• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Страны / Регионы1492
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации88
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
22 февраля, 11:34

Лавров проведет переговоры с коллегами из Сальвадора и Нигера

Зарубежные дипломаты будут находиться в России с рабочим визитом

Выбор редакции
Выбор редакции
21 февраля, 14:00

The global waiting room: displaced migrants headed to US in limbo in Tijuana

Families fleeing violence in Latin America and migrants from outside of it make up an unprecedented crisis of homeless people stranded just outside the USOutside in America: learn more about our ongoing homelessness projectThey came from different corners of the world: a fashion designer from Ghana, a school teacher from Haiti, a brick layer from El Salvador, believing this city was their doorway to America.They envisaged a few days, maybe a few weeks, while figuring a way to cross, then poof, they would be gone. Sayonara, Tijuana. Continue reading...

19 февраля, 10:38

В Аргентине «прогремело» землетрясение магнитудой 6,3

Мощное землетрясение ударило по северу Аргентины недалеко от границы с Чили. По информации Геологической службы США, эпицентр подземной стихии находился в 145 км к северо-западу от города Сан-Сальвадор-де-Жужуй, гипоцентр залегал на глубине около 200 км. Сейсмические колебания были ощутимы в Аргентине и Чили, но об ущербе и пострадавших информация не поступала. Это третье мощное землетрясение, ударившее в регионе за последние несколько месяцев. Землетрясения магнитудами 6,4 и 6,2 были зафиксированы поблизости в конце прошлого года.

18 февраля, 20:38

This Is What Obamacare's Critics Won't Admit Or Simply Don't Understand

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); THOUSAND OAKS, California ― Maryann Hammers is likely to die from ovarian cancer someday. But she hopes someday won’t come anytime soon. Hammers, 61, received the diagnosis in late 2013, and doctors told her that it was stage 3-C, which meant that she could live for many years with the right treatment and a little luck. So far, she’s had both. She’s in remission for the second time, and her last course of chemotherapy ended a year and a half ago. But recent blood tests detected elevated levels of a protein associated with tumors, she explained when we met a few weeks ago. “Maybe it’s a fluke,” she said. “I hope so. I kinda feel like the clock is ticking.” If the cancer is back, Hammers said, she may need surgery similar to her two previous operations — “gigantic surgeries, gutted like a fish and hospitalized for many days.” Chemotherapy would likely come next, plus medication, hospitalization, and home care. But Hammers considers herself lucky because she’s been able to get treatment at City of Hope, a highly respected Southern California cancer research and treatment center, and luckier still that she’s been able to pay for the treatment with insurance — an Anthem Blue Cross policy she bought through Covered California, the exchange her state created under the Affordable Care Act. To hear President Donald Trump, House Speaker Paul Ryan and other Republicans tell it, Obamacare has been a disaster, even for those who obtained coverage through the law. Hammers has a very different perspective. She’s a freelance writer and editor, which means she has no employer-provided insurance. In the old days, if she’d gone shopping for a policy with her cancer diagnosis, she would have struggled to find a carrier willing to sell her one. I'm terrified. ... Do you know how easy it is to use a million dollars when you're getting cancer treatment? Maryann Hammers, Thousand Oaks, California And it’s not just the pre-existing condition guarantee, which even critics like Trump say they support, that Hammers has found so valuable. The Affordable Care Act requires insurers to cover a wide range of services and treatments — which, in her case, has included multiple shots of Neulasta, a medication that boosts white blood cell counts and typically costs several thousand dollars per injection. The law also prohibits annual or lifetime limits on benefits, which, as a long-term cancer patient, she would be a prime candidate to exceed.  Policies with such robust coverage inevitably cost thousands of dollars a year, more than Hammers could afford on her own — particularly since battling the disease has cut into her work hours. But the law’s generous tax credits discount the premiums and help with the out-of-pocket costs, too. “Without the Affordable Care Act, I honestly do not know what I would have done,” she said. The coverage Hammers has today still isn’t as good as what she had years ago, when she worked for a company that provided benefits. But it’s better than what she had in the years right before the cancer diagnosis, when she was buying insurance on her own. The latter plan covered fewer services and came with out-of-pocket costs high enough to discourage her from getting checkups. Obamacare’s introduction of free preventive screenings led her to schedule a long-overdue colonoscopy. During routine preparation for that procedure, a physician first felt a lump in her abdomen.   Sometimes Hammers wonders whether, with less sporadic doctor visits, the cancer might have been caught a little sooner. “But I couldn’t afford a fat doctor’s bill. And I thought I was super healthy.” These days, something else looms even larger in her mind — the possibility that Trump and the Republican Congress will repeal the health care law without an adequate replacement, or maybe with no replacement at all.   “I’m terrified — isn’t that crazy?” Hammers said. “My biggest source of stress right now isn’t the fact that I have incurable cancer. It’s the prospect of losing my insurance.” What American Health Care Used To Look Like To appreciate the significance of stories like Hammers’ and what they say about the Affordable Care Act, it helps to remember what used to happen to people like her before the law took effect. By 2009, when President Barack Obama took office, roughly 1 in 6 Americans had no health care insurance, and even the insured could still face crippling medical bills. As a reporter covering health care during those years, I met these people. Some of their stories stand out, even now, because they capture the old system at its callous, capricious worst. Gary Rotzler, a quality engineer at a defense contractor in upstate New York, lost his family coverage in the early 1990s when he lost his job. He ended up uninsured for two years, while he juggled stints as an independent contractor. His wife, Betsy, made do without doctor visits even after she started feeling some strange pains. By the time she got a checkup, she had advanced breast cancer. Desperate efforts at treatment failed. After she died, Gary, a father of three, had to declare bankruptcy because of all the unpaid medical bills. Jacqueline Ruess, a widow in south Florida, thought she was insured. But then she needed expensive tests when her physicians suspected she had cancer. Although the tests were negative, the insurer refused to pay the bills because, it said, a brief episode of a routine gynecological problem in her past qualified as a pre-existing condition. Tony Montenegro, an immigrant from El Salvador living in Los Angeles, was uninsured and working as a security guard, until untreated diabetes left him legally blind. Marijon Binder, an impoverished former nun in Chicago, was sued by a Catholic hospital over medical expenses she couldn’t pay. And Russ Doren, a schoolteacher in a Denver suburb, believed he had good insurance until the bills for his wife’s inpatient treatment at a psychiatric hospital hit the limit for mental health coverage. The hospital released her, despite worries that she was not ready. A few days later, she took her own life. The Affordable Care Act of 2010 was an effort to address these kinds of problems — to carry on the crusade for universal coverage that Harry Truman had launched some 60 years before. But precisely because Obama and his allies were determined to succeed where predecessors had failed, they made a series of concessions that necessarily limited the law’s ambition. They expanded Medicaid and regulated private insurance rather than start a whole new government-run program. They dialed back demands for lower prices from drugmakers, hospitals and other health care industries. And they agreed to tight budget constraints for the program as a whole, rather than risk a revolt among more conservative Democrats. These decisions meant that health insurance would ultimately be more expensive and the new system’s financial assistance would be less generous. Still, projections showed that the law would bring coverage to millions while giving policymakers tools they could use to reduce medical costs over time. When the Senate passed its version of the legislation in December 2009, then-Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) described the program as a “starter home” with a solid foundation and room for expansion. Where Obamacare Failed And Where It Succeeded Seven years later, Trump and the Affordable Care Act’s other critics insist that the program has been a boondoggle — that the Obamacare starter home needs demolition. Some of their objections are philosophical, and some, like the persistent belief that the law set up “death panels,” are fantastical. But others focus on the law’s actual consequences. High on that list of consequences are the higher premiums and out-of-pocket costs that some people face. The new rules, like coverage of pre-existing conditions, have made policies more expensive, and Obamacare’s financial aid frequently doesn’t offset the increases. A “rate shock” wave hit suddenly in the fall of 2013, when insurers unveiled their newly upgraded plans and in many cases canceled old ones — infuriating customers who remembered Obama’s promise that “if you like your plan, you can keep it,” while alienating even some of those sympathetic to what Obama and the Democrats were trying to do. I’ve interviewed plenty of these people, too. A few weeks ago, I spoke with Faisuly Scheurer, a real estate agent from Blowing Rock, North Carolina. She and her husband, who works in the restaurant business, were excited about the health care law because they’d struggled to find decent, affordable insurance. They make about $60,000 a year, before taxes, with two kids and college tuition looming in the not-distant future, she said. In late 2013, they checked out their options and learned that, after tax credits, coverage would cost $360 a month. Scheurer said she remembers thinking, “OK, that is really tight. But if the benefits are good, we are going to have to skimp on other things to make it work.” Then she learned about the out-of-pocket costs, which could reach $13,000 over the course of a year depending on her family’s medical needs. “My disappointment was indescribable.” The Scheurer family ultimately decided to remain uninsured. They’re not the only ones, and that has weakened the system as a whole. The people eschewing coverage tend to be relatively healthy, since they’re most willing to take the risk of no coverage. That’s created big problems for insurers, which need the premiums from healthy folks to offset the high medical bills of people with serious conditions. Many insurers have reacted by raising premiums or pulling out of some places entirely, leaving dysfunctional markets in North Carolina and a handful of other states. Just this week, Humana, which had already scaled back its offerings, announced that it was pulling out of the Affordable Care Act exchanges altogether. At least for the moment, 16 counties in Tennessee don’t have a single insurer committed to offering coverage in 2018. Trump, Ryan and other Republicans pounced on the Humana news, citing it as more proof of a “failed system” and the need for repeal. That’s pretty typical of how the political conversation about the Affordable Care Act has proceeded for the last seven years. The focus is on everything that’s gone wrong with Obamacare, with scant attention to what’s gone right. And yet the list of what’s gone right is long. In states like California and Michigan, the newly regulated markets appear to be working as the law’s architects intended, except for some rural areas that insurers have never served that well. Middle-class people in those states have better, more affordable options. It looks like more insurers are figuring out how to make their products work and how to successfully compete for business. Customers have turned out to be more price-sensitive than insurers originally anticipated. In general, the carriers that struggle are large national companies without much experience selling directly to consumers, rather than through employers. Last year’s big premium increases followed two years in which average premiums were far below projections, a sign that carriers simply started their pricing too low. Even now, on average, the premiums people pay for exchange insurance are on a par with, or even a bit cheaper than, equivalent employer policies — and that’s before the tax credits. The majority of people who are buying insurance on their own or get their coverage through Medicaid are satisfied with it, according to separate surveys by the Commonwealth Fund and the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. The level of satisfaction with the new coverage still trails that involving employer-provided insurance, and it has declined over time. But it’s clearly in positive territory  And then there’s the fact that the number of people without health insurance is the lowest that government or private surveys have ever recorded. When confronted with questions about the people who gained coverage because of the law, Republicans often say something about sparing those people from disruption ― and then argue that even those who obtained insurance through the law are suffering and no better off. This claim is wildly inconsistent with the experience of people like Maryann Hammers ― and, more important, it’s wildly inconsistent with the best available research. People are struggling less with medical bills, have easier access to primary care and medication, and report that they’re in better health, according to a study that appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2015. The number of people forgoing care because of costs or being “very worried” about paying for a catastrophic medical bill dropped substantially among the newly insured, Kaiser Foundation researchers found last year when they focused on people in California. A bunch of other studies have turned up similar evidence, All of them concur with a landmark report on the effects of Massachusetts’ 2006 insurance expansion, which was a prototype for the national legislation. Residents of that state experienced better health outcomes and less financial stress, according to the study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine. “Though it’s had no shortage of controversies and stumbles, there’s really no denying that the ACA has created historic gains in insurance coverage,” said Larry Levitt, a senior vice president at the Kaiser Foundation. “With better coverage that has fewer holes, access to health care has improved and many have better protection from crushing medical bills.” What Repeal Would Really Mean Reasonable people can disagree about whether these achievements justify Obamacare’s costs, which include not only higher premiums for the young and healthy but also hefty new taxes on the wealthiest Americans. That’s a debate about values and priorities as much as facts. What’s not in dispute, or shouldn’t be, is the stark choice on the political agenda right now. Democratic lawmakers still argue for the principle that Truman laid out in 1948: “health security for all, regardless of residence, station, or race.” They think the Affordable Care Act means the U.S. is closer to that goal and that the next step should be to bolster the law ― by using government power to force down the price of drugs, hospital services and other forms of medical care, while providing more generous government assistance to people who still find premiums and out-of-pocket costs too onerous. Basically, they want people like Faisuly Scheurer to end up with the same security that people like Maryann Hammers already have. Some Republicans talk as if they share these goals. Trump has probably been the most outspoken on this point, promising to deliver “great health care at lower cost” and vowing that “everybody would be covered.” But other Republicans reject the whole concept of health care as a right. Although it’s theoretically possible to draw up a conservative health plan that would improve access and affordability, these aren’t the kinds of plans that Republicans have in mind.  There’s a face to this law, there’s a face to people that are going to be affected by it. Angela Eilers, Yorba Linda, California Their schemes envision substantially less government spending on health care, which would mean lower taxes for the wealthy but also less financial assistance for everybody else. Republicans would make insurance cheaper, but only by allowing it to cover fewer services and saddling beneficiaries with even higher out-of-pocket costs. The result would be some mix of more exposure to medical bills and more people without coverage. If Republicans repeal the Affordable Care Act without replacing it ― a real possibility, given profound divisions within the GOP over how to craft a plan ― 32 million more people could go uninsured, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That would mean real suffering, primarily among those Americans who benefit most from the law now ― the ones with serious medical problems, or too little income to pay for insurance on their own, or both. Jay Stout, a 20-year-old in Wilmington, North Carolina, is one of those people. He was in good health until a head-on car collision nearly severed his arm and landed him in the hospital for more than a month. Surgeries and rehabilitation would have cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars that, as a community college student working part-time as a busboy, he could never have paid — if not for the Blue Cross plan that his mother had bought through the Affordable Care Act. When we spoke a few weeks ago, he told me the insurance has been “irreplaceable” and that losing it “would be totally devastating.” Meenakshi Bewtra had never had a serious health problem until her first year at the University of Pennsylvania medical school, when she developed severe gastrointestinal problems — the kind that forced her into the hospital for two months and drove her to drop out of school. Her insurance lapsed, which meant that her GI issues became a pre-existing condition. She eventually found coverage and today she’s a professor of medicine at Penn, where she moonlights as an advocate for universal health insurance. “For the first time, I truly understood what comprehensive health insurance meant,” Bewtra said, remembering what it was like to become fully covered. “I did not have to worry about how many times I saw a doctor, or how many lab tests I had to get, or having to ration out medications.” Angela Eilers, who lives in Yorba Linda, California, isn’t worrying about her own health. It’s her daughter Myka who has a congenital heart condition called pulmonary stenosis, which makes it more difficult for the heart to pump blood to the lungs. The little girl has required multiple surgeries and will need intensive medical treatment throughout her childhood. In 2012, Angela’s husband, Todd, was laid off from his job at an investment firm. Since going without insurance was not an option, they took advantage of COBRA to stay on his old company’s health plan. It was expensive, and Eilers recalled panicking over the possibility they might not be able to pay the premiums. “I remember sitting at the table, thinking of plans. What would be our plan? One of them was … giving up our parents rights to my mom, because she has really good health insurance.” Eventually her husband started his own consulting business, and that gave them the income to keep up with premiums until 2014 — when they were able to obtain coverage through the Affordable Care Act. Today they have a gold plan, one of the most generous available, for which they pay around $20,000 a year. Even though they make too much to qualify for financial assistance, they’re grateful for the coverage. Seven-year-old Myka has already run up more than a half-million dollars in medical bills. In the old days, before Obamacare, they would have worried about hitting their plan’s lifetime limit on benefits.  The family’s coverage has become more expensive over the years. They wish the price were lower, but they’re also not complaining about that. “I’m thankful that the letter was a premium hike, rather than ‘Sorry, we are not going to cover your daughter anymore,’” Angela Eilers said. When she thinks about the possibility of Obamacare repeal, she wonders if Trump and the Republicans understand what that would really mean. “There’s a face to this law, there’s a face to people that are going to be affected by it,” Eilers said. “It’s not me, it’s not him, it’s her. She’s only 7. And through no fault of her own, why should she suffer? And she’s not the only one.” Sign up for the HuffPost Must Reads newsletter. Each Sunday, we will bring you the best original reporting, long form writing and breaking news from The Huffington Post and around the web, plus behind-the-scenes looks at how it’s all made. Click here to sign up! -- 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.

18 февраля, 15:09

Hispanic Migrants: Back to Square One - Talk to Al Jazeera

El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala form what is known as Central America's "Northern Triangle". The region is overrun by organised crime and gangs, resulting from violent civil wars that rocked the three countries in the 1980s. According to a report from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), over 137,000 people from the Northern Triangle entered the US last year, up until June alone. Figures show that hundreds of thousands of men, women and children continue to try and flee poverty and violence in an attempt to reach the United States at any price. Contrary to claims made by the Trump administration, the number of undocumented migrants from Mexico has fallen in the last few years. However, it is the Central Americans who are increasingly attempting to cross the border, especially from El Salvador. El Salvador has the highest murder rate in the world, and according to the 2016 El Salvador Crime and Safety Report conducted by the US Overseas Security Advisory Council, almost one quarter of all Salvadorans were victims of crime in 2015. Salvadorans travel by land across Guatemala into Mexico - arguably the most dangerous part of the journey - where countless migrants are robbed, kidnapped, raped and/or killed by Mexican criminal gangs that control the route. Since President Donald Trump renewed his vow to build an impenetrable wall to keep undocumented migrants out, traffickers - commonly known as "coyotes" - have raised their fees, trying to cash in on desperation to reach the land of the American dream before its too late. In 2014 President Barack Obama approved a special refugee reunification program to discourage tens of thousands of Central American children from risking their lives to join undocumented parents in the US. The program was set to give these children refugee status - the Trump administration has since stopped the scheme in its tracks, raising concerns of a new wave of unaccompanied minors trying to reach the border. Talk to Al Jazeera travels to El Salvador to see what is driving the migration wave and at what price. More from Talk To Al Jazeera on: YouTube - http://aje.io/ttajYT Facebook - http://facebook.com/talktoaj Twitter - http://twitter.com/talktoaljazeera Website - http://www.aljazeera.com/talktojazeera/

Выбор редакции
17 февраля, 15:59

Выставка Дали пройдет в Петербурге

Масштабная выставка классика сюрреализма Сальвадора Дали будет идти в Музее Фаберже в Петербурге с 1 апреля по 2 июля 2017 года.

14 февраля, 02:00

National Identity and Three of the Most Damaging Directives in President Trump's Executive Orders on Immigration and Refugees

President Trump's "shock and awe" strategy in the form of multiple executive orders on immigration and refugees creates three major risks: first, that many of the most damaging provisions will evade scrutiny in the glare of more high profile issues like building an unnecessary and unsustainable 2,000 mile border wall; second, that the cynical rationale for the orders (security and safety) will actually stick, if repeated enough times, and; third, that some portion of this agenda may actually be implemented at permanent cost to our nation's well-being, core values and identity. The Threat of Mass Deportation The executive order, titled "Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States," sets enforcement priorities that are so broad as to be virtually meaningless. The order prioritizes the removal of serious criminals and national security risks, but also a large percentage of the 11 million US undocumented immigrants. As a result, it effectively sets no priorities and, thus, raises the specter of a mass deportation program. The raids carried out by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in recent days likewise fail to reflect principled enforcement priorities. Despite its billing, if implemented the order will undermine public safety and devastate US families, communities and the economy. Earlier this month, the Center for Migration Studies (CMS) released a report that described the impact of a mass deportation policy on the nation's three million "mixed-status" households, i.e., those with a US-born child and an undocumented person, most often the child's parent. Living in these households are 6.6 million US citizens by birth, 5.7 million of them children. Removing the undocumented residents would cut the median income of these households nearly in half -- from $41,300 to $22,000--and, thus, would relegate millions of US families to lives of poverty. To assess the cost of raising the US-citizen children left behind, CMS assumed that only one-third of these children would remain in the United States following the deportation of a parent and that the undocumented parents contribute 50 percent of the financial support for the children. By these conservative estimates, the cost of raising these children would total $118 billion. Mass deportation would be disastrous for other reasons as well. A high percentage of the 2.4 million mortgages held by households with undocumented immigrants, for example, would be at risk of default. To put this figure in context, at the peak of the housing crisis in 2009 a record 2.8 million properties received mortgage foreclosure notices. Moreover, an industry and state-level analysis of the impact of mass deportation by economists Ryan Edwards and Francesc Ortega concluded that US gross domestic product (GDP) would be reduced by 1.4 percent in the first year; cumulative GDP would be reduced by $4.7 trillion over 10 years; the federal debt would increase by $982 billion over 10 years; and the agricultural, construction, leisure and hospitality industries would experience workforce reductions of 10 to 18 percent. Another study found that it would cost $400 to $600 billion in immigration enforcement spending over a 20-year period to deport the undocumented and prevent further illegal entries. The obvious solution would be to keep mixed-status families intact and essential workers in place, preferably through a legalization program, but the executive orders fail to acknowledge that need. Refugees and National Security It is difficult to imagine how the greatest crisis in refugee protection since World War II - a crisis that cries out for broad responsibility-sharing by states - can be successfully resolved without the United States playing at least a supportive, if not a leadership role. Yet, the executive orders work to diminish US commitments to refugees, asylum-seekers, and the relevant international institutions that provide life-saving support to them. The mistitled order, "Protecting the Nation from Terrorist Attacks by Foreign Nationals," grossly exaggerates the security threat to the United States from refugees. Yes, it is conceivable that a terrorist could successfully impersonate a refugee and commit an attack on US soil. There have also been occasional breaches of this program, including by two insurgents who fought US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, entered the United States as refugees in 2009, and were subsequently arrested in a sting operation in Bowling Green, Ohio. That said, the chances of dying in a terrorist attack by a refugee are extraordinarily low. A Cato Institute study by Alex Nowrasteh found that between 1975 and 2015 - a period in which 3.25 million refugees were resettled in the United States - there were three terrorist attacks by refugees, killing three people. The risk of dying in a terrorist attack by a refugee during this 41-year period was one in 3.64 billion. All three attacks were committed by Cuban nationals in the 1970s. Since then, particularly since 9/11, extraordinary efforts have been made to strengthen US intelligence, establish the identity of all non-citizens seeking admission, and screen would-be immigrants and refugees against multiple databases and through in-person interviews. At present, refugees undergo the most rigorous and exhaustive vetting of any candidates for admission. This is particularly true for Syrian refugees who are overwhelmingly women and children with no other viable options and who the order indefinitely bars. More importantly, the order obscures the fact that the failure to anticipate and to respond in a coordinated, pro-active way to refugee situations can undermine security and, conversely, that timely, effectively-managed interventions invariably contribute to security. This may be most obvious in the case of the prevention and mitigation of refugee-producing conditions. However, support for the communities in developing states that host 86 percent of the world's refugees also manifestly promotes security, as does the safe and voluntary repatriation of refugees and the resettlement of well-vetted refugees in third countries. By contrast, as the European experience illustrates, shortfalls in essential aid to refugees, lack of education and work opportunities, and the inability of refugees to migrate through normal channels or to secure legal status in host communities can lead to large-scale, unregulated migration. Ultimately, it is the failure of states to address refugee crises that undermines security, not refugee protection. The executive order gets the analysis exactly backwards. The world is not facing a refugee crisis, but a crisis in refugee protection, which the executive orders will exacerbate. The "security" ramifications of suspension of the refugee program, as well as the (judicially stayed) bar on admission of legal immigrants from seven "terror prone" states - which, as widely reported, do not include states whose nationals have committed terrorist acts in the United States in recent decades -- are all negative. The orders will return refugees to situations of great insecurity. They also present a potent recruiting tool for ISIL and other terrorist groups and make it far less likely that allied states, foreign intelligence sources, and targeted immigrant communities will cooperate with US counter-terror initiatives. As former CIA director Michael Hayden put it, the refugee order has already "inarguably has made us less safe. " The refugee order also raises concerns related to the United States' adherence to the values which it presumably seeks to secure. While the order would drastically cut refugee admissions, it prioritizes the religious persecution claims of minority populations. Certainly, the United States should admit far more persecuted religious minorities from the Middle-East and elsewhere. Yet, this proposal comes on the heels of Trump's campaign pledge to ban Muslim immigration and as part of a package that seeks to suspend immigration from Muslim-majority nations, that were selected without any apparent input from US intelligence agencies. In combination, these measures seem to represent a retreat from the nation's historic commitment to religious liberty and pluralism, and constitute a self-inflicted wound in the global battle for hearts and minds, which may not matter to their authors, but should matter to those who care about US standing and security. Deportation and Due Process The executive order on "Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements" would extend the expedited removal process -- which now applies to persons within 100 miles of a land or sea border, who appear to have arrived within 14 days -- to persons who cannot produce sufficient immigration documents and cannot "affirmatively" show that they have lived in the United States for more than two years. Expedited removal is a process in which immigration enforcement officials act as police, prosecutors and judges, all rolled into one. As a result, it not infrequently leads to the deportation of lawful permanent residents (LPRs) and US citizens. In theory, however, this process at least allows those fleeing for their lives to have their asylum claims heard. The statute provides that immigration officers "shall refer" persons who request asylum or express a fear of persecution to a "credible fear" interview by an asylum officer. Those found to have a credible fear can then seek asylum before an Immigration Judge in removal proceedings, which is a very daunting process, but an important safety valve nonetheless. Yet, immigration officials consistently refuse to refer qualified persons to credible fear interviews. Instead, they resort to all manner of deception and falsehoods.They tell desperate asylum-seekers that people with legal status in Mexico cannot apply for asylum in the United States.They say the country is full. They tell them that the United States does not accept asylum claims from countries that are not at war, like violence-plagued Honduras, El Salvador or Guatemala. They say there is no more room in the United States. They tell families that, if they admit them, they will have to detain and separate them. They violate the law even in front of delegations, like the International Commission on Religious Freedom, that have come to monitor their compliance with the law. The expedited removal process should long ago have been reformed and, at the very least, limited in scope. The scofflaw behavior of federal officials, who are sworn to uphold the law, makes its expansion particularly problematic. If the United States enforces its immigration laws, which it should do and which it does very aggressively, then it also needs to honor due process and its legal commitments to refugees and asylum-seekers. Final Thoughts In June 2002, the George W. Bush administration announced the creation of the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS). The program screened persons arriving at ports-of-entry (POEs), both those from designated nations and individuals thought to present a heightened security risk. Federal officials fingerprinted, photographed, and extensively interviewed targeted immigrants on their background and on the purpose and details of their visits. It also required them to report at 30 days and annually thereafter, to exit at designated POEs, and to submit to pre-departure interviews. NSEERS also included a "special" or "call-in" registration program that applied to males age 16 and over, from 25 nations, who had already entered the United States, typically on non-immigrant (temporary) visas. All but one of the designated nations (North Korea) had Muslim majorities. Between November 2002 and December 2003, 83,519 persons came forward to register and 2,870 of them, including LPRs, were arrested and detained. Removal proceedings were initiated against nearly 14,000, mostly for overstaying visas. The "call in" groups were summoned by nationality in four stages. As their interview deadlines neared, hundreds of families - in buses, cars and caravans of taxis packed with their belongings - fled to the US northern border to seek refugee status in Canada. They stayed in shelters and hotels, waiting to cross for their scheduled refugee interviews. Others were detained. Many were terrified by the prospect of deportation. Some believed that they would be persecuted and tortured if forced to return home. Others never learned of the registration requirements, which were announced in the Federal Register, and have since faced negative immigration and criminal consequences as a result. At the time, the author was researching a report on the US-Canada border for a committee of the American Bar Association. Although it may seem counter-intuitive, refugees and asylum-seekers often speak openly and candidly to attorneys, researchers and visiting delegations. But in the shelters along the US northern border, the migrants would not respond to the most basic of questions: they were palpably fearful, distrusting, and simply wanted to leave the country. Today, asylum-seekers have begun to brave sub-freezing temperatures to cross the US-Canada border without authorization in order to seek asylum in Canada. They do not believe they can obtain a fair hearing in the United States. The executive orders are far broader in scope and less excusable than NSEERs, which came into being at a time when the nation feared additional, 9/11-like terrorist attacks and did not enjoy the benefit of the strengthened intelligence, information sharing and screening systems that have been built since 9/11. The orders will work untold damage on families, refugees, asylum-seekers and the legal norms and systems that safeguard them. Despite their billing, they will also undermine public safety and national security. More than that, they are a frontal assault on the idea of the United States as a creedal nation, a pro-family nation, and a haven for the persecuted and dispossessed. If in doubt, ask the US citizen children in fear that their parents will be deported, the desperate refugees stranded in dangerous camps and urban settings, or the asylum-seekers now crossing into Canada. -- 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.

14 февраля, 01:01

ICE raids led to 41 arrests in New York City last week

Forty-one people were arrested in the five boroughs of New York City over the last week as part of a national Immigration and Customs Enforcement “targeted enforcement action,” a spokeswoman for the New York field office of ICE said Monday. ICE said 38 of the people arrested had criminal convictions, but did not provide a full list of the what those criminal convictions were, or a breakdown of the nationalities of the people who were arrested. Instead they said the arrests included “A citizen of El Salvador with a criminal conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon in aid of racketeering and self-admitted MS-13 gang member, a citizen of Jamaica with a criminal conviction for first degree sexual assault of a victim under the age of 11,” and “a citizen of Mexico with a criminal conviction for first degree sexual assault of a victim under the age of 11.”Three individuals who were arrested had no criminal convictions, ICE said. The raids sparked widespread fear among the city's immigrant communities, and across the country. In an emailed statement on the raids, Deborah Axt, co-executive director of Make the Road New York, said, "ICE continues to try to obscure the fact that the principal effect of its raids is to separate families and sow panic in the immigrant community." She called the information ICE provided on the arrests "outrageously incomplete," saying "We will not be fooled by the spin of this notoriously non-transparent agency, which has a long track record of being dishonest in its operations."Department of Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly said in a statement that raids conducted last week in Los Angeles, Chicago, Atlanta, San Antonio and New York City yielded a total of 680 arrests. He said 75 percent of the people arrested were "criminal aliens" with prior convictions. Those arrested were people who “pose a threat to public safety, border security or the integrity of our nation’s immigration system,” Kelly's statement said. He also dismissed the idea that there was anything unusual about the raids conducted last week, and in a fact sheet, ICE said the raids were the latest in a string of “national fugitive enforcement actions.”Similar efforts in March of 2015, August of 2013, April of 2012 and September and June of 2011 yielded 12,119 arrests. “ICE conducts these kind of targeted enforcement operations regularly and has for many years,” Kelly said. “The focus of these enforcement operations is consistent with the routine, targeted arrests carried out by ICE’s Fugitive Operations teams on a daily basis.”“President Trump has been clear in affirming the critical mission of DHS in protecting the nation and directed our Department to focus on removing illegal aliens who have violated our immigration laws, with a specific focus on those who pose a threat to public safety, have been charged with criminal offenses, have committed immigration violations or have been deported and re-entered the country illegally,” he added. Mayor Bill de Blasio has not publicly commented on the raids, but his office issued a statement over the weekend saying New Yorkers should know that city officials will never ask people about their immigration status, and New York Police Department officers “will never become immigration enforcement agents.”Rosemary Boeglin, a spokesperson for the mayor, said in an emailed statement that the mayor is "closely monitoring" reports of ICE raids.“We will continue to stand with the nearly 40 percent of New Yorkers who are foreign born - documented or undocumented - and we will use all of the tools at our disposal to protect them from any federal overreach,” she said.The New York Immigration Coalition, one of several immigrant advocacy groups that raised concerns about the raids, is planning a rally Tuesday in Foley Square to protest the ICE operation.

13 февраля, 22:03

Despite tighter controls, Salvadorans still trying to get to US

Donald Trump’s US administration has started making good on its promise to deport millions of undocumented migrants, who are mainly from Mexico and Central America. After Mexico, the largest number of undocumented migrants comes from El Salvador. Last year alone more than 53,000 Salvadorans were deported while trying to make it to the US - and yet they keep trying. Al Jazeera's Latin America Editor, Lucia Newman reports from Ahuachapan, Salvador. - Subscribe to our channel: http://aje.io/AJSubscribe - Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/AJEnglish - Find us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/aljazeera - Check our website: http://www.aljazeera.com/

12 февраля, 13:08

Морской старт: НЛО из океана обнаружен на снимках американского спутника

Расположенный у побережья Центральной Америки залив Фонсека стал местом регулярного наблюдения НЛО.

10 февраля, 16:29

Труд исправляет: на место подростков сядут сутенеры, алиментщики и фальсификаторы выборов

Казанская воспитательная колония, которой поначалу пророчили «взрослое» пополнение, станет приютом для «экономических» и «бытовых» преступников. Первый в РТ исправительный центр сможет разместить около 300 приговоренных, которых отправят исправлять причиненный обществу вред на заводы республики по новому виду наказаний, появившемуся в РФ с 1 января. Как выяснил «БИЗНЕС Online», пока на территории КВК ведутся ремонтные работы, осужденных будут этапировать в соседний Башкортостан.

10 февраля, 04:35

Самодуром стать легче, чем мастером

Оригинал взят у bormor в сообщении от 2016-08-18 18:23:00.На днях прочитал во френдленте пост про какую-то психованную тётку, которая пришла в центр обслуживания телефонов и там желала странного, а потом ещё осталась недовольна. Не буду тут пересказывать, я расскажу о своём. Психованные тётки, знаете, и к ювелирам тоже иногда приходят.Было это, правда, не на днях, а тому назад несколько месяцев. К нам на фабрику явилась немолодая и чрезвычайно безвкусно одетая дама — должно быть, очень богатая, если наш хозяин (сам человек весьма небедный) лично привёл и усадил её рядом с нами. Зачем? А учиться.— Я, — сказала мадам, — к вам ненадолго. Посмотрю, что и как делается, а дальше сама уже соображу. Думаю, за пару недель всё освою. Дня три в модельном цехе, научусь лепить из воска, потом посижу денёк там, где паяют, а на закрепку камней, думаю, хватит и получаса — это же так просто!Поскольку разговаривала она не со мной, да никто моего мнения и не спрашивал, я не стал сообщать, что один только начальный курс подготовки ювелиров длится минимум месяцев восемь. И большая часть этого времени уходит только на то, чтобы научиться рассчитывать силы и правильно держать инструмент. Мы же ювелиры, в конце концов! Мы работаем с долями миллиметра, без разработанной мелкой моторики и делать нечего. А закрепщики у нас и вовсе идут за элиту, сидят с микроскопами. Для туристов у нас на фабрике даже имеется свой специальный прикол: им иногда дарят простенькую головоломку из проволоки, ничего особенного, одно колечко, одна палочка, одна скобочка, всё это хитрым образом соединяется и разбирается. А потом вероломно протягивают кусок проволоки и плоскогубцы: не хотите ли, мол, сами такую же свернуть? И показывают, как. Раз, два, три, ухватить-загнуть-повернуть, ухватить-загнуть-повернуть, сложить, вставить, зажать — готово. Двадцать секунд. Туристы ведутся как дети… и если они очень упорные, то ковыряются с этой проволочкой добрых полчаса, причём безрезультатно. Выглядит всё очень просто. Но как-то не ухватывается, не загибается, не складывается. Навыков не хватает. А вы думали, это только в компьютерных игрушках изготовление некоторых предметов доступно только с повышением уровня мастерства? Ну вот не может простой человек с улицы правильно согнуть проволочку. Не может, и всё!Но как уже говорилось выше, никто моего мнения не спросил, и тётка осталась за нами наблюдать. Само собой, почти весь день она проболтала с моделисткой, и ни о какой работе уже и речи не было. Второй день тоже ушёл на разговоры. Мы узнали о ней и её родственниках такие вещи, без знания которых вполне могли бы прожить. Но в частности, кто-то догадался спросить, а зачем она, собственно, так уж хочет выучить ювелирное дело?— Ой, да мне это совсем не нужно! Я всего одну штучку хочу починить, просто больше никто не берётся. Да вот, сами посмотрите.Ну, мы и посмотрели…У тётки имелась драгоценная брошь работы Сальвадора Дали (на минуточку!) — золотой гранат с лопнувшим боком, откуда выглядывают гранатовые же зёрнышки.— Понимаете, — объяснила нам тётка, — здесь вот, по-моему, чего-то не хватает… Я хотела немножко переделать, чтобы было красивее. Тут вот подогнуть, а тут добавить листик, а ещё сделать из этого не брошку, а кулон — продеть цепочку и носить на шее. Но почему-то все ювелиры отказываются брать такую работу (ну, я думаю!), так что придётся всё делать самой.К счастью, тётка оказалось не слишком целеустремлённой. На третий день созерцания она заскучала, потом почти неделю не являлась, потом пришла на полдня ещё поболтать, а больше мы её не видели.Возможно, она купила картину Рембрандта и теперь учится живописи, чтобы подрисовать какие-нибудь цветочки, не знаю. Да и знать не хочу.

09 февраля, 15:16

Труп кота, Фрида Кало и Дали — экстраординарные сумки уральской мастерицы

Ревда, вечер. За окошком, плотно закрытым шторами с пёстрым рисунком, находится мастерская женских сумок. Мастерская расположена в квартире родителей Татьяны, в комнате, которая много лет назад служила для юной мастерицы детской. Это единственный уголок в жилище, где всегда много света, красок и каждый день рождается на свет новый шедевр из мира аксессуаров.   — Мне 29 лет. Я получила образование по специальности "дизайнер одежды", однако уже на третьем курсе именно дизайн одежды стал мне неинтересен. Мне захотелось заняться чем-то необычным, тем, что будет меня вдохновлять и доставлять мне удовольствие. И я решила попробовать превращать сумки в арт-объекты, — рассказала Лайфу дизайнер. Сначала она шила свои изделия из ткани и кожзама, пробовала расписывать вручную, однако краска со временем твердела и теряла яркость. Тогда Татьяне пришла идея делать картины на своих сумочках с помощью аппликаций. — Знаете, если хочешь стать дизайнером, сначала не нужно много денег. Если есть желание, то получится сделать красивую вещь или аксессуар из чего угодно. Многие из тех, кто видит мои работы, говорят, что они как живые. Конечно, это очень кропотливая работа. Сначала я полностью собираю будущий рисунок, как мозаику, сшиваю, а потом уже накладываю на поверхность будущей сумки, — рассказала Лайфу Татьяна. Четыре года назад Татьяне пришла в голову идея сделать сумочку с шуточным рисунком, и ей показалось, что удачней всего в качестве изображения подойдёт портрет Сальвадора Дали. С тех пор именно великие художники и их работы на сумках стали визитной карточкой марки Tanya Yuzhakova. — В то время художник ещё не был на волне популярности, однако тот ридикюль очень всем понравился. Потом я стала использовать для украшения сумок портреты и картины Фриды Кало, Ван Гога, Анри Руссо, Рафала Ольбиньского и многих других. Мне нравится, что мои изделия несут в себе не только эстетическую, но и образовательную функцию. Когда покупатели начинают рассматривать понравившуюся им картинку, изображённую на сумке, они часто не знают автора и историю картины, а я с удовольствием могу это рассказать. Мне даже предлагали музей организовать, — поделилась с Лайфом Татьяна.   Невероятно сложно художнику подобрать нужные цвета и фактуры для того, чтобы написать картину. На это у многих творцов уходят годы. А представьте себе, насколько нелегко сделать то же самое, только из сотен маленьких кусочков кожи и тысяч разнообразных швов. Татьяне это удаётся! Глядя на то, как она воплощает в жизнь свои творения, создаётся впечатление, что это проще простого. — Иногда я делаю полную копию какой-то картины, иногда добавляю что-то от себя. Бывает, меня вдохновляет какой-то просмотренный фильм или книга, и я переношу эти фантазии на кожу. За день могу сшить одну-две сумочки. Главное — садиться за дело в хорошем настроении, с правильным настроем. Я помню каждое изделие, которое когда-либо делала, ведь в них я вкладываю свою душу, — рассказала Лайфу Татьяна.   Особенно запомнился Татьяне Южаковой заказ необычной клиентки. — Я общалась с девочкой одной в Интернете, и она мне заказала сшить ей сумку в виде трупа кота. Именно трупа кота. Конечно, какие-то особенности физиологические, такие как разложение например, я не делала. Но выполнила в виде аппликации внутренностей. Интересный был очень заказ, — поделилась в беседе с Лайфом дизайнер. В этой маленькой, яркой и уютной мастерской чувствуешь себя по-особенному. Здесь столько интересных штучек, картинок, коллекция напёрстков, шишка в рамочке, жабо в виде клавиш фортепиано и первый школьный портфель Татьяны. Полное ощущение, что ты находишься не в квартире, а в волшебном измерении творчества. Именно здесь дизайнер забывает обо всём и полностью отдаётся работе, пытаясь отвлечься от проблем за дверью: в соседней комнате вместе с мамой находится парализованный после инсульта отец. — Мои родители меня всегда поддерживали. Маме сейчас 55 лет — от неё у меня тяга к творчеству, потому что она всегда тоже этим интересовалась. Она дала мне и музыкальную школу, и художку. Папе 60. У меня его характер. Он практически всю жизнь проработал на заводе машинистом. Завод забрал всё здоровье, и два года назад у него случился инсульт и его парализовало. Я стараюсь по возможности помогать, конечно, — поделилась с Лайфом Татьяна. Стоят чудо-сумочки от 10 тысяч рублей. В месяц она делает примерно десять сумок.   Экстравагантные сумочки пользуются большим спросом не только у российских модниц, но и за рубежом. — Я всегда выбираю только качественные материалы: итальянская кожа, надёжная и стильная фурнитура. Много учусь, совершенствуюсь. Перед тем как продать изделие, я всегда его тестирую, — рассказала Лайфу Татьяна Южакова. — А ещё мне очень нравится, когда мои изделия заказывают мужчины в подарок своим девушкам. Подбирают картинки, которые хотелось бы видеть на сумочке, её цвет и размер. 

09 февраля, 14:55

Мнения: Анатолий Салуцкий: России впервые нечего экспортировать

Сегодня духовный экспорт из России впервые за два столетия полностью сошел на нет. Ни художественных ценностей мирового значения, ни политических идей, интересных для любознательной зарубежной публики, не «производит» ныне Россия. Нет, речь не об экспорте нефти, газа и СПГ, не о боевых истребителях и системах ПРО, даже не о стиральных машинах, которых в прошлом году Россия, оказывается, отправила за рубеж миллион штук. Разговор об экспорте духовных ценностей. В XIX веке Россия в больших количествах вывозила такие непрезентабельные товары, как пенька и лен, но в то же время активно экспортировала в Европу великую русскую литературу – в столь гигантских масштабах, что ее «запасы» не исчерпаны в зарубежном мире по сей день. Аналогичная картина сложилась в первой четверти XX века, когда Россия в громадном «объеме» экспортировала на Запад художественный авангард. Все тогдашние новшества искусства – от футуризма до декадентства и прочих литературно-изобразительных изысков – родом из России, которая в те времена была мощным генератором духовных ценностей, независимо от числа их поборников или противников. Многие последующие достижения западного искусства, будь то Сальвадор Дали или даже Пикассо, в той или иной мере взросли на дрожжах русского художественного авангарда, раскрепостившего мировую живопись. А уж о всемирном экспорте системы Станиславского и говорить нечего. Не отступили от этой традиции и сталинские годы, хотя на сей раз экспортные духовные ценности резко политизировались, приняв форму привлекательных для человечества, хотя извращенных при практическом применении, идей социального равенства. На основе советских «наработок» и их пропагандистской раскрутки приобрели большое влияние западные компартии. Этот период длился до развенчания культа личности Сталина. Последующая четверть века прошла в хрущевско-брежневской борьбе за всемирное торжество социализма. И как бы ни относиться к той международной деятельности, дотируемой за счет советского народа, как бы ни иронизировать над ней и как бы ни осуждать, – тем не менее, глядя из сегодняшнего дня, надо признать, что она тоже носила идеологический, а значит, духовный характер. Пусть в извращенном виде, СССР как наследник царской России продолжал генерировать идеи, которые гулким эхом отзывались во всем мире. А что сейчас? Сегодня духовный экспорт из России впервые за два столетия полностью сошел на нет. Ни ветерка, ни дуновения! Ни художественных ценностей мирового значения, ни политических идей, интересных для любознательной зарубежной публики, не «производит» ныне Россия. Сам по себе этот отказ от украшавшей Россию традиции духовных исканий служит суровым историческим упреком и «демократам» 90-х, и нынешней власти. В торопливой гонке к политическим и экономическим переменам они пренебрегли российским духовным потенциалом и обрекли страну на временное бездуховно-потребительское бытие, что, несомненно, обернется серьезным ущербом для их исторической репутации. Впрочем, их вина еще горше. Россия не только перестала быть генератором и экспортером духовных ценностей, но превратилась в их жадного импортера. Да, в прошлые времена, всегда оставаясь страной высокой культуры, будь то царский или советский периоды, Россия тоже импортировала зарубежные образцы искусства. Но – лучшие! Живопись импрессионистов, великая французская литература становились достоянием гражданского общества, позволяя идти вровень с мировым художественным прогрессом, искать согласия между европейской культурой и российской самобытностью. Но в приснопамятные 90-е новая Россия импортировала, «закачала» в себя столько низкопробного поп-культурного хлама, что не может очухаться, прийти в себя от этого ядовитого, хмельного «боярышника» по сей день. А власть не обращает на это внимания. Все отравители духовных колодцев, которые топтали нашу культуру в 90-е годы, – все они по-прежнему на своих постах, исподволь, тайно и изощренно противясь духовному возрождению. Конечно, и сегодня Россия импортирует лучшие достижения мирового искусства, о чем свидетельствуют замечательные выставки в картинных галереях и огромный общественный интерес к ним. И все же в целом сознание россиян задавили телевизионные шоу, жуткая попса, словно окурки, подобранная на панели западной поп-культуры. Сорняк возобладал над культурными посевами. Как не вспомнить Блока: «В сердцах, восторженных когда-то, есть роковая пустота». О падении до нуля традиционного духовного российского экспорта, о замене его бездуховным импортом почему-то не принято говорить в тех сферах, где решаются вопросы российского развития. Умы государственных деятелей полностью поглощены думами о тоннах нефти и кубометрах газа, о суммах экспортной выручки и инвестициях. Но почему одно должно заменять другое? Почему сегодняшнее, сиюминутное полностью вышибло из сознания власти предержащих заботы о вечном, духовном и духоподъемном? История по всей строгости предъявит счет всем этим эффективным менеджерам типа Чубайса и Грефа, которые остановили духовное развитие страны, не сумев создать что-то привлекательное в новой посткоммунистической России – пусть на свой, радикально-либеральный манер. И намеренно импортировали к нам болезнетворные бациллы. Нет сомнений, что Россия, переболев этой заразой, вновь вернется к своему предназначению и удивит мир очередными духовными достижениями. Она уже начинает постепенно пробуждаться, становясь главным и привлекательным мировым центром православия и традиционного ислама. Но в целом наша эпоха войдет в отечественную историю как период бездуховности, что – нелишне повторить – неизбежно отразится на историческом образе ее сегодняшних государственных мужей. Теги:  духовные ценности, искусство, культура, идеология

09 февраля, 09:31

В Сальвадоре 27-летняя радиоведущая задержана за контрабанду наркотиков и связь с картелем "Синалоа"

Журналистка Клаудиа Памела Мартинес Посада задержана в результате расследования, проводившегося с конца 2015 года. По версии прокуратуры, девушка входила в группировку, которой руководил Монро Меоньо по кличке Призрак. Каждую неделю злоумышленники переправляли в Сальвадор около 500 кг кокаина.

09 февраля, 08:00

Украина отчитается в Комитете по положению женщин

В следующий вторник, 14 февраля, Украина представит в ООН свой восьмой доклад о выполнении Конвенции ООН о ликвидации дискриминации женщин. Вслед за Украиной члены одноименного Комитета рассмотрят отчеты Ирландии, Иордании, Сальвадора, Германии, Шри-Ланки, Руанды и Микронезии.

09 февраля, 05:55

Mexico, Central America to discuss migration under Trump: ambassador

MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - The foreign ministers of Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala will meet in Mexico next week to discuss immigration policy responses to Donald Trump's U.S. presidency, the Honduran ambassador to Mexico said on Wednesday.

Выбор редакции
09 февраля, 05:19

El Salvador arrests TV-radio host, 27 others in drugs case

Police on Wednesday arrested a TV and radio host and 27 other people accused of helping a Mexican drug cartel smuggle drugs through this Central American nation to the United States.

Выбор редакции
09 февраля, 01:29

Телезвезда из Сальвадора задержана по подозрению в контрабанде наркотиков

В рамках полицейского рейда в Сальвадоре была арестована известная в стране теле- и радиоведущая Памела Посадо, сообщает Би-би-си. Вместе с ней были задержаны ещё 25 человек, в основном рыбаки, которых подозревают в работе на наркокартель "Синалоа" и контрабанде кокаина из Эквадора в Центральную Америку и США. Женщину, в свою очередь, обвиняют в оказании помощи банде по отмыванию денег через две компании по продаже косметики. Посада отрицает вину и заявляет, что будет бороться за то, чтобы всё прояснилось.

26 января 2016, 09:11

Северный треугольник насилия в Центральной Америке

"Не ту страну назвали Гондурасом". Это, пожалуй, все, что рядовой россиянин знает про так называемый Северный треугольник, три страны в Центральной Америке, одно из наиболее опасных для жизни мест на планете.