huffpost--2020-05-01--White House Blocks Anthony Fauci From Testifying Next Week

The White House is blocking Dr. Anthony Fauci from testifying before a House panel next week on the U.S. response to the coronavirus pandemic .
Fauci , an leading infectious disease expert , is a prominent part of the White House ’ s coronavirus task force .
“ While the Trump Administration continues its whole-of-government response to COVID-19 , including safely opening up America again and expediting vaccine development , it is counterproductive to have the very individuals involved in those efforts appearing at congressional hearings , ” White House spokesman Judd Deere said in a statement Friday .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to offer testimony at the appropriate time.
” The Trump administration has been criticized for its response to the COVID-19 pandemic .
The U.S. leads the world in coronavirus cases , with more than 1 million confirmed cases as of Friday .
Fauci , who is the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases , has used the platform of the White House coronavirus briefings to repeatedly urge the American public to abide by social distancing guidelines , warning about a possible increase in cases if they don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Texas and Georgia , have begun to reopen businesses .
President Donald Trump has referred to right-wing protesters demanding that states reopen workplaces as “ great people , ” despite their open flouting of social distancing measures as they protest .
Fauci ’ s statements to the public have sometimes clashed with Trump ’ s — such as when Trump last month repeatedly pushed a malaria drug as a possible treatment for COVID-19 , while Fauci urged in news interviews that we can ’ t “ definitively say it works ” and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we don ’ t make that majestic leap to assume that this is a knockout drug.
” After Trump retweeted a message that criticized Fauci and included a # FireFauci hashtag last month , the White House insisted the president had no plans to oust the expert .
The hearing before the House Appropriations Committee on Wednesday will include testimony from former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Tom Frieden , according to lawmakers .
“ Congress and the American public deserve a clear-eyed view of the path forward for responding to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rep. Nita Lowey ( D-N.Y. ) said in a statement , noting the need for more information on the federal government ’ s plans for testing , contact tracing and addressing the coinciding flu season in the fall .

The White House is blocking Dr. Anthony Fauci from testifying before a House panel next week on the U.S. response to the coronavirus pandemic.
Fauci, an leading infectious disease expert, is a prominent part of the White House’s coronavirus task force.
“While the Trump Administration continues its whole-of-government response to COVID-19, including safely opening up America again and expediting vaccine development, it is counterproductive to have the very individuals involved in those efforts appearing at congressional hearings,” White House spokesman Judd Deere said in a statement Friday. “We are committed to working with Congress to offer testimony at the appropriate time.”
The Trump administration has been criticized for its response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The U.S. leads the world in coronavirus cases, with more than 1 million confirmed cases as of Friday.
Fauci, who is the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, has used the platform of the White House coronavirus briefings to repeatedly urge the American public to abide by social distancing guidelines, warning about a possible increase in cases if they don’t.
Meanwhile, some states, including Texas and Georgia, have begun to reopen businesses. President Donald Trump has referred to right-wing protesters demanding that states reopen workplaces as “great people,” despite their open flouting of social distancing measures as they protest.
Fauci’s statements to the public have sometimes clashed with Trump’s — such as when Trump last month repeatedly pushed a malaria drug as a possible treatment for COVID-19, while Fauci urged in news interviews that we can’t “definitively say it works” and the country had to be “careful that we don’t make that majestic leap to assume that this is a knockout drug.”
After Trump retweeted a message that criticized Fauci and included a #FireFauci hashtag last month, the White House insisted the president had no plans to oust the expert.
The hearing before the House Appropriations Committee on Wednesday will include testimony from former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Tom Frieden, according to lawmakers.
“Congress and the American public deserve a clear-eyed view of the path forward for responding to the COVID-19 pandemic,” committee chairwoman Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) said in a statement, noting the need for more information on the federal government’s plans for testing, contact tracing and addressing the coinciding flu season in the fall.


huffpost--2020-05-02--Most States Don't Meet Coronavirus Testing Threshold: AP

Three months into an unprecedented public health emergency , the White House has largely resisted calls for a coordinated plan to conduct the millions of tests experts say are needed to contain the virus .
What federal officials outlined recently isn ’ t even an official benchmark , and AP ’ s analysis found that a majority of states are not yet meeting it .
With no specific guidelines , states are left to figure out what a successful testing program should be while they simultaneously try to reopen their shattered economies .
If states don ’ t have robust @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be unable to detect outbreaks quickly enough to contain them , which could lead to more shutdowns .
The closest the White House has come to issuing a benchmark does not actually appear in the document .
At a recent briefing , senior administration officials said the government would provide each state with enough tests , swabs and related materials to screen at least 2.6 % of their populations in May and June .
Those hit harder by the outbreak would be eligible for additional assistance .
It was unclear how the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked about it , officials with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services described it as 2 % of state populations per month without explaining the discrepancy .
Officials also did not respond to questions about whether the administration has a target for how many daily tests should be done nationwide or when it would issue more details .
Only about 40 % of states currently meet even the 2 % testing threshold , according to AP ’ s analysis .
The percentage is expected to rise as states increase their testing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testing rate for each state on the average number of new daily tests over the most recent 7 days .
The data is from the COVID Tracking Project and includes counts up to April 30th .
A White House spokesman said Friday that the administration ’ s testing threshold is only a suggestion and that states are ultimately responsible for deciding how to reopen in a “ safe and responsible manner.
” The administration says it is working to expand testing and has been highlighting plans first announced in March for additional testing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that do not meet the administration ’ s testing guidance , based on their current screening rates , include some that have been moving into the early stages of reopening , such as Colorado , South Carolina and Texas .
Georgia , which has moved aggressively to ease restrictions and lift its stay-at-home order , is just under the 2 % threshold .
Florida , which announced its first phase of reopening will start next week , also falls short but has said it will be able to test 30,000 to 40,000 people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where the Republican-led legislature has sued the Democratic governor over the state ’ s stay-at-home order , is on track to test 2.2 % of its population .
“ Why don ’ t they say , ‘ We ’ ll test everybody with any symptoms of coronavirus and all their contacts ?
’ ” said Dr. James Curran , a former assistant U.S. surgeon general who worked at CDC for 25 years .
“ If that amounts to 2 % that ’ s fine , but the guidelines are not to test 2 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who needs it.
” Many states hardest hit by the crisis failed to reach the team ’ s testing recommendations , even if they were already testing more than 2 % of their populations , according to an AP analysis using state-by-state figures provided by Harvard .
States falling short of the Harvard numbers include many of the epicenters of the outbreak , including New York , New Jersey and Massachusetts .
Jha and his colleagues based their testing targets , in part , on the number of tests needed to screen enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % , the level that the World Health Organization considers sufficient to contain the outbreak .
More than 16 % of U.S. tests nationwide are positive for the virus , according to figures compiled by the COVID Tracking Project website .
That compares with a rate of about 3 % in South Korea , a country praised for its aggressive testing .
Officials in at least 20 states have indicated their testing capacity is not adequate and said they are taking steps to address this , according to a review by the AP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states on how many people should be tested or whether that should include those with no symptoms .
Georgia , where in-person dining at restaurants is now permitted with restrictions , has not said how many people it would like to test but recently touted its ability to test over 20,000 people on a single day and has encouraged more people to get tested .
New Jersey , which has a slightly smaller population and a higher number of COVID-19 cases , has said it would need to conduct 20,000 to 30,000 tests @ @ @ @ @

LOADING ERROR LOADING
ATLANTA (AP) — As more states begin to relax their coronavirus lockdowns, most are falling short of the minimum levels of testing suggested by the federal government and recommended by a variety of public health researchers, an Associated Press analysis has found.
Three months into an unprecedented public health emergency, the White House has largely resisted calls for a coordinated plan to conduct the millions of tests experts say are needed to contain the virus. What federal officials outlined recently isn’t even an official benchmark, and AP’s analysis found that a majority of states are not yet meeting it.
Advertisement
With no specific guidelines, states are left to figure out what a successful testing program should be while they simultaneously try to reopen their shattered economies. If states don’t have robust testing, public health experts say they will be unable to detect outbreaks quickly enough to contain them, which could lead to more shutdowns.
“It’s dangerous and irresponsible,” said Lawrence Gostin, a public health specialist at Georgetown University.
In many states, testing has been limited to hospitalized patients, high-risk individuals and front-line workers. But most public health experts agree that containing the virus will require a massive expansion of testing that eventually includes millions of patients without symptoms, which is not happening now.
A testing blueprint released Monday by the Trump administration lacked any metrics state officials could use to make informed decisions. Instead, the document made clear that states are responsible for testing, saying the federal government is the “supplier of last resort.”
Advertisement
The closest the White House has come to issuing a benchmark does not actually appear in the document. At a recent briefing, senior administration officials said the government would provide each state with enough tests, swabs and related materials to screen at least 2.6% of their populations in May and June. Those hit harder by the outbreak would be eligible for additional assistance.
It was unclear how the 2.6% figure was reached. When asked about it, officials with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services described it as 2% of state populations per month without explaining the discrepancy. Officials also did not respond to questions about whether the administration has a target for how many daily tests should be done nationwide or when it would issue more details.
Only about 40% of states currently meet even the 2% testing threshold, according to AP’s analysis. The percentage is expected to rise as states increase their testing capabilities. The AP based the monthly testing rate for each state on the average number of new daily tests over the most recent 7 days. The data is from the COVID Tracking Project and includes counts up to April 30th.
A White House spokesman said Friday that the administration’s testing threshold is only a suggestion and that states are ultimately responsible for deciding how to reopen in a “safe and responsible manner.” The administration says it is working to expand testing and has been highlighting plans first announced in March for additional testing sites at retail pharmacy chains.
States that do not meet the administration’s testing guidance, based on their current screening rates, include some that have been moving into the early stages of reopening, such as Colorado, South Carolina and Texas. Georgia, which has moved aggressively to ease restrictions and lift its stay-at-home order, is just under the 2% threshold.
Advertisement
Louisiana and Kansas, where Republican lawmakers have been putting pressure on Democratic governors to reopen, are falling short, according to the AP analysis. In Kansas, the governor and top health administrator expect to reach the 2% mark this month.
Florida, which announced its first phase of reopening will start next week, also falls short but has said it will be able to test 30,000 to 40,000 people a day if needed. Michigan, where the Republican-led legislature has sued the Democratic governor over the state’s stay-at-home order, is on track to test 2.2% of its population.
Former health officials and experts were critical of the testing blueprint and said the 2.6% or 2% population metric was too vague and didn’t take into account guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control on who should be tested.
“Why don’t they say, ‘We’ll test everybody with any symptoms of coronavirus and all their contacts?’” said Dr. James Curran, a former assistant U.S. surgeon general who worked at CDC for 25 years. “If that amounts to 2% that’s fine, but the guidelines are not to test 2%. The guidelines are to test who needs it.”
Many experts already say the national testing rate falls short of what is needed to safely ease social distancing guidelines.
Advertisement
Researchers at Harvard have calculated that the U.S. needs to be testing roughly 500,000 people per day before considering easing restrictions this month. That’s a nearly 150% increase from the recent daily tally of approximately 200,000 tests.
“I’ve described it and I still describe it as an absolute bare minimum,” said Ashish Jha, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute.
More than half of states are not testing their populations at the daily rate recommended by Jha and his colleagues. The Harvard team developed their statistics in mid-April and noted that projections for U.S. cases have increased since then.
Many states hardest hit by the crisis failed to reach the team’s testing recommendations, even if they were already testing more than 2% of their populations, according to an AP analysis using state-by-state figures provided by Harvard. States falling short of the Harvard numbers include many of the epicenters of the outbreak, including New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts.
Jha and his colleagues based their testing targets, in part, on the number of tests needed to screen enough people to push positive results below 10%, the level that the World Health Organization considers sufficient to contain the outbreak. More than 16% of U.S. tests nationwide are positive for the virus, according to figures compiled by the COVID Tracking Project website. That compares with a rate of about 3% in South Korea, a country praised for its aggressive testing.
Advertisement
Former CDC director Tom Frieden has recommended double the current testing levels. He said the U.S. should be testing at minimum 400,000 people a day.
Officials in at least 20 states have indicated their testing capacity is not adequate and said they are taking steps to address this, according to a review by the AP. But there is little consensus among states on how many people should be tested or whether that should include those with no symptoms.
Georgia, where in-person dining at restaurants is now permitted with restrictions, has not said how many people it would like to test but recently touted its ability to test over 20,000 people on a single day and has encouraged more people to get tested. New Jersey, which has a slightly smaller population and a higher number of COVID-19 cases, has said it would need to conduct 20,000 to 30,000 tests a day to reopen.
Ohio wants to increase testing from 7,200 per day to 22,000 by May 27. Washington state, which has seen one of the largest U.S. outbreaks, has reported averaging 4,650 tests a day and wants to do more than 22,000 but lacks the necessary supplies.
Most states have convened advisory panels to help in setting guidelines, but they run the gamut in terms of expertise and will result in a patchwork of policies that experts say may be ineffective in containing a virus that doesn’t respect state borders.
Advertisement
“Treading water on testing is not going to get us out of this,” said Jeremy Konyndyk, a disaster preparedness expert who helped lead the Obama administration response to Ebola.
—-
Dearen reported from Gainesville, Florida; Perrone, an AP health writer, reported from Washington, D.C.; and Forster, a data journalist, reported from New York. Associated Press writers Michelle R. Smith in Providence, Rhode Island; Zeke Miller in Washington D.C.; Rachel La Corte in Olympia, Washington; Russ Bynum in Savannah, Georgia; and John D. Hanna in Topeka, Kansas, also contributed.
___


huffpost--2020-05-02--South Korea Tackled The Coronavirus. Now It’s Taking On The Climate Crisis.

Ahead of the April 15 election , the Democrats vowed to set South Korea ― the world ’ s seventh-largest source of planet-heating carbon dioxide ― on course to become the first East Asian country to reach net-zero emissions by 2050 .
The party named its official climate manifesto the Green New Deal , becoming the biggest emitter yet to endorse moving toward the kind of industrial planning and social safety net expansion rarely seen outside of wartime .
A Long Way To Go Since 1990 , South Korea ’ s carbon dioxide emissions have grown by nearly 169 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Between 2000 and 2014 , the country ’ s increase in climate pollution far outpaced nearly every other member of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development , the 37-nation club of major trading economies .
Today , South Korea ’ s total emissions rank behind only China , the United States , India , Russia , Japan and Germany , despite a significantly smaller population .
But stricter regulations on land use caused applications for permits to build solar panels in mountainous areas to plummet from 762 in the first two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ following year , according to the Korea Herald .
And the fishing trade , which employs about 128,000 fishers and other workers in the peninsular nation , mounted fierce opposition to South Korea ’ s first foray into offshore wind , threatening to stall a sector that was on pace to expand over the next few years .
Some are critical of the lack of worker representation .
The committee assembled by the government to help chart a pathway to net-zero emissions by midcentury is dominated by business players and white-collar academics .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ big labor union confederations ― the more government-friendly Federation of Korean Trade Unions and the traditionally more militant Korean Confederation of Trade Unions ― have delegates on the committee .
“ Moon has been labor-friendly in terms of raising the minimum wage , and he presents himself as a benevolent leader who cares about workers , ” said Kim Sun-Chul , an environmental policy expert and a member of the executive committee of Climate Crisis Emergency Action , a South Korean coalition of businesspeople and progressives .
“ But when it comes to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hasn ’ t worked .
”

South Korean President Moon Jae-in’s ruling party won a landslide victory in last month’s national election as voters turned out in huge numbers in a show of support for a government whose successful containment of the coronavirus pandemic became a model for the world.
His center-left Democratic Party and a satellite party it set up ahead of the vote will now control three-fifths of the 300-seat National Assembly, giving Moon the largest majority of any president in more than three decades.
Advertisement
And as the daily number of new COVID-19 cases dropped to single digits, the results delivered the Moon administration a clear mandate to respond to another deadly global crisis: climate change.
Ahead of the April 15 election, the Democrats vowed to set South Korea ― the world’s seventh-largest source of planet-heating carbon dioxide ― on course to become the first East Asian country to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. The party named its official climate manifesto the Green New Deal, becoming the biggest emitter yet to endorse moving toward the kind of industrial planning and social safety net expansion rarely seen outside of wartime.
South Korea’s proposal includes ending public institutions’ financing of domestic and overseas coal projects, establishing a new program to retrain workers for green jobs, and making large-scale investments in wind and solar energy. The plan also pledges to research and consider a carbon tax.
“The thinking is that maybe we can do better in other things as well, not just COVID-19. There’s a lot of potential for a renewables industry,” said Daul Jang, a Seoul-based senior campaigner at Greenpeace East Asia.
Advertisement
When countries across the world are preparing to scale back climate goals in hopes of boosting economic growth, South Korea’s embrace of new climate measures presents a very different route to economic rebuilding post-pandemic. Environmentalists hope it will propel a wider shift in Asia, where increasing coal use threatens to push global warming past the point of no return.
But skeptics warn that the government’s Green New Deal lacks ambition, especially compared to proposals put forward by progressive rivals in South Korea, and is based on a top-down approach that has little support from labor unions. It also faces the challenge of supercharging a renewables industry dogged by partisan politics and misinformation.
A Long Way To Go
Since 1990, South Korea’s carbon dioxide emissions have grown by nearly 169%, according to the International Energy Agency. Between 2000 and 2014, the country’s increase in climate pollution far outpaced nearly every other member of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the 37-nation club of major trading economies. Today, South Korea’s total emissions rank behind only China, the United States, India, Russia, Japan and Germany, despite a significantly smaller population.
Electricity and heating account for slightly over half South Korea’s emissions, according to 2018 data collected by the nonprofit Climate Transparency. Industry, including the country’s robust auto manufacturing sector, makes up 25%. Transportation ― the biggest U.S. source of emissions ― produces another 16%. The rest is divided between agriculture, homes and other sources of carbon dioxide.
Hyundai Motor's sedans are assembled at a factory in Asan, about 62 miles south of Seoul, South Korea. Lee Jae Won / Reuters
Advertisement
South Korea’s hunger for electricity has meant consumption levels have swelled by more than 450% over the past three decades, but solar and wind barely make up 2% of power generation. Coal and natural gas produce close to 70% of the country’s electricity, while nuclear reactors generate about a quarter. Hydro dams, oil and biomass ― typically wood-fired generators ― make up the rest.
When Moon took office in May 2017, he vowed to boost renewables while scaling back both coal and nuclear power, a sector that, despite its low emissions, is dogged by rising costs and fears of radioactive waste.
Seven months after his inauguration, Moon announced a new policy aiming to produce 20% of South Korea’s electricity from renewables by 2030. Although a March 2019 report from energy consultancy Wood Mackenzie said South Korea was likely to miss this target, finding the country was on pace to generate 17% of its electricity from renewables by 2030.
In April 2019, the Moon administration upped the target for renewables to 35% of the country’s power usage by 2040.
South Korean President Moon Jae-in in Seoul on April 14. South Korea Presidential Blue House via AP
Advertisement
Results last year were mixed.
The government boasted that small-scale projects are turning the province of South Jeolla into a solar hub. In December, officials greenlighted plans to build the world’s largest floating solar farm on a tidal flat on the Yellow Sea.
But stricter regulations on land use caused applications for permits to build solar panels in mountainous areas to plummet from 762 in the first two months of 2018 to just 40 the following year, according to the Korea Herald. And the fishing trade, which employs about 128,000 fishers and other workers in the peninsular nation, mounted fierce opposition to South Korea’s first foray into offshore wind, threatening to stall a sector that was on pace to expand over the next few years.
The Nuclear Sticking Point
The main conservative opposition in South Korea has long battled renewables. That’s in part out of sincere concerns over conservation. Last April, Rep. Yoon Sang-jick, a member of the right-wing Liberty Korea Party, accused the Moon administration of felling more than 2 million trees over the past three years to make way for new solar construction.
The primary motivation for opposing renewables, however, is the Korean conservative movement’s entrenched ties to the country’s nuclear industry.
South Korea’s roughly two dozen nuclear reactors were long a point of pride for the resource-poor, energy-starved country. In 2009, a top official in President Lee Myung-bak’s conservative administration declared a “renaissance of nuclear energy.”
Advertisement
Then came the devastating Fukushima disaster in Japan in 2011 ― when a tsunami struck a nuclear plant, setting off a reactor meltdown that displaced 50,000 people ― which dampened some of that nuclear fervor. The costs of building nuclear plants also mounted. Then, in 2013, a scandal erupted when investigators found that South Korean nuclear officials dealt with faked safety tests and accepted bribes.
In response, liberal politicians started demanding the phaseout of nuclear plants. That set up a new partisan conflict, where both sides largely agree on the need to reduce fossil fuel use, but liberals favor renewables while conservatives seek to restore the status of nuclear power.
Environmentalists stage a rally against nuclear power plants near the government complex in Seoul in February 2015. AP Photo/Ahn Young-joon
“For conservatives, it’s a national pride up to the religious level,” said Greenpeace’s Jang, who grew up in a pro-nuclear town.
The Green New Deal could, in theory, find room for both. But the issue remains a sticking point that looks likely to make it a divisive program in the country.
Advertisement
Skeptical Allies
The more surprising skeptics of the government’s plan may be the progressives.
Some are critical of the lack of worker representation. The committee assembled by the government to help chart a pathway to net-zero emissions by midcentury is dominated by business players and white-collar academics. Neither of South Korea’s two big labor union confederations ― the more government-friendly Federation of Korean Trade Unions and the traditionally more militant Korean Confederation of Trade Unions ― have delegates on the committee.
“Moon has been labor-friendly in terms of raising the minimum wage, and he presents himself as a benevolent leader who cares about workers,” said Kim Sun-Chul, an environmental policy expert and a member of the executive committee of Climate Crisis Emergency Action, a South Korean coalition of businesspeople and progressives. “But when it comes to maintaining relationships with trade unions, it hasn’t worked.”
The risk, he said, is that the Green New Deal will become unpopular and easy for future administrations to roll back if the program is seen as making life harder for South Korea’s working class, either by raising living costs or failing to curb air pollution.
Another big criticism is around the pace of the change. Smaller parties to the left of the government have produced their own, more ambitious proposals.
The Justice Party ― which holds six seats in the National Assembly ― has called for the closure of all coal plants by 2030, a 40% target for renewables by the end of the decade, and 10 million new electric vehicles.
Advertisement
The Green Party, which holds no seats, echoed those demands but went even further, calling for a ban on rich families owning more than three homes, a rapid expansion of public transit, and new rights for citizens to repair electronics and reuse more resources.
Both parties aim to halve South Korea’s emissions by 2030, the target United Nations scientists projected as necessary to keep global temperature rises from exceeding 1.5 degrees Celsius, an increase that models show would cause catastrophic weather, flooding and droughts.
A woman wearing a face mask in Seoul in March 2020. ED JONES/AFP via Getty Images
While neither party has the power to implement these plans, they “could play a role in pressuring and driving the Democratic Party to achieve the original purpose of Korea’s Green New Deal policy of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and inequality,” Lee Yu-jin, a climate researcher and Green candidate, said by email.
However, the Democrats’ strong election win may mean they are less susceptible to pressure from smaller parties, which could deepen factional disputes.
Advertisement
Still A Major Step Forward
But attitudes are changing. As Green New Deal thinking starts to spread, there are signs that some countries will pursue greener paths as they look to rebuild their economies post-COVID-19.
The European Union launched the European Green Deal in December, which aims to take the bloc from a high- to a low-carbon economy. In Spain, Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez won reelection last fall on a Green New Deal platform. In Latin America, opponents of Brazil’s far-right President Jair Bolsonaro are branding new environmental proposals as a Green New Deal. Africa, meanwhile, is home to the only two countries whose climate plans are in line with a 1.5-degree scenario: Morocco and Gambia.
The economic contraction the pandemic induced is projected to send demand for oil falling by 9%, coal by 8%, and gas by 5%, according to the International Energy Agency’s annual Global Energy Review report, published Thursday. Solar, however, is slated to grow by 15%, and wind by 10%.
South Korea may be the lone Asian nation to get behind a Green New Deal so far. But the country’s plan to phase out public financing for overseas coal projects would deal a major blow to one of the world’s dirtiest fuels. South Korea has been a significant coal funder in the region ― between January 2013 and August 2019, its three biggest public financing institutions invested a combined $5.7 billion in building 7 gigawatts of new coal infrastructure, much of it in Vietnam.
The South Korean plan “is not only showing regional leadership but showing international leadership,” said Mark Paul, an economist at the Roosevelt Institute, a progressive think tank in New York working on Green New Deal policy. “Korea is placing a bet on the fact that it can decarbonize its industry and be a leader in assisting other countries’ efforts to reduce emissions.”
Advertisement
For more content and to be part of the “This New World” community, follow our Facebook page.
HuffPost’s “This New World” series is funded by Partners for a New Economy and the Kendeda Fund. All content is editorially independent, with no influence or input from the foundations. If you have an idea or tip for the editorial series, send an email to thisnewworld@huffpost.com.
CORRECTION: A previous version of this story misspelled Yoon Sang-jick’s name.


huffpost--2020-05-02--Republican Group's Ad Campaign Demands Life-Saving Mail-In Ballots For Voters

“ We shouldn ’ t have to put ourselves in danger to vote for you , ” a Pennsylvania woman tells candidates in a jolting new ad campaign being launched by Republicans for the Rule of Law .
The ad is part of the organization ’ s push to promote expanded voting options in November to protect voters from COVID-19 — and for Congress to provide states with the resources to create a solid absentee-ballot system .
It features actual voters discussing their fears about turning up to vote in person amid the coronavirus pandemic .
“ Seventy percent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ option to vote by mail or absentee this fall ; it ’ s the only logical way to protect our democracy during the pandemic , ” said Sarah Longwell , spokeswoman for the Republicans for the Rule of Law .
But states need congressional support to conduct a “ safe and secure election ” in November , she added .
“ We ’ ve lost enough to the coronavirus .
We can ’ t lose our democracy , too.
” PREVIEW : This ad from Republicans for the Rule of Law will air @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's town hall .
In it , Republican voters tell Congress to help states ensure a fair , safe , and secure election .
`` We should n't have to put ourselves in danger to vote for you . ''
pic.twitter.com/HyUV5toYQd — Bill Kristol ( @ BillKristol ) May 1 , 2020 A Democrat who last month won a hotly contested Wisconsin state Supreme Court judgeship called her election victory “ bittersweet ” because of rising COVID-19 cases linked to forced in-person voting .
The GOP ( not Republicans for the Rule of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wisconsin Gov .
Tony Evers ’ bid for more time to organize mail-in ballots so people wouldn ’ t have to risk exposure to COVID-19 contagion to vote .
“ I find it unconscionable that Wisconsin voters were forced to choose between their safety and having their voices heard in our democracy , ” wrote Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice-elect Jill Karofsky in an op-ed in The New York Times on Monday .
As of Thursday , 52 people who worked at polling stations or voted in the Wisconsin election tested positive for COVID-19 @

“We shouldn’t have to put ourselves in danger to vote for you,” a Pennsylvania woman tells candidates in a jolting new ad campaign being launched by Republicans for the Rule of Law.
The ad is part of the organization’s push to promote expanded voting options in November to protect voters from COVID-19 — and for Congress to provide states with the resources to create a solid absentee-ballot system.
Advertisement
The kick-off ad will air nationally during Donald Trump’s Fox News town hall meeting Sunday.
It features actual voters discussing their fears about turning up to vote in person amid the coronavirus pandemic.
“Seventy percent of Americans agree that voters should have the option to vote by mail or absentee this fall; it’s the only logical way to protect our democracy during the pandemic,” said Sarah Longwell, spokeswoman for the Republicans for the Rule of Law.
But states need congressional support to conduct a “safe and secure election” in November, she added. “We’ve lost enough to the coronavirus. We can’t lose our democracy, too.”
PREVIEW: This ad from Republicans for the Rule of Law will air on Fox Sunday night during President Trump's town hall. In it, Republican voters tell Congress to help states ensure a fair, safe, and secure election. "We shouldn't have to put ourselves in danger to vote for you." pic.twitter.com/HyUV5toYQd — Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) May 1, 2020
Advertisement
A Democrat who last month won a hotly contested Wisconsin state Supreme Court judgeship called her election victory “bittersweet” because of rising COVID-19 cases linked to forced in-person voting. The GOP (not Republicans for the Rule of Law) won court battles to scuttle Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers’ bid for more time to organize mail-in ballots so people wouldn’t have to risk exposure to COVID-19 contagion to vote.
“I find it unconscionable that Wisconsin voters were forced to choose between their safety and having their voices heard in our democracy,” wrote Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice-elect Jill Karofsky in an op-ed in The New York Times on Monday.
As of Thursday, 52 people who worked at polling stations or voted in the Wisconsin election tested positive for COVID-19.
Advertisement


huffpost--2020-04-30--Jim Carrey Predicts Trump's 'Next Medical Breakthrough' With Political Cartoon

President Donald Trump ’ s penchant for hyping unproven ― and sometimes downright dangerous ― treatments for the coronavirus gave actor Jim Carrey the inspiration for his latest critical cartoon .
Last week , Trump pondered injecting people with disinfectant during a White House coronavirus task force briefing .
He later walked back the comments , claiming he was just being sarcastic .
That didn ’ t stop Carrey from unleashing this taunting piece of artwork on Wednesday , which he called “ Trump ’ s next medical breakthrough.
” Upward of 61,000 people in the United States have now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the virus , and the country has more confirmed cases — as of Thursday morning , more than 1 million — than any other in the world .
The Trump administration has come under increasing fire for its sloppy response to the public health crisis .
Carrey often uses his art to take aim at the president .
At the start of the year , he insisted his days of artistically mocking Trump were over , but the pandemic inspired him to get painting once again .
In March , he roasted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ countless lives to save his economic record ” with this “ Jaws ” -inspired image : Trump is willing to risk countless lives to save his economic record .
He has fully become the mayor from Jaws .
pic.twitter.com/ZggJClEaXG — Jim Carrey ( @ JimCarrey ) March 27 , 2020 He also unleashed this NSFW coronavirus-themed depiction of the president : As cases of COVID-19 double every three days in NYC , the President reassures Wall Street that he can handle the important tissues .
pic.twitter.com/DZcULploo1 — Jim Carrey ( @ JimCarrey ) @ @ @ @

LOADING ERROR LOADING
President Donald Trump’s penchant for hyping unproven ― and sometimes downright dangerous ― treatments for the coronavirus gave actor Jim Carrey the inspiration for his latest critical cartoon.
Last week, Trump pondered injecting people with disinfectant during a White House coronavirus task force briefing. He later walked back the comments, claiming he was just being sarcastic.
Advertisement
That didn’t stop Carrey from unleashing this taunting piece of artwork on Wednesday, which he called “Trump’s next medical breakthrough.”
Trump’s next medical breakthrough: “Want COVID out? SHOUT IT OUT!” pic.twitter.com/GQPpl5qpmS — Jim Carrey (@JimCarrey) April 29, 2020
Upward of 61,000 people in the United States have now died from COVID-19, the disease caused by the virus, and the country has more confirmed cases — as of Thursday morning, more than 1 million — than any other in the world. The Trump administration has come under increasing fire for its sloppy response to the public health crisis.
Carrey often uses his art to take aim at the president. At the start of the year, he insisted his days of artistically mocking Trump were over, but the pandemic inspired him to get painting once again.
Advertisement
In March, he roasted Trump for being “willing to risk countless lives to save his economic record” with this “Jaws”-inspired image:
Trump is willing to risk countless lives to save his economic record. He has fully become the mayor from Jaws. pic.twitter.com/ZggJClEaXG — Jim Carrey (@JimCarrey) March 27, 2020
He also unleashed this NSFW coronavirus-themed depiction of the president:
As cases of COVID-19 double every three days in NYC, the President reassures Wall Street that he can handle the important tissues. pic.twitter.com/DZcULploo1 — Jim Carrey (@JimCarrey) March 24, 2020


Chasing Safety

The Worst Humanitarian Crisis In The World The Maze Of The Immigration System

Illustration by Patrycja Podkościelny
Osamah Mahyoub wasn’t always a man on the run, or the target of a murderous rebel group. He used to live a comfortable life in Taiz, a city in Yemen with chocolate-brown masonry and some of the finest coffee in the world. He was a happy child who played soccer all day long with his favorite cousins, Abdelsalam and Jamil. Sometimes, if the cousins promised to be good, they were allowed to go to the market with Mahyoub’s uncle, a local imam, to buy mangoes, tomatoes and onions. Soccer, cousins, the market. Happy memories.
When Mahyoub grew up, he studied accounting at a local college and was making a good living at it until his home became the setting of a new story: a bloody, never-ending war.
Advertisement
Taiz became a city of snipers, and Mahyoub became a target. In March 2015, when Mahyoub was 27 years old, the Houthis, an Iran-backed rebel group, captured Taiz. Members of the group demanded that Mahyoub’s uncle give up his home in the mountains so that it could be used as a launch site for their airstrikes. His uncle refused. So the Houthis bombed his uncle’s home, then Mahyoub’s home. If they couldn’t have it, no one could.
Mahyoub and his family survived the bombing and escaped to relatives nearby, but they weren’t safe. Because his uncle had stood up to the rebels, they had enemies. And although the rebels wanted revenge, they also wanted new recruits. They offered Mahyoub a choice: join them in exchange for his and his family’s safety, or die. Without hesitation, he refused their offer, instead participating in peaceful protests and persuading others in the city to reject the rebel group. The rebels threatened to kill him. With nowhere to hide, Mahyoub fled to the nearby country of Djibouti.
But the Houthis caught up with their targets in Yemen. They murdered Mahyoub’s cousin Abdulsalam in June; they found and killed Jamil the following month. More cousins were picked off over the next few months and years. In total, Mahyoub lost seven members of his family, according to death certificates and legal documents reviewed by HuffPost. In 2016, his brother was shot by Houthis and lost his leg to gangrene.
Soon the death threats followed Mahyoub to Djibouti. After living and working there for three years as an accountant, the rebel group found him on Facebook. They knew where he was.
Advertisement
The Worst Humanitarian Crisis In The World
The United Nations estimates more than 10,000 people have been killed in Yemen since the start of the war, but also that that number is likely far higher. More than 24 million people are in need of humanitarian assistance inside Yemen. Families are forced to flee their homes, many with just the clothes on their back, and cross deserts and mountains. Airstrikes have crumbled schools, and more than 130 medical facilities have been attacked. Yemen was one of the world’s poorest countries before the war and largely relied on imports for food and medicine. The war demolished any remaining hope for its people.
There are daily reports of civilian casualties, or of people dying from preventable diseases or not having enough food, said Shabia Mantoo, a spokesperson for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Mantoo visited Yemen in 2017 and 2018, seeing firsthand the dire situation inside the country. More than 2 million children under the age of 5 have been classified as acutely malnourished. Poor sanitation and waterborne diseases such as cholera have infected more than a million people and left hundreds of others dead.
Left: Taiz before 2015. Right: Buildings in Taiz demolished after bombings in 2015. Getty Images
More than 3 million Yemenis had been displaced by the ongoing conflict as of last year, and over 65,000 Yemenis had fled the country entirely. Few countries have provided relief for these refugees, including the United States; President Donald Trump signed an executive order in 2017 that barred entry to the U.S. from several Muslim-majority countries, including Yemen. The U.S. closed itself to Yemenis in spite of its own complicity in the war there: It has provided billions of dollars in weaponry and intelligence support to Saudi Arabia, which backs the Yemeni government, further escalating the worst humanitarian disaster in the world. There has been little to no progress to end the war, and international groups including the U.N. have accused both Saudi Arabia and the Houthi rebels of committing war crimes.
People like Mahyoub are paying the price.
Blacklisted Friends
In Djibouti in 2015, Mahyoub met Emad Al-Azabi, a 34-year-old Yemeni national from Taiz. Al-Azabi had also defied the Houthi rule of his home city and had fled to protect himself.
One year before, Al-Azabi had been supposed to graduate college with a degree in English. He and his friends drove over six hours from his hometown to Sana’a, the nation’s capital, for the ceremony. But fighting broke out between government forces and the armed Houthi militia group that day. As the capital burned and the Houthis seized control of the prime minister’s office, the state television channels and the military headquarters, Al-Azabi and his friends headed home, only to discover Taiz had also fallen to the rebels.
HuffPost Visuals
Soldiers were soon in the streets, calling on people to join the armed militia in exchange for money and security. Al-Azabi pleaded with people not to join the group, and just like Mahyoub, he and his family became targets for speaking up. Al-Azabi was forced to flee to Djibouti, where he was able to find work as a translator.
Several members of Al-Azabi’s family were killed in the war. His uncle, a soldier, was killed in August 2015; a cousin, a military peacekeeping member, was killed the following summer. Another cousin, a lieutenant, was killed by shrapnel from an IED bomb a year later. Al-Azabi had been in Djibouti for three years when he thought it was safe to go back to Yemen and visit his mother. But back home, it quickly became clear that the Houthis still wanted him dead.
Advertisement
Suddenly, both men needed to escape.
Nowhere Safe
The men set their eyes on Ecuador, which allows visa-free entries for nearly any foreign national from any country in the world. Al-Azabi arrived in Quito in 2017, after a brief stop in Egypt. Mahyoub followed him in January 2018.
Life was good in Quito. The men dedicated themselves to making the city their new home. On his second day in the country, Al-Azabi strolled down the streets, hunting for similar faces when he came across two Middle Eastern restaurants, one Egyptian and one Lebanese. There, he met Arabic-speaking nationals, and soon his network grew. In no time, the men secured work at a local Yemeni-owned mini-market, where they found a small hub of other Yemeni refugees. On their days off, they enjoyed the warm weather, swam and played soccer.
Al-Azabi got in touch with his dad and Abdullah, a cousin from New York who visited Ecuador for two weeks in April 2019. Abdullah went sightseeing with Al-Azabi and Mahyoub in Quito and the port city of Manta, which reminded them of Taiz before the war.
“I was so happy for them,” Abdullah told HuffPost. “They were in a safe place.”
But trouble soon followed. Mahyoub was playing pool at a local bar one day in June 2019 when five Yemenis entered. The men, who were Houthi sympathizers, forced Mahyoub out into the streets and began to beat him. Police officers intervened and broke up the fight, but no arrests were made. Mahyoub realized that even in Ecuador, thousands of miles from Taiz, his life was still in danger.
He and Al-Azabi lost their jobs to other workers who accepted lower wages. Money was running out and their tourist visas had expired. Then they heard about a plan for America.
Advertisement
Abdullah, Emad Al-Azabi's cousin, stands with his nephew on the balcony of his home in Queens, New York City, in April. Demetrius Freeman for HuffPost
The Longest Road
Over the last few years, migration and immigration experts have witnessed the rise of an extraordinary phenomenon called “extra-continental migrants,” a term that refers to individuals who have tried to come to the United States by traveling across multiple continents.
With the lax immigration laws in South America and European countries shutting down their borders, refugees and migrants fleeing the Middle East have been forced to look westward. For many migrants and refugees, it’s arguably cheaper and less dangerous to cross the South American continent to the United States than it is to embark on a risky boat ride across the Mediterranean Sea to Europe.
Although most migrants apprehended at the U.S.-Mexico borders are from Central America or Mexico — nearly than 700,000 during the 2019 fiscal year — there has been an increase of migrants from other continents. According to the Migration Policy Unit of Mexico, more than 670,000 migrants from Asia entered Mexico through legal ports of entry during 2019 and more than 675,000 did so in 2018. Customs and Border Protection apprehended nearly 7,000 people from India, 1,200 from Bangladesh, and 600 from the Democratic Republic of Congo during the 2019 fiscal year. It apprehended 34 Yemenis that same year.
Migrants and asylum-seekers from these countries face unique challenges. It takes longer to complete their journeys compared to their Central American counterparts, and many face language barriers within Mexico and are forced to rely on smugglers for information. Migrants from the Middle East, India and parts of Africa are a very specific group with very different needs, said Estela Aragon, a researcher at the International Organization for Migration.
Advertisement
Many do not make it. But for those who do, the challenges don’t end when they arrive in the U.S.
Embarking On Mission Impossible
On a warm July evening in 2019, Mahyoub and Al-Azabi left for the long trip north with about $2,000 in savings and a backpack filled with food. They were joined by four other migrants and refugees ― three Yemenis and one Sudanese. The group mapped out a route that would take them along the Pan-American Highway, the longest road in the world. From Ecuador, Mahyoub and Al-Azabi would go to Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala and Mexico before finally arriving at the U.S. border in Texas.
In Quito, the men had heard of others leaving for the U.S. They heard stories about long journeys ending in safety, that the U.S. would protect them from murderous rebel groups, from being forced to return to a country at war. They heard they could go to the U.S. and start over. Al-Azabi didn’t tell his father in New York that he was making the journey. He didn’t want him to worry.
First, the men embarked on a bus from Quito. Three bus rides and 10 days later, they arrived at the Colombian-Ecuadorian border at dawn. The immigration officers hadn’t arrived at their shifts yet, so the men kept on walking across the border. Getting to Colombia was the easy part, and the most dangerous and longest part of their journey was up next.
Aerial view of the La Penita indigenous village in Panama. Migrants cross the border between Colombia and Panama through the Darien Gap. LUIS ACOSTA via Getty Images
Mahyoub and Al-Azabi knew that trekking through the Darien Gap was going to be difficult, but they had no idea it could kill them. The Gap, which connects the North and South American continents and is mostly used to cross between Colombia and Panama, is over 60 miles of swamps, jungles and mountains, as well as poisonous plants, venomous snakes and other hostile wildlife. It is also the perfect cover for drug smugglers, human traffickers and paramilitary groups that have long claimed this lawless region as a home where anything goes. Yet tens of thousands of desperate refugees and migrants from Cuba, Africa and Asia risk their lives every year to cross it.
Advertisement
Under the cover of the jungle, the Yemeni men and their group crossed illegally from South America to Central America, paying smugglers often known as coyotes along the way. The men hiked through the thick jungles for seven days straight, 12 hours a day. At night, they usually slept in tents. But if the land was too dangerous, they climbed into the trees and slept in branches to hide from dangerous wildlife and even more dangerous men. Halfway through their week-long trek, gunmen stopped the group and demanded money. Afraid for their lives, Mahyoub and Al-Azabi gave up a few hundred dollars and their cellphones, almost everything they had. In addition to the dangers posed by the jungle and smugglers, the polluted river meant no washing and no drinking. There were no safe stops to rest. No matter how tired, they were forced to keep walking. Mahyoub and Al-Azabi said they saw five corpses along the way. They prayed they would not become one of them.
“If I knew that the trip was going to be what I had experienced, I would have never gone,” Mahyoub said. “I pray that no one ever experiences this.”
Detained In Panama
After surviving the most dangerous part of the trip, Mahyoub and Al-Azabi were immediately apprehended by members of the Panamanian border patrol. Panama’s small size, as well as its established immigration partnerships with Colombia, Costa Rica and the United States, allows it to monitor and control the influx of migrants. Panama’s National Border Service allows 100 migrants to move through its country every day, and shuttles them from its most southern border to the northern border at Costa Rica. Those who don’t make that day’s cut are housed in processing centers until it’s their turn.
Some experts say the processing center wait is a benefit for migrants, as they don’t have to rely on smugglers for that portion of the journey.
Advertisement
“But it pays off for the Panamanian authorities because they can be sure that migrants aren’t necessarily staying in their country,” said Jessica Bolter, an associate policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute.
Mahyoub and Al-Azabi were detained for 55 days among thousands of other migrants of all races and backgrounds — including women and children — where they received basic services such as food, shelter and medical assistance. The men stayed in outdoor facilities that they described as overcrowded and lacking proper bathrooms and running water. They ate rice and vegetables provided by the authorities. There was not much to do but wait. To pass the time, they took naps in the afternoon, conversed with other Arabic-speaking migrants, and regained their strength for the next leg of their journey.
Eventually, their turn came and they were put on a bus to Costa Rica.
International Crackdown On Immigration
Once the bus arrived at the border of Costa Rica, Mahyoub and Al-Azabi were shuffled to another immigration facility. Costa Rican officials questioned the men extensively. Then the routine continued: bus ride, followed by an immigration visit and detention stops, paying fees, and then another bus ride to the next country. Ride and repeat.
They passed through Nicaragua, where Mahyoub and Al-Azabi were forced to camp outside in the streets with other migrants waiting for immigration officials to call their names and check their passports. Two days later, they were placed on yet another bus to their next destination: Honduras.
Advertisement
While passing through transit countries, migrants have to cross into countries with different migration policies. Some borders can be crossed regularly, but others are crossed irregularly by migrants who often rely on smugglers. Mahyoub and Al-Azabi paid smugglers for seats on the bus that would get them through Honduras and Guatemala. Nearly 70% of migrants who cross the Mexico-Guatemala border travel with coyotes.
Osama Mahyoub, bottom left, and Emad Al-Azabi, top left, along with photos from their time living in Ecuador. HuffPost Visuals
When they finally arrived in Mexico in October, the impact of Trump’s changes put a temporary halt on their journey. Just a few months prior, Trump had signed an agreement with Mexico to reduce the flow of migrants. Mexico deployed thousands of guard members at its border crossings with Guatemala in the south and along the U.S. border up north. In the weeks following the deal, the Trump administration announced a 28% drop in individuals detained at the U.S.-Mexico border.
At the same time, the number of Yemeni nationals migrating to or through Mexico was climbing. During the 2019 fiscal year, Mexican authorities apprehended 62 Yemeni nationals either at its borders or inside the country, according to data provided by the Migration Policy Institute, compared to 46 nationals during the 2018 fiscal year and 27 during the 2017 fiscal year. Between 2007 and 2017, by comparison, the largest number of Yemeni nationals apprehended by U.S. authorities at the U.S.-Mexico in any year was three.
Mayhoub and Al-Azabi were stuck. For one month, they waited in Monterrey, Mexico, desperate to make their final crossing into the United States.
Advertisement
‘America Isn’t Paradise’
It was nearly midnight when Mahyoub and Al-Azabi made it to the U.S. border, but even the night’s darkness could not cloud their excitement. A rush of relief and joy washed over them as they got off their last bus ride in Mexico and walked into Texas. The excitement was brief. Within a few minutes of touching U.S. soil, the men were apprehended by border patrol and taken to the San Antonio detention center. Upon their arrival, they faced a new onslaught of challenges, including navigating complex immigration laws, language barriers and lawsuits.
“I was so happy at first when I entered America, but then I immediately regretted it,” Mahyoub said.
Mahyoub and Al-Azabi have been held by U.S. immigration officials since arriving in the U.S. on Nov. 28, 2019. A migrant can request asylum at either a port of entry or after they enter the U.S. The first step in that process is a meeting with an asylum officer, who determines whether that person has a “credible fear” of persecution or torture back in their country of origin. As they wait for their immigration hearings, individuals are either released on parole or taken to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center. Asylum officers determined neither Mahyoub nor Al-Azabi had credible fear of returning to their home countries. Their attorneys appealed the decisions, but that was denied in March as well.
A spokesperson for the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services declined to comment, saying it was the agency’s “practice not to comment on individual cases” and that “asylum records are confidential under immigration law.” ICE declined to comment on the possibility of deportation.
Mahyoub and Al-Azabi believe deportation would be a death sentence.
The Maze Of The Immigration System
The U.S. government has acknowledged the danger facing people returned to Yemen. About 1,500 Yemeni nationals who have been living in the U.S. since 2015 are protected by Temporary Protected Status –– a program that allows individuals already living inside the U.S. to receive protection because their home country has been deemed too unsafe to return to, or because it would not be able to adequately take them back.
Advertisement
The program, which is up for renewal every 18 months and was just renewed earlier this year, excludes thousands of other Yemenis who are at risk for deportation because they entered the U.S. after the cutoff date. Earlier this year, the U.S. deported a Yemeni photographer without warning back to Yemen, still a war zone, prompting widespread concern for other Yemenis inside the country who fear a similar fate.
Since Oct. 1, 2017, the U.S. has accepted only five Yemenis through the refugee resettlement program, in which people are approved to come to the U.S. before they make the journey. (Those who arrive at the border, like Mahyoub, can seek asylum, not refugee status.) In 2018 and 2019, the U.S. hasn’t accepted any Yemeni refugees, primarily due to Trump’s travel ban.
“A lot of Yemeni migrants and refugees are being judged, or there are preconceived misconceptions that Yemenis are terrorists or they pose as a security risk to the United States,” said Assma Ali, a Mississippi-based immigration lawyer who represents Mahyoub.
“Yemenis are being persecuted and there’s evidence of them being persecuted in Yemen, and the U.S. is slamming the door on them and not allowing them to file for protection from the United States,” Ali said. “They are not believing them. There is no way you can disagree, there isn’t a threat to his life.”
Changes implemented by the Trump administration have only made it harder for migrants to receive asylum at the border, including severely limiting access to asylum claims and making it harder for migrants to prove a fear of persecution or torture if returned ― especially when they are not being given the chance to do so in a courtroom. In July 2019, when Mahyoub and Al Azabi were just starting their journey from Quito, the Trump administration also announced another new rule change: Migrants who traveled through another country before reaching the U.S. and did not apply for asylum in those countries could not do so in the U.S.
Advertisement
A federal judge temporarily blocked this transit ban, the so-called asylum ban 2.0. But in September, the Supreme Court ruled the ban can take effect while a legal challenge against it works its way through the courts. That means that those who do not pass a reasonable fear interview ― people like Mahyoub and Al-Azabi, potentially ― can be swiftly deported. (The preliminary interviews for asylum is called credible fear, whereas asking for the withholding of removal is called reasonable fear. Meeting the criteria for a reasonable fear interview is higher than credible fear.)
“I regret all of it. If I knew this was going to happen to me, I would have never come.” - Osamah Mahyoub
In the current environment, it’s almost impossible for people to convince officers that they’re afraid of being returned to their country, said Kate Richardson, an attorney at the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services.
Those who are allowed to continue the process to seek protections are subjected to a slew of restrictions. They are eligible for only two very limited forms of protection against deportation: withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Unlike asylum, which is only granted after passing a credible fear interview, the individual can never acquire a green card or become a U.S. citizen. If the conditions of their home country changes, their protections can be terminated.
If granted asylum in a best-case scenario, Mahyoub and Al-Azabi would never get a green card or U.S. citizenship, and their lives would always be in the hands of immigration officials.
Advertisement
In another win for the Trump administration, in March the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Migrant Protection Protocols, a controversial immigration program that allows U.S. border officers to return non-Mexican asylum-seekers back to Mexico as they wait for their day in U.S. immigration court. Now, more than 66,000 asylum-seekers are stranded in Mexico, forced to wait months or years for their cases to be decided in the US. Less than 0.1% of asylum claims have been granted since the implementation of the program.
Mahyoub and Al-Azabi are in limbo.
Running Out Of Time
Life inside the San Antonio Detention Center was difficult.
Mahyoub and Al-Azabi were housed with nearly 100 people inside the facility. They found comfort with each other’s presence. Al-Azabi, who speaks Arabic, English and Spanish, translated for his friend often. But most of the time, they tried to keep to themselves. Mahyoub said guards at the facility taunted him because of his Muslim faith and Arab background, mocking his name. They called him “Bin Laden.” They also referred to him as “Taliban” whenever they wanted his attention, drawing stares and concerns from fellow detainees.
In February, Mahyoub was separated from Al-Azabi ― his friend, his connection to home, his lifeline. Immigration officials moved him to Adams County Detention Center in Mississippi, where he has been held ever since. He has no one to translate for him, and the detention center has provided no translation services. He broke into tears when he found out about his relocation, afraid of being apart from the only man who really knows him.
“I didn’t expect America to treat us this way,” Mahyoub said. “I can’t go on like this.”
An ICE spokesperson said the agency “does not tolerate any mistreatment including verbal abuse of people in its custody” and provides detainees channels to raise concerns. The agency also noted that it provides interpretation and translation for people with limited English proficiency.
The spread of the coronavirus outbreak threatens both the health and safety of Mahyoub and Al-Azabi in their respective detention facilities. In April, Al-Azabi and the rest of the detainees were given face masks as a precautionary measure in order to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Al-Azabi used to be able to go outside with the other detainees and play soccer, but that one hour of freedom has been taken away because of the pandemic. He is worried an outbreak could happen at any moment and would spread in such tight quarters.
Advertisement
Al-Azabi’s father, who lives in New York City and wasn’t aware of the journey his son took, was devastated when he found out about his son’s current situation.
“I tell my son America isn’t paradise,” said 59-year-old Abu Emad. HuffPost is withholding Abu Emad’s real name and referring to him with a term that translates to the “father of Emad” because he is an undocumented resident.
Abu Emad said he regrets that his son ever left Ecuador. If he knew Al-Azabi was planning to make the journey, he would have told him not to go. Abu Emad, who is suffering from kidney failure, also tested positive for COVID-19 in April. Without proper care, his condition continues to worsen. Al-Azabi’s cousin, Abdullah, looks after him. They both hope that Al-Azabi will come home to them soon.
“I’m afraid for my son. If they deport him, it will be the end of him,” Abu Emad told HuffPost.
Emad's father posing for a portrait in his neighborhood in Queens, New York City, on April 27. Demetrius Freeman for HuffPost
Al-Azabi is regretful. He said he feels devastated by the rigid immigration system that is failing him.
Advertisement
“Every day I hear new bad news. A friend who was killed or a relative who was killed. When I call my parents, my mom cries and cries. I can’t handle her calls anymore,” Al-Azabi said from the detention center in a call in April.
For over two months, I have spoken to Mahyoub and Al-Azabi nearly every day. Before the coronavirus pandemic, they were hopeful. They talked about what their new lives would look like in America. They both want to move to New York City, where over 50,000 Yemenis reside. They were eager to find work and start a new life among fellow Arab Muslims, to have a community. We discussed our respective families. They wanted to hear about mine but grew quiet when I asked about theirs. They seemed to feel shame about their current predicament. But mostly, they were deeply sad that they may never see their loved ones again. They are now fasting for Ramadan, a time that usually brings family and community together, and they feel a particular loneliness. Mahyoub told me I am the only person on his call list. He has no one else.
Without Mayhoub, Al-Azabi spends his days writing. He writes about the journey across South America, the things he has seen, and the people he has met. He hopes to publish a memoir one day.
“What I know of America is that it is the country of freedom and justice and the country for everyone, but when I got here I was shocked,” Al-Azabi said.
Advertisement
Two weeks ago, Mahyoub developed cold-like symptoms; he is gravely worried about a possible coronavirus outbreak where he is. He now wonders if the journey to America was worth it.
“I regret all of it,” he said. “If I knew this was going to happen to me, I would have never come.”
For now, he’s in limbo and praying that the U.S., which is complicit in demolishing his home country, will give him a chance at life. He could be deported any day.
“I can’t return to Yemen because my life is in danger. Where would I go in Yemen? Our homes are destroyed,” Mahyoub said. “If I return, I would be forced to carry arms, and I refuse to carry arms. I reject violence of any kind.”
The idea of returning back to a war zone is unfathomable, he said. He has no home to return to. His family members are barely escaping death, between the daily bombs and the Houthis’ threats. If enduring the war in Yemen, the threats in Djibouti, and the journey across South America has taught him anything, it’s that he has a knack for surviving. He prays God is on his side one more time.


huffpost--2020-05-02--Lawmaking In The Time Of Coronavirus

Lawmaking In The Time Of Coronavirus

SAUL LOEB via Getty Images Speaker Nancy Pelosi wears a mask to protect herself and others from COVID-19 at her @ @ @ @ @ Off From Critical Avenues Of Influence Raskin went on to say that on a huge @ @ @ @ @ rank-and-file members can only hope to have influence on one or two items , depending @ @ @ @ @ relevant committees or able to form groups or can make noise about an issue .
@ @ @ @ @ things have just become more difficult during this time , ” he said .

Speaker Nancy Pelosi wears a mask to protect herself and others from COVID-19 at her weekly press conference. SAUL LOEB via Getty Images
WASHINGTON ― As the House Democratic leadership keeps members away from Capitol Hill over coronavirus concerns, there’s mounting frustration that it’s also keeping members away from the negotiating table.
Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) told Democrats on a conference call this week that members would return to Washington “when CARES 2 is ready,” referring to the latest bill Congress is preparing in response to coronavirus. The problem for some members is that drafting a bill and then bringing members back means leaving them out of the actual lawmaking process.
Advertisement
That problem is compounded by all the loose ends in the next piece of legislation. Democrats don’t have much of an idea as to what is actually going in the next bill, largely because it’ll be subject to negotiations between Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin.
One member on the Democratic Caucus call complained to HuffPost on Thursday that the legislation “may or may not” include infrastructure funding, “may or may not” include money for the Postal Service or election security, and “may or may not” fix problems with the small business loan program that Congress established more than a month ago.
“They’ll let us know when it’s done and then tell us how to vote,” the member said.
Another Democratic member who also wished to remain anonymous was even blunter about the leadership: “It’s always Nancy’s way,” the member said of the speaker. “Now she just doesn’t have to deal with anyone telling her they have a better way.”
This member said Pelosi was actually weakening her hand by keeping members in the dark and negotiating alone with the Senate and the administration. “Because she could go to McConnell and Mnuchin and say, ‘Look, my members just won’t go for it,’” this Democrat said.
Advertisement
And yet another Democratic member who asked for anonymity to talk about lawmaking during the age of Covid-19 said the experience had revealed “the basic power relationships that exist.”
“People’s physical distance reveals their marginality when legislation is coming through someone else’s committee,” this Democrat said.
Blaming The Coronavirus Itself
Members with whom HuffPost spoke on the record about the situation also expressed frustration, but they tried to direct their anger toward the coronavirus itself and the challenges it’s presented to Congress.
Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) said the conference-call-lawmaking was not a good replacement for members actually having hearings and face-to-face input on bills. “You just can’t pretend that this is working well,” Huffman said. “I think it’s time to talk about the fact that the emperor has no clothes.”
Huffman added: “We are completely emasculated in terms of our ability to have hearings and move the needle in terms of the institution.”
Advertisement
Huffman also blamed members — including many Republicans — who are demanding that the House bring back members and reopen the gym are the same ones who are making it more difficult to open anything. He suggested it was a GOP strategy to shut down the majority power of House Democrats.
That theory may be beyond most members, but it speaks to the frustration lawmakers are having in doing their work.
“You just can’t pretend that this is working well. I think it’s time to talk about the fact that the emperor has no clothes.” - —Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.)
“This is a unique situation, right?” Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) said. “If it was just that they were keeping us away, it would be one thing. But, you know, it’s the attending physician who right now is keeping us away.”
The House seems to be taking guidance from the House doctor on when it’s safe for members to fly back and walk the Capitol halls.
Advertisement
Meanwhile, McConnell is convening the Senate next week, contrary to Washington shelter-in-place orders and the Senate physician’s saying he doesn’t have enough kits to test all senators for coronavirus.
McConnell may be risking the health of some senators and essential workers in Congress, but he will get his chamber back ― in some capacity ― and allow lawmakers to work on things such as coronavirus response legislation and appropriations bills.
Speaking about Congress’ reduced capacity during the extended recess, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) — true to form — roughly invoked a Woodrow Wilson quote he learned in college: “A Congress in committee is a Congress at work.”
Cut Off From Critical Avenues Of Influence
“The pandemic has cut us off from some of the critical ways that we can have input, because the committees are not meeting in hearings or markups,” Raskin said.
Raskin went on to say that on a huge bill like CARES 2, rank-and-file members can only hope to have influence on one or two items, depending on whether they are on relevant committees or able to form groups or can make noise about an issue. “And all of those things have just become more difficult during this time,” he said.
Advertisement
Congress has been somewhat slow to adapt to the challenges of remote oversight and lawmaking while being away from the Capitol.
There have been consistent discussions about remote voting, but many lawmakers have resisted the idea, aware of how each party could abuse the process to duck questions during difficult votes (think about Republicans during their 2017 efforts to repeal and replace Obamacare).
And while the House has taken steps to move some official actions online ― members can now submit legislation, new cosponsors and remarks electronically ― committees have struggled to hold hearings, and there has been no replacement for the important role of kibitizing in Congress.
Some members acknowledge that Pelosi has actually made efforts to include them in the lawmaking process.
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), whose district borders Pelosi’s, said he has had a considerable amount of contact with the speaker and her staff and that Pelosi was taking his perspective, and progressive priorities, into account.
Advertisement
Democratic leaders also hold regular conference calls with their members and have held sessions for all members in which they can express their concerns about reopening ― or not reopening ― Congress.
Khanna acknowledged the frustration that members were feeling. But he didn’t think it was fair to criticize leadership for not conveying what’s going to be in this next bill ― it’s still a matter of negotiating with McConnell and Mnuchin.
“I mean, everyone wants to be at the table. But you can’t make a table that has 435 chairs very easily.” - —Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.)
“The challenge is you have to be able to negotiate, and you can’t have 200-some members negotiating,” he said.
Pocan made a similar point to HuffPost on Friday, saying there was always going to be frustration from the members who aren’t at the negotiating table.
Advertisement
“I mean, everyone wants to be at the table. But you can’t make a table that has 435 chairs very easily,” he said.
“Ultimately one person ― Nancy ― goes to sit down with Steve Mnuchin to negotiate what’s going to be in a package,” Pocan added. “And that’s where the natural difficulty occurs.”
The Progressive Caucus co-chair agreed that Pelosi seemed to be incorporating progressive values in the next bill. He thought some funding for the Postal Service and vote-by-mail would be included in the legislation, as well as hazard pay for essential workers such as doctors and nurses.
And he felt confident there would be some state and local government funding ― at least in some form. (Pelosi said this week that Congress may have to provide that aid in stages: first to states, then to local governments and municipalities.)
The Progressive Caucus tried to extract some concessions for this bill during the last coronavirus relief bill, threatening to hold back votes for “Phase 3.5” if state and local government funding weren’t included in the next bill. Ultimately, they got soft assurances from the speaker and voted for the bill, which overwhelmingly passed 388-5.
Advertisement
Only one Democrat, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), voted no, arguing that the bill didn’t go far enough to help people while supplying plenty of money for the rich and connected.
There’s a risk in voting against these bills. Most members actually want to provide relief to workers struggling with the economic fallout from the coronavirus, and voting no during a time of distinct challenge for people just because you want a better bill can be politically perilous.
But the willingness of members to go along with any bill may actually weaken Pelosi’s hand.
The speaker can’t convincingly argue to McConnell or the administration that legislation is insufficient when it’s garnering massive majorities from both parties. Ultimately, the fact that the House would pass almost any response bill by a huge margin makes it more difficult for Pelosi to demand progressive priorities.
Still, progressives seem to be united on the idea that Pelosi ultimately wants many of the same things they want.
“This isn’t a time where the leadership doesn’t want the progressive values,” Khanna said. “I think this is a question of negotiation.”
Advertisement
Khanna emphasized that it was easy to “Monday morning quarterback” the deals that Pelosi had cut on previous bills, but it was much more difficult to actually get more from McConnell and the Trump administration.
“You’re not going to convince me that there’s a single person who’s a better negotiator than Nancy Pelosi,” Khanna said.
And when HuffPost raised the point that some members just may not feel like they’re being heard right now, Khanna had simple advice.