Tuesday, April 29, 2025
Home Blog Page 19

Trump’s deportation plan brings fear and sadness at California’s border

President-elect’s border policies could hit trade, privacy, and Add New Postimmigrant families living in California

by Wendy Fry

California immigrant advocates and state officials are bracing for what they describe as the likely massive impact of a second Trump presidency on border policies — vowing to fight his plans in court even as they remain uncertain which will make it from the campaign trail to reality.

Trump has pledged to conduct the largest mass deportation campaign in U.S. history on Jan. 20 when he takes office; threatened to impose tariffs on Mexico if it doesn’t stop the northbound flow of migrants and fentanyl; and described plans to use the military as part of his crackdown, contemplating deploying the National Guard to aid in deportations if necessary.

“We’re going to have to seal up those borders, and we’re going to have to let people come into our country,” said the president-elect during his acceptance remarks Tuesday. “We want people to come back in, but we have to, we have to let them come back in, but they have to come in legally.”

Lee Gelernt, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union who argued challenges to immigration restrictions during Trump’s first term, said “Many of the policies Trump is advocating and promising, like use of the military, are illegal and we are prepared to challenge them.” An ACLU “roadmap” on Trump’s reelection described plans to push legislators to block deportations and make cuts to Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s detention operations. It also envisioned “a civil rights firewall” to protect immigrants and litigation against deportations.

Other organizations have promised to join the fight.

“We believe Trump when he promises to enact disastrous policies that aim to tear families apart, destabilize communities, and weaken our economy,” said Lindsay Toczylowski, CEO and president of Los Angeles-based Immigrant Defenders Law Center.

“But the U.S. Constitution didn’t disappear overnight. We will use all the tools we have to protect and defend the rights of all immigrants and asylum seekers,” she added.

Those planning to fight Trump’s border policy face the strategic challenge of not knowing if or when each of his myriad border-related proposals will be implemented or how feasible and legal they will turn out to be.

But immigrant advocates said the impact from his election will likely be massive. California is home to more immigrants than any other state in the nation,about 10.6 million people, as well as the most unauthorized immigrants, according to 2022 numbers compiled by the Pew Research Center. Immigrants make up more than a fourth of the state’s population, and nearly half of all children in California have at least one immigrant parent.

“If Donald Trump is successful with deportations, no state will be more impacted from a fiscal perspective, from an economic perspective,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said at a press briefing last week.

“We will use all the tools we have to protect and defend the rights of all immigrants and asylum seekers.”

State Attorney General Rob Bonta told CalMatters that his office is prepared to fight, spending the months leading up to the election developing legal strategies.

“The best way to protect California, its values, the rights of our people, is to be prepared so we won’t be flat-footed,” Bonta said days before the election. Bonta’s comments indicate that the state, which sued more than 100 times over Trump’s policies in his first term, will again be a thorn in the president’s side.

Those waiting in Tijuana to cross legally into the United States through CBP One, the federal government’s phone app, worried on Wednesday that their opportunity to seek asylum had already slipped away.

“Sadness,” is what Emir Mesa said she felt when she heard of Trump’s pending victory.  The 45-year-old mother and new grandmother from Michoacán said she fled her hometown because of extreme violence there.

“We do not want to enter as illegals,” she said. “That’s why we are here in Tijuana waiting to enter properly, not to be smuggled.” She held her 15-day-old grandchild as she described how her family has been waiting six months at the Movimiento Juventud 2000 migrant shelter, located a stone’s throw from the U.S.-Mexico border.

Trump has said he plans to discontinue the Biden administration’s use of CBP One, through which migrants can apply for asylum in the U.S. But it remains unclear what will happen to people who have already spent months in Mexico on the waiting list for their initial asylum screening appointment.

Impact on U.S. citizens

Trump’s border policies may also have significant impacts on all Californians by disrupting trade and expanding surveillance.

His administration would have to extend the border surveillance apparatus already in place to carry out deportations on the scale he has planned, experts said. Federal authorities have used everything from camera towers to drones to ground sensors and thermal imaging to detect migrants in recent years.

“Given the indiscriminate nature of mass surveillance, it is possible that U.S. citizens and others permanently in the country will also be caught in its web,” said Petra Molnar, a Harvard faculty associate, lawyer and author of the book “The Walls Have Eyes: Surviving Migration in the Age of Artificial Intelligence.”

Trump’s plans for the border also seem poised to reverberate across regional economies and in Mexico.

On Monday, Trump said he plans to impose tariffs on Mexico if the country doesn’t stop the northbound flow of migrants and fentanyl. Local business leaders scoffed as they recalled the damage to the border region’s economy during Trump’s first term. The peso slumped to a two-year low.

“It’s important to remember that we aren’t just trading with Mexico, we’re producing together,” said San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce CEO Jerry Sanders, a Republican and former mayor of the border city.  “At the end of the day, this would be a tax on U.S. customers and would likely set off a domino effect of other countries imposing retaliatory measures to protect their own interests.”

A massive deportation campaign clearly would impact California’s economy.

Over half of all California workers are immigrants or children of immigrants, and collectively, the state’s undocumented residents paid nearly $8.5 billion in taxes in 2022, playing a key role in stimulating the state’s economy, according to the California Budget & Policy Center and data estimates from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. CalMatters.

spot_img

California voters get tough on crime, pass Prop. 36

Los votantes de California aprobaron la Proposición 36, una medida electoral que aumentará las sanciones penales para ciertos delitos relacionados con drogas y robo y dirigirá a más personas a tratamientos contra la drogadicción después de ser condenadas. -- California voters approved Proposition 36, a ballot measure that will increase criminal penalties for certain drug and theft offenses and direct more people to drug treatment after convictions.

Supporters of Prop. 36 say it would help the state address homelessness, drug addiction and retail theft. Its critics call it a return to the failed policies of the war on drugs

by Nigel Duara

CalMatters

California voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 36 on Tuesday, capping a chaotic 10 months of bargaining and wrangling at the state Capitol where Democratic leaders unsuccessfully sought to preserve a decade of criminal justice reform.

Instead, the campaign to increase penalties for theft and repeated convictions for drug possession looks to have won out.

Prop. 36, opposed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, reclassiffies some misdemeanor theft and drug crimes as felonies.

The measure also creates a new category of crime — a “treatment-mandated felony.” People who don’t contest criminal charges after multiple drug possession convictions could complete drug treatment instead of going to prison, but if they don’t finish treatment, they still face up to three years in prison.

Property crime spiked in California after the pandemic while the state, counties and local governments have struggled to contain and control sidewalk encampments of homeless people.

Prop. 36 was pitched by supporters as a solution to those problems Led by the retail industry, they pledged that the measure would target drug traffickers and people who commit multiple acts of retail theft.

They raised about $17 million for the measure, which in addition to big checks from major retailers also included contributions from the California District Attorneys Association and the California Correctional Peace Officers Association.

Opponents raised about $7.7 million, which included contributions from the ACLU, teachers unions and the labor organization Service Employees International Union.

Prop. 36 reverses some of the changes California voters made to the criminal justice system a decade ago with Proposition 47, which lowered the penalties for some crimes while seeking to reduce the state’s then-swollen prison population.

Polls leading up the election consistently showed a large majority of likely voters supported Prop. 36. Several Democratic big city mayors and district attorneys threw their support behind it, too, despite Newsom’s opposition.

“Tonight, California voters have spoken with a clear voice on the triple epidemics of retail theft, homelessness and fatal drug overdoses plaguing our state,” San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan said in a written statement. “In supporting Proposition 36, they said yes to treatment.  They said yes to accountability.  And they said yes to putting common sense before partisanship, so we can stop the suffering in our communities.

What led to Prop. 36?

Since California voters passed Prop. 47 in 2014, prosecutors, police and big box retailers have blamed the law for an increase in property crimes and homelessness. Prop. 36 is their attempt to unwind some elements of the previous initiative.

During the pandemic, the rate of shoplifting and commercial burglaries skyrocketed, especially in Los Angeles, Alameda, San Mateo and Sacramento counties. Statewide, the Public Policy Institute of California found that reported shoplifting of merchandise worth up to $950 soared 28 percent over the past five years. That’s the highest observed level since 2000.

Combining shoplifting with commercial burglaries, the institute’s researchers found that total reported thefts were 18 percent higher than in 2019.

Another facet of pandemic-era shoplifting were viral videos of mobs of people rushing into stores and grabbing whatever they could before fleeing. Prop. 36 allows felony sentences for theft to be extended by three years if three or more people commit the crime together.

What will California crime measure cost?

The Legislative Analyst’s Office forecasts that the measure will cost tens of millions to hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

Those costs are chiefly from placing a few thousand more people in prison and putting them in for longer terms. The rest of the costs to the state will be accrued in the court system, where felonies take longer to prosecute than misdemeanors, and where the county court systems will have to create new processes to handle the measure’s new category of crime, a treatment-mandated felony.

Some of those costs will also be borne by the county court systems themselves, which the Legislative Analyst’s Office predicts will amount to tens of millions each year.

Who supported Prop. 36?

Supporters pitched Prop. 36 as a way to combat homelessness, which is up by more than 50 percent since Prop. 47 passed. The reason, supporters say, is that drug dependence pushes people to the street, and increasing the penalties for drug possession is the only way to force people into treatment.

Supporters also say Prop. 36 is a good middle ground between California’s tough-on-crime days, which pushed prison capacity past its breaking point, and the last decade under Prop. 47, which they say created “loopholes in state law that criminals exploit to avoid accountability for fentanyl trafficking and repeat retail theft.”

Who opposed Prop. 36?

Opponents, including the governor and Democratic leadership, say that no studies on criminal justice or homelessness support the idea that harsher punishment — or the threat of harsher punishment — prevents crime or gets people off the street.

The measure’s opponents include the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, the Alliance for Safety and Justice and the California Democratic Party.

The measure’s opponents argued Prop. 36 marks a return to the war on drugs, which they said California voters rejected a decade ago with Prop. 47.

Newsom did not put any money into opposing the measure, but he has called attention to its potential to drive up spending on the justice system.

“It’s the prevailing wind, and I understand it. I just hope people take the time to understand what they’re supporting,” Newsom said in remarks to reporters last week. “It’s just drug policy reform. It’s unfunded and unfortunately, it may impact some existing drug treatment and mental health services.”

spot_img

Republicans win house, delivering Trump a trifecta

por Citizen Frank

Se proyecta que los republicanos mantendrán el control de la Cámara de Representantes, otorgando al partido el control total de Washington con el presidente electo Trump de regreso en la Casa Blanca en enero.

Decision Desk HQ proyectó que el Partido Republicano conservaría la Cámara al ganar su puesto número 218 el lunes, el número necesario para obtener una mayoría en la cámara baja.

El resultado es una gran victoria para el presidente de la Cámara, Mike Johnson (R-La.), quien ascendió rápidamente de la oscuridad para liderar no solo la agenda legislativa de los republicanos en la Cámara, sino también un rol significativo en su infraestructura de campaña.

Los republicanos lograron salvar a algunos de sus titulares más vulnerables, como los representantes Don Bacon (R-Neb.) y David Valadao (R-Calif.), mientras derrotaban a varios titulares demócratas en riesgo. El representante estatal Ryan Mackenzie (R-Pa.) desbancó a la representante Susan Wild (D-Pa.), mientras que el empresario Rob Bresnahan derrotó al representante Matt Cartwright (D-Pa.).

Esos resultados compensaron algunas de las pérdidas republicanas. Tres republicanos de primer mandato en Nueva York —los representantes Anthony D’Esposito, Marc Molinaro y Brandon Williams— perdieron sus campañas de reelección, al igual que la representante Lori Chavez-DeRemer (R-Ore.).

La distribución final de la Cámara es incierta, ya que aún se están contando los votos en varias contiendas en California. Pero se espera que los republicanos tengan otra mayoría estrecha al comenzar el nuevo Congreso.

Esos números exactos importarán mucho para el futuro político de Johnson, para las políticas que los republicanos podrán implementar y para el funcionamiento —o la falta de funcionamiento— de la cámara baja.

Trump mencionó al presidente de la Cámara en su discurso de victoria desde Palm Beach, Fla., en las primeras horas del miércoles: “Parece que también mantendremos el control de la Cámara de Representantes. Y quiero agradecer a Mike Johnson. Creo que está haciendo un trabajo estupendo”.

El líder de la mayoría de la Cámara, Steve Scalise (R-La.), y la presidenta del Partido Republicano en la Cámara, Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), también se unieron a Trump en Mar-a-Lago para celebrar su victoria, en una muestra del fuerte compromiso de los republicanos de la Cámara con el respaldo a la administración de Trump.

Los principales republicanos de la Cámara han estado trabajando con los senadores republicanos durante meses en planes legislativos que pueden enviar rápidamente a Trump en los primeros 100 días de control republicano total. Estos planes incluyen extender los recortes de impuestos aprobados en el primer mandato de Trump, aumentar el financiamiento del muro fronterizo, derogar iniciativas climáticas y promover la elección de escuelas.

Pero probablemente habrá muchos obstáculos para la ambiciosa agenda de los republicanos. Los últimos dos años de la histórica y reducida mayoría republicana en la Cámara estuvieron marcados por disputas internas que, en ocasiones, detuvieron la actividad legislativa. Ese caos fue encabezado por la destitución histórica del ex presidente de la Cámara, Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.).

La incertidumbre sobre el margen republicano también plantea preguntas inmediatas sobre el futuro de Johnson.

El presidente de la Cámara ha sido explícito sobre su intención de buscar nuevamente el puesto si los republicanos ganan el control unificado del gobierno. Sin embargo, ha enfrentado oposición de algunos conservadores de línea dura y ya sobrevivió a un intento de destitución a principios de este año, liderado por las representantes Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) y Thomas Massie (R-Ky.). Los demócratas de la Cámara ayudaron a detener ese intento.

Para mantener el puesto, Johnson necesitará asegurar una mayoría de votos en el piso de la Cámara cuando se reúna el 3 de enero de 2025, lo que requiere casi unánime apoyo republicano.

Johnson dijo en una entrevista con The Hill durante la campaña en octubre que tiene la intención de “tener el apoyo de mi partido para ser presidente” en el piso de la Cámara.

La victoria republicana también niega notablemente al líder de la minoría de la Cámara, Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), la oportunidad de convertirse en el primer presidente negro de la Cámara.

La batalla por la Cámara fue considerada casi tan cerrada como la contienda por la Casa Blanca, con distritos disputados de costa a costa, la mayoría de los cuales estaban en estados que no fueron competitivos en la elección presidencial. Los demócratas habrían necesitado una ganancia neta de al menos cuatro escaños para ganar el control de la Cámara y esperaban obtener un impulso de los votantes preocupados por la postura republicana sobre los derechos reproductivos.

En una entrevista el Día de las Elecciones, el presidente del Comité Nacional Republicano del Congreso (NRCC), Richard Hudson (R-N.C.) —quien busca otro mandato en el cargo— señaló varias áreas de enfoque del brazo de campaña de los republicanos de la Cámara que le dieron confianza sobre la elección.

Dividir el costo de los anuncios de televisión con los candidatos de una manera que les permitiera aprovechar las tarifas más bajas para candidatos permitió que cada dólar rindiera más, dijo Hudson. También señaló que el NRCC abrió más de 40 oficinas de campo, o “estaciones de batalla”.

“Siento que en los últimos ciclos, los partidos nacionales se han alejado del juego de campo, y nosotros hicimos una gran inversión en nuestro juego de campo esta vez”, dijo Hudson.

Es probable que el resultado electoral influya en las luchas legislativas que quedan en las últimas semanas del 118º Congreso. Los conservadores de línea dura estarán ansiosos por retrasar la consideración de propuestas imprescindibles hasta el nuevo año, cuando un Senado y una Casa Blanca republicanos podrían resultar en políticas más conservadoras y niveles de gasto más bajos.

La Cámara tendrá que actuar en varios temas en el período de sesiones salientes. El financiamiento gubernamental, por ejemplo, vence el 20 de diciembre.

“¿Podría el partido opositor plantear obstáculos a quienes tienen una trifecta?”

Sí. Incluso con una trifecta, el partido gobernante puede enfrentar obstáculos del partido opositor u otras fuentes. Estos son algunos desafíos comunes:

1 – Obstruccionismo en el Senado (Nivel Federal): A nivel federal, el Senado tiene una regla que requiere 60 votos para superar un obstruccionismo en la mayoría de las leyes. Si el partido mayoritario tiene menos de 60 bancas, el partido minoritario puede usar el obstruccionismo para bloquear o retrasar la legislación. Esto a menudo obliga a la mayoría a comprometerse o buscar apoyo del otro lado del espectro.

2 – Reglas de obstruccionismo a nivel estatal: Algunas legislaturas estatales tienen reglas similares al obstruccionismo federal, donde se requieren votos de supermayoría para aprobar ciertos tipos de leyes, especialmente sobre cuestiones presupuestarias o enmiendas constitucionales.

3 – Revisión judicial: Los tribunales, especialmente la Corte Suprema a nivel federal o los tribunales supremos estatales, pueden bloquear o anular leyes que consideren inconstitucionales. El poder judicial actúa como un control sobre los poderes legislativo y ejecutivo, lo que significa que las leyes aprobadas por un partido que posee la trifecta pueden ser impugnadas en los tribunales.

4 – Opinión pública y presión electoral: los partidos gobernantes a menudo enfrentan la presión de los votantes y los grupos de apoyo, lo que puede limitar la agresividad con la que aplican ciertas políticas. Las políticas impopulares pueden generar una reacción negativa en las próximas elecciones, lo que podría resultar en la pérdida de la trifecta.

5 – Moderados y facciones dentro del partido: incluso dentro de un mismo partido, puede haber divisiones ideológicas. Por ejemplo, los miembros moderados o conservadores de un partido pueden oponerse a las políticas favorecidas por su ala más progresista. Estos desacuerdos internos pueden dificultar la aprobación de leyes, especialmente cuando la trifecta está en manos de solo una pequeña mayoría.

6 – Aspectos específicos a nivel estatal: en algunos estados, otros funcionarios electos, como los fiscales generales o los interventores, pueden ser del partido de la oposición, lo que crea obstáculos para hacer cumplir o implementar políticas. Además, ciertas leyes estatales o requisitos constitucionales pueden exigir el apoyo bipartidista para ciertas acciones, como enmendar la constitución estatal o aprobar presupuestos.

En resumen, si bien una trifecta puede dar a un partido más control, diversos controles, reglas de procedimiento y dinámicas internas a menudo crean obstáculos importantes.

spot_img

Trump’s unstoppable impact: An unexpected victory that challenges the elites

Los líderes negros rezan una oración con el presidente Trump al final de una reunión en la Sala del Gabinete de la Casa Blanca en febrero. Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP -- Black leaders say a prayer with President Trump as they end a meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House in February. Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP
Marvin Ramírez, editor

Donald Trump’s victory in the November 5 elections was a surprise to many, particularly to the left and the Democratic Party, who expected a sure victory due to the strong donations and confidence in Kamala Harris’ campaign. However, the final result made it clear that popular support, especially from various ethnic communities and the working class, was key to the outcome.

Latinos, African Americans, Asians, Arabs and other communities did not hesitate to express their support for Trump, challenging the media narrative and the stigma created by the campaigns against him. Despite legal accusations and attempts to delegitimize him, the former president managed to connect with a broad spectrum of voters, demonstrating that his support base remains intact. Disinformation strategies, such as trials and the accusation of collusion with Russia, did not succeed in weakening him. On the contrary, his image was strengthened. Trump, known for his resilience, once again proved that he is capable of overcoming any obstacle. In the face of political attacks and media campaigns, his image was further consolidated, reflecting not only his popularity in traditional sectors, but also the rejection of a political elite disconnected from the real needs of the population. This triumph makes it clear that politics does not always follow expectations, and that the popular will can prevail over the narratives imposed by the media.

The attempts of traditional media to shape public perception fell into ridicule. Polls and disinformation campaigns failed to destroy Trump, who had already been immunized against criticism. As the media insisted that Kamala Harris would win, Trump’s supporters stood firm, trusting in his consistency and courage. For many, Trump represents the last hope of reversing what they consider the decline of the United States as a world power and restoring the American dream.

However, the challenge now will be how to handle the future of the undocumented population. Despite his victory, concerns remain about the fate of undocumented workers and their families, who live in fear of being deported. Trump will have the opportunity to show whether, despite his strict immigration policies, he can be a fair leader and protector of those who honestly contribute to the country’s economy.

spot_img

Events immersed in the Latin culture in San Francisco, ENJOY!

“Ragnar Kjartansson: The Visitors”

by the El Reportero‘s staff

In November 2024, San Francisco offers a variety of Latin music events and art exhibitions that reflect the city’s rich cultural diversity. Below are some of the featured events:

Latin Music Events:

  1. Salsa Concert with Maelo Ruíz

– Date: Saturday, Nove. 16, 2024, at 9:00 PM

– Location: Roccapulco, 3140 17th St, San Francisco, CA 94110

– Description: Renowned salsa artist Maelo Ruíz will perform live, offering a night full of Caribbean rhythms and romantic melodies.

– Tickets: Available on Eventbrite

  1. Latin Sundays at The Music City Underground

– Date: Sunday, Nov.10, 2024, at 7:00 PM

– Location: The Music City Underground, 1355 Bush St, San Francisco, CA 94109

– Description: Enjoy a night of live Latin music with bands and DJ sets, creating a festive and vibrant atmosphere.

– Tickets: Details on Eventbrite

  1. Salsa and Bachata Night at The Valencia Room

– Date: Thursday, Nov. 7, 2024, at 10:00 PM

– Location: The Valencia Room, 647 Valencia St, San Francisco, CA 94110

– Description: Dance to salsa and bachata at one of the most popular clubs in the city.

– Tickets: Information on Eventbrite

Art Exhibitions:

  1. “Glow: Discover the Art of Light”

– Dates: Nov. 21, 2024 – Jan. 26, 2025

– Location: Exploratorium, Pier 15, Embarcadero at Green St, San Francisco, CA 94111

– Description: Annual exhibition that illuminates Pier 15 with stunning light sculptures, featuring new and luminous seasonal artworks that dazzle and surprise.

  1. “Mary Cassatt at Work”

– Dates: Oct. 5, 2024 – Jan.26, 2025

– Location: Legion of Honor, 100 34th Ave, San Francisco, CA 94121

– Description: Exhibition that explores the life and work of Mary Cassatt, one of the most influential artists of French Impressionism.

  1. “Ragnar Kjartansson: The Visitors”

– Dates: Nov. 5, 2022 – Jan. 26, 2025

– Location: San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (SFMOMA), 151 3rd St, San Francisco, CA 94103

– Description: Installation featuring a series of videos and a live musical composition, offering an immersive and emotional experience.

  1. “American Beauty: The Osher Collection of American Art”

– Dates: Through Oct. 13, 2024

– Location: de Young Museum, 50 Hagiwara Tea Garden Dr, San Francisco, CA 94122

– Description: Exhibition featuring a collection of charming impressionist and realist artworks from the 19th and 20th centuries, highlighting the influence of these paintings on American culture.

These events offer an excellent opportunity to enjoy Latin music and explore diverse artistic expressions in San Francisco during the month of November 2024.

spot_img

The Polyforum Siqueiros: the “largest mural in the world”

The Polyforum Siqueiros is an urban and artistic icon of Mexico City. It is today, the largest mural in the world. Let’s find out more about its history

via El Reportero‘s wire services

Via Mexico Desconocido

The journey of Mexican muralism was quite long. Much of this was thanks to the long life and work of David Alfaro Siqueiros, who led the movement until the seventies. His last work, which many consider his crowning achievement, is the Polyforum Siqueiros. This complex is a true urban and artistic symbol of Mexico City. Today, it contains a rich history that vehemently expresses the avant-garde intention of an era in the history of art in Mexico.

The background of the Polyforum

The Polyforum Siqueiros project was conceived in the sixties. It all began when businessman Manuel Suárez contacted David Alfaro Siqueiros to ask him to make 18 large mural panels that would be called The Industry and The Countryside. These paintings would be part of the decoration of a convention hall that was being built next to the Casino de la Selva hotel in Morelia, Michoacán.

However, in 1965, the businessman informed the muralist that the location of the work was going to change. This time he asked him to make the largest mural in the world. Siqueiros, surprised, accepted and began to make a work of 2,400 square meters, to which he dedicated himself full time.

The Polyforum Siqueiros

The creation of the Polyforum was a broad and collective work. For this, a large team of workers was required. There were architects, engineers, painters, sculptors and acoustic experts. Many were from different parts of the world. The undertaking was so large that Siqueiros had to buy additional land next to his home and studio in Cuernavaca, Morelos (known today as La Tallera) so that his team could complete the project.

Originally, this facility was to be part of the Urban, Civic, Tourist, Commercial and Cultural Complex Mexico 2000. The project was to be completed for the 1968 Olympic Games; however, due to political and financial complications, the work consumed large amounts of money. Manuel Suárez’s eagerness to carry out the project with his own resources, without financial help from anyone, meant that the work progressed very slowly. Despite the difficulties, construction continued. On June 15, 1971, the hotel was not inaugurated, but the Polyforum Cultural Siqueiros was.

The building is located on the southern section of Avenida Insurgentes, between the Nápoles and Del Valle neighborhoods. It is next to the World Trade Center. Its facilities include the mural The March of Humanity, which covers all the walls and the ceiling of the Universal Forum. The building also has the Polyforum Theater, where there are art exhibitions and various events.

The March of Humanity

The main component of the Siqueiros Polyforum is undoubtedly the enormous mural The March of Humanity. This has a mixture of pictorial styles such as realism, expressionism and abstractionism. Due to its size, it had to be divided into four parts, which have different thematic axes that govern them: “The March of Humanity towards the Revolution of the Future”, “Peace, Culture, and Harmony”; “Science and Technology”, and finally “The March of Humanity towards the Bourgeois Democratic Revolution”.

Despite having divided it, Siqueiros did not lose the central theme of his great work, which was the struggle of all the oppressed peoples of the Earth. To the south of the mural, groups of people can be seen moving forward in the hope of a better future; to the east, a woman’s hands can be seen guiding the palms of a man. And that’s not all, as the Mexican painter placed three elements that function as symbols: an eagle, a star and a spaceship. All three represent the strength that exists in the union of man and woman, who, empowered by technology and nature, seek to live in a better world.

spot_img

Federal judge blocks Biden’s immigrant spouse legalization plan

by the El Reportero‘s wire services

A Texas federal judge on Thursday struck down the Harris-Biden administration’s plan to fast track permanent residency for illegal migrants married to American citizens.

US District Judge J. Campbell Barker’s ruling comes two months after he issued an order temporarily pausing the administration’s so-called “Parole in Place” program, which sought to grant work authorization, permanent residency and eventually citizenship to spouses and stepchildren of US citizens who have been in the country for at least 10 years.

“The Rule exceeds statutory authority and is not in accordance with law,” Barker wrote in his 74-page ruling, adding that the policy “focuses on the wrong thing in identifying ‘significant public benefits’ — the benefits of aliens’ new legal status, rather than their presence in this country.”

The judge, an appointee of President-elect Donald Trump, found that “history and purpose confirm that defendants’ view stretches legal interpretation past its breaking point.”

The ruling follows a lawsuit filed by 16 Republican-led states in August arguing that the program “incentivizes illegal immigration and will irreparably harm” the states.

The lawsuit further contended that the “Biden-Harris Administration — dissatisfied with the system Congress created, and for blatant political purposes — has yet again attempted to create its own immigration system.”

President Biden announced the Parole in Place program in June, as part of a sweeping set of executive actions on immigration that came in the wake of a historic surge of migrants illegally entering the country throughout his first term.

It was expected that about 500,000 spouses of US citizens, and 50,000 non-citizen children, would benefit from the program, which has now been deemed illegal.

Without Parole in Place, non-citizen spouses will likely need to spend a years-long wait outside of the US before qualifying for the same benefits.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and numerous other Republican lawmakers described Biden’s plan at the time as “amnesty to hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens.”

America First Legal Executive Director Gene Hamilton, who had been representing the coalition of states in their lawsuit, praised the attorneys general that “stood up” to the Harris-Biden administration.

“Since day one, the Biden-Harris Administration has dedicated itself to the decimation of our immigration system and the erasure of our borders,” Hamilton said in a statement.

“Time and again, the States stood up. And today, the great State of Texas and the courageous Ken Paxton, alongside a coalition of other brave Attorneys General, succeeded in stopping an illegal program that would have provided amnesty to hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens and paved the path for the largest administrative amnesty in American history.”

spot_img

How the Trump-RFK Jr. coalition could realign US politics against Big Pharma and Big Food

El candidato presidencial republicano y expresidente estadounidense Donald Trump da la bienvenida a Robert F. Kennedy Jr. al escenario en un mitin de campaña de Turning Point Action en el Gas South Arena el 23 de octubre de 2024 en Duluth, Georgia. Foto de Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images -- Republican presidential nominee, former U.S. President Donald Trump welcomes Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to the stage at a Turning Point Action campaign rally at the Gas South Arena on October 23, 2024, in Duluth, GeorgiaPhoto by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

NOTE FROM THE EDITOR:

The content of this article is solely the opinion of its author and does not reflect the view and opinion of El Reportero or the editor. It is published for entertainment and to share different ideas and opinions.

_______________________

If the unlikely coalition of Donald Trump and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. outlives the 2024 presidential election, it could reorder our political categories and leave to our children and grandchildren a quite different future

by Jay Richards

When Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. endorsed Donald Trump on Aug. 23, the corporate press and conventional Washington, D.C., analysts mostly missed the real story: It was the moment that a disparate, diverse, and potentially disruptive throng of average Americans became a coalition.

Although RFK, Jr. is famous – or infamous, depending on your view – for his criticisms of vaccines, that wasn’t the theme of his lengthy speech. He spoke instead about an unholy alliance – a cartel – of industries, corporate media, government regulatory agencies, and even nonprofit “charities” that is making us fat and sick. This problem doesn’t fit the simple taxonomy of “public” and “private” or “left” and “right” that served us well during the Cold War.

Kennedy has been a voice in the wilderness warning about this cartel for years. Most Americans first became aware of it during the 2020 pandemic. Here’s the basic story: COVID-19 itself was likely the product of dangerous gain-of-function research conducted by the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China. That’s bad enough. But Communist China didn’t act alone. This work was funded, at least in part, by the U.S. government’s National Institutes of Health and laundered through the nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance.

Once the virus was out, the absurd and counterproductive lockdowns and hygiene theater were pushed by global entities such as the World Health Organization. Domestically, Francis Collins, then-head of the NIH, and Anthony Fauci, then-head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, worked to undermine independent experts who criticized the federal bureaucrats’ favored policies.

Collins and Fauci even orchestrated the publication of a deceptive article in Nature that claimed the virus had a natural origin. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other federal entities, including the Biden White House, pressured social media platforms to censor even the best-credentialed dissenters.

Attentive Americans soon learned that public health, as a field, focuses on nudging whole populations, rather than seeking the health of individual patients.

Certain pharmaceutical companies – which pay royalties to many NIH staff, including Collins and Fauci – enjoyed a suspiciously fast and less than rigorous approval process for their mRNA “vaccines.” Vaccine mandates then created a massive artificial market for the drugs. And drug companies’ immunity from legal liability allowed them to enjoy the financial benefits of these policies without facing the downside risks from any long-term harm to those who took the vaccines.

Then, during the lockdowns, the growing awareness of the “gender-industrial complex” – media, medical professionals, pharmaceutical companies, politicians, and others who push ghoulish “gender-affirming” interventions on people distressed about their sexed bodies – further reinforced the lack of credibility of private and public health authorities.

An American epidemic of chronic diseases

For some, much of this may now seem obvious. What may be less obvious is that blame for the massive spike in many chronic “diseases of civilization” should go to the same cartel. It involves Big Government, Big Food, Big Pharma, Big Media that rely on pharmaceutical industry ad dollars, and medical lobbying outfits such as the American Academy of Pediatrics pretending to be sound science crusaders.

In his speech, Kennedy devoted many paragraphs to the “chronic disease epidemic” – including ever higher rates, even among children, of Type II diabetes and obesity, and of Alzheimer’s, which some now refer to as “Type III diabetes.” He spoke of “the insidious corruption at the FDA and the NIH, the HHS and the USDA that has caused the epidemic,” referring to the Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, along with the NIH.

But he didn’t stop there. He spoke of “an explosion of neurological illnesses that I never saw as a kid,” including:

ADD, ADHD, speech delay, language delay, Tourette’s Syndrome, narcolepsy, ASD, Asperger’s, autism. In the year 2000, the Autism rate was one in 1500. Now, autism rates in kids are one in 36, according to CDC; nationally, nobody’s talking about this.

He also spoke of the massive spikes in the use of antidepressants and anti-anxiety drugs. Of course, first ladies and surgeons general have launched “healthy lifestyle” campaigns, but these always parrot the conventional wisdom of the cartel. In contrast, Kennedy blamed the cartel itself, not a gluttonous public, for the chronic disease crisis. It was this cartel that gave us the war on healthy dietary fats and the ridiculous food pyramid – heavy on unhealthy ultrarefined carbohydrates and light on fat – which helped make Americans far fatter and sicker than we were before.

His speech hit a nerve, especially among parents who recognize this problem but lack a credible and effective way to fight it. They may engage in private acts of defiance – refusing the COVID-19 or Hepatitis B vaccines for their young children, or disregarding USDA warnings about the consumption of animal fat. So far, however, neither political party has taken up this topic. The Left has tended to give the administrative state the benefit of the doubt. The Right has tended to do the same for corporations.

Trump has promised that, if he wins the election, Kennedy will have a leading role in fighting America’s health crisis. That will mean taking on the cartel. But the devil is in the details. A sustained effort to “make America healthy again,” or MAHA – to complement MAGA – must be free of government interests on the one hand and industry funding and lobbyists on the other.

Maybe that’s impossible, but Kennedy as MAHA czar could mean a serious exploration of the role the cartel has played in the following:

  • Restricting medical freedom
  • The origin of the COVID-19 virus
  • The effects of the pandemic lockdowns
  • The lack of safety and effectiveness of mRNA vaccines
  • The rise in childhood and adult obesity
  • The rise in childhood and adult Type II diabetes
  • The rise in Alzheimer’s
  • The rise in allergies, food sensitivities, and asthma
  • Rising rates of depression and anxiety disorders
  • Rising rates of neurological disorders such as autism
  • The explosion of cases of childhood gender dysphoria
  • The collusion between the World Professional Association of Transgender Health and HHS officials such as transgender activist and Assistant Secretary for Health Rachel Levine
  • The political agenda of transnational public health bureaucracies such as  the World Health Organization
  • The medicalization of the treatment for gender dysphoria with “gender-affirming care” (rather than taking a mental health approach)
  • The capitulation of NIH, CDC, FDA, and HHS to gender ideology over sound science
  • The lack of value and safety of the ever-growing childhood vaccine schedule
  • The medical focus on symptoms rather than underlying causes and cures of diseases
  • The artificial restriction of medical and therapeutic credentialing of professionals to control supply and competition
  • The decline in average testosterone in males
  • The rise in infertility
  • The rise in opioid addiction and overdose deaths
  • Unethical research sponsored by the NIH
  • The incompetence of the USDAin dispensing nutrition advice
  • The effect of agricultural subsidies on our health
  • Environmentalist dogmas masquerading as health and nutrition advice

If Trump appoints Kennedy as the MAHA czar, it would be akin to his COVID-19 Operation Warp Speed during his first administration but without the industry taint.

Of course, that appointment could come to nothing – except that there is already a coalition forming of millions of parents across, and even orthogonal to, the political spectrum, who – as Kennedy has put it – love their children more than they hate each other. It would take both the political will in Washington and a popular constituency of average Americans to fight the biomedical security state and the cartel that fuels it.

We’re getting a glimpse of this motley resistance in the unlikely unity ticket of Trump and Kennedy and the many strange bedfellows supporting them. If this coalition outlives the 2024 presidential election, it could reorder our political categories and leave to our children and grandchildren a quite different future.

spot_img

Donald Trump elected president in decisive win over Kamala Harris

by the El Reportero‘s staff

Trump was declared the winner of the 2024 presidential election after picking up the swing states of Pennsylvania and Wisconsin

epublican former President Donald Trump has won this year’s election to become the 47th president of the United States, defeating Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris.

Fox News called the 2024 presidential race for Trump around 1:50 a.m. EST on Wednesday after declaring him the winner of swing states Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. The Associated Press has since called the election for Trump.

Republicans are also projected to win control of the Senate with at least 51 seats, though control of the House is not known yet.

Trump, the populist celebrity businessman who won one of the most stunning political upsets in 2016 but was ousted in 2020’s intensely disputed election, easily claimed the party’s 2024 presidential nomination, thanks in large part to sympathy generated by Democrat-led prosecution efforts against him in multiple jurisdictions.

While his leftward moves on abortion anguished pro-lifers and conservatives and led some to abstain from voting for him, most ultimately remained in his camp due to the left-wing, pro-abortion radicalism of the alternative, first President Joe Biden and then Harris, following her replacement of the 81-year-old incumbent as the party nominee after a disastrous televised debate highlighted his severely diminished physical and mental stamina.

Harris, a former U.S. senator from California who was ranked the most liberal member of the Senate and had a 100 percent pro-abortion voting record, made abortion the centerpiece of her campaign and pledged to sign a federal law that would legalize virtually unrestricted abortion in all 50 states. She also ran as a militant supporter of all aspects of the LGBT movement, including “gender transitions” for minors, taxpayer funding for transgender surgeries, drag queens, and LGBT indoctrination of children in schools, and vowed to sign the pro-LGBT “Equality Act” if elected.

Despite being Biden’s default successor as his second-in-command, Harris had long been beleaguered by discontent with her own job performance, ability to connect with non-liberal voters, and doubts as to whether she would fare any better against Trump.

Still, she quickly overtook Trump in polls of the national popular vote, although the race remained extremely close up to the end in the swing states that would determine the actual Electoral College outcome. In the campaign’s closing days, the national polls tightened to the point that Trump retook the lead, with many predicting a Trump win due to Trump resonating with voters’ preeminent concerns about the economy and immigration. Harris was largely unsuccessful at distancing herself from Biden’s record on both, in favor of a heavy focus on turning out pro-abortion voters.

For more moderate and independent voters, Harris paired her agenda with a message framing herself as more sensitive to working-class families and a more “normal, dignified” respite from Trump’s style, even though, in reality, Democrats themselves are no strangers to inflammatory rhetoric about their political enemies, such as Biden’s recent declaration that Americans who vote for Trump are “garbage.”

Trump opposes underage “gender transitions,” LGBT ideology in schools, and allowing gender-confused males to compete in women’s sports and use female bathrooms but supports homosexual “marriage” and is close to some homosexual Republican activists and groups, like Ric Grenell and the Log Cabin Republicans. The former president has promised to criminalize “transitioning” minors without parental consent and ban federally funded healthcare providers from subjecting children to transgender drugs and surgeries, among other actions.

On abortion, Trump, who had a pro-life record as president, has said that he would not sign a federal abortion ban or prohibit abortion pills and has embraced in vitro fertilization (IVF) while upholding Dobbs v. Jackson, the Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade and once again allows states to ban abortion. In February, nearly 90,000 babies were estimated to have been saved so far due to the Dobbs ruling, though widespread mailing of abortion pills has undermined the effectiveness of state bans.

Trump appointed three Supreme Court justices who voted to reverse Roe v. Wade and is expected to have the opportunity to fill more Supreme Court seats, especially now that Republicans will control the Senate.

Trump has also pledged to support religious liberty, parental rights, and freedom of speech and vowed to defend homeschooling and end the Biden-Harris administration’s collusion with social media platforms to censor posts.

Harris, however, has a record of targeting Catholics, and as attorney general of California, prosecuted Catholic pro-life journalist David Daleiden after he released videos that showed Planned Parenthood executives discussing the sale of aborted baby body parts. As a member of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, she suggested that a judicial nominee should be disqualified due to his involvement in the Knights of Columbus, citing the Catholic organization’s opposition to abortion and homosexual “marriage.”

Under the Biden-Harris administration, the Department of Justice has selectively enforced the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act to target peaceful Catholic pro-life advocates like Mark Houck and Paulette Harlow, and the FBI was found to have surveilled churches that celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass.

Trump has slammed the administration for jailing pro-lifers and said that he would pardon them if re-elected.

The Biden-Harris administration has also sought to force hospitals and doctors to commit abortions and facilitate the surgical mutilation of gender-confused children, in a reversal of Trump administration policy.

Like Harris, her running mate, Tim Walz, had extreme pro-abortion and pro-LGBT stances. As governor of Minnesota, Walz signed a law that legalized abortion up to birth and repealed Minnesota’s parental notification requirement and ban on coerced abortion. He additionally signed an executive order and a law to protect “gender transitions” for children.

spot_img

Return of the Resistance State: What another Trump presidency will mean for California

Un solicitante de asilo de Brasil agarra agua y calcetines donados antes de cruzar a los EE. UU. desde México en San Diego. - A Brazilian asylum seeker grabs donated water and socks before crossing into the U.S. from Mexico in San Diego. Photo by Adrees Latif, Reuters.

Expect four more years of combative showdowns between California’s Democratic leadership and a second Trump White House

by Alexei Koseff

CalMatters

Former President Donald Trump won a second term after four years out of the White House, likely thrusting California back into leading the resistance against him.

The Associated Press made its call at 3 a.m., declaring that the Republican defeated Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris, who would have become the first woman president and the most powerful Californian in four decades.

Instead, Californians now face a repeat of Trump’s first term from 2017 to 2021 — another four years of governance consumed by combative showdowns between the state’s Democratic leadership and Washington, D.C., possibly distracting from or even setting back progress on addressing California’s own problems.

Though many were rooting for a Harris victory — which could have taken California’s priorities nationwide and brought additional resources home — state officials, industry leaders and activists prepared for this outcome. Trump, after all, routinely made California a punching bag in his campaign.

Across state government, officials have been gaming out a response to “Trump-proof” California. Gov. Gavin Newsom and his budget team are developing a proposal for a disaster relief fund after the former president repeatedly threatened to withhold emergency aid for wildfire recovery from California because of its water policy.

“The best way to protect California, its values, the rights of our people, is to be prepared, so we won’t be flat-footed,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta, whose team has been working with advocacy organizations and attorneys general in other states on how they would answer another Trump administration. “We will fight as we did in the past if that scenario unfolds.”

During Trump’s first term, California sued more than 100 times over his rules and regulatory rollbacks. Bonta said his team has preemptively written briefs and tested arguments to challenge many of the policies they expect the former president to pursue over the next four years: passing a national abortion ban and restricting access to abortion medication; revoking California’s waiver to regulate its own automobile tailpipe emissions and overruling its commitment to transition to zero-emission vehicles; ending protections for immigrants brought to the country illegally as children; undermining the state’s extensive gun control laws, including for assault weapons, 3D-printed firearms and ghost guns; implementing voter identification requirements; and attacking civil rights for transgender youth

“Unfortunately, it’s a long list,” Bonta told CalMatters days before the election. “We are and have been for months developing strategies for all of those things.”

California takes on Trump

In many ways, California is more protected from swings in federal regulations than other states, because it has a robust regulatory framework of its own that often goes much further than the federal government.

Lorena Gonzalez, president of the California Labor Federation, said unions see an ongoing challenge to the constitutionality of the National Labor Relations Board as a much bigger threat than any actions Trump might take. California law is already stronger than federal law on minimum wage, overtime pay and wage theft protections.

“He can’t do anything through the Department of Labor that would undo that,” she said.

But with Democrats in control of every state office and holding supermajorities in both chambers of the Legislature, Trump’s victory could completely upend policymaking in California.

During his first term, legislators focused on counteracting his federal agenda — though not always successfully. California’s governors in that period, Newsom and Jerry Brown, took executive actions to limit the fallout of his rollback of environmental regulations, including launching a pollution-tracking satellite and negotiating with auto companies to maintain higher mileage standards.

Newsom’s office declined to discuss the stakes of the presidential election — although at a press conference last week, he said “no state has more to lose or gain in this election” than California. Nor did representatives make Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire or Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, both Democrats who will shape the legislative agenda and state budget next year, available for interviews.

A return to open conflict is a worrisome prospect for the business community, which was often caught in the middle of federal and state rules during Trump’s first term — such as with a 2017 law that restricted employer participation in workplace immigration raids.

“Having the state react, it sort of puts things in limbo,” said Jennifer Barrera, president and CEO of the California Chamber of Commerce. “When the two aren’t aligned, it creates some problems for our members that operate on the national level.”

How far will California go?

As Democrats look to protect California’s liberal values, there is concern they will resist Trump’s plans by going further in the opposite direction, in potentially counterproductive ways.

Federal regulations make only a marginal difference in the cost of housing in California, according to Dan Dunmoyer, president and CEO of the California Building Industry Association, but he fears the state’s response could unintentionally undermine its efforts to boost construction. In 2019, as the Trump administration narrowed federal water protections, California adopted even more expansive state regulations that developers complained made it more complicated and costly to get building permits.

“The anti-Trump factor is real,” Dumoyer said. “I expect that if Trump says the sky is blue, they’ll say it’s black today.”

Divided partisan control could also further gridlock Congress, setting up the nation’s largest state as the battleground for major policy fights, especially in areas that are not of interest to Trump.

Adam Kovacevich, founder and CEO of Chamber of Progress, a left-leaning tech industry association, said advocacy groups seeking more oversight of the industry have been very active in Washington, D.C., for the past four years and enjoyed a lot of success with the Biden administration. Under Trump, they will turn to California to lead the way on regulating artificial intelligence and children on social media, as well as enforcing antitrust law.

“Congress is an environment of legislative scarcity,” he said. “California is an environment of legislative abundance.”

Trump is also viewed by the tech industry as a wild card who might punish major companies that he believes opposed him, Kovacevich said. Such a contentious relationship could hurt their profits — and then California’s tax revenue.

“It’s tech industry success that plays a huge role in funding the state’s social safety net,” he said.

Immigrant community on the defensive

With Trump’s campaign heavily emphasizing tougher enforcement of the U.S.-Mexico border and mass deportations, California’s large immigrant community — millions of whom are undocumented — has been plunged into an especially uncertain and terrifying moment.

As Newsom put it last week, “the impacts from valley to valley, Silicon Valley to Central Valley, will be outsized” — particularly if Trump also revives his push to limit legal immigration, including by refugees, foreign workers and international students.

The California Immigrant Policy Center, an immigrant rights advocacy group, has already led 15 scenario-planning exercises with hundreds of people from organizations across the state to prepare. “We know that the Trump administration is going to target California. They’ve been targeting California throughout this election cycle,” Masih Fouladi, executive director of the group, said. “We need to do a lot in California to make sure that we are defending, protecting our communities.”

Under Trump, Fouladi said, immigrant rights groups would lobby to make sure state and local resources are not used to detain and deport people and that non-citizen residents continue to have access to health care and other public services, which the state has significantly expanded over the past decade.

One likely priority is strengthening the California Values Act, the 2017 “sanctuary state” law that limited police cooperation with federal immigration authorities. After a contentious legislative battle, the version that passed was scaled back from what supporters originally envisioned, exempting people convicted of hundreds of more serious crimes from the protections and allowing state prison officials to continue handing over individuals facing deportation orders.

“What we hope for is to address the rights of the immigrant community in a humane way,” Fouladi said.

spot_img
1...181920...626Page 19 of 626

SELECTIONS

POPULAR TICKETS

POPULAR CATEGORY

ABOUT US

Welcome to our Marvin J. Ramirez website! We are an innovative newspaper located in the heart of San Francisco. With a relentless passion for telling powerful stories, we inform our community with truthful news, insightful analysis, and compelling reporting.

Contacto: lreportero@aol.com

FOLLOW US

© Copyright 2023. AMAYCOM.NET. All rights reserved.