The Need to Make Hard Decisions on Immigration Reform

In a very lengthy piece in The Atlantic former Republican David Frum makes a reasoned case for the need for comprehensive immigration reform and the need for liberals to get on-board as a means of preventing the fascist approach of racists and bigots (he doesn't name Trump and many in the GOP, but the inference is obvious.)  Of course, the GOP base doesn't want reform and Trump is exacerbating problems driving Central American refugees northward by announcing the end of all aid to El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, stupidly believing that "punishing" the countries will stop the flow north.  Instead, expect the exact opposite to occur since the real solution would be to end the conditions driving refugees to flee in the first place.  Here are some highlights from the piece that looks at the issue from both a historic perspective and looking for a pragmatic way forward (read the entire piece):  

Through much of the 20th century, the United States received comparatively few immigrants. In the 60 years from 1915 until 1975, nearly a human lifetime, the United States admitted fewer immigrants than arrived, legally and illegally, in the single decade of the 1990s.

If you grew up in the 1950s, the 1960s, or even the 1970s, heavy immigration seemed mostly a chapter from the American past, narrated to the nostalgic strains of The Godfather or Fiddler on the Roof. The Ellis Island immigrant-inspection station—through which flowed the ancestors of so many of today’s Americans—closed in 1954. It reopened as a museum in 1990.

Yet rather than fading into history, immigration has only been accelerating. From 1990 to 2015, 44 million people left the global South to find new homes in the global North. They came from Latin America, Africa, and Asia. They came to the United States above all, but to the nations of Europe too. The United Kingdom has received nearly as many immigrants, relative to its population, as the United States has. Germany and Sweden have received more. Some 45 million foreign-born people now make their home in the United States. About 11 million to 12 million live here illegally.

As with climate change, separating annual fluctuations from long-term trends is important. Illegal immigration into the United States by Mexicans is now declining. Border crossings by Central Americans are steeply rising. Year by year, immigration numbers may shift up or down. But decade by decade, immigration is remaking nations on a world-altering scale.

By 2027, the foreign-born proportion of the U.S. population is projected to equal its previous all-time peak, in 1890: 14.8 percent. Under present policy, that percentage will keep rising to new records thereafter.

This massive new wave of immigration has brought many benefits to the United States. Of the 122 Americans who won a Nobel Prize from 2000 to 2018, 34 were immigrants. Four of the five Americans who won Nobels in 2016 were born outside the country. Of the 41 Fortune 500 companies created since 1985, eight had an immigrant founder. In many ways, the United States is a stronger, richer, and more dynamic country because of international migration. But large-scale immigration also comes with considerable social and political costs, and those must be accounted for. In November 2018, Hillary Clinton delivered a warning to Europeans that mass immigration was weakening democracy. “I think Europe needs to get a handle on migration, because that is what lit the flame,” Clinton said, referring to the upsurge of far-right populism destabilizing countries such as France and Hungary. “I admire the very generous and compassionate approaches that were taken, particularly by leaders like Angela Merkel, but I think it is fair to say Europe has done its part, and must send a very clear message—‘We are not going to be able to continue to provide refuge and support’—because if we don’t deal with the migration issue, it will continue to roil the body politic.” Clinton’s assessment of the European political situation is accurate. According to recent poll numbers, 63 percent of French people believe too many immigrants are living in their country. One-third of the British people who voted in 2016 to leave the European Union cited immigration as their primary reason. In Germany, 38 percent rate immigration as the most important issue facing their country. Thanks in great part to their anti-immigration messages, populist parties now govern Italy, Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic.

And of course, anti-immigration sentiment was crucial to the election of Donald Trump to the presidency of the United States.

Immigration on a very large scale is politically stressful. Yet acknowledging that fact can be hazardous to mainstream politicians. . . . . It wasn’t always this way, even on the left. As recently as 2015, the senator and presidential aspirant Bernie Sanders defended at least some immigration restrictions in language drawn from the immigration-skeptical tradition of organized labor.

But the political rise of Donald Trump has radicalized many of his opponents on immigration. Some mainstream liberal commentators, such as Farhad Manjoo of The New York Times, have called for completely open borders. While not many Democrats have gone that far publicly, some—including most prominently the 2020 presidential hopefuls—have expressed ever greater unease about removing people who cross borders unauthorized. . . . While it would be destabilizing and impractical to remove all the people who have been living peaceably in this country for many years, it does not follow that any non-felon who sets foot in the U.S. has a right to stay here.

Trump demagogically seized on the caravan as a voting issue before the November midterm elections—and goaded many of his critics to equally inflammatory responses. “This whole caravan in the last week of the election is a giant lie. This is Trump’s Reichstag fire. It is a lie,” said a guest on MSNBC’s All In With Chris Hayes. But however manipulatively oversold, the caravan existed . . . .

Demagogues don’t rise by talking about irrelevant issues. Demagogues rise by talking about issues that matter to people, and that more conventional leaders appear unwilling or unable to address: unemployment in the 1930s, crime in the 1960s, mass immigration now. Voters get to decide what the country’s problems are. Political elites have to devise solutions to those problems. If difficult issues go unaddressed by responsible leaders, they will be exploited by irresponsible ones.

Across the developed world, very high levels of immigration have coincided with widening class divisions, the discrediting of political and economic elites, and the rise of extremist politics. And immigration pressures will only intensify in the decades ahead, for reasons obscured by media coverage of immigrants as poor and desperate. That coverage isn’t entirely wrong.

Since 1990, the number of human beings living in extreme poverty—defined as less than $2 a day—has declined by nearly two-thirds. . . . That comparative affluence allows the strivers to buy things once impossibly out of reach: air conditioners, smartphones, motorized vehicles. But the thing those strivers want more than anything else—the great golden ticket into a whole new life—is exit from the less successful countries of the global South into the more successful countries of the global North.

We are talking here about astonishingly large numbers of potential immigrants—large and fast-growing. Egypt will add 50 million people to its population over the next three decades. Bangladesh will reach 200 million people; Pakistan, 300 million. The populations of Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador, countries that have already sent so many people northward, will rise by 50 percent by 2050, to more than 47 million. Twenty-six African countries will double their population by the time today’s college seniors celebrate their 50th birthday. Altogether, the population of Africa in 2050 will almost equal the entire population of the world in 1950: 2.5 billion people.

Hundreds of millions of people will want to become Americans. Only a relatively small number realistically can. Who should choose which ones do? According to what rules? How will those rules be enforced? The Trump-era debate about a wall misses the point. The planet of tomorrow will be better educated, more mobile, more networked. Huddling behind a concrete barrier will not hold the world at bay when more and more of that world can afford a plane ticket. If Americans want to shape their own national destiny, rather than have it shaped by others, they have decisions to make now.

But at present, the most important immigration decisions are made through an ungainly and ill-considered patchwork of policies. Almost 70 percent of those who settle lawfully in the United States gained entry because they were close relatives of previously admitted immigrants. Many of those previously admitted immigrants were in their turn relatives of someone who had arrived even earlier.

In almost every legal immigration category, the United States executes its policy less by conscious decision than by excruciating delay. The backlog of people whose immigration petitions have been approved for entry but who have not yet been admitted is now nearing 4 million. (Only spouses and children are exempted from annual numerical caps.)

The question before the United States and other advanced countries is not: Immigration, yes or no? In a mobile world, there will inevitably be quite a lot of movement of people. Immigration is not all or nothing. The questions to ask are: How much? What kind?

Too little immigration, and you freeze your country out of the modern world. Too much, or the wrong kind, and you overstress your social-insurance system—and possibly upend your democracy. Choose well, and you build a stronger, richer country for both newcomers and the long-settled. Choose badly, and you aggravate inequality and inflame intergroup hostility. How we choose will shape the future that will in its turn shape us.

[A]ccording to a 2016 survey conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute and The Atlantic, nearly half of white working-class Americans agree with this statement: “Things have changed so much that I often feel like a stranger in my own country.”

A classic 2005 study by the social scientist Karen Stenner predicted the consequences of such feelings. In any given population, according to Stenner, roughly one-third of people will have authoritarian tendencies. This habit of mind is just part of the way human beings are, in much the same way that a certain percentage will be born with depressive tendencies.

Happily, the authoritarian tendency does not necessarily lead to authoritarian politics. In secure and stable circumstances, it goes dormant.

The extremism and authoritarianism that have surged within the developed world since 2005 draw strength from many social and economic causes. Immigration is only one of them—but it is typically the spark that ignites the larger conflagration. Immigration has done particular damage to political parties of the moderate left. From the 1970s until the 2010s, social-democratic parties dominated the politics of the European Union member states. As of last spring, among the 28 governments of the EU, only Malta, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, and Sweden were led by social democrats.

Build Central America, Not a Wall

The maternal side of my family is intertwined with Central America. My own mother was born in Honduras - which has become a hell hole on the mainland - and later lived in Panama.  I myself qualify for dual citizenship under Honduran law.  As a family, my siblings and I own investments in Honduras that were handed down through my mother's family which left Central America before I was born.  Sadly, Honduras' horrific state of affairs is  in no small part due to bad decisions made in Washington, DC, that focused on supposed strategic decisions that paid no concern for the welfare of that nation's population.  Now, Honduras is one of the main points of origin of the thousands seeking asylum in the USA to escape the fruits of the USA's bad actions and decisions.  An editorial in the New York Times argues that building the economies of El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras would go much farther than building a fruitless wall is the real solution to the USA's illegal immigration issue.  Here are excerpts:

As thousands of families fleeing violence, poverty and oppression in Central America arrive at the American border, the Trump administration has responded by separating children and parents and cracking down on asylum claims.

A more humane, and effective, response would be to address the sources of the desperation that propelled these people north. President Trump chose on Monday to reaffirm his punitive bent, complaining about the exodus of migrants and saying he told the leaders of El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, whose countries receive millions of dollars in annual aid, “We’re not sending it anymore.” But what if the United States truly prioritized helping these nations?

Plagued by corruption, violence and gang terror, El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras need stronger and more honest judges and police officers, better schools and economic development. Elites control much of the land and avoid taxes, even at some of the lowest tax rates in Latin America. Bribery is rampant, and too often leaders lack the interest, competence or will to manage such problems.

Over the years, the United States has contributed to instability by supporting autocrats in civil wars and tolerating corruption that has bred criminality. In 2017, Washington recognized the results of the Honduran presidential election days after the Organization of American States called for new elections because of voting irregularities.

The United States has also invested in Latin America for decades to promote democracy and economic and social development. But the Trump administration has begun to place “more emphasis on preventing illegal immigration, combating transnational crime and generating export and investment opportunities for U.S. businesses,” . . .

While the administration has tried to scale back aid, Congress has resisted, appropriating $2.1 billion for the region from 2016 to 2018, roughly double what had previously been allocated.

Results are mixed: While murder rates in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras declined in 2018, they are still very high, fueled by the trafficking of 90 percent of the cocaine bound for the United States. Economic growth has been steady since 2014, but poverty rates are relatively unchanged. While officials have pursued criminal cases involving presidents and other leaders, opposition from political and economic interests threatens to upend their work.

Eradicating gangs, which drive much of the northward migration, is especially difficult. The International Crisis Group has warned that mass deportations from the United States risk fueling gang violence unless accompanied by serious economic investment in impoverished communities. Just subjecting gang members to harsh prisons and branding them terrorists has backfired, the group said.

In the end, it is Central American leaders who must carry out reforms. They are more apt to do that with international support. But America can slow the exodus of the desperate by investing in democracy, judicial reform and economic growth. So far, Mr. Trump has shown little interest.

House Judiciary Committee Approves Asylum Bill for Homeschoolers

America does not need any more reality denying, creationists and far right Christians - the ones we already have are doing far too much damage to the country through their embrace of ingnorance and extremism.  Yet, the political whores on the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee have approved a bill that would grant homeschoolers asylum in this country.  Meanwhile, the bill makes it more difficult for those fleeing gang violence to gain asylum.  Who is backing this batshitery?  The hate group Family Research Council and its white supremacist leader Tony Perkins (also note the comments of certifiable nutcase, Mike Farris who once ran for office here in Virginia).  And in due course, Republicans fell in line with FRC's craziness.  USA Today looks at this very bad bill.  Here are highlights:

The House Judiciary Committee passed a bill Wednesday that would allow people to seek asylum in the USA if they are persecuted by their governments for homeschooling their children. At the same time, the bill would make it tougher for children fleeing gang and drug violence in Central America to gain refuge here.

"Shouldn't children who are fleeing child abuse and violence be afforded the same protection as a child who is denied homeschooling?" said Rep. Luis Gutiérrez, D-Ill. "If we're going to have this unprecedented carve-out for homeschooling, we should put at the same level children fleeing abuse, rape, gangs and murder."

The Asylum Reform and Border Protection Act, sponsored by Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, would make it more difficult overall for refugees to win their asylum cases, while opening a category of relief for families who live in countries that outlaw homeschooling. The bill would allow up to 500 grants of asylum per year to families fleeing persecution for homeschooling their children.

"No one should be forced to flee their homeland in order to homeschool," said Michael Farris, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association. "But that is what ... families have had to do in order to escape crushing fines, criminal penalties and even the seizure of their children in countries like Germany and Sweden."

Gutiérrez said he does not object to the provision in Chaffetz's bill but thinks it's unfair to help homeschool families without aiding children fleeing drug and gang violence and abuse in countries such as Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador. . . . "Isn't fearing for your life at least equal to fearing persecution because of homeschooling?" he said. He offered an unsuccessful amendment that would have offered asylum to children fleeing violence in their home countries.

Rep. Raúl Labrador, R-Idaho, said asylum has always been reserved for refugees persecuted by their governments.  "Asylum law is not there to protect crime victims, it is there to protect those persecuted by government," Labrador said.

"These bills are a conscious, premeditated attack against millions of American families and a direct blow at the heart of the Latino community," said Clarissa Martinez De Castro, a deputy vice president at the National Council of La Raza.

Only in the bizarre world of today's GOP would countries like Germany and Sweden be deemed oppressors while murder and mayhem in Central America be deemed unworthy of concern.  These people are frightening!

 

Children Murdered After Deportation by United States

As sadly seems to always be the case with today's GOP and even more so its Christofascists/white supremacist base, objective facts, the truth and often basic decency do not matter.  Their entire agenda lies based on greed, a desire to force their sick religious beliefs on all, and a hatred of anyone who doesn't have lily white skin.  Thus, the GOP base and its elected whores deny that children flocking to America's southern borders are doing so often literally fear for their lives.  To these Republicans and the "godly Christians" the lives of these children simply do not matter why?  Because they aren't white.  Think Progress looks at the fate of some of the children deported by the United States.  Here are highlights:

Between five and ten migrant children have been killed since February after the United States deported them back to Honduras, a morgue director told the Los Angeles Times. Lawmakers have yet to come up with best practices to deal with the waves of unaccompanied children apprehended by Border Patrol agents, but some politicians refute claims that children are fleeing violence and are opting instead to fund legislation that would fast-track their deportations. 

San Pedro Sula morgue director Hector Hernandez told the Los Angeles Times that his morgue has taken in 42 dead children since February. According to an interview with relatives by the LA Times, one teenager was shot dead hours after getting deported. Last year, San Pedro Sula saw 187 killings for every 100,000 residents, a statistic that has given the city the gruesome distinction as the murder capital of the world. That distinction has also been backed up by an U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency infographic, which found that many Honduran children are on the run from extremely violent regions “where they probably perceive the risk of traveling alone to the U.S. preferable to remaining at home.” Hugo Ramon Maldonado of the Committee for the Protection of Human Rights in Honduras believes that about 80 percent of Hondurans making the exodus are fleeing crime or violence. 

Politicians like Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) and Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX) have been keen on expediting the legal process by demanding that immigration judges make a court decision within seven days. But that move could undermine children’s rights by denying due process to children who already don’t understand the courtroom procedures. As Vox found out, one teenage girl told a border agent that she was afraid of being forced into prostitution only after her paperwork had been filed.

According to a United Nations report, at least 58 percent of the children cited “international protection needs” as in they were seeking protection from the international community because their home governments could no longer protect them.

What is fueling the violence in Central America?  Mostly the drug trade which is fueled by America's failed "war on drugs" that makes drug trafficking so lucrative and in the process encourages lawless gangs and drug lords. Add to that corrupt and incompetent governments and the poisonous mix is complete. 

The Panama Canal - The First and Next 100 Years

Click image to enlarge

Much of my mother's family history links to Panama and Central America.  My grandfather - pictured above - worked on the building of the Panama Canal and with the money he earned - the pay was good for that era, especially given the high death rate from malaria and yellow fever - that he was able to go to Vanderbilt University where he earned his medical degree.  Graduating just in time to spend America's period of involvement in World War I as an army doctor, he returned to Panama at the war's end where he met my grandmother - they are pictured below.  My mother was born in Honduras and under the Honduran Constitution I am entitled to dual citizenship in Honduras.  All of the family saga began, however, with the building of the canal.  

The 15th of August was the centennial of its opening.   A piece in The Economist looks at the history of the Canal and its possible place in geopolitics in the coming years.  Here are article excerpts:

IN 1914, troubled by the onset of the Great War, The Economist published a 176-page special edition on what it called a great “achievement of Peace”: the opening of the Panama Canal. “It may be long before the tolls become remunerative, but its immediate effect on commerce will be stimulative,” it said. “Eventually the Isthmus is likely to become one of the busiest resorts of shipping upon the face of the globe.”

Half right. In fact, the first world war meant there was almost no commercial traffic on the canal for its first six years. But from 1921 onwards, the canal quickly started paying rich dividends—particularly to its owner, the United States.

On the eve of the anniversary of the Panama Canal’s opening on August 15th, the Egyptian government has announced a plan to upgrade the Suez Canal for the first time in its 145-year history. Nicaragua has endorsed a 278km (173-mile) route for a $40-billion canal linking the Atlantic to the Pacific, the quixotic-sounding dream of a little-known Chinese magnate and the country’s Sandinista government. Causing further intrigue, on August 8th a delegation of Chinese businessmen from the state-owned China Harbour Engineering Company visited Panama to explore the idea of building and financing a fourth set of locks—even before the third set, part of the existing expansion plan, are in place.

As 100 years ago, numerous commercial and geopolitical interests are at play.  In 1914 Panama’s beauty was its lack of competition. It was the dawn of an American century. The United States’ west coast was enjoying an oil boom and wanted a cheaper way than the steam train to move goods and fuel between the Pacific and Atlantic. The canal lopped 12,600km from the sea route between New York and San Francisco. It also had strategic value. After the Spanish-American war in 1898 gave it territories and protectorates from Cuba to the Philippines, the United States needed a naval route between Atlantic and Pacific.

The gains were swift. By 1922 real shipping rates on some routes had dropped almost one-third below their pre-war average, according to “The Big Ditch: How America Took, Built, Ran and Ultimately Gave Away the Panama Canal”, by Noel Maurer and Carlos Yu. American taxpayers quickly recouped their investment. After the second world war, however, America’s trade with Asia soared above that between its east and west coasts . . . . Competition to the canal came from America’s interstate highways and new diesel-fuelled railways. That led to the Torrijos-Carter Treaties, which handed control of the canal to Panama in 1999.

Panama has done a good job of running it. But competition is emerging on all sides. . . . Nicaragua, once deemed too earthquake-prone for a big canal, is trying to rekindle its 19th-century dream. Many doubt the commitment of Wang Jing, a 41-year-old billionaire, to build a giant waterway through Nicaragua. But the pharaonic project, and the more recent interest of Chinese businessmen in expanding the Panama Canal, reflect the fact that China may want a say in the isthmus’s future.

In a fiercely competitive shipping market, analysts say the key to Panama’s competitiveness in future may be niggling issues like the size of its tolls. But for now it is focusing on the long term. “They’re not doing this for 2017,” says Paul Bingham of CDM Smith, an infrastructure firm. “It’s the 100-year view that’s important.”

 Interestingly enough, one of my nephews just finished a stint in the Peace Corps - in Panama.  Who would have thought that 100 years later, a family member would be once again in love with Panama.

Pope Francis: Immigrant Children Must Be 'Welcomed And Protected'

While he still has not taken needed action to sack bishops and cardinals who were involved in covering up the rape of children and youths by Catholic priests, nonetheless Pope Francis is proving to be a pain in side of disingenuous, anti-immigrant Republicans. One has to wonder how pretend Catholics Paul Ryan and Ted Cruz will try to dissemble and try to avoid papal condemnation if they prostitute themselves to the anti-immigrant racists of the GOP base. Perverse as it may be, I cannot help by smile at Francis' ability to put the total hypocrisy of nasty individuals like Ryan and Cruz on display.  Here are highlights from Huffington Post on Pope Francis' effort to throw down a gauntlet to anti-immigrant Republicans:

Pope Francis confronted the "racist and xenophobic attitudes" that often face undocumented immigrants by addressing the thousands of unaccompanied children included in their ranks.

In a message delivered to the Mexico-Holy See Colloquium on Migration and Development on Monday, the pope drew attention to these migrant children who he said often undertake the dangerous border crossing alone in order to escape violence in their home countries:

"This humanitarian emergency requires, as a first urgent measure, these children be welcomed and protected. These measures, however, will not be sufficient, unless they are accompanied by policies that inform people about the dangers of such a journey and, above all, that promote development in their countries of origin."

Pope Francis noted the urgency of this predicament, saying that the numbers of migrant children "are increasing day by day." U.S. Customs and Border Protection reports that more than 50,000 unaccompanied migrant children have crossed the Southwest border so far in 2014.

While Pope Francis delivered his message, Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin spoke at Mexico's Foreign Relations Secretariat and urged clergy and foreign ministers to protect young migrants.

"Whether they travel for reasons of poverty, violence or the hope of uniting with families on the other side of the border," Parolin said, "it is urgent to protect and assist them, because their frailty is greater and they're defenseless, they're at the mercy of any abuse or misfortune."

The cardinal reiterated the Vatican's support for this cause, saying, "The church will always support at the national and international level any initiative directed at the adoption of correct policies."

Outside of the church, though, the pope also called for the international community to take steps toward finding a humanitarian solution to the immigration crisis. 

On Sunday Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Matthews Burwell met privately with dozens of governors of states that will host thousands of unaccompanied migrant children from Central America. The program, initiated by the Obama administration, will go into affect in October and aims to tackle the growing influx of child migrants. 

Would that the mainstream media would have the balls to confront anti-immigrant Republicans and demand an answer as to how they reconcile their supposed Christian faith with treating immigrant children like disposable garbage.  These people are foul hypocrites and they need to be exposed for what they truly are.

Why Is Chiquita Blocking a 9/11 Victims’ Bill?

As some long time readers may recall, my mother's father launched his successful medical career by signing on as a surgeon and later a hospital administrator for United Fruit Company's Medical Department at the end of World War I as a way to get out of the army more quickly after spending America's years in that war stationed at what is now the VA Hospital in Hampton, Virginia.  My grandmother, a non-conforming New Orleans belle likewise signed on as a nurse for United Fruit Company's Medical Department after serving in Europe in the Army Nursing Corps.  My grand parents are shown in the image above. While the Medical Department did many positive things in Central America - clearing swamps, fighting malaria and yellow fever, and treating patients for free -  United Fruit Company had as a whole had a very ugly track record often siding with dictators or even aiding in the overthrow of non-accommodating governments.  Now, Chiquita, the descendant entity of United Fruit Company, seems to be repeating some of the ugly days of the 1920's through 1950's by opposing a 9/11 victims bill.  The Daily Beast looks at the situation.  Here are highlights:

Washington makes for strange alliances—and even stranger enemies. But this could wind up being the oddest confrontation of all. Chiquita, the world’s largest banana producer, is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to block a 9/11 victims’ bill, The Daily Beast has learned. And outraged supporters of the legislation accuse a senior lawmaker, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA0, of working with the fruit kings to stand in their way.

 

According to Congressional lobbying disclosures, Chiquita has spent some $780,000 over the past year and a half lobbying against the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), a bill conceived of and supported by a group of 9/11 victims and families to aid their claims against actors who supported the terrorist attacks.

The result is a stalled piece of terrorism legislation that shows the dizzying influence of a deeply pocketed corporation, and how its tremendous power is prevailing over the interests of the most sympathetic of little guys: 9/11 victims. And it illustrates how the influence of major fruit companies—such a core component of 20th-century American policy that they gave rise to the phrase “Banana Republics”—endures today.

“The path to justice for me and the other 9/11 family members and survivors is being blocked by a banana company. I think Chiquita should mind their own bananas and let justice be served,” said Terry Strada, whose husband was killed in the terrorist attacks.

The major fruit supplier is not in any way connected with 9/11, but in 2007 it pleaded guilty to making over 100 payments to the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC), a right-wing paramilitary group designated by the United States as a terrorist organization.

Chiquita, which had operated in Colombia for over 100 years, began making payments to the terrorist organization after a 1997 meeting between an AUC leader and a senior executive of its Colombian subsidiary. Nearly every month, additional payments followed. The fruit company has maintained that it only made payments due to extortionary threats of violence, and reacted to protect the lives of its workers.

Through a deal in which Chiquita was represented by now-Attorney General Eric Holder, the fruit company agreed to pay a $25 million fine. Chiquita acknowledged that between 1997 and 2004, it made over $1.7 million in payments in cash and checks to the terrorist group.

Having acknowledged payments to terrorists—though they claim to be extorted—Chiquita’s interests conflict with those of 9/11 victims’ families.

JASTA would clarify the Anti-Terrorism Act by expanding liability against those that had funded terrorists.

“It would also make it clear that victims of terrorist attacks both outside and inside the U.S. could seek damages against perpetrators,” explained Matt House, a spokesman for Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., the primary sponsor for the bill in the Senate.

By expanding the liability of groups that have aided and abetted terrorism, the bill incidentally became relevant to Chiquita, with its history of paying off the terrorists of the AUC.

Chiquita certainly appeared to respond as if JASTA were a threat. In the months after the bill was reintroduced in the House and Senate, the fourth quarter of 2013, Chiquita spent $450,000 hiring lobbyists from Covington and Burling, a high-powered white shoe law firm.

According to a Congressional source with direct knowledge of the lobbying, the fruit conglomerate approached lawmakers with Chiquita facilities in their districts—as well Congress members with influence over their senior colleagues like Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., the primary sponsor of JASTA in the House.

The lobbyists appeared to find an ear in the office of senior lawmaker Rep. Bob Goodlatte. Goodlatte chairs the House Judiciary Committee, where JASTA now sits languishing.

There's more, but it looks like Chiquita reprized some of the bad old days of United Fruit Company and now wants to avoid the consequences.  It's little surprise that Bob Goodlatte, a Republican seems more that willing to act in exchange for Chiquita's money.

 

Gay Marriage Ban Fails Miserably in El Salvador

Anti-gay Christofascists - and the Roman Catholic Church - suffered a huge defeat in El Salvador where an effort to amend that nation's constitution to bar sames sex marriage went down to an ignominious lopsided defeat.  That the effort failed underscores why American Christofascists are focusing so much of the export of hate and homophobia to regions of Africa which is even more backward than El Salvador  It is noteworthy that the margin of defeat has increased from that of past attempts.  On Top Magazine has details. Here are highlights:

El Salvador's Legislative Assembly has rejected a constitutional amendment aimed at banning gay marriage in the Central American nation.  According to Spanish news agency EFE, only 19 out of 84 lawmakers on Friday voted in favor of the ban.

The measure, which cleared the chamber in 2012, defines marriage as between a man and a woman and their children. It also seeks to prohibit El Salvador from recognizing the foreign marriages of gay couples and bans gays from adopting children.

A constitutional amendment requires the approval of two consecutive legislatures; a simple majority (43 votes) during the first reading followed by a supermajority (56).

Previous efforts have also failed to clear the two-thirds majority hurdle. A 2009 attempt included broader support, with 46 lawmakers voting for the ban.