Malakai Fekitoa scored two tries as New Zealand overcame a pair of yellow cards to win in Dublin 7.44pm GMT That was an excellent day of Test rugby, all in. England thrashed Fiji but showed frailties, Wales and Scotland crept past their opponents with dramatic late kicks, while New Zealand righted the wrongs of Chicago. Perhaps most momentous of all, Italy beat the Boks. There’s still one game to go – Australia face France in Paris in a few minutes’ time – but that is all from me. Thanks very much for your company, see you (sort of) for all the action next Saturday too. 7.39pm GMT Right, that is that. Michael Aylwin’s report from a superb Test match at the Aviva Stadium will be right here very soon. I’m just looking at the team sheets from the end of the game. Ireland had four blokes off with injury, while New Zealand completely reshuffled their backline to tighten up. Cracking game.Massive respect between these sides after two epic Test matches this year.#IREvNZL pic.twitter.com/mFn2BW6jXe Continue reading...
• Ireland will bid to follow up historic Chicago win against world champions• New Zealand are hot favourites at odds of 1-9 to gain revengeSteve Hansen has insisted that the back-to-back world champions New Zealand are the underdogs for the rematch with Ireland in Dublin on Saturday.Hansen boasts a 92% win record in his four years as the All Blacks head coach, but he believes that Ireland’s historic win in Chicago alters the complexion of the Aviva Stadium game on Saturday. Continue reading...
Ireland’s men in green are daring to dream that after waiting 111 years to defeat New Zealand they can make it twice in two weeks in Dublin on SaturdayNot many sequels manage to outdo a famous original. You can make a decent cinematic argument that Mad Max, The French Connection, Kill Bill and Toy Story were all superior at the second time of asking but the list is relatively short. Difficult second album syndrome is a frequent musical issue and, where New Zealand rugby is concerned, double-whammy defeats to the same opponents are on the rare side of occasional.What chance, then, of Ireland improving this weekend on their remarkable Chicago coup early this month when they defeated New Zealand for the first time in 111 years of trying? The two sides were always due to reconvene at the Aviva Stadium on Saturday but no one ever envisaged these circumstances. Two Irish wins over the All Blacks inside a fortnight? That really would prompt a stampede back to Toners and O’Donoghue’s and all the other hospitable pubs of Dublin’s south side. Continue reading...
Nov 10 (Reuters) - Tecnocom Telecomunicaciones y Energia SA :
LONDON, Nov 6 (Reuters) - Britain's biggest broadband provider BT should consider selling off its Openreach network division, shareholder Aviva Investors has suggested, according to a Sunday Telegraph report.
Insurer’s chief Mark Wilson warns EU rules to make sector safer stymie investment
Insurer’s chief Mark Wilson warns EU rules to make sector safer stymie investment
It's disturbing to elect a racist and women-hater. It's dumb to elect a con man who's gone bankrupt many times. It's truly dangerous to elect a raging, thin-skinned narcissist with no self-control. But electing a climate denier? Now that's utterly insane. The media may avoid the topic, but climate change is the biggest challenge the world has ever faced. Acknowledging that climate change is a threat to humanity does not make you an emotional, tree-hugger, but just practical and science-based. I won't try to pick from the abundant evidence of how screwed up the climate is getting. That's nearly impossible. So let me just cite some perspectives from other people who are convinced - some of the least emotional, hard-headed people in society: CEOs. · With $44 billion in revenue, Saint-Gobain is the world's largest building products manufacturer. The CEO, Pierre-Andre De Chalendar, wrote a book on the climate crisis. His calm assessment of the situation: "...the Earth is entering a new phase of climatic change, threatening the edifice patiently built by man since the beginning of the industrial era. Our civilization could be in peril." · PepsiCo's Indra Nooyi has said, "Combating climate change is absolutely critical to the future of our world." · Mark Wilson, CEO of the $35B insurance giant Aviva gave his expert opinion on the danger: "Climate change in particular represents the mother of all risks - to business and to society as a whole." · During a speech yesterday, the CEO of Walmart, Doug McMillon, announced new carbon reduction and renewable energy goals, based explicitly on the science of climate change. Can we agree that if you base your goals on science, you must believe that the science is compelling? And McMillon has said they just ignore the climate skeptics. I could go on and on with CEO examples (even the CEO of ExxonMobil is no longer a denier). Or let's listen to the Pope, whose encyclical last year was crystal clear: "Climate change is a global problem with grave implications...it represents one of the principal challenges facing humanity." We're at a critical juncture for humanity, when the world is finally coming together to do something about our greatest challenge. So what's at stake? The future of humanity. It's all too easy to talk about elections in overwrought terms. Each side claims it will be the end of the world if the other is elected. I'm sorry to disappoint and fit some stereotype, but in this election, it's actually true. There are more reasons than I can count that Trump is a dangerous choice for President (and Slate has a tidy list of 230!). But for all his rampant racism, misogyny, and narcissism, his perspective on climate could represent his craziest ideas. Not only is it a hoax, he says, but it's a Chinese hoax! (We apparently outsource everything now.) Let's put aside the extreme, but possible, scenarios like Trump starting a war or the economy crashing if he's elected (the markets do not seem happy with his rising poll numbers). Even if he changes his tune and acts like some semblance of a decent human being toward women and minorities, but still maintains his position on climate change, we're all in deep trouble (even the most intolerant among us). Now is really not the time to elect a conspiracy-theory-spouting denier. The core of global action on climate is the Paris accords, which, for the first time in human history, got all the representatives of humanity to agree to something. The deal is historic, but fragile. The former Prime Minister of Australia, Kevin Rudd, said recently at the Business for Social Responsibility conference, "This deal ain't done yet...so celebrate the success, but maintain your rage." Meaning, we have to keep the world focused on reducing carbon fast (the very new estimates from PwC say we need to decarbonize the world at a pace of 6.5% per year). Rudd says that three things will keep the wheels moving on the climate deal: political pressure, corporate pressure, and finance. If the leader of the country that's producing a fifth of the world's emissions thinks climate change is bogus, and wants to stop all pro-climate policy and clean economy investment, it's a big problem. His election would greatly weaken the political pressure toward climate action and certainly slow commitment from companies and the finance world. Look, I'm sorry for the downer scenario here. The environmental movement has long been criticized for being doom and gloom and always talking about the end of the world. Fair enough - we in sustainability could do a better job painting a compelling picture of a better, thriving world. But that said, it's still true that sounding the alarm in an emergency is justified. When a doctor says you have stage 3 or 4 cancer, you don't dismiss the diagnosis as some biased hoax. I hope someone will yell "fire" - even in a crowded theater - if the theater is, you know, on fire. And we should all want a leader that recognizes that there is in fact a fire, stays calm and level-headed, works well with others, and immediately starts doing something about it. We know who that leader is, and she'll be terrific. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
Yesterday the Obama administration confirmed what many Americans already knew: the monetary pressures imposed by Obamacare on the middle class are becoming unmanageable as a result of the average Obamacare premium set to spike by 25%, or hundreds of dollars of formerly disposable income that will be redirected to what is effectively a tax. However, in some states - especially those where the so-called recovery has failed to keep pace - such as Pennsylvania, the sticker shock will be far greater. As CBS Philadelphia reports, when the Affordable Care Act open enrollment period begins next week customers will see some changes, including fewer choices and higher prices. In Pennsylvania, the number of insurers in the marketplace has gone from 13 to eight. But the worst fate is set to befall the city that famously booed Santa Claus, Philadelphia, where CBS reports that just two insurers are left and premiums are expected to rise 53%. Aviva Aron-Dine of Health and Human Services says the size of the hike reflects artificially low rates early on. Pennsylvania had among the lowest rates in the nation. “Issuers were pricing for a completely new market, one where they could no longer exclude those with the most serious health needs,” she said, “many set prices that turned out to be too low.” To be sure, the administration had to spin this dramatic surge in a way that does not upset the locals, and did just that when Aron-Dine said that "the plans are still affordable, since three-quarters of Pennsylvanians qualify for tax credits." “Not only do tax credits bring down the cost of coverage, they adjust dollar for dollar with the cost of the benchmark plan in your area,” she explained. “So even if the cost of benchmark coverage goes up, most consumers will not have to pay more. Aron-Dine claims costs could even go down if consumers take the time to shop for a cheaper plan. She says new features on the healthcare.gov website will make that easier to do. It remains to be seen if any of the locals will accept this rationalization for soaring prices when they start getting invoices demanding hundreds of dollars more each month. As a reminder, Pennsylvania is one of the critical swing states which in recent weeks has been polling in Hillary Clinton's favor: it just may be that this "sticker shock" will flip the tables once again.
Hillary Clinton is stepping up her campaign efforts in The Grand Canyon State.
Kieran Loftus, Director, Puzzle Sport By Kieran Loftus, Director, Puzzle Sport Technology has fundamentally changed sport, adapting the sports we spend hours watching. Gone are the days when we’d make uneducated assumptions on how a player is performing. Through technology we are now able to make calculated decisions on our favourite players with stats being relayed to us throughout broadcasting. Wearable technology is become heavily ingrained into professional sports, allowing adverse metrics to be taken into account and utilised within training and allowing for real-time decisions to be made subsequently. Football has seen a vast change since its beginning, with so much technology being used to enhance the game not only for players but for spectators too. Players and clubs aren’t permitted to use wearable technology in competitive matches, but the International Football Association Board (IFAB) are discussing the use of wearable technology in the future. Tech company Stat Sports created the Viper Pod, a device widely used throughout the sporting world with football teams such as Barcelona, Manchester United, Arsenal as well as rugby teams Ulster and the England National team. Weighing less that 50g, the device is mounted onto a vest and contains a GPS module, accelerometer, gyroscope, digital compass and heart rate monitor. These metrics are then transferred to other devices which enable coaches to make real-time decisions dependent on the player’s real-time performance. Aside from creating some of the most innovative wearable tech, in 2014 Irish-based Stat Sports sponsored League One team Coventry City FC. The deal allowed Coventry City, unparalleled access to Stat Sports wearable tech an insight that some of the world’s best teams have access to, and in return gave Stat Stats the centerpiece position on both home and away playing kits. Whilst Stat Sports no longer sponsor specific teams, their previous foray into sponsorship will no doubt have had a positive influence, allowing smaller clubs access to top of the range wearable tech products. Wearable technology has also been created for goalkeepers that helps monitor and optimise their performance. The Catapult OptimEye G5 enables users to track goalkeepers movement as well as movement speed and a host of other stats. Catapult have made a host of other devices including the OptimEye S5, that allow for position-specific stats creating “fingerprints” for ranging positions which can be managed and altered. The device can also track acceleration, direction, position and probably the most crucial is the impact of collisions, all at a rate of 800-900 data points per second, helping to mitigate the circumstances that conclude in injury. Catapult Sports although providing wearable technology for elite sports and athletes, has allowed audiences from ranging sports to better understand the products, services and data that Catapult Sports deliver by releasing ‘Webinars’. Similar to Stat Sports, partnership deals have been made with some of the biggest teams in the world across ranging sports, including the likes of Leicester City Football Club. Although no sponsorship deals have been made with Catapult Sports and other sports teams, the potential for Catapult to integrate themselves further within the sporting industry permits. With the increased emphasis of sponsors producing content to enhance fan engagement, and Catapult Sports and Stat Sports holding the insights into intricate player performance data, the opportunity for unique, engaging and creative content permits itself to potential investors. Catapult have partnered with Stats LLC, a pioneer in technology and content, to provide streamlined performance data for clubs and their athletes within the NBA and college basketball in the USA. Similarly, other sports have incorporated have incorporated technology and data-based companies to help improve performance aspects as well as fan engagement, such as; the MLB have partnered with Bloomberg Sports and the NBA has links with SportVU. The data-based links are not currently sponsored… for now. The impact technology has had with wearables and performance analytics presents opportunity for investment and sponsorship deals. Sports underlying influence throughout society presents direct opportunity for engagement with fans and spectators, that will no doubt become a tangible and lucrative position. American Football is well-enveloped in the technology explosion that’s taking over sport. Last year, the NFL announced that they would be able to track players’ performance and then broadcast those stats to TV screens enabling viewers and supporters to track individual players, enhancing the fan experience. Currently unsponsored, the data that is broadcast elicits the opportunity for brands to showcase their image through the means of technology and sponsorship opportunities. The viewership alone stands as a calling card for brands to present their interest and conform to the technological based surge. Between on-field tracking, to improved safety and tactical HUDs, wearable technology is being incorporated into every aspect of modern Grid Iron. Not only are the stats aiding the coaches, who can make esteemed decisions dependent on in performance stats, but the data offers fans an unprecedented insight into the game. The stat-based demeanor of American Football has helped the NFL gain such prominence in its fantasy league compared to other sports, with fans able to act as coaches, relying on in-game data. Much like football the NFL has latched onto the Viper Pod with teams such as the Cincinnati Bengals, the Carolina Panthers and the Chicago Bulls all making use of the innovative technology. Though mainly based around performance, wearable technology is being used to help mitigate the risk of injury. An increased amount of emphasis has been placed upon player safety within American Football, with increased technology enabling more detailed reports on players’ health, more technology is being created to ensure player safety throughout the season. The VICIS helmet has been produced to aid player safety reducing the risk of concussion for the players. The helmet uses some of the latest technology to ensure the minimal impact is endured on the athlete's head; an intricate structure to the shell allows the shell of the helmet to deform slightly with impacting, spreading the lessening the stress of point of impact. Reebok, in conjunction with tech company MC10 also released an innovative piece of technology to help with concussions in the game, called CheckLight. The technology measures the force of impact that is put on the players which then presents a coloured light dependent on whether the player needs to be assessed. Partnering with Reebok, MC10 allowed themselves considerable go forward through the partnership and also allowed for partnership and sponsorship deals to be made with American Football players, such as Andrew Luck in 2013 who enabled the MC10 Checklight to grow in popularity and has enabled teams to monitor concussion further. As with American Football, player safety in rugby has been the focal point for wearable technology with concussion featuring prominently in today’s games. Concussion has been a huge talking point in recent seasons and increased emphasis has been placed on player safety and ensures the correct recovery is taken place. London-based team Saracens have been wearing the xPatch created by Seattle-based company X2 Biosystems. The device is able to record the force and the angle of impacts made to the player’s head during training or a match. Measurements of each can provide detailed data logs and can help the doctors and coaches decipher the best course of action to take. In 2013 research was carried out by the Auckland University of Technology where amateur teams in New Zealand were recorded wearing the high-tech X2 mouthguard which measured direct impacts to individuals heads as well as rotational acceleration of the brain. These devices are still in the early ages of development, but no doubt these devices will become commonplace in the sport. Over 9 teams in the Aviva Premiership use Catapults OptimEye S5 device enabling enhanced performance as well as the ability to mitigate risk. The clip-on device measures heart rate, velocity, distance covered, acceleration and impact force which can further determine whether the wearer is susceptible to risk when sent to coaches and doctors for further analysis. Under Armour have partnered with tech company Zephyr to create the E9 Compression Shirt which is able to provide metrics on the wearer’s cardiac activity, their anaerobic threshold as well as their aerobic capacity and skin temperature. Using fabric electrodes, the wearable technology can sense when a player is becoming dehydrated and can prevent players from getting heatstroke with its temperature monitor. One of the latest consumer wearable devices available is the TomTom Touch Fitness Tracker, which has the ability to read a person’s body composition. Using some of the latest technology, the device sends electrical impulses through the user’s body that measure the amount of muscle and fat in the body. Lean muscle tissue conducts electrical impulses quicker than fat in the body; readings that can not be found when stepping onto a scale. Sponsorship activity within elite sport wearables is seemingly minimal, but consumer wearables is ripe with sponsorship activations. In August 2016, Fitbit signed a deal with New York Road Runners, in an attempt to encourage runners to participate in ‘enriching community-building activities and to use Fitbit’s platform of activity trackers and mobile tools to perform their very best at the TCS New York City marathon. The sponsorship link enabled Fitbit users to follow the training regime of the Fitbit ambassador, and current American record holder for the marathon, Ryan Hall. In 2014, wearable tech provider Garmin teamed up with popular event, Tough Mudder. Garmin seeked to branch out from their already sponsored marathons and triathlons and envelope themselves within the widely appreciated obstacle course. Their Fenix 2 wearable was the focal point in the collaboration as Garmin aimed to provide Tough Mudder users with the ultimate training watch for those preparing themselves for “probably the toughest event on the planet”. Garmin also took the lead partner and sponsor role of the Paris Marathon back in 2014, that enabled Garmin to provide participants with wearable tracking devices that enabled for accurate race times and were compatible with a range of other Garmin wearables. As wearable tech still remains a relatively new feature in sports, and an elitist feature in many sports, the use of sponsorship could trigger an enlarged aspect of fan engagement. The use of branded content through sponsorship deals could play a pivotal role in introducing sport-specific wearable tech to the masses. Wearable technology in sport has become commonplace with teams across multiple sports looking to gain advantages and improve performance and mitigating risks of injury. Not only in sport, but for many users, the use of activity trackers and wearable devices that measure a range of metrics have proved that wearable devices are allowing users to track, monitor and improve performance and well-being. While there may be a gulf in metrics between professional sport and user devices, no doubt that bridge will be gapped allowing users to monitor intricate metrics allowing for best possible results. Across all levels of sport, wearable technology is becoming a prominent feature throughout. As such, business and revenue opportunities allow for the likes of marquee athletes and large sports brands to sponsor such technology and continue with the current revolutionary change within sports. The larger brands in sport, such as Adidas, Nike and Reebok all have made themselves known within the wearable tech realm, but still stand in the wake of tech-based companies such as Catapult, who only have one induvial focus… tech. That being said, the opportunity permits itself for the likes of such big sporting brands to use their privileges within the sporting world with wearable-tech companies, and tap into the markets ranging from the elite athletes to the Sunday-league players. Viewership of sport throughout the world is vast, and with the technological advances seemingly in sense slowing down, the stat-based nature and performance analysis is quickly providing a larger amount of opportunities within technology and sport. About Puzzle Sport Puzzle Sport develops specialised digital offerings and experiences to the sports industry. Our current roster includes clients such as: Wembley, Aston Villa, LDN Muscle, Championship Manager 17, Ride 25 and 6Day London. About Kieran Loftus Kieran is the Director of Puzzle Sport. A co-founder of Wear Your Support, with over 10 years of hardware innovation, he brings with him extensive knowledge from previous partnerships with Everton FC, Brentford FC, AFC Wimbledon and Kick it Out. Linkedin / @Kirean_Loftus -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
Cross-posted with TomDispatch.com For the sake of this discussion -- of any discussion of Donald Trump, in fact -- what our language needs is an extreme vetting. Certain words and phrases arriving from dangerous linguistic zones and threatening to upend The Donald's world really should be banned. And I'm not just talking about "Sharia law" or "Syrian refugee." The dangers to his thinking process are endless, even though setting up Cold War-style extreme-vetting tests for words that might emigrate into The Donald's universe with mayhem in mind would take time and effort. Let me just give you a sense of what might be involved with a single word: "irony." (Think of it, for safety's sake, as the I-word.) We're talking about the man who, having just met with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, promptly gave a 7,000 word, 10-point stemwinder of a speech in Phoenix, Arizona, on what to do about "illegal immigration." It began with him magnanimously hailing "the great contributions of Mexican-American citizens to our two countries, my love for the people of Mexico, and the leadership and friendship between Mexico and the United States." And then moved on to point one: "We will build a great wall along the southern border. And Mexico will pay for the wall. One hundred percent. They don't know it yet, but they're going to pay for it." (The suckers!) And oh yes, somewhere in there -- I forget which point it was -- he suggested deporting Hillary Clinton for, like an illegal immigrant who has committed crimes in this country, "evading justice." Lurking terroristically in the vicinity of the speech threatening violence, however, was that I-word. After all, it was given by the man who personally chose to hire undocumented Polish workers to tear down the building that was replaced by Trump Tower. He reportedly worked them "in 12-hour shifts with inadequate safety equipment at subpar wages that their contractor paid sporadically, if at all." One of the points in his Phoenix speech, by the way, was that illegal immigrants of the sort he hired are taking away good American jobs. (They aren't.) But -- shhh, no I-word allowed -- he himself made a point of hiring "guest workers," mainly from Romania, for his Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida; hundreds of them, in fact, while, according to the New York Times, hiring only 17 local residents from among the hundreds who applied. A second word in need of a Trumpian vetting is "contradiction," but don't get me started on that, especially since yet another reason for extreme vetting is laid out today by Aviva Chomsky in "Is Trump an Aberration?" She makes clear just how dangerous it might be if a phrase like "American history" were allowed to enter the immigration debate right now. It might terrorize us all with a vision of an urge, deep in the country's make-up, to create an all-white America. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
Is Trump an Aberration? Cross-posted with TomDispatch.com Liberal Americans like to think of Donald Trump as an aberration and believe that his idea of building a great wall along the U.S.-Mexico border to prevent immigrants from entering the country goes against American values. After all, as Hillary Clinton says, “We are a nation of immigrants.” In certain ways, in terms of the grim history of this country, they couldn’t be more wrong. Donald Trump may differ from other contemporary politicians in so openly stating his antipathy to immigrants of a certain sort. (He’s actually urged the opening of the country to more European immigrants.) Democrats like Barack Obama and Bill and Hillary Clinton sound so much less hateful and so much more tolerant. But the policies Trump is advocating, including that well-publicized wall and mass deportations, are really nothing new. They are the very policies initiated by Bill Clinton in the 1990s and -- from border militarization to mass deportations -- enthusiastically promoted by Barack Obama. The president is, in fact, responsible for raising such deportations to levels previously unknown in American history. And were you to take a long look back into that very history, you would find that Trump’s open appeal to white fears of a future non-white majority, and his support of immigration policies aimed at racial whitening, are really nothing new either. The policies he’s promoting are, in an eerie way, a logical continuation of centuries of policymaking that sought to create a country of white people. The first step in that process was to deport the indigenous population starting in the 1600s. Later, deportation policies started to focus on Mexicans -- seen by many whites as practically indistinguishable from Indians. Except, white settlers found, Mexicans were more willing to work as wage laborers. Since the middle of the nineteenth century, Mexicans have been treated as disposable workers. As Europeans were invited to immigrate here permanently and become citizens, Mexican workers were invited into the country to work -- but not to become citizens. The particular legal rationales have changed over time, but the system has been surprisingly durable. Prior to the 1960s, deportation was based openly on discrimination against Mexicans on the basis of their supposed race or nationality. It was only with the civil rights advances of the 1960s that such discrimination became untenable -- and new immigration restrictions created a fresh legal rationale for treating Mexican workers as deportable. Having redefined them as “illegal” or “undocumented,” nativists could now clamor for deportation without seeming openly racist. Creating a Country for White People A closer look at American history makes the notion that “we are a nation of immigrants” instantly darker than its proponents imagine. As a start, what could the very idea of a “nation of immigrants” mean in a land that was already home to a large native population when European immigrants started to colonize it? From its first moments, American history has, in fact, been a history of deportation. The initial deportees from the British colonies and the American nation were, of course, Native Americans, removed from their villages, farms, and hunting grounds through legalized and extra-legal force everywhere that white immigrants wanted to settle. The deportations that began in the 1600s continued at least until the end of the nineteenth century. In other words, to celebrate the country’s “immigrant” origins also means celebrating the settler colonialism and native displacement that made the United States that nation of immigrants -- and this has important implications for immigrants today, many of whom are indigenous people from Mexico and Central America. Conflicts between immigrants and Natives were central to the colonial histories of both North and South America, and to the American Revolution. In the Proclamation of 1763, the British attempted to mitigate such conflicts by banning colonist (that is, immigrant) encroachment on native lands west of the Appalachian Divide. The British Crown even restricted immigration itself in another fruitless attempt to balance native and settler interests. These prohibitions were among the major grievances that led to the American Revolution. Among the list of “injuries and usurpations” carried out by the King that were denounced in the Declaration of Independence, there was the fact that he had “endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.” In addition, he had, it claimed, “excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.” Along with its commitment to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” that document couldn’t have been clearer that the new country would also be committed to a settler colonial project of populating the land with white immigrants and getting rid of the natives. Put another way, deportation was written into the American DNA from the get-go and, put in election 2016 terms, the new country was, from the beginning, designed as an explicitly racist project to populate the land with white people. Perhaps this is what Donald Trump means with his now iconic slogan “Make America Great Again!” Legislating Citizenship Nor did this commitment to white supremacy through immigration change during the initial century of U.S. history. The first Naturalization Act of 1790 encouraged white immigration by basing citizenship on race and offering it liberally to immigrants -- defined as white Europeans -- who were in this way made the privileged constituency of a new nation that had a slave system at its heart. (Although southern and eastern Europeans would face social prejudice in the United States, immigration and citizenship law always placed them in the “white” category.) It was not until 1868, three years after the Civil War ended, that the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution created the right to citizenship by birth, making it possible for the first time for non-whites to become citizens. But when Congress passed that amendment, it had in mind only some non-whites: previously enslaved Africans and their descendants. Here’s the crucial line in which Congress made sure of that: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” Since Native Americans were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, they were excluded from citizenship by birth. The new racial boundaries of citizenship were further clarified in 1870 when Congress amended the Naturalization Act by officially allowing, for the first time, some non-citizens of color to obtain citizenship: it extended naturalization rights to “aliens of African nativity and to persons of African descent.” On paper, this looked like a move away from white supremacy. In the context of the United States at that moment, however, it was something else. It ensured that Native Americans, already excluded from citizenship by birth, would also be barred from obtaining citizenship through naturalization. As for those theoretical “aliens of African nativity” who might be entering the country and seeking citizenship through naturalization, there were virtually none. In the aftermath of hundreds of years of enslavement and forced transport, it would be many decades before any Africans could imagine the United States as a land of opportunity or a place to make a better life. And the new Naturalization Act just as explicitly excluded lots of people who were in fact migrating to the United States in significant numbers in the 1870s. If you were European, you were, of course, still quite welcome to become a citizen. However, if you were, for example, Mexican or Chinese, while you were still welcome to come and work, you weren’t an “immigrant,” since you couldn’t become a citizen. Hence, the United States continued to be a “nation of immigrants” -- but only of a specific sort. Legislating Immigration Citizenship by birth, however, opened a Pandora’s box. Anybody physically present in the country (except Native Americans) could obtain citizenship for his or her children by virtue of birth. Chinese adults might be prohibited from naturalizing, but their children would be both “racially ineligible to citizenship" and citizens by birth -- a logical impossibility. Once citizenship by birth had been established, Congress moved to preserve the white racial character of the country by restricting the entry of non-whites -- first with the Page Act of 1875, prohibiting Chinese women from entering the country, then with the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. That ban was, in turn, gradually expanded until, in 1917, the “Asiatic Barred Zone” was put in place. It would span significant parts of the globe, from Afghanistan to the islands of the Pacific, and encompass about half of the world’s population. Its purpose was to ensure that, all “Asians” being “aliens ineligible to citizenship,” none of them would enter the U.S., and so their racially ineligible children would never be born here and obtain citizenship by birth. Students of immigration history generally learn about the 1921 and 1924 quotas that, for the first time, placed restrictions on European immigration. Indeed, for about four decades in the mid-twentieth century, the United States ranked Europeans by their “racial” desirability and offered differential quotas to reduce the numbers of those less desired (southern and eastern Europeans in particular) entering the country. But while all these restrictions were being implemented, Congress did absolutely nothing to try to stop Mexican migration. Mexican labor was desperately needed for the railroads, mines, construction, and farming that followed in the wake of white settler colonialism and the displacement of Native Americans in the West. In fact, after Chinese immigration was banned, Mexican workers became even more necessary. And Mexicans had an advantage over the Chinese: they were easier to deport across the long southern border. Many, in fact, preferred to maintain their homes in Mexico and engage in short-term migration to seasonal, temporary jobs. So Mexicans were welcomed -- just not as immigrants or potential citizens. Rather, they were seen as eminently deportable, temporary workers. In this way, a revolving door of recruitment and deportation came to define Mexican migration to the United States. At some points this system was formalized into bracero or “guest-worker” programs, as happened between 1917 and 1922, and again from 1942 to 1964. And nativists could sometimes mobilize anti-Mexican sentiment of a Trumpian sort to justify mass deportations -- like those in the 1930s and again in 1954 -- that would only reinforce the inherent and public tenuousness of the Mexican presence in the United States. The “Nation of Immigrants” Today The formal bracero program was phased out after 1964, but the pattern of recruitment and deportation of Mexican workers has continued to this day. The supposedly liberal, immigrant-friendly President Obama actually implemented quotas that have pushed the Department of Homeland Security to oversee hundreds of thousands of deportations yearly. Most of those deported are Mexican -- not exactly surprisingly, since the legal apparatus was designed for just that purpose. The only thing that’s new is the stated rationale: now they have been assigned a status -- “undocumented” -- that justifies their deportation. Events in the 1960s, including the ending of the bracero program and the Hart-Celler Immigration Act of 1965, made changes that began to treat all countries, including Mexico, the same way. Instead of large numbers of guest-worker visas, Mexico would receive a small number of immigrant visas. But Mexico’s migrant history and its reality were completely different from those of other countries. Given how dependent both countries had become on Mexicans migrating north to work, the stream of workers heading north continued despite changes in the law. The only difference: now this was “illegal.” The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act legalized millions of Mexicans already in the country without legal status and also began the trend towards the militarization and control of the border. Paradoxically enough, this only increased the undocumented population, because those who made it across that border were increasingly afraid to leave for fear they wouldn’t make it back the next year. Meanwhile, civil wars in Central America in the 1980s and 1990s, and subsequent neoliberal reforms and violence, as well as the impact similar neoliberal reforms and the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, had on Mexico’s economy in those same decades led to significant increases in authorized and unauthorized immigration. As a result, there was a significant increase in the U.S. Latino population -- as citizens, legal permanent residents, temporary legal residents, and unauthorized residents. But the longstanding national sentiment that Donald Trump is now mobilizing, the belief that somehow Mexicans are alien to the nature of the United States, continues, as does a sub rosa desire for a whiter America. Something else of interest happened to Mexican and Central American migration during these years. As in the United States, indigenous people in these countries have tended to be the poorest, most marginalized, most exploited sectors of the population. As a result, the violence and the socio-economic changes of the 1980s and 1990s disproportionately afflicted them, which meant ever more indigenous people from those countries entering the migrant stream. By 2010, 174,494 people chose “Mexican American Indian” as their tribal affiliation on the U.S. census, making them the fourth largest group of Native Americans, after the Navajo, the Cherokee, and the Choctaw. It’s not clear from the census data how many of these were recent immigrants rather than long-term residents, and how many were undocumented. But as the website ThinkMexican commented, “It directly challenges Manifest Destiny, the white supremacist narrative used to justify Western expansion, and the genocide of Native Peoples. The message is clear: This land is still Native.” And another message is clear too: the United States is still deporting native people. Aviva Chomsky is professor of history and coordinator of Latin American studies at Salem State University in Massachusetts and a TomDispatch regular. Her most recent book is Undocumented: How Immigration Became Illegal. Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Book, Nick Turse’s Next Time They’ll Come to Count the Dead, and Tom Engelhardt's latest book, Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
Aviva Investors isn't a bank so obviously we cannot call what has happened to their property fund a bank run. But the best way of thinking about the problems at this and other such open ended property investment funds it that they are suffering from something indistinguishable, in the underlying [...]
Британские ученые выяснили, что у курильщиков уменьшается размер мужского достоинства. Как стало известно sciencexxi.com, это доказано исследованием. фото: avivas.ru В исследовании приняли участие парни от 18 до 25 лет, которые курят недавно. Выяснилось, что лишь за несколько месяцев у этих молодых людей произошло сужение сосудов детородного органа. Это повлияло на уменьшение его в размерах. А что говорить о тех мужчинах, которые курят давно? Ученые определили, что у курильщиков со стажем 15 лет мужское достоинство уменьшается на один сантиметр. Может, это открытие заставит мужчин задуматься и бросить сигарету. Читайте также: Девушка-волонтер сделала предложение бразильской регбистке после финала ОИ>> Путин заявил, что одним из первых позвонил Эрдогану после попытки путча>> Турецкая газета: Восстановить отношения с Россией помог Назарбаев>> Эксперт: В двух районах Тянь-Шаня наблюдается «подготовка» к землетрясению>> Осуждена мать замерзшей до смерти 9-месячной девочки в Караганде>>
В пятницу, 5 августа, фондовый рынок Индии завершил торговую сессию неплохим ростом основных индексов. Индийский рынок акций последовал за ралли во всем азиатском регионе после того, как Банк Англии запустил впечатляющую программу стимулирования экономики. От Банка Англии ждали мер по поддержке экономики перед лицом Brexit, но фактически объявленные решения существенно превзошли ожидания инвестиционного сообщества.