Protesters march against the Muslim ban in Washington, DC. (Photo: Masha George / Washington, DC)

In middle school, children in the United States learn that the three branches of the federal government are arranged with a system of “checks and balances,” so that no one branch oversteps its power and violates the rights of individuals. But now, the whole world can see that the only thing “checked” by the White House and the Supreme Court is the human right to freedom of movement.

The cases are united by more than one administration’s xenophobia. Much of Latin America and the Muslim world share a legacy of U.S. interventions driving the very migration now being cruelly restricted.

Latinx migrants at the southern border have been in the national spotlight. But too rarely has the question been asked: What situation would compel so many people to leave their homes and take the perilous journey north in the first place?

An honest answer requires an examination of U.S. policy in Latin America, particularly Central America.

While the Trump administration talks incessantly about its favorite villain, the gang MS-13, it says nothing about the origins of the gang. MS-13 was actually incubated on the streets and in the prisons of Southern California, where so many Salvadoran migrants were incarcerated in the 1990s. Washington’s deportation of former prisoners — among other Salvadorans — back to El Salvador was the context for the development of the MS-13.

The Salvadoran community that developed in the United States in the 1980s and 1990s itself emerged as Salvadorans fled a nightmarish civil war. The United States was deeply involved in that conflict, arming and supporting the Salvadoran government and right-wing paramilitary forces throughout Central America.

These death squads committed acts of unspeakable violence that still reverberate throughout the region today. Similar patterns have played out in Guatemala and Honduras, which are also countries of origin for refugees where the United States has a legacy of backing right-wing leaders past and present.

On the other side of the world is Yemen, one of the seven countries whose people are targeted by the travel ban — and the site of a catastrophic U.S.-backed war. We may not hear the cries of Yemeni children the way we heard those of children detained at the border. But many of them are also separated from their families here in the United States because of the travel ban.

As with Central America, the United States is committing crimes in Yemen that force millions into desperate circumstances.

According to the United Nations, the worst humanitarian crisis in the world todayexists in Yemen — a striking distinction, given that there’s no shortage of other disasters around the globe. There is a civil war in Yemen, in which combatants on both sides have taken actions that have had severe consequences for civilians. But the overwhelming responsibility for the destruction lies with a coalition led by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which has bombed Yemen mercilessly in support of the Saudi-friendly Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi, whom the Gulf States seek to install as the president.

Their campaign has targeted civilian infrastructure, weddings, funerals and even medical facilities. As a result, tens of thousands have been killed and millions have been displaced. Millions face starvation as well as sickness and death from entirely preventable diseases like cholera. According to UNICEF, 11 million children, or “nearly every child in Yemen,” is in need of humanitarian assistance.

A dropped bomb or exploded missile leaves so much in its wake. But there is a particular and peculiar remnant of the blasts that have wounded Yemen. Yemenis find, again and again, labels on bomb fragments that indicate they are made and sold by the United States.

Indeed, last summer, Trump negotiated with Saudi Arabia to sell the kingdom $110 billion in weapons. The United States also approved $2 billion in arms sales to the U.A.E. last year. The United States is also supplying intelligence to the Saudi/Emirati coalition, as well as mid-air refueling for coalition aircraft.

The United States, therefore, is doing everything but dropping the bombs itself. But even that distinction dissolves when one remembers that the United States did bomb Yemen repeatedly using drone strikes and cruise missile attacks throughout the Obama administration.

The United States has bombed Yemenis. It is supplying the weapons for other countries to bomb Yemenis now. And, as it’s doing toward Central Americans in the most callous way, it is denying Yemenis the right to enter the United States.

The beginning of accountability for those actions is letting these — and all — refugees in. But that cannot be the end. Let this time of anguish and outrage be one of a deep reckoning — with what the United States does at its borders, within them, and beyond them.

This article was produced in collaboration with In These Times.

Courtesy: https://fpif.org/

The post Given What the U.S. Has Done to the World, It Should Be Letting All Refugees In appeared first on SabrangIndia.

López Obrador won 53 percent of the vote, according to the latest official count. His closest contender, Ricardo Anaya – who formed an unusual right-left alliance late last year in a futile attempt to overtake López Obrador – earned 25 percent of votes.

Just 16 percent of voters chose the ruling party candidate, José Antonio Meade, of the Revolutionary Institutional Party.

With 18,000 other public offices up for election, from mayors to senators, this was Mexico’s biggest and most expensive election ever.

It was also the most violent in Mexico’s modern history. At least 136 candidates and political operatives were killed on the campaign trail, apparently assassinated by organized crime groups seeking to maintain their grip on power.

Many unknowns

In his victory speech, López Obrador promised Mexicans, whose disgust at politics as usual propelled this career outsider into the presidency, that he would “transform” their country. He would govern “for the good of everyone,” he said, “starting with the poor.”
The four presidential candidates argued over many issues, including how to tackle Mexico’s record-high violence and systemic inequality.

Many of López Obrador’s lofty campaign commitments, which include giving amnesty to drug kingpins and rooting out political corruption, remain short on specific details.

It is unclear, for example, how his government will pay for all the social programs he has promised, or what its stance on social issues like abortion will be considering that his Morena party aligned with the right-wing Social Encounter party to build its electoral coalition.

Mexico and immigration

One thing was clear by the end of the campaign, which coincided with a new Trump administration policy of criminally prosecuting all migrants who cross the U.S.-Mexico border: Mexico would no longer help enforce the immigration laws of its neighbor to the north.

President-elect López Obrador has called the U.S. policy of separating migrant families “arrogant, racist and inhuman.”

Despite Trump’s repeated claims that Mexico does “nothing” to stop Central American migrants from reaching the United States, Mexico has been a proactive partner in U.S. immigration enforcement.

Outgoing President Peña Nieto, who was constitutionally prohibited from seeking re-election, accepted US$90 million in American funding to launch the Southern Border Program in 2014, aimed at deterring migration across Mexico’s border with Guatemala and apprehending migrants who journey through the country.

Mexican deportations of Central Americans traveling to the U.S. – primarily Guatemalans, Hondurans and Salvadorans – soon doubled, from 78,733 in 2013 to 176,726 in 2015. During the same period, U.S. border agents detained half as many Central American migrants at the border.

The changing face of migration

Migration patterns in the region have changed radically in recent decades.

The number of Mexicans apprehended crossing illegally into the U.S. has plummeted, from more than 1.6 million in 2000 to 130,000 last year. More Mexicans are now leaving the U.S. than arriving.

Central Americans, driven by pervasive violence and poverty, currently make up the bulk of people who cross the U.S.-Mexico border. In 2017, U.S. Border Patrol agents there arrested 303,916 migrants. Just over half of them – 162,891 people – were from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador.

Mexico has thus become a major transit country for migrants.

It is also, increasingly, their final destination. Mexico saw 12,700 asylum requests from Central American refugees in 2017, up from 8,800 in 2016 and 3,400 in 2015. Only the U.S. received more Central American asylum-seekers, according to the United Nations Refugee Agency.

Since 2014 Mexico has cracked down on Central Americans crossing the Mexico-Guatemala border. AP Photo/Alexandre Meneghini
 

Nobody’s piñata

An early critic of President Peña Nieto’s policy of arresting and deporting Central Americans, López Obrador accused the Mexican government of committing human rights violations against migrants.

As president, López Obrador will still “pay special attention” to Mexico’s southern border, he says. But his government will no longer do the U.S.‘s immigration “dirty work.”

López Obrador wants Mexico to respect existing laws that protect the human rights of migrants. The Mexican Constitution has guaranteed that asylum-seekers can find refuge in its borders since 2016.

The high cost of appeasing Trump

In his first interview as president-elect, aired on July 2, López Obrador thanked President Trump for a congratulatory tweet posted on election night.

He also said he “will not fight” Trump. Mexico will respect the American government, López Obrador said, because it expects respect from the U.S.

Actually getting that respect may be tough, as his predecessor learned the hard way. In August 2016, President Peña Nieto’s advisers invited Trump, whose 2016 campaign was fueled by promises to build a “big, fat, beautiful” border wall, to come to Mexico.

Trump’s August 2016 visit to Mexico was calamitous for outgoing Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto and his party. AP Photo/Dario Lopez-Mills

During Trump’s visit, Peña Nieto emphasized his country’s contribution to U.S. immigration enforcement. The border, Peña Nieto said to a subdued Trump, represents a “shared challenge” and a “great humanitarian crisis.”

Trump later ridiculed his Mexican counterpart, insisting that the U.S. needed a border wall.

“They don’t know it yet,” he told supporters at an Arizona rally, “but they’re going to pay for it.”

Peña Nieto never recovered from this diplomatic disaster. Almost 90 percent of Mexican citizens said they were offended by Trump’s visit and by their president’s submissive behavior. Peña Nieto’s approval rating plunged to below 25 percent and stayed there.

His Revolutionary Institutional Party, or PRI, paid the price in this election. Candidate José Antonio Meade finished in third place, and the PRI lost eight senate seats and eight governor’s races. It may lose several more seats that are still being contested.

Another Mexican revolution

López Obrador benefited from Peña Nieto’s mistakes.

His young Morena party, which was founded in 2014, won a legislative majority on July 1. Its candidate for mayor of Mexico City, Claudia Sheinbaum, also won. She will be the first woman elected to lead the Mexican capital.

López Obrador’s self-aggrandizement has some Mexican political onlookers worried. He sold himself to voters as a revolutionary figure, saying his presidency will be the latest phase in Mexico’s 200-year progressive political transformation, which began with winning independence from Spain, in 1821, continued in the 1850s with the War of Reform, which consolidated republican liberalism in Mexico, and expanded during the 1910 Mexican Revolution.

Mexico is entering a new era, as is the U.S.-Mexico relationship. But no one – probably not even Mexico’s future president – knows quite what that means.
 

Luis Gómez Romero, Senior Lecturer in Human Rights, Constitutional Law and Legal Theory, University of Wollongong

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The post Mexico elects a leftist president who welcomes migrant appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Data on violent incidents in the US reveal that focus on Islamist extremism since 9/11 may be misguided

A woman holds a flag as she looks out over the National Sept. 11 Memorial and Museum. REUTERS/Lucas Jackson

On a Tuesday morning in September 2001, the American experience with terrorism was fundamentally altered. Two thousand, nine hundred and ninety-six people were murdered in New York, Virginia and Pennsylvania. Thousands more, including many first responders, lost their lives to health complications from working at or being near Ground Zero.

The 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by Islamist extremists, resulting in nearly 18 times more deaths than America’s second most devastating terrorist attack – the Oklahoma City bombing. More than any other terrorist event in U.S. history, 9/11 drives Americans’ perspectives on who and what ideologies are associated with violent extremism.

But focusing solely on Islamist extremism when investigating, researching and developing counterterrorism policies goes against what the numbers tell us. Far-right extremism also poses a significant threat to the lives and well-being of Americans. This risk is often ignored or underestimated because of the devastating impact of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

We have spent more than 10 years collecting and analyzing empirical data that show us how these ideologies vary in important ways that can inform policy decisions. Our conclusion is that a “one size fits all” approach to countering violent extremism may not be effective.

By the numbers

Historically, the U.S. has been home to adherents of many types of extremist ideologies. The two current most prominent threats are motivated by Islamist extremism and far-right extremism.

To help assess these threats, the Department of Homeland Security and recently the Department of Justice have funded the Extremist Crime Database to collect data on crimes committed by ideologically motivated extremists in the United States. The results of our analyses are published in peer-reviewed journals and on the website for the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism & Responses to Terrorism.

The ECDB includes data on ideologically motivated homicides committed by both Islamist extremists and far-right extremists going back more than 25 years.

Between 1990 and 2014, the ECDB has identified 38 homicide events motivated by Islamist extremism that killed 62 people. When you include 9/11, those numbers jump dramatically to 39 homicide events and 3,058 killed.

The database also identified 177 homicide events motivated by far-right extremism, with 245 killed. And when you include the Oklahoma City bombing, it rises to 178 homicide events and 413 killed.

Although our data for 2015 through 2017 are still being verified, we counted five homicide events perpetrated by Islamist extremists that resulted in the murders of 74 people. This includes the Pulse nightclub massacre in Orlando, which killed 49 people. In the same time period, there were eight homicide events committed by far-right extremists that killed 27 people.

These data reveal that far-right extremists tend to be more active in committing homicides, yet Islamist extremists tend to be more deadly.

Our research has also identified violent Islamist extremist plots against 272 targets that were either foiled or failed between 2001 and 2014. We are in the process of compiling similar data on far-right plots. Although data collection is only about 50 percent complete, we have already identified 213 far-right targets from the same time period.

The locations of violent extremist activity also differ by ideology. Our data show that between 1990 and 2014, most Islamist extremist attacks occurred in the South (56.5 percent), and most far-right extremist attacks occurred in the West (34.7 percent). Both forms of violence were least likely to occur in the Midwest, with only three incidents committed by Islamist extremists (4.8 percent) and 33 events committed by far-right extremists (13.5 percent).

Targets of violence also vary across the two ideologies. For example, 63 percent of the Islamist extremism victims were targeted for no apparent reason. They just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, often visiting symbolic locations or crowded venues such as the World Trade Center or military installations.

In contrast, 53 percent of victims killed by far-right extremists were targeted for their actual or perceived race or ethnicity. Far-right extremists, such as neo-Nazis, skinheads and white supremacists, often target religious, racial and ethnic, and sexual orientation and gender identity minorities.

Motives and methods

There are also differences in violent extremists across demographics, motives and methods. For instance, data show that guns were the weapon of choice in approximately 73 percent of Islamist extremist homicides and in only 63 percent of far-right extremist homicides. We attribute these differences to far-right extremists using more personal forms of violence, such as beating or stabbing victims to death.

We have also found that suicide missions are not unique to Islamist extremists.

From 1990 to 2014, we identified three suicide missions in which at least one person was killed connected to Islamist extremism, including the 9/11 attacks as one event. In contrast, there were 15 suicide missions committed by far-right extremists.

Our analyses found that compared to Islamist extremists, far-right extremists were significantly more likely to be economically deprived, have served in the military and have a higher level of commitment to their ideology. Far-right extremists were also significantly more likely to be less educated, single, young and to have participated in training by a group associated with their extremist ideology.

Threat to law enforcement and military

Terrorists associated with Islamist and far-right extremist ideologies do not only attack civilians. They also pose a deadly threat to law enforcement and military personnel. During the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, 72 law enforcement officers and 55 military personnel were killed by members of Al-Qaida. On April 19, 1995, 13 law enforcement officers and four military personnel were killed when the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building was bombed by an anti-government far-right extremist in Oklahoma City.

Outside of these two events, Islamist extremists are responsible for the murders of 18 military personnel in three incidents, and seven law enforcement officers were killed in five incidents between 1990 and 2015. Far-right extremists have murdered 57 law enforcement officers in 46 incidents, but have never directly targeted military personnel.

Far-right extremists, who typically harbor anti-government sentiments, have a higher likelihood of escalating routine law enforcement contacts into fatal encounters. These homicides pose unique challenges to local law enforcement officers who are disproportionately targeted by the far right.

Moving forward

The events of 9/11 will continue to skew both our real and perceived risks of violent extremism in the United States. To focus solely on Islamist extremism is to ignore the murders perpetrated by the extreme far right and their place in a constantly changing threat environment.

Some have even warned that there is potential for collaboration between these extremist movements. Our own survey research suggests this is a concern of law enforcement.

Focusing on national counterterrorism efforts against both Islamist and far-right extremism acknowledges that there are differences between these two violent movements.

Focusing solely on one, while ignoring the other, will increase the risk of domestic terrorism and future acts of violence.

Both ideologies continue to pose real, unique threats to all Americans. Evidence shows far-right violent extremism poses a particular threat to law enforcement and racial, ethnic, religious and other minorities. Islamist violent extremism is a specific danger to military members, law enforcement, certain minorities and society at large. It remains imperative to support policies, programs and research aimed at countering all forms of violent extremism.

(This story is republished from The Conversation. The original story may be read here).

The post All terrorists are not Muslims: Data on terror attacks in USA highlights killings by far right groups appeared first on SabrangIndia.