An affordable price is probably the major benefit persuading people to buy drugs at www.americanbestpills.com. The cost of medications in Canadian drugstores is considerably lower than anywhere else simply because the medications here are oriented on international customers. In many cases, you will be able to cut your costs to a great extent and probably even save up a big fortune on your prescription drugs. What's more, pharmacies of Canada offer free-of-charge shipping, which is a convenient addition to all other benefits on offer. Cheap price is especially appealing to those users who are tight on a budget
Service Quality and Reputation Although some believe that buying online is buying a pig in the poke, it is not. Canadian online pharmacies are excellent sources of information and are open for discussions. There one can read tons of users' feedback, where they share their experience of using a particular pharmacy, say what they like or do not like about the drugs and/or service. Reputable online pharmacy canadianrxon.com take this feedback into consideration and rely on it as a kind of expert advice, which helps them constantly improve they service and ensure that their clients buy safe and effective drugs. Last, but not least is their striving to attract professional doctors. As a result, users can directly contact a qualified doctor and ask whatever questions they have about a particular drug. Most likely, a doctor will ask several questions about the condition, for which the drug is going to be used. Based on this information, he or she will advise to use or not to use this medication.

Facts on CARA and Pueblo Sin Fronteras

In Spring 2018, hundreds of migrants from Central America approached the U.S.-Mexico border seeking asylum in the United States and threatening to enter illegally if their request was denied. Pueblo Sin Fronteras organized the caravan in conjunction with the CARA Family Detention Pro Bono Project.[24] [25] The CARA coalition consists of the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, the American Immigration Council, the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services, and the American Immigration Lawyers Association, all groups advocating for legal status for illegal immigrants and expanded immigration overall.[26]  These organizations have been funded by a number of major left-of-center grantmaking foundations, including the Open Society Foundations, MacArthur Foundation, Ford Foundation, and Carnegie Corporation of New York. [27] The caravan eventually halted in Mexico City on April 4 instead of reaching the United States border.[28]

One year of CARA Pro Bono Project, thousands helped | CLINIC

In a press release released by Pueblo Sin Fronteras on March 23, 2018, the group “demand[ed]” the governments of Mexico and the United States “open the[ir] borders to us because we are as much citizens as the people of the counties where we are and/or travel.” Other demands were “that deportations, which destroy families, come to an end” and “that the U.S. government not end TPS [Temporary Protected Status] for those who need it.” [29] Temporary Protected Status is a status designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security which grants eligible foreign nationals protected status during “extraordinary and temporary conditions.”[30] The demands appear to violate U.S. law, which prohibits behavior by individuals that “encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States” illegally.[31]

Alex Mensing is an organizer and program coordinator for Pueblo Sin Fronteras and its affiliates. [34] Mensing has spent a significant amount of time with economic migrants in Central America and organizing illegal immigrant caravans to the United States.[35] According to a 2016 report by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), Mensing was a staffer for the CARA Family Detention Project, a coalition of left-of-center organizations providing legal aid and representation to illegal immigrants in the United States.[36]

Irineo Mujica, an Arizona-based activist holding dual United States and Mexican citizenship, is a caravan organizer for Pueblo Sin Fronteras.[37] In October 2018, he was arrested by Mexican officials in Ciudad Hidalgo, Mexico, for his involvement in a pro-illegal immigration protest.[38]

Rodrigo Abeja is an activist and organizer for Pueblo Sin Fronteras. He has been involved in at least two caravans from Central America to the U.S. and Mexico.[39] [40] Abeja was identified in a 2013 article by the news group Vice as a representative for the Popular Assembly of Migrant Families, an left-wing organization based in Mexico which organizes migrants to the United States.[41]

Citations found here.

Know the other operatives….

In 2015 the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, the American Immigration Council, the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services, and the American Immigration Lawyers Association, collectively known as CARA, joined forces in response to Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) significant expansion of its family detention capacity. The opening of the “South Texas Family Residential Center” in Dilley, Texas – with an initial capacity of 480 beds and the potential to hold 2,400 individuals – and the detention of families at the “Karnes Residential Center” in Karnes City – with a current capacity of 532 beds and plans to double the number – reflect the Obama Administration’s continuing commitment to the flawed deterrence policy it began in June 2014 with the opening of a temporary family detention center in Artesia, New Mexico.

In early 2016, the pro bono work at the South Texas Family Residential Center became known as the Dilley Pro Bono Project (DPBP). DPBP is a collaboration of the American Immigration Council and other partners. It operates a non-traditional pro bono model of legal services that directly represents detained mothers and children who are fleeing extreme violence in Central America and elsewhere and are seeking asylum in the United States. DPBP is an Immigration Justice Campaign local partner.

The detention of children and their mothers is not only inhumane, but incompatible with a fair legal process. The project builds on the volunteer’s collective experiences providing legal services, running a pro bono project for detained families, training lawyers and BIA accredited representatives, and leading advocacy and litigation efforts to challenge unlawful asylum, detention, and deportation policies.

The volunteers behind CARA are committed to ensuring that detained children and their mothers receive competent, pro bono representation, and developing aggressive, effective advocacy and litigation strategies to end the practice of family detention.

Background

In December 2014, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) significantly expanded its detention capacity for families (i.e., women with minor children) with the opening of the “South Texas Family Residential Center” in Dilley, Texas. Dilley is a small town located approximately one hour and fifteen minutes southwest of San Antonio. That privately owned detention facility will be the largest family detention center in the United States, with a current capacity of 480 beds and the potential to hold 2,400 individuals.

A few months earlier, ICE converted a detention center in Karnes City—one hour southeast of San Antonio—from an all-male facility into a detention center for children and mothers. Its current capacity is 532 beds, but the private company that owns the facility has already broken ground on a project to double that number.

When the government opened a similar facility in 2014 in Artesia, New Mexico, over 250 individuals, lawyers and non-lawyers alike, traveled there to fight for the rights of these families during the five–month period it was open (July through December 2014). In this new model, volunteers worked in weekly shifts to represent detainees, handing off the client matter to a new attorney each week. Much to everyone’s surprise, however, not only did the model work and grow, but pro bono attorneys continued to be drawn to it. This concept of what some called “lawyer camp” captured the hearts and minds of willing volunteers. Rather than just taking over a paper file handed to them, they were taking over the legal care of a human being desperately needing their help.

The volunteers at CARA are building on the success and volunteer enthusiasm of the Artesia Project. The dedication and sacrifice of the pro bono attorneys demonstrates how open individual attorneys are to this type of service. Primarily, these volunteers hailed from small and solo firms where every billable hour is precious. They left their practices for up to 14 days to head to Artesia to fight for their clients against the unjust machine of family detention. They left their families and purchased plane tickets, paid for rental cars, hotels and meals all on their own, a cost that ran over $1,500 per week, for the opportunity to be part of this amazing pro bono effort representing women and children in the New Mexico desert.

Currently the American Immigration Council, CLINIC, AILA and Texas Rio Grande Legal Aid are coordinating pro bono representation for women and children detained at Dilley. In 2017 alone, the Dilley Pro Bono Project represented more than 12,000 detained families, with a 98 percent success rate.

Since the opening of Karnes in August 2014, RAICES and a team of local and national pro bono attorneys, advocates, and faith-based community members have been representing the women and children at Karnes. In addition to providing significant legal representation and pro se assistance, the Karnes Pro Bono Project created a bond fund that has raised nearly $200,000 in donations to enable women and children to bond out of detention, has met released women and children at the local bus station to assist with transportation to final destinations throughout the United States, and has provided basic supplies (clothing, food, and hygiene products) to families for their journeys outside of Texas.

CLINIC is the supporting organization for the nation’s largest network of nonprofit immigration service providers. Among its activities, CLINIC’s attorneys conduct training and provide technical support on all of the immigration-related legal problems faced by low-income immigrants. The Training and Legal Support Section is staffed with eight attorneys who specialize in a range of subject areas, including asylum, the credible fear standard, Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS), release from detention, and other relief for those in removal proceedings. CLINIC has authored the seminal book in this area, Representing Clients in Immigration Court, published and sold by AILA. CLINIC staff played an important supportive role in responding to the need for representation of families detained in the Artesia facility. CLINIC staff collectively spent over two months at the facility last summer, immediately after it opened, interviewing clients, coordinating the work of volunteer attorneys, and reporting on conditions.

CLINIC has developed several immigration courses and integrated them into an online format. Last year, in response to the sudden need for representation for minors apprehended at the Mexican border, CLINIC developed and conducted a four-week course, “Representing Unaccompanied Children: What to Do and How to Do It,” and offered it free to over 400 attorneys and BIA-accredited staff. The course is now housed on CLINIC’s website and is available using recorded webinars as an “independent study” for those wanting to learn more about this subject area and improve their skills.


The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) is the national association of more than 14,000 attorneys and law professors who practice and teach immigration law. AILA member attorneys represent U.S. families seeking permanent residence for close family members, as well as U.S. businesses seeking talent from the global marketplace. AILA members also represent foreign students, entertainers, athletes, and asylum seekers, often on a pro bono basis. Founded in 1946, AILA is a nonpartisan, not-for-profit organization that provides continuing legal education, information, professional services, and expertise through its 39 chapters and over 50 national committees.

Ending family detention is a national priority of AILA. The CARA pro bono project is part of AILA’s work to end the inhumane treatment of children, women and men seeking asylum in the United States.


 

RAICES (Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services) was founded and incorporated in 1986 under the name of the Refugee Aid Project. During this time, Central Americans flooded into Texas after fleeing the civil wars and social upheavals of El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala and Nicaragua.

Several churches and religious orders answered the needs of the new arrivals by providing food, clothing, language classes, housing, medical and legal referrals. The agency provided a forum for San Antonians to meet the new arrivals and learn first hand about the situation in Central America. In 2008, RAICES enlarged its office in order to keep pace with its growing staff and programs. Located five minutes from the San Antonio Immigration Court and in the heart of the city’s historic Five Points neighborhood, RAICES continues to provide counsel and representation in a full range of defenses against deportation before the Immigration Court, as well as representation before United States Citizenship and Immigration Services in family-based immigration cases, visas and other affirmative applications.

In its third decade, RAICES has a dedicated team of attorneys, accredited representatives, and legal assistants, in addition to volunteers, student interns and partnering pro bono attorneys.

Since the opening of Karnes in August 2014, RAICES and a team of local and national pro bono attorneys, advocates, and faith-based community members have been representing the women and children at Karnes. In addition to providing significant legal representation and pro se assistance, the Karnes Pro Bono Project created a bond fund that has raised nearly $200,000 in donations to enable women and children to bond out of detention, has met released women and children at the local bus station to assist with transportation to final destinations throughout the United States, and has provided basic supplies (clothing, food, and hygiene products) to families for their journeys outside of Texas.


The American Immigration Council is a non-profit, non-partisan, organization based in Washington D.C. Our legal, education, policy and exchange programs work to strengthen America by honoring our immigrant history and shaping how Americans think and act towards immigration now and in the future.

The American Immigration Council exists to promote the prosperity and cultural richness of our diverse nation by educating citizens about the enduring contributions of America’s immigrants; standing up for sensible and humane immigration policies that reflect American values; insisting that our immigration laws be enacted and implemented in a way that honors fundamental constitutional and human rights; working tirelessly to achieve justice and fairness for immigrants under the law.

The Council’s motto is: Honoring our immigrant past; shaping our immigrant future.


 

The Innovation Law Lab is a Portland, Oregon-based non-profit that provides the technology and data management systems at CARA and offers a limited number of supplemental stipends for individuals traveling to Dilley through its Applied Scholars program. The Law Lab creates innovative strategies that advance the rights, protections, and modes of integration of immigrant communities in the United States by creating capacity within immigrant legal service providers, developing scholarship and research into emerging legal theories, and providing education about the law’s impact on immigrants in the United States.

400 Left the Caravan and Arrive in Tijuana

Defense Secretary Mattis will spend Wednesday visiting the border. Customs and Border Patrol said it will close lanes at the San Ysidron and Otay Mesa crossing to allow the Department of Defense to install barbed wire and position barricades and fencing in the Tijuana region of Baja, California.

The lead or first caravan is expected to arrive in an estimated two weeks with at least three other caravans are making progress heading north in Mexico. More details here.

Meanwhile, Ami Horowitz who is an onsite investigative journalist is traveling with and reporting on the real facts of the caravan. Horowitz has a vast resume of these kinds of investigations on his resume that include corruption at the United Nations and he also travel by boat with Syrian refugees arriving in Greece.

During this adventure by Ami Horowitz he found the following facts:

90-95% are males in the caravan.

There is a substantial logistical transportation operation aiding the migrants with trucks and buses.

Food, water, shelter, medicine, mobile hospitals, doctors and nurses are at each base camp along the way.

Mexican police are often found escorting the caravan.

Mexico is actively working with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees and with UNICEF per the UN contact named Maria Rudi.

It is admitted there are violent and gang member people within the caravan. It takes work to keep them separated from the other members of the caravan daily.

The largest support comes from Pueblo sin Fronteras. This organization has hundreds of volunteers traveling with the caravan as noted in the video. The volunteers hold countless learning sessions with the migrants to teach them about applying for asylum, what a refugees and what their rights are according to U.S. law. United Nations workers are also traveling with the caravan and they along with the Pueblo Sin Fronteras wear vests noting who they are and some also wear badges.

Pueblo sin Fronteras has been reaching out to immigrants and migrants for more than 15 years aiding them to the United States demanding their human rights.On their website they even have a graphic that reads Otay Mesa Detention Resistance for Los Angeles and San Diego.

The leader of Pueblo sin Fronteras is Irineo Mujico. From Phoenix, Mujico was arrested in southern Mexico in October in Cuidad Hidalgo. He was there not as a leader but more as a coordinator of humanitarian assistance. He has been released but he did forfeit documents under the demand of the Mexican police. Mujico is a dual citizen of the United States and Mexico.

Birthright v. Jurisdiction

Let’s begin with the 39th Congress shall we?

1865-1867, it was a time of reconstruction. For context, scan this summary of the activity of Congress.

On the matter of ratification of the 14th Amendment, a year long study was completed by a 15 member committee. Much of the debate was on citizenship for slaves. For reference, the Joint Resolution was H.R. 127.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of particular note is the text in the middle column under ‘Reconstruction’. This document is found in the Library of Congress. This matter has been debated often over many decades and there is no law defining natural born v. foreign ownership, loyalty or jurisdiction. Hence the reason the debate continues and proposed legislation in addition to President Trump considering an Executive Order. Frankly, the common existing definition on birthright gives an additional argument to chain migration, somewhat in reverse.

Here is a cogent presentation on the case against birthright.

Need more?

Claremont Senior Fellow Matthew Spalding

Spalding raised the question in “Should the Children of Illegal Aliens Be U.S. Citizens?” and his U.S. News & World Report op-ed: “14th Amendment Doesn’t Make Illegal Aliens’ Children Citizens

Others

Frequent Claremont Review of Books contributor and summer fellowship faculty member Richard Samuelson provides more historical and legal context in his essay for The Federalist: “Birthright for Whom?”

*** Is it okay that there are actually birthing hotels in California where Chinese woman take full advantage?Federal agents raided several maternity hotels in January of 2018 where these pregnant women paid between $40,000 to $80,000 to give birth in the United States. This has been the case for many years. There was/is a list of sites for birthing tourism for California.

Chinese birth tourism booms in Southern California - The ... Channel 5 News Birth tourism raid in Irvine Ca. - YouTube

How about pregnant Russian women making the long trip to Miami just to give birth? Birthing tourism is a thriving business for Russians in Miami. It is all for dual citizenship. If the mainstream media complains about President Trump authorizing an Executive Order, the text is most important. He cannot alter any Constitutional amendment but he can issue an order to stop birthing tourism. Even NBC News is quite aware of the issue.

“for a growing number of Russian women, the draw isn’t sunny beaches or pulsing nightclubs. It’s U.S. citizenship for their newborn children. In Moscow, it’s a status symbol to have a Miami-born baby, and social media is full of Russian women boasting of their little americantsy.”

*** If President Trump signs an Executive Order it will be legally challenged with a lawsuit before the end of the day. Perhaps this is a good thing to begin a final legal opinion on the matter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

European Courts Rule Against Thought and Free Speech

BERLIN (AP) — The European Court of Human Rights says an Austrian woman’s conviction for calling the prophet of Islam a paedophile didn’t breach her freedom of speech.

The Strasbourg-based ECHR ruled Thursday that Austrian courts had “carefully balanced her right to freedom of expression with the right of others to have their religious feelings protected.”

The woman in her late 40s, identified only as E.S., claimed during two public seminars in 2009 that the Prophet Muhammad’s marriage to a young girl was akin to “pedophilia.” A Vienna court convicted her in 2011 of disparaging religious doctrines, ordering her to pay a 480-euro ($547) fine, plus costs. The ruling was later upheld by an Austrian appeals court.

The ECHR said the Austrian court’s decision “served the legitimate aim of preserving religious peace.”

*** European Court of Human Rights Ruling: Free Speech Bows to ...

Free speech in Europe has stipulation according to the high court. It is important to know that the European Union rules over all laws and legal cases for each country in the European Union. Hence at least one reason for Brexit.

Isn’t speech a human right? Nope, not in Europe. Anyone remember the Magna Carta? You know the cornerstone of liberty in England. Seems it does not apply to any basis in Europe or England and it is being challenged all over here in the United States where the Magna Carta was the basis of the U.S. Bill of Rights.

1929 Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, of the US Supreme Court, outlines his belief in free speech: ‘The principle of free thought is not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought we hate.’

1948 The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is adopted virtually unanimously by the UN General Assembly. It urges member nations to promote human, civil, economic and social rights, including freedom of expression and religion.

With the horrific massacre at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh against Jews, blame is being pointed to President Trump causing the anger. But yet Louis Farrakhan attacks Jews all the time and then there is the pesky organization known as BDS, Boycott, Divest and Sanction has representation across U.S. college campuses and they too preach hate against Jews but that is okay? Huh?

Meanwhile, back to that European Court of Human Rights….check it out, but submit your complaint application first.

Proceedings before the Court

Proceedings before the Court are conducted primarily in writing; public hearings are rare.

There is no cost associated with submitting an application and the applicant may apply for legal aid to cover expenses that arise later in the proceeding.

While a lawyer is not necessary to lodge a complaint, applicants should have representation after the case is declared admissible, and must be represented by a lawyer in any hearing before the Court.

Applications to the ECtHR go through two phases: admissibility and merits. The specific nature of the case will dictate the speed and course of the proceedings. However, it may be months or years before an applicant receives a decision or judgment.

Admissibility

When the Court receives an application, the Court must determine if it meets all of the admissibility requirements. An admissibility decision may be made by a single judge, a three-judge committee, or a seven-judge chamber. To be declared admissible, an application must meet the following criteria:

  1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies
  2. Six-month application deadline (from the final domestic judicial decision)
  3. Complaint against a State party to the European Convention on Human Rights
  4. Applicant suffered a significant disadvantage

If an application fails to meet any of these requirements, it will be declared inadmissible and cannot proceed any further. There is no appeal from a decision of inadmissibility.

Applicants may use the ECHR’s Online Admissibility Checklist to determine if their complaint satisfies the requirements.  Additionally, the Court has created a short video on Admissibility Conditions.

Merits

If an application is not struck from the list or declared inadmissible at an earlier stage, it will be assigned to one of the ECtHR’s five sections and the State will be notified of the complaint. At this time, both parties will have the opportunity to submit observations to the Court. These observations may contain specific information requested by the Chamber or President of the Section, or any other material that the parties decide is relevant. The Chamber has the option to consider admissibility and merits separately or concurrently, but it must notify the parties if it plans to consider admissibility and merits together.

When a Chamber issues a judgment on the merits, there is a three-month period before the decision becomes final. During this period, either or both of the parties may request that the application be referred to the Grand Chamber. However, the Grand Chamber only hears a limited number of exceptional cases.

If the Court ultimately decides a case in favor of the applicant, it may award just satisfaction (monetary compensation for the damages suffered) and require the State to cover the cost of bringing the case. If the Court finds that there has been no violation, then the applicant is not liable for the State’s legal expenses.

The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe is responsible for enforcing the Court’s judgments. States are bound by the decisions of the Court and must execute them accordingly. Often this means amending legislation to ensure that the violation does not continue to occur. However, the Court does not have the authority to overrule a national decision or annul national laws.

Friendly Settlement

Prior to a decision on the merits, the Court will try to facilitate the arrangement of a friendly settlement.  If a friendly settlement cannot be reached, the Court will then deliver a judgment on the merits.  In instances where the Chamber hearing the case decides to issue an admissibility decision in conjunction with a judgment on the merits, the parties may include information about friendly settlements in the observation they submit to the Court.

Interim Measures

In exceptional cases, the Court may grant applicants “interim measures,” which are designed to protect the applicant from further harm while the case proceeds before the Court. Requests for interim measures are only granted when there is an imminent risk of irreparable harm such as death or torture. They are most often granted in extradition and deportation cases.

 

 

 

When Will the US Begin to Sanction China?

Last week, Defense Secretary Mattis said:

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis this week voiced new U.S. opposition to China’s continued militarization of islands in the South China Sea.

“We remain highly concerned with continued militarization of features in the South China Sea,” Mattis told reporters on Monday as he traveled to Vietnam.

Mattis also said China is using predatory economics to seek control over other nations.

The Chinese are engaged in a global infrastructure development plan called the Belt and Road Initiative that U.S. officials have said is being used by Beijing to expand influence and control abroad, and expand Chinese military bases around the world.

Mattis said the predatory economic policies include loans “where massive debt is piled on countries that fiscal analysis would say they are going to have difficulty, at best, repaying in the smaller countries.”

The defense secretary, echoing the new U.S. hardline policy toward China, said the United States is not seeking to “contain” China but wants more reciprocal relations.

USA: China's militarisation of the South China Sea ... In part from Newsweek:

“Beijing can now deploy military assets, including combat aircraft and mobile missile launchers to the Spratly Islands at any time,” said the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative (AMTI) on Monday in a report that included images of the three man-made islands—Fiery Cross reef, Subi, and Mischief. Its director Greg Poling told Voice of America that new antennas had been spotted on Subi and Fiery Cross, so he expected deployments there soon.

The Spratly Islands are around 500 miles from the coast of China, and Fiery Cross Reef about 740 miles from mainland China. It is approximately 170 miles off the coast of Vietnam. Why did China build these islands and how did they manage to make land out of sea?

***

But media is not paying attention.

It gets worse.

Researchers have mapped out a series of internet traffic hijacks and redirections that they say are part of large espionage and intellectual property theft effort by China.

China systematically hijacks internet traffic: researchers

The researchers, Chris Demchak of the United States Naval War College and Yuval Shavitt of the Tel Aviv University in Israel, say in their paper that state-owned China Telecom hijacked and diverted internet traffic going to or passing through the US and Canada to China on a regular basis.

Tel Aviv University researchers built a route tracing system that monitors BGP announcements  and which picks up on patterns suggesting accidental or deliberate hijacks and discovered multiple attacks by China Telecom over the past few years.

In 2016, China Telecom diverted traffic between Canada and Korean government networks to its PoP in Toronto. From there, traffic was forwarded to the China Telecom PoP on the US West Coast and sent to China, and finally delivered to Korea.

Normally, the traffic would take a shorter route, going between Canada, the US and directly to Korea. The traffic hijack lasted for six months, suggesting it was a deliberate attack, Demchak and Shavitt said.

Demchak and Shavitt detailed other traffic hijacks, including one that saw traffic from US locations to a large Anglo-American bank’s Milan headquarters being terminated in China, and never delivered to Italy, in 2016.

During 2017, traffic between Scandinavia and Japan, transiting the United States, was also captured by China Telecom, ditto data headed to a mail server operated by a large Thai financial company.

China Telecom is able to divert the traffic by announcing bogus routes via the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) that governs data flows between Autonomous Systems, the large networks operated by telcos, internet providers and corporations.

After the traffic was copied by China Telecom for encyption breaking and analysis, it was delivered to the intended networks with only small delays. Demchak and Shavitt said.

Such hijacking is difficult to detect as China Telecom has multiple points of presence (PoPs) in North America and Europe that are physically close to the attacked networks, causing almost unnoticeable traffic delivery delays despite the lengthened routes.

China in comparison does not allow overseas telcos to establish PoPs in the country, and has only three gateways into the country, in Beijing, Shanghai and Hong Kong. This isolation protects the country’s domestic and transit traffic from foreign hijacking.

BGP hijacking of internet traffic is a common phenomenon, one which requires the support of large network operators to exploit at scale.

While the US and China agreed in 2015 to not hack one another’s computer networks, the deal did not cover hijacking of internet backbones, Demchak and Shavitt pointed out.

The researchers suggest the allied democratic nations establish an “access reciprocity” policy for internet PoPs located in their countries, to address the traffic hijacking.

Under the access reciprocity policy US telcos and providers should be allowed to set up PoPs in China, Demchak and Shavitt said.

If access reciprocity is refused, “then an appropriate defence policy in response could state that no traffic to or from the US or ally is allowed to enter a China Telecom PoP in the US or in the ally’s networks,” the researchers suggested.

Such a policy could be inserted into BGP routing tables as required for automatic implementation.