other protections in the US .
The Department of Justice has postponed most immigration court hearings for those in Mexico who are waiting for their chance to plead their asylum case to an immigration judge under the Trump administration ’ s “ Remain in Mexico ” program .
Immigration officials have also implemented an expulsion order to swiftly turn away migrants at the border , including unaccompanied children , though it ’ s currently facing a legal challenge brought by the American Civil Liberties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , El Salvador , and Honduras are processed in the field rather than inside US Border Patrol stations , and , without so much as a medical exam , are sent back to Mexico in an average of 96 minutes , the Texas Tribune reported .
Some 43,000 migrants have been sent back to Mexico under the new system , according to CBP .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

The Pentagon will officially keep as many as 4,000 troops at the US-Mexico border in October — ensuring President Donald Trump’s military deployment continues throughout the election season despite no signs of an actual crisis.
In a Thursday statement, Army Lt. Col. Chris Mitchell, a Defense Department spokesperson, said Defense Secretary Mark Esper approved the Department of Homeland Security’s request for assistance at the border. Most military backup will come from the National Guard, he noted, which will help monitor the frontier, provide logistics, and offer transport to Border Patrol personnel. Troops can’t engage in law enforcement activities.
In a follow-up comment to Vox as to why such a decision was made months in advance, Mitchell said, “The current mission is set to expire at the end of September. This is just an extension of the mission through the next fiscal year.” The new authorized number of troops would actually be a decrease from the 5,500 military personnel currently at the border.
William Banks, an expert on national security law at Syracuse University, told Vox that such a deployment, like the previous ones, is clearly legal. But, he added, “I continue to question whether the wall construction itself is lawful,” noting that multiple lawsuits proceed.
All this sounds well and good, but the issue is that what was supposed to be a temporary backfill at the border has now become a perpetual solution, and it’s not clear the military is even needed at the Mexico frontier anymore.
In October 2018, President Donald Trump sent thousands of US troops to the border to stop a so-called “caravan” of migrants from Central America seeking asylum in America. They were sent to provide support at the border and free up Border Patrol agents to do their jobs instead of paperwork or wall upkeep.
Critics saw that as nothing more than an electoral play ahead of the midterms since Trump’s hardline immigration policy is central to his and the Republican party’s political fortunes.
At the time, Pentagon leadership and other administration officials said such a support mission would be temporary and disband when troops were no longer needed. But now, it seems, the Department of Homeland Security has deemed it necessary to continue having soldiers around, all but sure to rekindle critiques Trump may be trying to bolster his immigration bona fides ahead of his reelection fight in November.
Old enough to remember when DepSecDef Shanahan said it'd just be for a few months. — Brian P. McKeon (@bpmckeon64) June 25, 2020
Last year, top Pentagon officials said the military deployment would last as long as needed. “We’re not going to leave until the border is secure,” former acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan said in May 2019.
The administration’s argument at the time could be defended. Now, it doesn’t really have a good case.
Migration is down, but Trump is cracking down on the border anyway
Trump is charging ahead with the troop deployment and enacting other measures to secure the border despite the fact that migration overall has declined amid the pandemic.
US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) arrested about 23,000 migrants in May, a decrease from 114,000 in the same month in 2019. While Central American families previously accounted for the majority of those arrested, single adult males are now coming in larger numbers.
The border remains closed to nonessential travel through mid-July, and that closure could be extended until officials decide that immigration no longer poses a public health risk to Americans. Countries that have produced the largest number of asylum seekers — including Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador — have also closed their borders and implemented restrictions even on domestic travel, making movement difficult. Smugglers who help migrants cross the border have also largely ceased operations for now.
Even if migrants were able to reach the US border, Trump has made it all but impossible for them to pursue asylum claims or other protections in the US. The Department of Justice has postponed most immigration court hearings for those in Mexico who are waiting for their chance to plead their asylum case to an immigration judge under the Trump administration’s “Remain in Mexico” program.
Immigration officials have also implemented an expulsion order to swiftly turn away migrants at the border, including unaccompanied children, though it’s currently facing a legal challenge brought by the American Civil Liberties Union. Migrants from Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras are processed in the field rather than inside US Border Patrol stations, and, without so much as a medical exam, are sent back to Mexico in an average of 96 minutes, the Texas Tribune reported. Some 43,000 migrants have been sent back to Mexico under the new system, according to CBP.


What day is it today?

Today is Thursday , June 25 , 2020 , at least in the continental United States .
It is already Friday , June 26 , 2020 , in some parts of the world .
To some degree , time is an illusion .
We are bound by its forward passage , being the third-dimensional creatures we are , but the perceptions we have placed upon time have been invented .
Humans invented the year .
Humans invented the month .
Humans invented the day , the hour , the minute , the second .
These distinctions are not arbitrary — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the Earth to orbit the sun — but their creation was not inevitable .
Our numerical system is likely base-10 because we have 10 fingers ; the way we understand time is almost entirely dependent on the fact that we evolved on this planet , circling this sun .
Time , at least as we understand it , is also a byproduct of capitalism .
In his seminal 1967 economic paper “ Work-Discipline and Industrial Capitalism , ” E. P. Thompson notes that in early human cultures , delineations of time were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up and went down , when the seasons changed .
But as industrialization became the norm , time became a mechanized system that no longer served those who ’ d invented it .
We increasingly served at the beck and call of time , for that is how those who possessed capital could best regulate those who performed the labor .
For we are now at a point where sociologists are discussing the “ problem ” of leisure .
And a part of the problem is : how did it come to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ marriage of convenience with industrial capitalism , was the agent which converted men to new valuations of time ; which taught children even in their infancy to improve each shining hour ; and which saturated men ’ s minds with the equation , time is money .
One recurrent form of revolt within Western industrial capitalism , whether bohemian or beatnik , has often taken the form of flouting the urgency of respectable timevalues .
And the interesting question arises : if Puritanism was a necessary part of the work-ethos which enabled the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poverty-stricken economies of the past , will the Puritan valuation of time begin to decompose as the pressures of poverty relax ?
Is it decomposing already ?
Will men begin to lose that restless urgency , that desire to consume time purposively , which most people carry just as they carry a watch on their wrists ?
But it remains that on some base level , we will always understand time .
The sun comes up , the sun goes down .
Though we might be inside , where that process is more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our insideness does not obscure the day and night cycle .
What is lost , as each day blends into the next , in vaguely similar ways , is the mechanistic definition of time , the capitalist definition of time , the industrial definition of time .
We do not know what day it is , but we do know when there is a new day .
To live inside is to lose distinction .
There is a numbing effect that occurs when each day is the same , when our schedules are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gulf of undifferentiated time .
And yet isn ’ t this how so many of the less privileged around the world , forced to work jobs involving menial labor , day after day after day , already live ?
Isn ’ t this why we invented the weekend ?
Has this quarantine simply shown to those of us with more economic privilege that our “ free time ” was always a mirage , which could disappear before our eyes , by giving us so much “ free ” time ?
I have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and when I need to orient myself in time , I look at it .
But even the usefulness of my calendar has started to fray around the edges .
I began writing this story because I couldn ’ t quite believe it was a Thursday , even as I knew it had to be a Thursday .
But it might as well not be .
A cycle that bears the sun across our sky until it sets in the west is a reality ; “ Thursday ” is an invention .
Is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t know .
I will update this article daily until we don ’ t need it anymore .
I hope there is a time when we know it is Thursday or Tuesday or June 17 without having to look at a calendar or ask each other or Google .
I hope there is a time when going outside to see the sun doesn ’ t feel like exposing yourself to toxic levels of radiation .
( I know I should be taking walks ; every time , I feel like I ’ m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a time in which all this “ free ” time no longer feels like a period we must exploit for maximum value .
I hope there is a time when I remember what it ’ s like to grab lunch with a friend , to watch dogs play in the surf , to breathe in the air and just be .
Until then , find a way to make time have meaning for you .
Read a long book .
Cook an elaborate meal .
Take up knitting .
Write an epic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve always meant to get to .
Sleep .
Remember that time doesn ’ t own you , and that you own time .
This will be over someday , a part of the past .
It will someday be a memory .
Hang on to that .
I ’ ll see you outside again .
For now , it is Thursday , June 25 , 2020 .
In some parts of the world , it is Friday , June 26 , 2020 .
Are you a “ What day is it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our official theme song .
It ’ s written by composer Laura Stratford , and it is wonderful .

Today is Wednesday, July 1, 2020, at least in the continental United States. It is already Thursday, July 2, 2020, in some parts of the world. Life isn’t resuming gracefully, but the herky jerky train wreck of America’s reopening certainly speaks to some desire to exit this quarantine period. And so “What Day Is It Today” will exit the stage, too. For now, at least.
To some degree, time is an illusion. We are bound by its forward passage, being the third-dimensional creatures we are, but the perceptions we have placed upon time have been invented. Humans invented the year. Humans invented the month. Humans invented the day, the hour, the minute, the second.
These distinctions are not arbitrary — it really does take about 365 days for the Earth to orbit the sun — but their creation was not inevitable. Our numerical system is likely base-10 because we have 10 fingers; the way we understand time is almost entirely dependent on the fact that we evolved on this planet, circling this sun.
Time, at least as we understand it, is also a byproduct of capitalism. In his seminal 1967 economic paper “Work-Discipline and Industrial Capitalism,” E. P. Thompson notes that in early human cultures, delineations of time were broad understandings of when the sun came up and went down, when the seasons changed. But as industrialization became the norm, time became a mechanized system that no longer served those who’d invented it. We increasingly served at the beck and call of time, for that is how those who possessed capital could best regulate those who performed the labor.
Thompson writes:
For we are now at a point where sociologists are discussing the “problem” of leisure. And a part of the problem is: how did it come to be a problem ? Puritanism, in its marriage of convenience with industrial capitalism, was the agent which converted men to new valuations of time; which taught children even in their infancy to improve each shining hour; and which saturated men’s minds with the equation, time is money. One recurrent form of revolt within Western industrial capitalism, whether bohemian or beatnik, has often taken the form of flouting the urgency of respectable timevalues. And the interesting question arises: if Puritanism was a necessary part of the work-ethos which enabled the industrialized world to break out of the poverty-stricken economies of the past, will the Puritan valuation of time begin to decompose as the pressures of poverty relax? Is it decomposing already? Will men begin to lose that restless urgency, that desire to consume time purposively, which most people carry just as they carry a watch on their wrists?
But it remains that on some base level, we will always understand time. The sun comes up, the sun goes down. Though we might be inside, where that process is more difficult to witness, the fact of our insideness does not obscure the day and night cycle. What is lost, as each day blends into the next, in vaguely similar ways, is the mechanistic definition of time, the capitalist definition of time, the industrial definition of time. We do not know what day it is, but we do know when there is a new day.
To live inside is to lose distinction. There is a numbing effect that occurs when each day is the same, when our schedules are subsumed by what feels like an endless gulf of undifferentiated time. And yet isn’t this how so many of the less privileged around the world, forced to work jobs involving menial labor, day after day after day, already live? Isn’t this why we invented the weekend? Has this quarantine simply shown to those of us with more economic privilege that our “free time” was always a mirage, which could disappear before our eyes, by giving us so much “free” time?
I have a wall calendar hanging above my desk, and when I need to orient myself in time, I look at it. But even the usefulness of my calendar has started to fray around the edges. I began writing this story because I couldn’t quite believe it was a Thursday, even as I knew it had to be a Thursday. But it might as well not be. A cycle that bears the sun across our sky until it sets in the west is a reality; “Thursday” is an invention. Is it still necessary? I don’t know.
What’s important to remember is that time doesn’t own you. You own time. This will be over someday, a part of the past. It will someday be a memory. Hang on to that. I’ll see you outside again.
This story was originally published Friday, March 27, 2020.
Are you a “What day is it today?” superfan? Check out our official theme song. It’s written by composer Laura Stratford, and it is wonderful.


vox--2020-06-25--The Georgia legislature finally passes a hate crime bill in the wake of Ahmaud Arbery’s death

After two decades of fits and starts of enacting hate crime legislation , Georgia this week passed one such bill , four months to the day after the killing of Ahmaud Arbery .
On Tuesday , the state legislature passed HB 426 , which would bring about enhanced criminal penalties for crimes committed based on the race , religion , gender identity , disability , or other identity-related qualities of victims .
It revises “ the criteria for imposition of punishment for crimes involving bias or prejudice ” in Georgia .
Republican Gov .
Brian Kemp has said he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through legal review .
If and when that happens , Georgia will no longer be one of four states without hate crime laws in place .
South Carolina , Wyoming , and Arkansas still do not have them .
Georgia has tried to enact hate crime legislation before .
According to USA Today , it first passed a hate crime bill in 2000 , but eventually the state Supreme Court tossed it out because it was “ unconstitutionally vague.
” In 2019 , HB 426 narrowly passed Georgia ’ s House but eventually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s killing put new urgency behind the bill , which passed with sweeping majorities — 47-6 in the Senate and 127-38 in the House .
Arbery , 25 , was shot and killed by white men while jogging in a neighborhood near Brunswick , Georgia , in February .
In May , video footage of the killing emerged .
Vox ’ s Sean Collins explained what happened : Gregory McMichael claimed to see Arbery “ hauling ass ” as he jogged by , and he and his son jumped in a truck to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Roddie ” Bryan , followed them and filmed them on his phone .
The video shows Arbery running toward the McMichaels ’ truck and then trying to run around it , a struggle , and then Travis McMichael shooting Arbery .
All three men involved have been indicted on murder charges in relation to Arbery ’ s death .
His killing , along with those of Breonna Taylor in Kentucky and George Floyd in Minnesota , have sparked protests against police violence and systemic racism across the country .
Arbery ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of interest in making sure Georgia gets this on the books , ” Georgia state Rep. Karen Bennett told CBS News of the hate crime legislation .
“ It ’ s time for Georgia to rise up and show that we will not stand for crimes done out of hate , ” said Georgia state Sen. Donzella James , also according to CBS News .
“ Yes , we can not legislate love , but we can put stronger penalties in place that may deter those who are committing these crimes from doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ put wording in the bill that would add police officers and first responders as a protected class , but ultimately , that was scrapped , though protections for law enforcement went into a separate bill that would create a bill of rights for officers being investigated .
According to the Department of Justice , there were 204,000 hate crimes on average annually from 2013 to 2017 in the United States , and the majority were motivated by bias related to race or ethnicity .
In a statement through the NAACP , Wanda Cooper-Jones @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her family “ thanks everyone for not letting my son ’ s death be in vain.
” Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

After two decades of fits and starts of enacting hate crime legislation, Georgia this week passed one such bill, four months to the day after the killing of Ahmaud Arbery.
On Tuesday, the state legislature passed HB 426, which would bring about enhanced criminal penalties for crimes committed based on the race, religion, gender identity, disability, or other identity-related qualities of victims. It revises “the criteria for imposition of punishment for crimes involving bias or prejudice” in Georgia. Republican Gov. Brian Kemp has said he’ll sign the legislation after it goes through legal review. If and when that happens, Georgia will no longer be one of four states without hate crime laws in place. South Carolina, Wyoming, and Arkansas still do not have them.
Georgia has tried to enact hate crime legislation before. According to USA Today, it first passed a hate crime bill in 2000, but eventually the state Supreme Court tossed it out because it was “unconstitutionally vague.” In 2019, HB 426 narrowly passed Georgia’s House but eventually stalled in the Senate.
Arbery’s killing put new urgency behind the bill, which passed with sweeping majorities — 47-6 in the Senate and 127-38 in the House. Arbery, 25, was shot and killed by white men while jogging in a neighborhood near Brunswick, Georgia, in February. In May, video footage of the killing emerged. Vox’s Sean Collins explained what happened:
Arbery was killed on February 23, when Gregory McMichael, 64, a retired district attorney investigator and police detective, and his son Travis McMichael, 34, armed themselves and followed him in a pickup truck after seeing him jog by. They later told police officers they believed Arbery to be a suspect in two burglaries in the Satilla Shores area.
Gregory McMichael claimed to see Arbery “hauling ass” as he jogged by, and he and his son jumped in a truck to pursue him. A neighbor, William “Roddie” Bryan, followed them and filmed them on his phone. The video shows Arbery running toward the McMichaels’ truck and then trying to run around it, a struggle, and then Travis McMichael shooting Arbery.
All three men involved have been indicted on murder charges in relation to Arbery’s death. His killing, along with those of Breonna Taylor in Kentucky and George Floyd in Minnesota, have sparked protests against police violence and systemic racism across the country.
Arbery’s killing has created a “newfound resurgence of interest in making sure Georgia gets this on the books,” Georgia state Rep. Karen Bennett told CBS News of the hate crime legislation.
“It’s time for Georgia to rise up and show that we will not stand for crimes done out of hate,” said Georgia state Sen. Donzella James, also according to CBS News. “Yes, we cannot legislate love, but we can put stronger penalties in place that may deter those who are committing these crimes from doing it.”
Georgia Senate Republicans tried to put wording in the bill that would add police officers and first responders as a protected class, but ultimately, that was scrapped, though protections for law enforcement went into a separate bill that would create a bill of rights for officers being investigated.
According to the Department of Justice, there were 204,000 hate crimes on average annually from 2013 to 2017 in the United States, and the majority were motivated by bias related to race or ethnicity.
In a statement through the NAACP, Wanda Cooper-Jones, Arbery’s mother, said her family “thanks everyone for not letting my son’s death be in vain.”


vox--2020-06-25--The head of US broadcasting is leaning toward pro-Trump propaganda. Biden would fire him.

If Joe Biden wins the presidency , he ’ s promising at least one staffing change : firing the CEO of a US-funded global media agency who ’ s accused of trying to turn it into a propaganda shop aligned with Donald Trump ’ s ideology .
Andrew Bates , a spokesperson for the former vice president ’ s campaign , told me Biden will oust Michael Pack from his Senate-confirmed position at the US Agency for Global Media ( USAGM ) soon after entering the White House .
The reason is simple : Biden believes Pack is trying to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ largest media networks into something akin to Breitbart or Trump TV .
“ Michael Pack is decidedly unqualified , ” Bates said , “ and his actions risk hijacking invaluable , nonpartisan media institutions that stand up for fundamental American values like freedom and democracy in the world.
” USAGM is a government department that oversees five media organizations : Voice of America , Middle East Broadcasting , Radio Free Asia , Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty , and the Office of Cuba Broadcasting .
Collectively , those outlets reach hundreds of millions of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ goal of disseminating factual , unbiased news to people who live in countries where freedom of the press is either strongly curtailed or nonexistent .
Many stories run by those organizations have a pro-US bent , leading some to say they remain in the propaganda business like they were during World War II and the Cold War .
Pack , a close ally of former top Trump strategist Steve Bannon , began his three-year tenure just this month and wasted no time making dramatic changes to reshape the agency .
Last week , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he purged four top officials from the agency ’ s media organizations .
The two chiefs of Voice of America ( VOA ) , the most prominent outlet in the agency , had already resigned earlier over Pack ’ s appointment .
According to three current and former VOA staff , the new acting director is Elez Biberaj , the head of VOA ’ s Eastern European division .
Biberaj has a reputation for being very tough on the region ’ s dictators and passionate about delivering news to underserved communities on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has yet to officially announce that appointment .
The real concern , though , is about Pack ’ s vision for Voice of America ’ s editorials , which are essentially government statements read aloud on air or placed on a VOA English or foreign-language website .
( They differ from editorials in a traditional newspaper , which are written by a panel of editors to represent the newspaper ’ s view , or op-eds , which represent a columnist or outside contributor ’ s views . )
Having editorials helps the US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world , which is why the State Department sometimes signs off on them beforehand .
They also take airtime away from news reporting , creating a distraction VOA ’ s partner organizations abroad don ’ t like .
VOA has run editorials since before Pack ’ s time , but they haven ’ t received much prominence .
That ’ s about to change .
On Wednesday , Pack detailed his new plans for VOA editorials : make them more aligned with the president ’ s views .
“ Editorials are the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ broadcasting where administration policy , set by the president , is communicated directly in the name of the US government to audiences abroad in various languages , ” the agency said in a press release .
Now , an “ editorials ” section has replaced the “ coronavirus outbreak ” tab on the main page .
Emphasizing editorials creates another issue : How does a foreign audience know what ’ s information and what ’ s a US government statement ?
“ Abroad , we want a bright line between the two , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ member of the agency , said of news and editorials .
“ Blur that line and you step into the propaganda trap quite easily.
” A veteran VOA foreign correspondent unauthorized to speak publicly told me this new editorials policy is a “ return to the Cold War mentality , ” referring to when the outlet countered Soviet propaganda .
In other words , making editorials prominent — as they once were — means the outlet is now putting extra focus on official US statements at the expense of regular journalism .
Pack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to have VOA and other outlets push back harder against top American opponents in the world , like China .
Trump has also toyed with creating a new government-run media outlet , but Bannon in 2018 specifically told the president , “ You got one ... it ’ s called Voice of America.
” Pack , according to an agency spokesperson , noted the CEO “ was confirmed for a three-year term ” and “ looks forward to serving the country and the American people.
” But should Biden win in November , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he would also install someone as CEO who doesn ’ t want to broadcast Trump-aligned views to the world .
Pack ’ s editorial plan is partly why he has so many critics , including Biden The change Biden wants to make couldn ’ t come soon enough for many of Pack ’ s detractors .
Pack ’ s decision on editorials would mainly promote a single-minded viewpoint , violating the VOA Charter : “ VOA will represent America , not any single segment of American society , and will therefore present @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American thought and institutions , ” the 1976 law reads in part .
Many worry pushing editorials with a pro-Trump bent will eventually lead Pack to push for Trump-friendly news coverage , whether that ’ s boosting the president ’ s domestic policies or bashing foreign adversaries .
Until now , news agencies funded and overseen by the federal government have mainly operated independently when it comes to the stories they cover and how they cover them .
A change in that tradition would break the “ firewall , ” enshrined in US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any US government official in the objective , independent reporting of news , thereby safeguarding the ability of our journalists to develop content that reflects the highest professional standards of journalism , free of political interference , ” according to the VOA website .
On this point , the veteran VOA foreign correspondent told me there ’ s “ increasing nervousness ” in the newsroom , “ but no panic yet as no fist has come through the firewall .
But we do hear tapping noises.
” The correspondent and others feel left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s future .
“ Staff members are learning more about what ’ s likely to happen at VOA from listening to Steve Bannon ’ s podcast than from their own bosses , ” the correspondent told me .
It ’ d be one thing if Pack ’ s plan were nefarious and effective , but few experts actually believe it will work as intended .
“ The old Cold War model where the audience was all listening to shortwave radio from DC is gone , ” said David Ensor , who ran VOA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s audience now watches or listens to VOA reports and reporters on local news programs .
“ There is no place for the editorials there .
That ’ s not what our broadcasting partners will accept.
” “ Moving editorials to more prominent places on the VOA websites will probably reduce the number of visits to those websites , but hopefully not too much , ” he added .
“ This is not likely to be a smart move , in my view , in terms of VOA ’ s reach and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wants news , not opinions , for the most part.
” Which means Pack appears to have put his own job , and the reputation of decades of US-backed reporting , in danger for likely little gain .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

If Joe Biden wins the presidency, he’s promising at least one staffing change: firing the CEO of a US-funded global media agency who’s accused of trying to turn it into a propaganda shop aligned with Donald Trump’s ideology.
Andrew Bates, a spokesperson for the former vice president’s campaign, told me Biden will oust Michael Pack from his Senate-confirmed position at the US Agency for Global Media (USAGM) soon after entering the White House. The reason is simple: Biden believes Pack is trying to turn one of the world’s largest media networks into something akin to Breitbart or Trump TV.
“Michael Pack is decidedly unqualified,” Bates said, “and his actions risk hijacking invaluable, nonpartisan media institutions that stand up for fundamental American values like freedom and democracy in the world.”
USAGM is a government department that oversees five media organizations: Voice of America, Middle East Broadcasting, Radio Free Asia, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and the Office of Cuba Broadcasting.
Collectively, those outlets reach hundreds of millions of people around the globe with the main goal of disseminating factual, unbiased news to people who live in countries where freedom of the press is either strongly curtailed or nonexistent. Many stories run by those organizations have a pro-US bent, leading some to say they remain in the propaganda business like they were during World War II and the Cold War.
Pack, a close ally of former top Trump strategist Steve Bannon, began his three-year tenure just this month and wasted no time making dramatic changes to reshape the agency. Last week, within hours of introducing himself to employees, he purged four top officials from the agency’s media organizations. The two chiefs of Voice of America (VOA), the most prominent outlet in the agency, had already resigned earlier over Pack’s appointment.
According to three current and former VOA staff, the new acting director is Elez Biberaj, the head of VOA’s Eastern European division. Biberaj has a reputation for being very tough on the region’s dictators and passionate about delivering news to underserved communities on the continent. However, the agency has yet to officially announce that appointment.
The real concern, though, is about Pack’s vision for Voice of America’s editorials, which are essentially government statements read aloud on air or placed on a VOA English or foreign-language website. (They differ from editorials in a traditional newspaper, which are written by a panel of editors to represent the newspaper’s view, or op-eds, which represent a columnist or outside contributor’s views.)
Having editorials helps the US government basically get pseudo-press releases out into the world, which is why the State Department sometimes signs off on them beforehand.
They also take airtime away from news reporting, creating a distraction VOA’s partner organizations abroad don’t like. VOA has run editorials since before Pack’s time, but they haven’t received much prominence.
That’s about to change. On Wednesday, Pack detailed his new plans for VOA editorials: make them more aligned with the president’s views. “Editorials are the only place in all of US international broadcasting where administration policy, set by the president, is communicated directly in the name of the US government to audiences abroad in various languages,” the agency said in a press release. Now, an “editorials” section has replaced the “coronavirus outbreak” tab on the main page.
Emphasizing editorials creates another issue: How does a foreign audience know what’s information and what’s a US government statement?
“Abroad, we want a bright line between the two,” Matt Armstrong, a former board member of the agency, said of news and editorials. “Blur that line and you step into the propaganda trap quite easily.”
A veteran VOA foreign correspondent unauthorized to speak publicly told me this new editorials policy is a “return to the Cold War mentality,” referring to when the outlet countered Soviet propaganda. In other words, making editorials prominent — as they once were — means the outlet is now putting extra focus on official US statements at the expense of regular journalism.
Pack, Bannon, and others purposefully want to have VOA and other outlets push back harder against top American opponents in the world, like China. Trump has also toyed with creating a new government-run media outlet, but Bannon in 2018 specifically told the president, “You got one ... it’s called Voice of America.”
Pack, according to an agency spokesperson, noted the CEO “was confirmed for a three-year term” and “looks forward to serving the country and the American people.” But should Biden win in November, he plans to not only remove Pack, he would also install someone as CEO who doesn’t want to broadcast Trump-aligned views to the world.
Pack’s editorial plan is partly why he has so many critics, including Biden
The change Biden wants to make couldn’t come soon enough for many of Pack’s detractors.
Pack’s decision on editorials would mainly promote a single-minded viewpoint, violating the VOA Charter: “VOA will represent America, not any single segment of American society, and will therefore present a balanced and comprehensive projection of significant American thought and institutions,” the 1976 law reads in part.
Many worry pushing editorials with a pro-Trump bent will eventually lead Pack to push for Trump-friendly news coverage, whether that’s boosting the president’s domestic policies or bashing foreign adversaries. Until now, news agencies funded and overseen by the federal government have mainly operated independently when it comes to the stories they cover and how they cover them.
A change in that tradition would break the “firewall,” enshrined in US law, which “prohibits interference by any US government official in the objective, independent reporting of news, thereby safeguarding the ability of our journalists to develop content that reflects the highest professional standards of journalism, free of political interference,” according to the VOA website.
On this point, the veteran VOA foreign correspondent told me there’s “increasing nervousness” in the newsroom, “but no panic yet as no fist has come through the firewall. But we do hear tapping noises.”
The correspondent and others feel left in the dark about the outlet’s future. “Staff members are learning more about what’s likely to happen at VOA from listening to Steve Bannon’s podcast than from their own bosses,” the correspondent told me.
It’d be one thing if Pack’s plan were nefarious and effective, but few experts actually believe it will work as intended.
“The old Cold War model where the audience was all listening to shortwave radio from DC is gone,” said David Ensor, who ran VOA from 2011 to 2015. The outlet’s audience now watches or listens to VOA reports and reporters on local news programs. “There is no place for the editorials there. That’s not what our broadcasting partners will accept.”
“Moving editorials to more prominent places on the VOA websites will probably reduce the number of visits to those websites, but hopefully not too much,” he added. “This is not likely to be a smart move, in my view, in terms of VOA’s reach and impact around the world. Our audience wants news, not opinions, for the most part.”
Which means Pack appears to have put his own job, and the reputation of decades of US-backed reporting, in danger for likely little gain.


vox--2020-06-25--The Supreme Court just allowed Trump’s expansion of deportations to go unchecked

The Supreme Court just issued a ruling with sweeping , immediate implications for the immigration enforcement system , potentially allowing the Trump administration to move forward in deporting tens of thousands of immigrants living in the US with little oversight .
The case , Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam , concerns immigration officials ’ authority to quickly deport migrants who don ’ t express fear of returning to their home countries , which would make them eligible for asylum .
The process , first enacted in 1996 and known as “ expedited removal , ” takes weeks , rather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to resolve a full deportation case , and does not involve a hearing before an immigration judge or offer immigrants the right to a lawyer .
In a 7-2 decision , the justices found Thursday that newly arrived immigrants don ’ t have the right to challenge their expedited removal in federal court , which advocates claim is a necessary check on immigration officials to ensure that migrants with credible asylum claims aren ’ t erroneously turned away and have access to a full and fair hearing .
Until recently , only a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arrived in the US could be subjected to expedited removal .
But President Donald Trump has sought to vastly expand US Immigration and Customs Enforcement ’ s power to use expedited removal as a means of deporting any immigrant who has lived in the US for up to two years , potentially affecting an estimated 20,000 people .
Thursday ’ s decision therefore allows Trump to significantly scale up his immigration enforcement apparatus while going largely unchecked .
“ Trump has made it very clear that ICE has the authority to use this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kari Hong , a professor at Boston College Law School , said .
“ They could start stopping anyone at anytime on any suspicion that they have committed an immigration violation and deport them .
I don ’ t think it ’ s unreasonable [ to predict ] that ICE agents will target dark-skinned individuals.
” Full deportation proceedings are lengthy by design : Immigrants have a right to seek protection in the US and should be afforded a full opportunity to do so .
Under expedited removal , however , that process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which most immigration attorneys say is not conducive to building a legal case in their favor .
If a migrant arrives in the US without authorization and expresses fear of persecution in their home country , a US Customs and Border Protection agent will first determine whether to refer them to an asylum officer in US Citizenship and Immigration Services for a screening known as a “ credible fear ” interview .
Asylum officers undergo extensive training to administer these interviews in a non-adversarial way and to interact with people who have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abuse , torture , and death threats .
But under Trump , CBP officials have also started administering these interviews , which advocates say they are ill-equipped to do .
While they have to undergo some additional training to administer these interviews , CBP agents are typically armed and have sought in many documented cases to intimidate and use excessive force against asylum seekers .
The Trump administration has also proposed changes to the credible fear interview process that would make it much more difficult for asylum seekers to pass the credible fear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they will have the opportunity to fight their deportation in immigration court , where they will typically have a short , initial hearing before a judge and a government attorney to learn about their rights and how their case will proceed .
They are usually given time to retain a lawyer and prepare their case , which includes gathering documents attesting to experiences that might make them eligible for relief from deportation or protections under the asylum system or international torture agreements .
They then have to wait for another hearing in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be permitted to remain in the US before an immigration judge makes a decision in their case .
Immigrants with currently pending cases have been waiting almost two years on average for that second hearing , according to the most recently available data .
These exhaustive proceedings in immigration court , however , are only accessible to migrants if a CBP agent initially refers them to an asylum officer and they pass a credible fear screening .
Asylum seekers can challenge a credible fear determination before the asylum officer ’ s supervisor and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , they have no recourse — they may face expedited removal .
What ’ s more , CBP agents have historically failed to identify and refer every migrant who claims fear of persecution in their home country to asylum officers , allowing people with potentially valid asylum claims to fall through the cracks , Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia , a professor at Pennsylvania State Law , said .
How the case could impact Trump ’ s efforts to expand deportations Though enacted in 1996 , expedited removal was used sparingly until the Obama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to expand it even further .
Since 2004 , the US has only been able to subject a small proportion of migrants to expedited removal : namely , individuals who are arrested within 100 miles of a land border within two weeks of their arrival .
But the Trump administration published a rule last year that also includes immigrants found anywhere in the US if they arrived within the last two years , a substantially larger group .
A federal appeals court in Washington , DC , upheld the rule earlier this week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Department of Homeland Security “ sole and unreviewable discretion ” over whether to expand the scope of expedited removal .
The ruling gives US Immigration and Customs Enforcement a green light to sweep communities across the country for unauthorized immigrants and deport them quickly .
“ ICE is already in the streets , in churches , at hurricane checkpoints , on Greyhound buses — they are out in front , ” Hong said .
“ Some communities in our country could see an even higher presence.
” Thursday ’ s ruling in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allow Trump to use expedited removal liberally while going unchallenged — even when the government uses the process to wrongfully deport someone with valid asylum claims .
A controversial , Clinton-era immigration law known as the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act ( IIRIRA ) bars immigrants from challenging their deportation under the expedited removal process .
But Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam — an asylum seeker from Sri Lanka who claims that the government wrongfully subjected him to expedited removal — has argued in his case at the Supreme Court that the law is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power to review immigration officials ’ decision to place him in expedited removal .
Thuraissigiam is a Tamil , an ethnic minority that has been subject to human rights violations in Sri Lanka .
Government officials had abducted him , beat him , tortured him with simulated drowning and threatened to kill him .
He was apprehended 25 yards after crossing the US southern border without authorization .
An asylum officer , their supervisor , and an immigration judge all found that he didn ’ t pass the credible fear screening and he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thuraissigiam maintained that he had a valid asylum claim and sought review of his expedited removal , applying in federal court for a writ of habeas corpus — a constitutional remedy usually available to people seeking their release from detention , but that he argued could be invoked to seek additional review of his asylum claim .
He also argued that , because he had crossed the border into the US , he had additional due process rights on US soil allowing him to challenge his expedited removal .
Most of the justices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right to habeas corpus relief doesn ’ t apply to immigrants seeking relief from deportation and that , because he had just arrived in the US , he didn ’ t have any additional due process rights .
“ Habeas has traditionally been a means to secure release from unlawful detention , but respondent invokes the writ to achieve an entirely different end , namely , to obtain additional administrative review of his asylum claim and ultimately to obtain authorization to stay in this country , ” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caught in the middle of Trump ’ s efforts to expand expedited removal are clear : Because the government faces no possible repercussions for wrongfully subjecting migrants with legitimate asylum claims to expedited removal , it will have no incentive to prevent mistakes from happening .
“ The decision deprives [ asylum seekers ] of any means to ensure the integrity of an expedited removal order , an order which , the Court has just held , is not subject to any meaningful judicial oversight as to its substance , ” Justice Sonia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

The Supreme Court just issued a ruling with sweeping, immediate implications for the immigration enforcement system, potentially allowing the Trump administration to move forward in deporting tens of thousands of immigrants living in the US with little oversight.
The case, Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, concerns immigration officials’ authority to quickly deport migrants who don’t express fear of returning to their home countries, which would make them eligible for asylum. The process, first enacted in 1996 and known as “expedited removal,” takes weeks, rather than the typical years it can take to resolve a full deportation case, and does not involve a hearing before an immigration judge or offer immigrants the right to a lawyer.
In a 7-2 decision, the justices found Thursday that newly arrived immigrants don’t have the right to challenge their expedited removal in federal court, which advocates claim is a necessary check on immigration officials to ensure that migrants with credible asylum claims aren’t erroneously turned away and have access to a full and fair hearing.
Until recently, only a small number of immigrants who had recently arrived in the US could be subjected to expedited removal. But President Donald Trump has sought to vastly expand US Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s power to use expedited removal as a means of deporting any immigrant who has lived in the US for up to two years, potentially affecting an estimated 20,000 people.
Thursday’s decision therefore allows Trump to significantly scale up his immigration enforcement apparatus while going largely unchecked.
“Trump has made it very clear that ICE has the authority to use this process throughout the entire country,” Kari Hong, a professor at Boston College Law School, said. “They could start stopping anyone at anytime on any suspicion that they have committed an immigration violation and deport them. I don’t think it’s unreasonable [to predict] that ICE agents will target dark-skinned individuals.”
How expedited removal works
Full deportation proceedings are lengthy by design: Immigrants have a right to seek protection in the US and should be afforded a full opportunity to do so. Under expedited removal, however, that process is condensed to a matter of weeks, which most immigration attorneys say is not conducive to building a legal case in their favor.
If a migrant arrives in the US without authorization and expresses fear of persecution in their home country, a US Customs and Border Protection agent will first determine whether to refer them to an asylum officer in US Citizenship and Immigration Services for a screening known as a “credible fear” interview.
Asylum officers undergo extensive training to administer these interviews in a non-adversarial way and to interact with people who have faced trauma, including rape, domestic abuse, torture, and death threats. But under Trump, CBP officials have also started administering these interviews, which advocates say they are ill-equipped to do. While they have to undergo some additional training to administer these interviews, CBP agents are typically armed and have sought in many documented cases to intimidate and use excessive force against asylum seekers.
The Trump administration has also proposed changes to the credible fear interview process that would make it much more difficult for asylum seekers to pass the credible fear screening.
But if they do pass, they will have the opportunity to fight their deportation in immigration court, where they will typically have a short, initial hearing before a judge and a government attorney to learn about their rights and how their case will proceed. They are usually given time to retain a lawyer and prepare their case, which includes gathering documents attesting to experiences that might make them eligible for relief from deportation or protections under the asylum system or international torture agreements.
They then have to wait for another hearing in which they actually argue why they should be permitted to remain in the US before an immigration judge makes a decision in their case. Immigrants with currently pending cases have been waiting almost two years on average for that second hearing, according to the most recently available data.
These exhaustive proceedings in immigration court, however, are only accessible to migrants if a CBP agent initially refers them to an asylum officer and they pass a credible fear screening. Asylum seekers can challenge a credible fear determination before the asylum officer’s supervisor and then an immigration judge, but after that, they have no recourse — they may face expedited removal.
What’s more, CBP agents have historically failed to identify and refer every migrant who claims fear of persecution in their home country to asylum officers, allowing people with potentially valid asylum claims to fall through the cracks, Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, a professor at Pennsylvania State Law, said.
How the case could impact Trump’s efforts to expand deportations
Though enacted in 1996, expedited removal was used sparingly until the Obama administration. President Donald Trump has sought to expand it even further.
Since 2004, the US has only been able to subject a small proportion of migrants to expedited removal: namely, individuals who are arrested within 100 miles of a land border within two weeks of their arrival. But the Trump administration published a rule last year that also includes immigrants found anywhere in the US if they arrived within the last two years, a substantially larger group.
A federal appeals court in Washington, DC, upheld the rule earlier this week, finding that Congress had offered the Department of Homeland Security “sole and unreviewable discretion” over whether to expand the scope of expedited removal. The ruling gives US Immigration and Customs Enforcement a green light to sweep communities across the country for unauthorized immigrants and deport them quickly.
“ICE is already in the streets, in churches, at hurricane checkpoints, on Greyhound buses — they are out in front,” Hong said. “Some communities in our country could see an even higher presence.”
Thursday’s ruling in the Thuraissigiam case at the Supreme Court could allow Trump to use expedited removal liberally while going unchallenged — even when the government uses the process to wrongfully deport someone with valid asylum claims.
A controversial, Clinton-era immigration law known as the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) bars immigrants from challenging their deportation under the expedited removal process. But Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam — an asylum seeker from Sri Lanka who claims that the government wrongfully subjected him to expedited removal — has argued in his case at the Supreme Court that the law is unconstitutional and that courts should have the power to review immigration officials’ decision to place him in expedited removal.
Thuraissigiam is a Tamil, an ethnic minority that has been subject to human rights violations in Sri Lanka. Government officials had abducted him, beat him, tortured him with simulated drowning and threatened to kill him. He was apprehended 25 yards after crossing the US southern border without authorization. An asylum officer, their supervisor, and an immigration judge all found that he didn’t pass the credible fear screening and he was subjected to expedited removal.
But Thuraissigiam maintained that he had a valid asylum claim and sought review of his expedited removal, applying in federal court for a writ of habeas corpus — a constitutional remedy usually available to people seeking their release from detention, but that he argued could be invoked to seek additional review of his asylum claim. He also argued that, because he had crossed the border into the US, he had additional due process rights on US soil allowing him to challenge his expedited removal.
Most of the justices disagreed Thursday, saying that the constitutional right to habeas corpus relief doesn’t apply to immigrants seeking relief from deportation and that, because he had just arrived in the US, he didn’t have any additional due process rights.
“Habeas has traditionally been a means to secure release from unlawful detention, but respondent invokes the writ to achieve an entirely different end, namely, to obtain additional administrative review of his asylum claim and ultimately to obtain authorization to stay in this country,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the opinion.
The implications for asylum seekers caught in the middle of Trump’s efforts to expand expedited removal are clear: Because the government faces no possible repercussions for wrongfully subjecting migrants with legitimate asylum claims to expedited removal, it will have no incentive to prevent mistakes from happening.
“The decision deprives [asylum seekers] of any means to ensure the integrity of an expedited removal order, an order which, the Court has just held, is not subject to any meaningful judicial oversight as to its substance,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissent.