vox--2020-05-13--The police shooting of Breonna Taylor, a black woman who was killed in her apartment, explained

Breonna Taylor ’ s mother was worried about her daughter getting coronavirus .
An EMT who wanted to be a nurse , the 26-year-old Taylor was an essential worker providing health care as the pandemic worsened earlier this year .
Her mother , Tamika Palmer , told her , “ make sure you wash your hands , ” Palmer recalled to the 19th , a nonprofit newsroom that partnered with the Washington Post for the story .
She didn ’ t think Taylor would be at risk in her own home .
But late at night on March 13 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her Louisville , Kentucky , apartment .
The officers were investigating two people suspected of selling drugs , neither of whom was Taylor , according to USA Today .
The Louisville police department declined to comment on the case to the 19th , citing an ongoing investigation .
But Taylor ’ s family members are alleging excessive force and gross negligence in her death .
They and others are also asking why it has taken so long for the case to gain public attention .
The fatal shooting of Ahmaud Arbery , an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has sparked national outrage after his family released a video of his death last week .
His case also went months with only a limited investigation ; it wasn ’ t until the video went viral that the two white men involved with shooting were arrested .
On Friday , thousands of Americans went running to commemorate what would have been Arbery ’ s 26th birthday , publicizing their action with the hashtag # IRunWithMaud .
Now many say Taylor ’ s death deserves the same kind of widespread attention .
Taylor ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an attorney also working with Arbery ’ s family , to represent them in the case .
“ If you ran for Ahmaud , you need to stand for Bre , ” Crump told the 19th .
Police came looking for a drug suspect .
Breonna Taylor ended up dead instead .
On the night of March 13 , Louisville police had a warrant to enter Taylor ’ s apartment because they believed that a suspect in a narcotics investigation was storing drugs or money or receiving packages at her home , according @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the suit filed by Taylor ’ s family , the man police were searching for did not live in her apartment complex and had already been detained by the time officers showed up .
Police also said that the officers knocked on the door to announce themselves .
But multiple neighbors say the officers did not knock or identify themselves , according to the family ’ s suit .
When police arrived , Taylor ’ s boyfriend , Kenneth Walker , says he woke up and believed someone was trying to break @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shot , hitting an officer in the leg .
Police then fired more than 20 rounds into the apartment .
Taylor was hit eight times and died at the scene , USA Today reports .
Walker was arrested and charged with attempted murder of a police officer .
Police found no drugs in the apartment , and Taylor and Walker have no criminal history .
Taylor ’ s family and activists around the country want to bring attention to her death On April 27 , Taylor ’ s family filed suit against the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I want justice for her , ” Palmer , Taylor ’ s mother , told the 19th .
“ I want them to say her name .
There ’ s no reason Breonna should be dead at all.
” A group of Louisville ministers is calling for a federal investigation of Taylor ’ s death along with the appointment of a civilian review board to oversee the Louisville police department , according to the Louisville Courier-Journal .
“ We are saddened by the tragic death of Breonna Taylor and the circumstances surrounding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a press release .
“ As truth seekers and believers , we seek the complete truth of the facts and the circumstances surrounding her death.
” In addition to their efforts , Keisha Dorsey , a Louisville City Council member , is calling for the dismissal of the charges against Walker .
Crump , the Taylor family ’ s attorney , argues that the killings of black women have tended to receive less media attention than the deaths of black men .
“ They ’ re killing our sisters just like they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for whatever reason , we have not given our sisters the same attention that we have given to Trayvon Martin , Michael Brown , Stephon Clark , Terence Crutcher , Alton Sterling , Philando Castile , Eric Garner , Laquan McDonald , ” he told the 19th .
“ Breonna ’ s name should be known by everybody in America who said those other names , because she was in her own home , doing absolutely nothing wrong.
” As Errin Haines notes at the 19th , black women have been targets of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ men have .
In 2015 , activists around the country demonstrated and used the hashtag # SayHerName to draw attention to women who had lost their lives , including Gabriella Nevarez , Michelle Cusseaux , and Alexia Christian , as Jenée Desmond-Harris reported for Vox at the time .
The death of Sandra Bland in jail after she was arrested during a traffic stop also drew national attention to the impact of police brutality and racism on black women ’ s lives .
Now Taylor ’ s family wants the country to know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sister , Ju ’ Niyah Palmer , has been posting photos of Taylor with the hashtag # JusticeforBre , according to the 19th .
In recent days , many others have followed suit .
And on Tuesday , Sen. Kamala Harris ( D-CA ) linked Taylor ’ s case with Arbery ’ s , calling on the Justice Department to investigate both deaths .
Arbery “ was a young man , 25 years old , taking a jog and was cut down in life , ” Harris said .
Meanwhile , Taylor “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and she ’ s sitting in her apartment when she is killed by the police.
” “ That ’ s not justice , what has happened for those two young people , ” Harris said .
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 ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

Editor’s note: On September 23, a Jefferson County grand jury announced that it would indict former Louisville police officer Brett Hankison on three counts of first-degree wanton endangerment in the shooting death of Breonna Taylor. The two other officers who fired shots that night — Jonathan Mattingly and Myles Cosgrove — were not indicted. The piece below was last updated on July 13.
It has been more than 100 days since Breonna Taylor was killed by police in her own home in Louisville, Kentucky. Thousands of protesters have chanted her name across the country, demanding justice for the EMT, who would have turned 27 on June 5.
As the country is reckoning with its history of racist police violence, many advocates want to know why charges still haven’t been filed against the officers who shot her dead. Meanwhile, those who want to abolish the carceral state are rethinking what justice in the Taylor case should actually look like.
Most advocates agree that another Black woman is dead because of a lack of police accountability — and something needs to change.
On March 13, three officers with a no-knock warrant entered Taylor’s apartment looking for two people suspected of selling drugs, neither of whom was Taylor. The officers fired more than 20 rounds into the apartment, hitting Taylor at least eight times.
After months of investigation, the Louisville Police Department (LMPD) fired officer Brett Hankison on June 23; the other two officers remain on administrative assignment. A special Kentucky prosecutor is leading an investigation into both the shooting and the department’s handling of the shooting to determine whether to charge the three officers who fired their weapons; the FBI is leading its own investigation. On June 29, the Louisville Metro Council also announced a resolution to investigate the actions of Mayor Greg Fischer and his administration surrounding Taylor’s death. The council hopes to create greater transparency around who made what decisions in the Taylor case, according to a news release.
Taylor’s death took place amid a slate of high-profile killings of unarmed Black people — it was just three weeks after Ahmaud Arbery was killed by white vigilantes while jogging and about 10 weeks before the fatal arrest of George Floyd. The suspects involved in Arbery’s case were arrested and charged two weeks after video of the incident went viral. The four officers involved in the killing of George Floyd were fired four days after Floyd’s death, with the officer who knelt on Floyd’s neck charged with murder.
By contrast, not much has happened in Taylor’s case.
In the meantime, Taylor’s family, alleging excessive force and gross negligence in her death, filed a lawsuit on April 27 against the officers involved in the shooting. In a court filing submitted on July 5, the family alleges that Taylor received no emergency medical aid as she lay dying. The document also claims that the raid on Taylor’s apartment was part of the mayor’s scheme to clear out a block in the neighborhood for redevelopment.
“I want justice for her,” Tamika Palmer, Taylor’s mother, told the 19th in May. “I want them to say her name. There’s no reason Breonna should be dead at all.”
Police came looking for a drug suspect. Breonna Taylor ended up dead instead.
On the night of March 13, Louisville police had a warrant to enter Taylor’s apartment because they believed that a suspect in a narcotics investigation was storing drugs or money or receiving packages at her home, according to USA Today.
However, according to the suit filed by Taylor’s family, the man police were searching for, Jamarcus Glover, did not live in her apartment complex and had already been detained by the time officers showed up. Taylor had dated Glover two years ago, according to a family attorney, and did not maintain an active friendship with him.
Police said that the three officers knocked on the door to announce themselves. But multiple neighbors say the officers neither knocked nor identified themselves, according to the family’s lawsuit. It was later uncovered that the police had been granted a no-knock warrant by a judge, which allowed them to enter Taylor’s apartment without announcing themselves. They also weren’t wearing body cams.
When police arrived, Taylor’s boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, 27, says he woke up and believed someone was trying to break into the apartment. There was banging on the door, he says, but police never announced themselves. He reached for his licensed handgun after he and Taylor asked who it was and got no response, NBC reported. He fired one shot, hitting an officer in the leg.
Police then fired more than 20 rounds into the apartment. Taylor died at the scene. Walker was arrested and charged with attempted murder of a police officer and aggravated assault.
Police found no drugs in the apartment, and both Taylor and Walker have no criminal history.
On May 22, Kentucky prosecutors announced that they had dismissed all charges against Walker, who said he fired a shot in self-defense when he believed he and Taylor were under attack.
On June 11, police released an incident report for the night Taylor was killed, but it was largely blank. Though Taylor was fatally shot, the four-page report listed her injuries as “none.” The report also stated there was no forced entry, though witnesses say the police used a battering ram to enter the apartment, according to CBS News.
The Taylor family’s 31-page July 5 court filing adds two new (and since contested) allegations to the narrative: that Taylor received no medical aid as she lay dying and that the nighttime raid was part of Mayor Fischer’s plan to redevelop a city block in western Louisville.
Taylor’s family said there is no evidence that suggests that Taylor was given medical attention in the six minutes between when she was shot and when she died. However, the coroner who performed Taylor’s autopsy said that her injuries from the shooting were so extreme that she would’ve died in “less than a minute” and that the recorded time of death on the report is “an estimate.”
The family’s filing also alleges that police went after Glover because of political pressure from the mayor’s office due to a redevelopment project valued at more than $30 million, according to the New York Times. Glover was reportedly using a row of abandoned houses to sell drugs in the area that needed to be cleared for development.
“People needed to be removed and homes needed to be vacated so that a high-dollar, legacy-creating real estate development could move forward,” attorneys for the family wrote in the court filing. The city has called the allegations “outrageous.”
Meanwhile, it came to light that the officer who shot Taylor, Hankison, had a history of misconduct allegations. He was already facing an ongoing federal lawsuit at the time of Taylor’s death in which Kendrick Wilson accused Hankison of “harassing suspects with unnecessary arrests and planting drugs on them,” according to USA Today. Wilson alleges that Hankison targeted him and arrested him three times in a two-year period.
After Taylor’s death, claims of sexual assault surfaced, too, with at least two women coming forward in early June to allege that Hankison assaulted them. In both allegations, which are similar to one another, Hankison offered the women rides home after they had been drinking at local bars. In one case, Hankison allegedly followed the woman into her home and assaulted her while she was unconscious. In the other case, Hankison reportedly made sexual advances toward the woman while she sat in his unmarked car, including rubbing her thighs and kissing her face.
On June 23, he was fired. LMPD posted Hankison’s termination letter on Twitter, which stated Hankison “displayed an extreme indifference to the value of human life when you wantonly and blindly fired ten (10) rounds into the apartment of Breonna Taylor…” The letter also stated Hankison violated the department’s protocol on use of deadly force when he shot through a patio door and window that was covered. This prevented him from determining whether there was an immediate threat or innocent people present; some of the bullets even traveled to a neighbor’s apartment where three people were endangered, according to the letter. Hankison has appealed his termination.
The other two officers who fired rounds that night, John Mattingly and Myles Cosgrove, remain on the force and have been placed on administrative reassignment. The case is still under independent investigation with Kentucky’s Attorney General, Daniel Cameron, who has said he will not provide additional details or a timeline for the investigation.
Protests are ongoing, and calls for justice in the investigation continue
In May, Benjamin Crump, the Taylor family’s attorney, argued that the killings of Black women have tended to receive less media attention than the deaths of Black men.
“They’re killing our sisters just like they’re killing our brothers, but for whatever reason, we have not given our sisters the same attention that we have given to Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Stephon Clark, Terence Crutcher, Alton Sterling, Philando Castile, Eric Garner, Laquan McDonald,” he told the 19th. “Breonna’s name should be known by everybody in America who said those other names, because she was in her own home, doing absolutely nothing wrong.”
Protests where the crowds chant, “Say her name, Breonna Taylor,” have attempted to reverse the lack of attention. In 2015, activists around the country demonstrated and used the hashtag #SayHerName to draw attention to women who had lost their lives, including Gabriella Nevarez, Michelle Cusseaux, and Alexia Christian, as Jenée Desmond-Harris reported for Vox at the time. The death of Sandra Bland in jail after she was arrested during a traffic stop also drew national attention to the impact of police brutality and racism on Black women’s lives.
Around the country, activists organized marches and signed petitions on Taylor’s June 5 birthday, saying she should’ve been alive to see the day. In Louisville, protesters have gathered in Breonna Taylor’s name to protest police brutality in a number of demonstrations since May. After a protest-imposed curfew on May 31, law enforcement shot and killed David McAtee, 53, a local restaurant owner. Following his death, Louisville Police Chief Steve Conrad was fired, though it is still unclear exactly who shot McAtee, Vox’s Anna North reported.
While there have been other changes in the police department since Taylor’s death — on June 11 the Louisville Metro Council voted unanimously to ban no-knock warrants — advocates, activists, and celebrities are asking why the three officers involved in Taylor’s killing haven’t been arrested. On June 14, Beyoncé wrote an open letter to Kentucky’s attorney general, demanding that criminal charges be brought against the three officers to “show the value of a Black woman’s life.” She also asked that the office bring greater transparency to the investigation.
At a June 18 press conference, Cameron — the first Black attorney general in Kentucky and a former legal counsel for Sen. Mitch McConnell — emphasized that the investigation is ongoing, without giving any specific details.
“To all those involved in this case, you have my commitment that our office is undertaking a thorough and fair investigation,” he said. “This is also a commitment that I’m making to the Louisville community, which has suffered tremendously in the days since March 13.”
Cameron was also the first Republican attorney general elected in the state, according to the New York Times, on a platform that backed Trump and some of the president’s signature efforts, like building a border wall. He has criticized some of protesters’ demands, including the call to defund the police.
“Radical rhetoric and calls to ‘defund the police’ threaten public safety and only serve to divide us further, rather than bringing us together,” he said in a press release on June 24.
Wake Forest Law professor Ronald Wright, who specializes in the work of criminal prosecutors, told Vox that Cameron’s comments regarding defunding the police are worth watching because they are relevant to how Cameron handles the case. “If he starts to sound like an advocate for law enforcement, voicing broad support for police officers and defending them in general terms, that would make me wonder if he can evaluate charges fairly in this case,” Wright said. “It is tough to convince the public that you will hold the police accountable for their wrongdoing if you never find anything to criticize in their work.”
Why there haven’t been arrests in the case so far
Wright told Vox in May that in officer-involved shooting cases like Taylor’s, the length of time the prosecutor takes to bring forth charges should not necessarily be the issue. Rather, people should question and examine what the prosecutor does during their investigation.
“I don’t really fault prosecutors for taking their time, gathering the facts, being thorough. The timing doesn’t really bother me as much as the amount of effort. If what you’re doing is you’re not doing anything and you’re stalling, and you don’t really intend to press the case as hard as you would press any shooting in your district, then that’s a problem,” Wright told Vox.
Since these cases are especially difficult to win at trial, Wright pointed out, prosecutors must take the time to build a really strong case. “The delay could be a good thing or a bad thing depending on whether they are putting in the effort into building a great case,” he said.
In the high-profile Baltimore police custody death of Freddie Gray, State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby arrested the three officers involved just days after Gray’s death and charged them with offenses including second-degree “depraved heart” murder and manslaughter. All three officers in the case were acquitted. “It may have been that it would have been better to go a little slower and get more evidence for charges after some delay,” Wright told Vox.
Many advocates, however, point to the speed at which arrests came in the Arbery and Floyd cases — and the fact that years-long delays in Eric Garner’s case still didn’t lead to justice. Garner died in July 2014 after NYPD officer Daniel Pantaleo placed him in a banned chokehold. One day before the five-year anniversary of Garner’s death in July 2019, federal prosecutors announced they would not bring charges against Pantaleo. The NYPD fired Pantaleo in August 2019, more than five years after Garner’s death.
And in the three cases above there were videos of the incidents. Wright said that even with footage, cases against police officers are difficult to prosecute. Videos do represent extra proof — a form of evidence Taylor’s case lacks.
The influence of police unions, which have come under criticism from activists and protesters during the unrest, may also contribute to delays. As Vox’s Dylan Matthews reported, police unions have become engrossed in preventing the discipline of officers who kill unarmed Black people:
In local cases, this attitude has translated to a defense of officers who kill or wound innocent civilians. The Louisville Metro Police Department [had first] been limited to just announcing its “intention” to fire Brett Hankison, a detective who shot his gun 10 times during the raid that killed Breonna Taylor, rather than actually firing him outright. This limitation is largely because of the city’s contract with the police union, which gives Hankison multiple opportunities to appeal. He is first allowed a “pretermination hearing” with counsel, and then, once terminated, an appeal to the police merit board, of which Hankison himself is a member.
In May, the Louisville police union also demanded an apology from Louisville council member Jessica Green, who called Taylor’s boyfriend a hero after he was charged with shooting Mattingly the night Taylor was killed. “Calling someone that shot an on-duty police officer, in the performance of official duties, a hero is a slap in the face,” said Ryan Nichols, president of the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 614. Green said she would not apologize.
But Wright said that Hankison’s firing does offer a clue to how a criminal case could swing. That the LMPD found that he showed “extreme indifference to the value of human life” when he “wantonly and blindly” fired 10 rounds into the apartment means there’s a chance for a conviction if a jury were to find the same conclusion. “If a jury in a criminal trial were to reach the same conclusions after hearing the facts, they could properly convict him of a lesser version of homicide,” Wright told Vox.
At the recent press conference, Cameron refused to discuss any potential roadblocks, stating that “an investigation of this magnitude, when done correctly, requires time and patience.” He added, “To those across the country we have heard from with cards, emails, and letters, and calls, who are asking us to complete the investigation as soon as possible — we hear you and we are working around the clock to follow the law to the truth.”
Defunding the Louisville police and its ties to justice for Taylor
Amid a growing call to “defund” or “abolish the police,” there are others advocating for justice who view the calls to arrest officers as taking away from the larger goal of dismantling the system.
According to anti-criminalization organizer Mariame Kaba, director of the anti youth incarceration grassroots organization Project NIA, celebrating charges for officers signals our dependence on a criminal justice system that was created to uphold white supremacy. “To transform a death-making system, our expectations have to be much higher,” she wrote last month in the New York Times. “Celebrating charges is like celebrating bread crumbs. ... I understand why people do it, but I think according great significance to charges misses the point and it also freezes people in place. It has the effect of demobilizing collective action.”
Kaba explained that justice is not just closing down police departments but making them obsolete. “The surest way of reducing police violence is to reduce the power of the police, by cutting budgets and the number of officers,” she wrote.
But on June 25, the Louisville Metro Council approved a budget that wouldn’t even begin to defund LMPD. The new spending plan will merely “require police to put the money toward recruiting a more diverse force, additional training and exploring co-responder models that could send behavioral health professionals on calls with officers,” according to the Louisville Courier-Journal. Funding will also be directed to a civilian review board that will oversee LMPD, following the 24-1 vote. Black Lives Matter demanded that more money be shifted to community services.
Today Metro Council votes on the 20-21 Budget. 49% is allocated to @lmpd and corrections. Demand better for our communities! When we say #defundpolice there is a clear vision of what is possible. give money directly to community https://t.co/WXPhjFxHYU #DefendBlackLife pic.twitter.com/RlWwVb2b4W — BLM Louisville (@BLMLouisville) June 25, 2020
On the same day the budget was approved, a crowd of more than 500 demonstrators, including activists, community members, and celebrities, gathered on the steps of the Kentucky State Capitol in Frankfort for a #JusticeForBreonnaTaylor rally, according to the Louisville Courier-Journal. Activist Tamika Mallory emphasized the need to keep calling for justice and accountability in Taylor’s case. “I’m sure we all understand that Breonna Taylor is everywhere,” she said. “The issue of Black women being killed and our voices being too low is a problem.”


vox--2020-05-13--The Senate just voted to let the government keep surveilling your online life without a warrant

During the coronavirus pandemic , many of us have vastly increased the time we spend online and moved many of the activities from outside of our homes to the confines of the internet .
In the middle of this — and with this shift in mind — the Senate voted on Wednesday not to protect Americans ’ internet browsing and search history data from secret and warrantless surveillance by law enforcement .
The measure needed 60 votes to pass .
It got 59 .
The outcome is especially frustrating since four senators didn ’ t vote at all , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Lamar Alexander couldn ’ t vote because he ’ s quarantined .
Two others — Ben Sasse and Bernie Sanders — didn ’ t immediately respond to request for comment on where they were during the vote .
An aide told Politico that Patty Murray would have voted yes had she been there , but the senator was not in Washington , DC , when the vote occurred .
In the end , the result didn ’ t come down to party — there were plenty of Republican and Democratic votes on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote was for an amendment to the controversial Patriot Act , which would have expressly forbidden internet browsing and history from what the government is allowed to collect through the approval of a secret court .
Currently , there is no such provision , which means there ’ s nothing stopping the government from doing so .
The government has an established history of using this method to collect certain types of data about millions of Americans without their knowledge .
“ There is little information that is more personal than your web @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a Democrat who sponsored the amendment , told Recode .
“ If you know that a person is visiting the website of a mental health professional , or a substance abuse support group , or a particular political organization , or a particular dating site , you know a tremendous amount of private and personal information about that individual.
” “ Getting access to somebody ’ s web browsing history is almost like spying on their thoughts , ” Wyden added .
“ This level of surveillance absolutely ought to require a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here .
The Patriot Act has been in place since 2001 , when it was drafted as a response to the intelligence failures leading up to the 9/11 terrorist attacks .
What was once seen by many ( but not all ) as a necessary privacy compromise to prevent terrorism became a vehicle to secretly collect data on millions of people who weren ’ t even suspected of a crime .
The Patriot Act gained newfound infamy in 2013 , when former National Security Agency ( NSA ) contractor Edward Snowden leaked highly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was being used to secretly surveil Americans .
Among other things , the Patriot Act permitted the federal government to collect millions of phone records through a provision best known as Section 215 .
This part of the law allowed the government to simply get an order from a secret court established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ( FISA ) .
This court had little oversight and approved nearly every request that came before it , provided that the government said the information was relevant to an investigation into foreign terrorism or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up for renewal in 2015 , Congress enacted a number of reforms in response to the public outcry over the Snowden revelations .
This led to a law called the USA Freedom Act .
Among the reforms therein were provisions for increased oversight and transparency .
Requests for data such as phone records had to be limited in scope , and bulk collections such as those revealed by Snowden were forbidden .
But some privacy advocates didn ’ t think the USA Freedom Act went far enough , and a recent audit by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ general found the FISA court system was still being abused .
The fact that the investigation into the Trump campaign was conducted partially through FISA applications — some of which , the IG found , had inaccuracies and omissions — made reforms to the USA Freedom Act and the secretive court system particularly desirable to some Republicans .
Fortunately for them , the USA Freedom Act came up for renewal this year .
The House passed a reauthorization bill in March , but the Senate wasn ’ t able to take it up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t help matters ) .
During the intervening period , the USA Freedom Act expired , which makes its renewal a pressing issue .
The House ’ s bill included some reforms , like forbidding the warrantless collection of Americans ’ phone records and cell tower or GPS location data .
But privacy-minded members of Congress criticized it for not going far enough , and 136 of them , including 75 Democrats , voted against its passage .
Now , the bill that passed the House in March is in the Senate .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which was cosponsored by Republican Sen. Steve Daines , would have expressly forbidden collecting “ internet website browsing ” and “ internet search history ” through a FISA application .
Both Wyden and Daines made speeches on the floor in support for their amendment , each presenting it in a way that would be particularly appealing to their party ’ s interests .
While Daines said it would help prevent a politically motivated FBI from abusing FISA courts to secretly investigate President Trump ’ s campaign and advisors , Wyden said it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ secretly investigate Trump ’ s perceived enemies by Attorney General Bill Barr ’ s politically motivated Department of Justice .
Both said the amendment would further protect Americans ’ privacy .
In his impassioned speech , Wyden brought up the pandemic , and Americans ’ increased use of the internet because of it .
“ Is it right , when millions of law-abiding Americans are at home , for their government to be able to spy on their internet searches and their web browsing without a warrant ?
” the senator asked , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people ’ s only connection to the outside world .
“ We are more vulnerable to abusive surveillance than ever before.
” It seems that enough senators thought it was , in fact , right .
One of the “ no ” votes came from Sen. Mitch McConnell , whose love of the Patriot Act and all of its privacy-invading provisions is enduring and well-known .
McConnell was even close to proposing his own amendment to counter the one from Wyden and Daines .
McConnell ’ s amendment would have deliberately included internet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a list of records that the government can request through FISA courts .
This was already allowed , so McConnell ’ s amendment wouldn ’ t have changed anything except codifying it into law .
But that amendment never came to the floor , likely because McConnell knew the Wyden-Daines amendment wouldn ’ t get enough votes .
“ At the end of the day , this is about protecting privacy , ” Daines said on the Senate floor , ahead of the vote .
But at the end of the day , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do that .
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network .
All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

During the coronavirus pandemic, many of us have vastly increased the time we spend online and moved many of the activities from outside of our homes to the confines of the internet. In the middle of this — and with this shift in mind — the Senate voted on Wednesday not to protect Americans’ internet browsing and search history data from secret and warrantless surveillance by law enforcement. The measure needed 60 votes to pass. It got 59.
The outcome is especially frustrating since four senators didn’t vote on the amendment at all, and at least one would have voted yes. Lamar Alexander couldn’t vote because he’s quarantined. Two others — Ben Sasse and Bernie Sanders — didn’t respond to request for comment on where they were during the vote. An aide told Politico that Patty Murray would have voted yes had she been there, but the senator was not in Washington, DC, when the vote occurred. In the end, the result didn’t come down to party — there were plenty of Republican and Democratic votes on both sides — but attendance.
The vote was for an amendment to the controversial Patriot Act, which would have expressly forbidden internet browsing and history from what the government is allowed to collect through the approval of a secret court. Currently, there is no such provision, which means there’s nothing stopping the government from doing so. The government has an established history of using this method to collect certain types of data about millions of Americans without their knowledge.
“There is little information that is more personal than your web browsing history,” Sen. Ron Wyden, a Democrat who sponsored the amendment, told Recode. “If you know that a person is visiting the website of a mental health professional, or a substance abuse support group, or a particular political organization, or a particular dating site, you know a tremendous amount of private and personal information about that individual.”
“Getting access to somebody’s web browsing history is almost like spying on their thoughts,” Wyden added. “This level of surveillance absolutely ought to require a warrant.”
A little history is useful here. The Patriot Act has been in place since 2001, when it was drafted as a response to the intelligence failures leading up to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. What was once seen by many (but not all) as a necessary privacy compromise to prevent terrorism became a vehicle to secretly collect data on millions of people who weren’t even suspected of a crime. The Patriot Act gained newfound infamy in 2013, when former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor Edward Snowden leaked highly classified documents that revealed how the law was being used to secretly surveil Americans.
Among other things, the Patriot Act permitted the federal government to collect millions of phone records through a provision best known as Section 215. This part of the law allowed the government to simply get an order from a secret court established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). This court had little oversight and approved nearly every request that came before it, provided that the government said the information was relevant to an investigation into foreign terrorism or intelligence.
When the Patriot Act came up for renewal in 2015, Congress enacted a number of reforms in response to the public outcry over the Snowden revelations. This led to a law called the USA Freedom Act. Among the reforms therein were provisions for increased oversight and transparency. Requests for data such as phone records had to be limited in scope, and bulk collections such as those revealed by Snowden were forbidden.
But some privacy advocates didn’t think the USA Freedom Act went far enough, and a recent audit by the Department of Justice’s inspector general found the FISA court system was still being abused. The fact that the investigation into the Trump campaign was conducted partially through FISA applications — some of which, the IG found, had inaccuracies and omissions — made reforms to the USA Freedom Act and the secretive court system particularly desirable to some Republicans.
Fortunately for them, the USA Freedom Act came up for renewal this year. The House passed a reauthorization bill in March, but the Senate wasn’t able to take it up until now (the pandemic didn’t help matters). During the intervening period, the USA Freedom Act expired, which makes its renewal a pressing issue. The House’s bill included some reforms, like forbidding the warrantless collection of Americans’ phone records and cell tower or GPS location data. But privacy-minded members of Congress criticized it for not going far enough, and 136 of them, including 75 Democrats, voted against its passage.
The bill that passed the House in March went to the Senate this week. Wyden’s amendment to the bill, which was cosponsored by Republican Sen. Steve Daines, would have expressly forbidden collecting “internet website browsing” and “internet search history” through a FISA application. (The reauthorization bill passed on Thursday.)
Both Wyden and Daines made speeches on the floor in support for their amendment, each presenting it in a way that would be particularly appealing to their party’s interests. While Daines said it would help prevent a politically motivated FBI from abusing FISA courts to secretly investigate President Trump’s campaign and advisors, Wyden said it would prevent abuse of FISA courts to secretly investigate Trump’s perceived enemies by Attorney General Bill Barr’s politically motivated Department of Justice. Both said the amendment would further protect Americans’ privacy.
In his impassioned speech, Wyden brought up the pandemic, and Americans’ increased use of the internet because of it.
“Is it right, when millions of law-abiding Americans are at home, for their government to be able to spy on their internet searches and their web browsing without a warrant?” the senator asked, noting that the internet has become many people’s only connection to the outside world. “We are more vulnerable to abusive surveillance than ever before.”
It seems that enough senators thought it was, in fact, right. One of the “no” votes came from Sen. Mitch McConnell, whose love of the Patriot Act and all of its privacy-invading provisions is enduring and well-known. McConnell was even close to proposing his own amendment to counter the one from Wyden and Daines. McConnell’s amendment would have deliberately included internet search history and web browsing data in a list of records that the government can request through FISA courts. This was already allowed, so McConnell’s amendment wouldn’t have changed anything except codifying it into law. But that amendment never came to the floor, likely because McConnell knew the Wyden-Daines amendment wouldn’t get enough votes.
“At the end of the day, this is about protecting privacy,” Daines said on the Senate floor, ahead of the amendment vote. But at the end of the day, the Senate didn’t want to do that.
Update, May 14: The Patriot Act reauthorization bill passed the Senate on Thursday, without the Wyden-Daines amendment (but with an amendment from Sens. Leahy and Lee that added some independent oversight to the FISA court). The vote was 80-16. Murray, now back in DC, was among the no votes.
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network. All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists.


vox--2020-05-13--The US has abandoned asylum seekers in Mexico during the coronavirus pandemic

President Donald Trump has spent the last three years pursuing policies that would effectively shut down the asylum system on the southern border of the United States .
Once the coronavirus hit , he was able to bring that vision to fruition .
Amid the pandemic , the Trump administration has closed the US-Mexico border , implemented an expulsion order to swiftly turn away migrants at the border , and postponed all immigration court hearings for migrants who are waiting in Mexico for a decision on their asylum applications in the US .
The border restrictions have been extended indefinitely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poses a public health risk to Americans , the New York Times reported Wednesday .
Those measures , coupled with the restrictions on asylum seekers that were already in place , have brought the asylum system to a virtual standstill .
Since February 2016 , the Trump administration ’ s border policies have forced migrants to wait in Mexico for months at a time .
US Customs and Border Protection officials have been limiting the number of asylum seekers they process at ports of entry each day , making migrants wait in Mexico @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are processed , they are quickly sent back to Mexico under the Trump administration ’ s “ Remain in Mexico ” policy , officially known as the Migrant Protection Protocols ( MPP ) .
More than 60,000 migrants have been sent back to await decisions on their US asylum applications .
Thousands of them have been living for months in makeshift encampments , where they rely on volunteers for basic necessities , are targeted by criminal gangs , and have little means to deal with a major public health crisis .
Now Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to safety in the US even further and risk exposing them to the virus in conditions where it ’ s difficult to social distance , including migrant shelters and informal encampments .
Some migrants have already tested positive for Covid-19 , the illness caused by the coronavirus : On April 20 , the Mexican government reported 16 cases among migrants in the northern state of Tamaulipas .
Invoking federal law allowing immigration officials to turn away people who might pose a risk of spreading communicable diseases , US Customs and Border Protection has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ migrants back to Mexico .
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 20,000 migrants have been sent back to Mexico under the new system , according to the Washington Post .
A pandemic requires governments to take extreme measures to protect public health and minimize the risk of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ movement .
But that doesn ’ t alter the US ’ s obligation under international human rights law to continue accepting asylum seekers .
Trump has nevertheless brought a halt to asylum processing at the US-Mexico border — and in so doing , dealt a death blow to a system he ’ s long tried to dismantle .
The United Nations claims that the US is unlawfully depriving people of their right to apply for asylum and committing “ refoulement ” — forcibly returning them to a place where they will face persecution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rights law .
“ We ’ re worried about the rapid , systematic expulsions of persons including asylum seekers from the US , ” Sibylla Brodzinsky , a spokesperson for the UN high commissioner for refugees ( UNCHR ) , told Vox .
“ Obviously , a pandemic of this nature warrants extraordinary measures at borders , but the expulsion of asylum seekers , which basically results in refoulement , shouldn ’ t be among those measures.
” Migrants are waiting out the pandemic for their chance at asylum Despite these new barriers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are still waiting for their turn to be processed at ports of entry and for their immigration court hearings during the pandemic .
Across Tijuana , Nogales , and San Luis Rio Colorado — the three largest ports of entry on the southern border — nearly 12,000 asylum seekers were on the waitlist to be processed as of November , the most recent month for which data is available in court filings .
Those who already had been processed through the Remain in Mexico program , meanwhile , will have to wait longer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , because the administration has postponed all court dates prior to April 22 .
Only some of them have been lucky enough to find housing in shelters , hotels , or rooms for rent .
Space in shelters was already limited , but since the pandemic hit Mexico , many have stopped taking in new arrivals or shut down completely .
The UNHCR has been trying to help them stay open by setting up hand-washing stations and isolation areas in case someone tests positive for Covid-19 , Brodzinsky said .
“ We ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expulsions of persons including asylum seekers from the US ” The UNHCR has also been providing asylum seekers with cash-based assistance to help make up for lost income due to pandemic-related confinement orders , which have resulted in business closures and furloughs .
It gives them the financial freedom to rent an apartment , rather than staying in a shelter , which helps prevent overcrowding .
For thousands of others , only colorful tents and tarps stand between them and the elements .
In Matamoros , a city of about 500,000 people across @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about 2,000 migrants have moved into tent encampments along the Rio Grande — so close to the US border that they can show up at the port for processing whenever their names are called .
Jodi Goodwin , an immigration attorney who has been representing migrants in the Matamoros camps , said that no one has been allowed to cross the border amid the pandemic , even people who need medical attention and who have health conditions that put them at a high risk of complications from the virus .
Even so , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wait in Mexico .
There have been a small number of people who have returned to their home countries voluntarily , but for many , going back would mean risking their lives .
The vast majority of them come from Guatemala , Honduras , and El Salvador , collectively known as Central America ’ s “ Northern Triangle , ” where rampant crime , violence , and corruption has driven hundreds of thousands to flee in recent years .
In those countries , migrants are commonly robbed , kidnapped for ransom , raped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 90 percent of the people we are treating as patients are people who are fleeing the exact same kinds of violence as ISIS , ” said Helen Perry , the executive director of Global Response Management , a health care nonprofit administering services in the Matamoros camps .
“ If the option is you stay here and live in your tent until you have exhausted all hope , or you go home and get your head cut off — the reality is that they don ’ t want to leave.
” Asylum seekers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for asylum in Mexico , which has not stopped receiving and processing applications nor closed its southern border during the pandemic .
But the Mexican government is also continuing to detain asylum seekers , albeit in smaller numbers to encourage social distancing .
There have been a number of protests over the cramped conditions inside Mexican detention centers in recent weeks , including one at a facility in Tenosique in which a Guatemalan asylum seeker died in a fire on March 31 .
Brodzinsky said UNHCR has helped facilitate the release of roughly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mexico since the pandemic hit , helping to place them in shelters or find them other places to live .
The organization has been doing this kind of work for years , but it has ramped up its efforts in response to current events .
Asylum seekers still rely on volunteers for basic services and medical care Many of the asylum seekers living in border towns along the US-Mexico border are dependent on American volunteers for basic necessities and services .
But the majority of nonprofits and NGOs that were regularly crossing over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ camps in Matamoros have stopped coming due to the pandemic .
Global Response Management , Doctors Without Borders , and a local resource center in Matamoros are the only major groups with a presence still on the ground , Perry said .
Some groups were concerned that they would become a “ Typhoid Mary , ” carrying coronavirus to the densely-populated camps , where it would spread quickly .
And Goodwin , who had previously crossed the border almost daily to meet with migrants in the camps , said she stopped doing so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an immunocompromised child she can not risk infecting .
But for groups that provide essential services — including health care , food , water , and security — volunteers just have to take extra precautions , including wearing masks , washing their hands regularly , and staying home if they ’ re sick .
“ 90 percent of the people we are treating as patients are people who are fleeing the exact same kinds of violence as ISIS ” If migrants in the camps do start exhibiting symptoms of Covid-19 , the illness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first rule out influenza and strep and then isolate them in a fenced area with a separate bathroom in the southern part of the camp .
As of April 17 , Perry said they have had 17 patients with clinically concerning symptoms of Covid-19 — but the state , which determines who gets tested , has only tested four so far .
One test came back negative , but they were still waiting for the other results .
Mexican migration authorities are considering limiting access to the camps and setting up screening areas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the ground have also been working on educating migrants living in the broader community about how they can slow the spread of the virus by isolating themselves in their homes .
But despite these preventive measures , migrants are still afraid that the pandemic will rip through the camp and that they won ’ t have the medical resources to endure it .
The public hospital in Matamoros , where previously migrants would have sought medical care , is closed to anyone who does not have a life-threatening emergency , including pregnant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are locked , and if a patient wants to be seen , they have to wait outside for an employee to let them in .
Meanwhile , the private hospitals in Matamoros have also closed to anyone who has symptoms of Covid-19 .
“ The residents in the camp are aware of what ’ s going on worldwide and they ’ re worried about what ’ s going to happen to them , not just with their case but also what happens to them if they get sick , ” Perry said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ re not going to abandon them.
” 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 during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

President Donald Trump has spent the last three years pursuing policies that would effectively shut down the asylum system on the southern border of the United States. Once the coronavirus hit, he was able to bring that vision to fruition.
Amid the pandemic, the Trump administration has closed the US-Mexico border, implemented an expulsion order to swiftly turn away migrants at the border, and postponed all immigration court hearings for migrants who are waiting in Mexico for a decision on their asylum applications in the US. The border restrictions have been extended indefinitely until officials decide that immigration no longer poses a public health risk to Americans, the New York Times reported Wednesday. Those measures, coupled with the restrictions on asylum seekers that were already in place, have brought the asylum system to a virtual standstill.
Since February 2016, the Trump administration’s border policies have forced migrants to wait in Mexico for months at a time. US Customs and Border Protection officials have been limiting the number of asylum seekers they process at ports of entry each day, making migrants wait in Mexico for their turn. Even after migrants are processed, they are quickly sent back to Mexico under the Trump administration’s “Remain in Mexico” policy, officially known as the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP).
More than 60,000 migrants have been sent back to await decisions on their US asylum applications. Thousands of them have been living for months in makeshift encampments, where they rely on volunteers for basic necessities, are targeted by criminal gangs, and have little means to deal with a major public health crisis.
Now Trump’s policies are limiting their access to safety in the US even further and risk exposing them to the virus in conditions where it’s difficult to social distance, including migrant shelters and informal encampments. Some migrants have already tested positive for Covid-19, the illness caused by the coronavirus: On April 20, the Mexican government reported 16 cases among migrants in the northern state of Tamaulipas.
Invoking federal law allowing immigration officials to turn away people who might pose a risk of spreading communicable diseases, US Customs and Border Protection has implemented new emergency protocols to quickly send migrants back to Mexico. 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 20,000 migrants have been sent back to Mexico under the new system, according to the Washington Post.
A pandemic requires governments to take extreme measures to protect public health and minimize the risk of infection, including restricting travel and free movement. But that doesn’t alter the US’s obligation under international human rights law to continue accepting asylum seekers. Trump has nevertheless brought a halt to asylum processing at the US-Mexico border — and in so doing, dealt a death blow to a system he’s long tried to dismantle.
The United Nations claims that the US is unlawfully depriving people of their right to apply for asylum and committing “refoulement” — forcibly returning them to a place where they will face persecution, again in violation of international human rights law.
“We’re worried about the rapid, systematic expulsions of persons including asylum seekers from the US,” Sibylla Brodzinsky, a spokesperson for the UN high commissioner for refugees (UNCHR), told Vox. “Obviously, a pandemic of this nature warrants extraordinary measures at borders, but the expulsion of asylum seekers, which basically results in refoulement, shouldn’t be among those measures.”
Migrants are waiting out the pandemic for their chance at asylum
Despite these new barriers, many asylum seekers living in Mexico are still waiting for their turn to be processed at ports of entry and for their immigration court hearings during the pandemic.
Across Tijuana, Nogales, and San Luis Rio Colorado — the three largest ports of entry on the southern border — nearly 12,000 asylum seekers were on the waitlist to be processed as of November, the most recent month for which data is available in court filings. Those who already had been processed through the Remain in Mexico program, meanwhile, will have to wait longer for a decision on their asylum applications, because the administration has postponed all court dates prior to April 22.
Only some of them have been lucky enough to find housing in shelters, hotels, or rooms for rent. Space in shelters was already limited, but since the pandemic hit Mexico, many have stopped taking in new arrivals or shut down completely. The UNHCR has been trying to help them stay open by setting up hand-washing stations and isolation areas in case someone tests positive for Covid-19, Brodzinsky said.
“We’re worried about the rapid, systematic expulsions of persons including asylum seekers from the US”
The UNHCR has also been providing asylum seekers with cash-based assistance to help make up for lost income due to pandemic-related confinement orders, which have resulted in business closures and furloughs. It gives them the financial freedom to rent an apartment, rather than staying in a shelter, which helps prevent overcrowding.
For thousands of others, only colorful tents and tarps stand between them and the elements. In Matamoros, a city of about 500,000 people across the border from Brownsville, Texas, about 2,000 migrants have moved into tent encampments along the Rio Grande — so close to the US border that they can show up at the port for processing whenever their names are called.
Jodi Goodwin, an immigration attorney who has been representing migrants in the Matamoros camps, said that no one has been allowed to cross the border amid the pandemic, even people who need medical attention and who have health conditions that put them at a high risk of complications from the virus. Even so, most migrants have chosen to continue to wait in Mexico. There have been a small number of people who have returned to their home countries voluntarily, but for many, going back would mean risking their lives.
The vast majority of them come from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, collectively known as Central America’s “Northern Triangle,” where rampant crime, violence, and corruption has driven hundreds of thousands to flee in recent years. In those countries, migrants are commonly robbed, kidnapped for ransom, raped, tortured, and killed.
“90 percent of the people we are treating as patients are people who are fleeing the exact same kinds of violence as ISIS,” said Helen Perry, the executive director of Global Response Management, a health care nonprofit administering services in the Matamoros camps. “If the option is you stay here and live in your tent until you have exhausted all hope, or you go home and get your head cut off — the reality is that they don’t want to leave.”
Asylum seekers may also have the option of applying for asylum in Mexico, which has not stopped receiving and processing applications nor closed its southern border during the pandemic. But the Mexican government is also continuing to detain asylum seekers, albeit in smaller numbers to encourage social distancing. There have been a number of protests over the cramped conditions inside Mexican detention centers in recent weeks, including one at a facility in Tenosique in which a Guatemalan asylum seeker died in a fire on March 31.
Brodzinsky said UNHCR has helped facilitate the release of roughly 300 asylum seekers from detention centers across Mexico since the pandemic hit, helping to place them in shelters or find them other places to live. The organization has been doing this kind of work for years, but it has ramped up its efforts in response to current events.
Asylum seekers still rely on volunteers for basic services and medical care
Many of the asylum seekers living in border towns along the US-Mexico border are dependent on American volunteers for basic necessities and services. But the majority of nonprofits and NGOs that were regularly crossing over the border to work in the migrant camps in Matamoros have stopped coming due to the pandemic. Global Response Management, Doctors Without Borders, and a local resource center in Matamoros are the only major groups with a presence still on the ground, Perry said.
Some groups were concerned that they would become a “Typhoid Mary,” carrying coronavirus to the densely-populated camps, where it would spread quickly. And Goodwin, who had previously crossed the border almost daily to meet with migrants in the camps, said she stopped doing so as of March 15 because she has an immunocompromised child she cannot risk infecting.
But for groups that provide essential services — including health care, food, water, and security — volunteers just have to take extra precautions, including wearing masks, washing their hands regularly, and staying home if they’re sick.
“90 percent of the people we are treating as patients are people who are fleeing the exact same kinds of violence as ISIS”
If migrants in the camps do start exhibiting symptoms of Covid-19, the illness caused by the novel coronavirus, nonprofits first rule out influenza and strep and then isolate them in a fenced area with a separate bathroom in the southern part of the camp. As of April 17, Perry said they have had 17 patients with clinically concerning symptoms of Covid-19 — but the state, which determines who gets tested, has only tested four so far. One test came back negative, but they were still waiting for the other results.
Mexican migration authorities are considering limiting access to the camps and setting up screening areas, Perry said. The nonprofits still on the ground have also been working on educating migrants living in the broader community about how they can slow the spread of the virus by isolating themselves in their homes.
But despite these preventive measures, migrants are still afraid that the pandemic will rip through the camp and that they won’t have the medical resources to endure it.
The public hospital in Matamoros, where previously migrants would have sought medical care, is closed to anyone who does not have a life-threatening emergency, including pregnant women, Perry said. The gates are locked, and if a patient wants to be seen, they have to wait outside for an employee to let them in. Meanwhile, the private hospitals in Matamoros have also closed to anyone who has symptoms of Covid-19.
“The residents in the camp are aware of what’s going on worldwide and they’re worried about what’s going to happen to them, not just with their case but also what happens to them if they get sick,” Perry said. “We remind them that we’re not going to abandon them.”


vox--2020-05-13--Bill Gates has an idea for how to get billionaires to donate more for coronavirus

Bill Gates has emerged as one of the most important leaders of the coronavirus era , building factories for future vaccines , pushing to expand testing around the world , and occasionally rebuking the president of the United States .
The philanthropist is also doing something else , far more behind the scenes : exploring ways to get his fellow billionaires to give substantially more of their money away right now .
That could mean changing the role played by the Giving Pledge , a public declaration crafted just over a decade ago by Gates and Warren Buffett and signed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wealthiest people .
In recent weeks , Gates and his aides have discussed plans to possibly pool voluntary donations from over 200 billionaires and direct the money on their behalf toward the coronavirus crisis , Recode has learned from people familiar with the matter .
Another , likelier idea centers on creating a “ marketplace ” for Giving Pledge signers , and possibly other ultra-rich people who have yet to sign it , to pitch one another on projects .
Either of these moves would be a stark departure from the hands-off role @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which has long been reluctant to press too hard on his fellow signers about specific grant recommendations or the speed with which their money is donated .
Now , though , Gates may test that bedrock principle .
A change in messaging for the Giving Pledge The 209 billionaires who have signed the Giving Pledge , which turns 10 years old next month , are estimated to donate at least $ 500 billion to charity .
By taking even a slightly more assertive posture toward other billionaires , Gates and his aides could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ makes whatever social pressure they apply , no matter how small , incredibly important to shaping the philanthropic response to the coronavirus from some of the world ’ s wealthiest people .
No final decisions have been made , but any of these proposals would be a reimagining of the message of the Giving Pledge in the first place .
Started in 2010 by Gates and Warren Buffett , the pledge has encouraged many of the world ’ s mega-rich to publicly commit to donating at least half of their net worths to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or in their wills .
But the Giving Pledge is merely a pledge , with no teeth to enforce it or transparency about its success .
Independent analyses show that the evidence that it has significantly boosted giving is relatively weak .
Gates ’ s unwillingness to weigh in on other billionaires ’ philanthropy plans has probably contributed to that .
But the Giving Pledge ’ s agnosticism about when the money is given and what causes are supported has been a key part of its message , if not its appeal .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , signing the pledge is a less inviting proposition if they have to deal with a heavy-handed group of enforcers badgering them to give to this or that .
“ I don ’ t like being preached to .
I don ’ t like to preach to others , ” Buffett reportedly said when he reviewed prelaunch messaging for the Giving Pledge , which included an explicit entreaty to “ give to inequities.
” And so that became the party line for the Giving Pledge , which has for years fought off strategy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a certain issue or to fund certain collaborations between donors .
Gates ’ s team has taken pains not to be in the position where they are discouraging Mike Bloomberg from spending less money on combating gun violence and more on drug addiction , or encouraging Mark Zuckerberg to give his fortune away in his will , rather than when he is alive .
The Giving Pledge organizers have even been resistant to the idea of sharing with the signers what other billionaires are choosing to fund , which could be a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gates ’ s team has explored building for Covid-19 response .
The Giving Pledge has also lost some luster and momentum in recent years , especially with younger generations of wealth .
Only about one in six American billionaires have signed it , and some other rich people have gravitated toward competing charitable commitments .
That ’ s all made it natural to reassess whether the pledge , as it currently is structured , is working as it enters its second decade .
But at the end of its first decade , some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ushered in more publicity than philanthropy .
Today ’ s billionaires have long struggled with how exactly to give away their fortunes , even if they say they want to .
But now that the world is struggling through a pandemic , there is much less leeway for their indecision and preaches for patience .
So Gates ’ s team , which declined to comment on the record for this story , is weighing its options to refresh the Giving Pledge ’ s programs for this moment .
The Giving Pledge website says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support for any specific philanthropic foundation , cause , or organization.
” But observers say any of the moves that Gates is considering on Covid-19 would send a clear , implicit message about its recommended priorities .
How signers will react to that message is less clear .
Some say Gates ’ s aides are less likely to pursue a plan that would pool money from Giving Pledge signers , largely because the donors may disagree with one another or with Gates over which particular coronavirus-related causes to support .
Foundation officials , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pursue the marketplace idea .
This would involve building a technology platform that offers ways for billionaires to disclose to one another what they are backing or that connects these billionaires and projects seeking funding .
The new marketplace would be to surface and curate nonprofits on the platform that their fellow billionaires have vetted and backed , as opposed to the barrage of other solicitations coming in on listservs , Excel spreadsheets , and Google Docs .
If one billionaire sees that a fellow , respected member of the mega-rich is financing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more confident backing it with their own fortune , too .
( Gates ’ s team knows that the success of this depends on the billionaires ’ willingness to disclose their gifts to one another on the platform , even though some don ’ t do that publicly . )
Up until now , that type of collaboration hasn ’ t necessarily been possible for the signers who might share similar interests .
Foundation officials — even Bill and Melinda Gates themselves in recent weeks — have been taking calls from signers on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to another .
Now Gates is exploring how to convince other billionaires to donate more for coronavirus , gently putting a small thumb on a scale that he has long been unwilling to touch .
To be sure , there is no planned requirement to contribute to any Covid-19 work through a marketplace or even a pooled fund .
But Gates ’ s team knows that because it has never before made a product for Giving Pledge signers focused on a single issue , simply creating the marketplace would send a clear signal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to concerns that they are oversteering their donors .
But it ’ s an evolution in the Giving Pledge that they feel meets the moment .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — 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 .

Bill Gates has emerged as one of the most important leaders of the coronavirus era, building factories for future vaccines, pushing to expand testing around the world, and occasionally rebuking the president of the United States.
The philanthropist is also doing something else, far more behind the scenes: exploring ways to get his fellow billionaires to give substantially more of their money away right now. That could mean changing the role played by the Giving Pledge, a public declaration crafted just over a decade ago by Gates and Warren Buffett and signed by some of the world’s wealthiest people.
In recent weeks, Gates and his aides have discussed plans to possibly pool voluntary donations from over 200 billionaires and direct the money on their behalf toward the coronavirus crisis, Recode has learned from people familiar with the matter. Another, likelier idea centers on creating a “marketplace” for Giving Pledge signers, and possibly other ultra-rich people who have yet to sign it, to pitch one another on projects.
Either of these moves would be a stark departure from the hands-off role traditionally played by Gates’ team, which has long been reluctant to press too hard on his fellow signers about specific grant recommendations or the speed with which their money is donated.
Now, though, Gates may test that bedrock principle.
A change in messaging for the Giving Pledge
The 209 billionaires who have signed the Giving Pledge, which turns 10 years old next month, are estimated to donate at least $500 billion to charity. By taking even a slightly more assertive posture toward other billionaires, Gates and his aides could move a lot of money. It makes whatever social pressure they apply, no matter how small, incredibly important to shaping the philanthropic response to the coronavirus from some of the world’s wealthiest people.
No final decisions have been made, but any of these proposals would be a reimagining of the message of the Giving Pledge in the first place.
Started in 2010 by Gates and Warren Buffett, the pledge has encouraged many of the world’s mega-rich to publicly commit to donating at least half of their net worths to charitable causes, either in their lifetimes or in their wills. But the Giving Pledge is merely a pledge, with no teeth to enforce it or transparency about its success. Independent analyses show that the evidence that it has significantly boosted giving is relatively weak.
Gates’s unwillingness to weigh in on other billionaires’ philanthropy plans has probably contributed to that. But the Giving Pledge’s agnosticism about when the money is given and what causes are supported has been a key part of its message, if not its appeal. For the wealthy who might consider it, signing the pledge is a less inviting proposition if they have to deal with a heavy-handed group of enforcers badgering them to give to this or that.
“I don’t like being preached to. I don’t like to preach to others,” Buffett reportedly said when he reviewed prelaunch messaging for the Giving Pledge, which included an explicit entreaty to “give to inequities.”
And so that became the party line for the Giving Pledge, which has for years fought off strategy proposals that would encourage donors to give to a certain issue or to fund certain collaborations between donors.
Gates’s team has taken pains not to be in the position where they are discouraging Mike Bloomberg from spending less money on combating gun violence and more on drug addiction, or encouraging Mark Zuckerberg to give his fortune away in his will, rather than when he is alive. The Giving Pledge organizers have even been resistant to the idea of sharing with the signers what other billionaires are choosing to fund, which could be a feature of the type of marketplace that Gates’s team has explored building for Covid-19 response.
The Giving Pledge has also lost some luster and momentum in recent years, especially with younger generations of wealth. Only about one in six American billionaires have signed it, and some other rich people have gravitated toward competing charitable commitments. That’s all made it natural to reassess whether the pledge, as it currently is structured, is working as it enters its second decade.
But at the end of its first decade, some critics argue that the Giving Pledge has ushered in more publicity than philanthropy.
The appeal of a marketplace
Today’s billionaires have long struggled with how exactly to give away their fortunes, even if they say they want to. But now that the world is struggling through a pandemic, there is much less leeway for their indecision and preaches for patience. So Gates’s team, which declined to comment on the record for this story, is weighing its options to refresh the Giving Pledge’s programs for this moment.
The Giving Pledge website says explicitly that it “does not solicit support for any specific philanthropic foundation, cause, or organization.” But observers say any of the moves that Gates is considering on Covid-19 would send a clear, implicit message about its recommended priorities.
How signers will react to that message is less clear. Some say Gates’s aides are less likely to pursue a plan that would pool money from Giving Pledge signers, largely because the donors may disagree with one another or with Gates over which particular coronavirus-related causes to support. Foundation officials, sources say, are more likely to pursue the marketplace idea. This would involve building a technology platform that offers ways for billionaires to disclose to one another what they are backing or that connects these billionaires and projects seeking funding.
The new marketplace would be to surface and curate nonprofits on the platform that their fellow billionaires have vetted and backed, as opposed to the barrage of other solicitations coming in on listservs, Excel spreadsheets, and Google Docs. If one billionaire sees that a fellow, respected member of the mega-rich is financing a certain project, they might feel more confident backing it with their own fortune, too. (Gates’s team knows that the success of this depends on the billionaires’ willingness to disclose their gifts to one another on the platform, even though some don’t do that publicly.)
Up until now, that type of collaboration hasn’t necessarily been possible for the signers who might share similar interests. Foundation officials — even Bill and Melinda Gates themselves in recent weeks — have been taking calls from signers on an ad-hoc basis, connecting one billionaire to another.
Now Gates is exploring how to convince other billionaires to donate more for coronavirus, gently putting a small thumb on a scale that he has long been unwilling to touch. To be sure, there is no planned requirement to contribute to any Covid-19 work through a marketplace or even a pooled fund. But Gates’s team knows that because it has never before made a product for Giving Pledge signers focused on a single issue, simply creating the marketplace would send a clear signal.
Gates’s aides remain sensitive to concerns that they are oversteering their donors. But it’s an evolution in the Giving Pledge that they feel meets the moment.