Drug traffic route in the region
The porous 600-mile border between Guatemala and Mexico offers Central American immigrants a ready passage to “el norte“—the United States. It includes 63 uncontrolled transit points, 44 of which can be passed in a vehicle.
The same conditions attracting Central American immigrants also make the Guatemala-Mexico border region home to a thriving drug trade. Guatemala’s Prensa Libre, recently reported that Guatemala’s three departments (or states) bordering Mexico—San Marcos, Huehuetenango, and the Petén—have come under the direct control of violent drug cartels.
In San Marcos, a single drug lord, Juan Ortiz Chamalé, owns virtually all of the properties on the frontier. Huehuetenango is the site of an increasingly violent conflict between Mexican and Guatemalan drug lords. The latest incident there involved a wholesale massacre of 17 to 40 people (estimates vary) at a horserace organized by narcos. While in the Petén, drug mafias, supported by the police, have forced small and large landowners to sell their lands.
Violence, promoted by the drug trade, delinquency, and death squads has become a part of daily life in these Guatemalan departments. Bodies riddled with bullet holes regularly appear by the sides of roads, along riverbeds, and in open fields. Well-documented evidence demonstrates that police and military forces are directly engaged in this violence through their links to drug cartels, the maras (gangs), and death squads.
Undocumented Central American immigrants, fleeing the struggling economies of their respective countries, are often victimized by this violence. And their plight is about to get worse. The recently implemented U.S.-Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) will surely devastate what is left of rural livelihoods. And, what’s more, the conditions that make the Guatemala-Mexico border an immigrant corridor and a Mecca for drug trafficking also make it a central target of Plan Mexico, the U.S.-financed anti-drug militarization program, pushed through the U.S. Congress by President George Bush in June 2008.
Undocumented Central American immigrants, already subjected to subhuman conditions in their search for viable livelihoods, now face the oppressive confluence of these powerful transnational forces—the drug trade, militarization, and free trade.
Plan Mexico
The U.S.-backed Plan Mexico, known as the “Mérida Initiative” in policy circles, provides $1.6 billion of U.S. taxpayer money to Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean. The stated intention of the program involves “security aid to design and carry out counter-narcotics, counter-terrorism, and border security measures.”
U.S. Congressional leaders complained about the secrecy of negotiations for Plan Mexico and the absence of human rights guarantees, but they did nothing more than demand the paltry sum of $1 million in additional funding to support human rights groups in Mexico.
Researcher Laura Carlsen has noted that Plan Mexico is the “securitized” extension of trade agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement and CAFTA. Indeed, Plan Mexico is the successor project to the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), a post-9/11 initiative negotiated by the NAFTA countries. The State Department’s Thomas Shannon made the link between free trade and security explicit: “We have worked through the Security and Prosperity Partnership to improve our commercial and trading relationship, we have also worked to improve our security cooperation. To a certain extent, we’re armoring NAFTA.”
Evidently, neoconservative policy framers have purposefully coupled free trade and security. Free trade agreements promote the free circulation of goods, while prohibiting the same circulation by workers. Since neoliberal trade deals eliminate agricultural subsidies and open poor countries to a flood of cheap imported goods, economically displaced workers will naturally seek new sources of income—even if that means crossing borders.
Militarizing borders and identifying undocumented workers who cross them as criminals (“illegal”) are the logical—though sordid—next steps in anticipating and “guarding against” the effects of free trade. The militarization of borders has done nothing to stop immigration, which provides an essential labor force to the United States. But the criminalization of undocumented mobile immigrant workers has deprived them of basic rights of citizenship, thereby making them vulnerable to increasing levels of violence and human rights violations.
The U.S.-driven designation of “internal enemies”—in this case immigrants—as a rationale for building an already mushrooming security apparatus and militarizing societies is, of course, nothing new, especially in Latin America. What is new is that this militarization has become nearly void of any social content. Even during the Cold War, U.S. “national security” doctrines were generally accompanied by social programs, such as the Alliance for Progress and the Peace Corps, which in small measure alleviated poverty and explicitly recognized economic conditions as a root of “the problem.”
The end of the Cold War eliminated an even token emphasis on poverty and with it, all but the most minimal efforts to offer social assistance. The Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA) found that the Bush administration granted $874 million in military and police assistance to Latin America in 2004 an amount almost equal to the $946 million provided in economic and social programs. WOLA reported that with the exception of Colombia, military and police aid has historically been less than half of the total provided for economic and social aid. Moreover, military and police aid used to be directed by the U.S. State Department, assuring a degree of congressional oversight. Now, this aid is increasingly managed by the Department of Defense, thereby eliminating this oversight and effectively making militarization the predominant rationale of U.S. foreign policy.
Living on the Border
The situation of Central American immigrants on Mexico’s southern border illustrates the central problems and contradictions of Washington’s emphasis on free trade and militarization. And the situation is certain to get worse as thousands of immigrants are deported by the United States to their countries of origin in Central America.
Immigrants are fully aware of the risks they take, but economic conditions leave them few alternatives. With a look of desperation following a three-day journey from his home, one Honduran immigrant in the Mexican border town of Tapachula explained, “We don’t do this by choice. We don’t want to leave our families. But imagine a man looking at his children and seeing them hungry.” Back home, he faces wages averaging $6 per day in Honduras and a scarcity of opportunities.
When asked about the dangers they anticipate on their journey north, Central American immigrants offer a catalog of terrors: beatings, sexual assaults, robberies, kidnappings, and murders. Ademar Barilli, a Catholic priest and director of the Casa del Migrante in Guatemala’s border town of Tecún Umán, observed, “Immigrants almost expect that their rights will be violated in every sense because they are from another country and are undocumented.”
Heyman Vasquez, a Catholic priest who directs a shelter for migrants in the town of Arriaga in Chiapas, Mexico, maintains detailed records of the violations suffered by migrants passing through his shelter. In a five-month period in 2008, a third of the men and 40% of the women he serves reported assault or some other form of abuse in their 160-mile journey from the Mexico-Guatemala region to Arriaga.
Police are often the perpetrators of these violations. In Guatemala, Father Barilli and others described cases of police forcing Salvadoran and Honduran immigrants to disembark from buses, where they take their documents and demand money. Once they make it into Mexico, immigrants are subject to abuse by Los Zetas, a notorious drug-trafficking network composed of former law enforcement and military agents linked with the Gulf Cartel.
Los Zetas are known to work with Mexican police in the kidnapping of immigrants to demand money from their family members in the United States. Immigrants also report robberies, beatings, and rapes at the hands of Los Zetas. Recently, in Puebla, Mexico, 32 undocumented Central Americans were kidnapped and tortured by the Zetas with the support of municipal police. In this case, after the migrants escaped, local community members captured a number of the responsible police agents and held them until Federal authorities arrived.
A U.S. State Department report on human rights in Mexico from 2007 concluded, “Many police were involved in kidnapping, extortion, or providing protection for, or acting directly on behalf of organized crime and drug traffickers. Impunity was pervasive to an extent that victims often refused to file complaints.”
That impunity means abused migrants have few places to turn is painfully obvious to one Salvadoran immigrant in the Mexican border town of Tapachula. He had just been deported from the United States, where his wife, a legal resident, and two U.S.-born children live in Los Angeles. “The police are involved. You can’t file complaints,” he said. Besides, the wheels of Mexican justice turn notoriously slow—if at all.
Despite the dire scenario, it is not uncommon for many Central American immigrants to receive a helping hand along the way in their journey to El Norte, whether its food, water, money, or shelter. As one undocumented Honduran explained in Tapachula, “Almost everyone has someone in their family who has migrated. Most understand the need.”
“Security” and Violence
Security initiatives in Central America are notoriously violent and further militarize societies still recovering from decades of brutal civil wars. And, historically, when the Pentagon gets involved, repressive tactics increase.
The Bush administration’s principle security concerns in Central America of drug trafficking and “transnational gangs” have led to a series of “security cooperation” agreements. The first regional conference on “joint security” was chaired by El Salvador’s president, Tony Saca, who first introduced the “Mano Dura” (Iron Fist) initiative—a package of authoritarian militarized policing methods aimed at youth gangs adopted throughout the region. In attendance was then-U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, responsible for advocating torture of prisoners in Guantánamo.
The conference took place in El Salvador in February 2007 and resulted in the creation of a transnational anti-gang unit (TAG), which El Salvador’s justice and security minister, René Figueroa described as “an organized offensive at a regional level,” with the US State Department and the FBI coordinating with national police forces. Gonzales, promised Washington would finance a new program to train regional police forces and this promise has been fulfilled partially with the establishment of a highly controversial police-training academy in El Salvador, which is closed to public scrutiny and includes little support for human rights.
In many ways, Plan Mexico, is a mano dura campaign writ large. For 2008, Plan Mexico will provide $400 million to Mexico and $65 million to Central America. More than half of the total funds will go directly to providing police and military weapons and training, even though the police and military in these countries have been implicated in crime and human rights violations.
As Plan Mexico arms and trains military and police forces implicated in violent crime, it also provides millions of dollars for an immigration institute responsible for tightening Mexico’s southern borders through monitoring, bio-data collection, a Guatemalan guest-worker program, and border control.
Undocumented immigrants will be caught in the web of this violence, particularly since Plan Mexico also continues the trend toward the criminalization of migrants. As Laura Carlsen, observes, “By including ‘border security’ and explicitly targeting ‘flows of illicit goods and persons,’ the initiative equates migrant workers with illegal contraband and terrorist threats.”
The dehumanization of undocumented immigrants in the United States, and elsewhere, and the growing infringement of their basic rights should serve as a dire warning to all “citizens.” The undocumented are the canaries in the coalmine: the violation of their rights signals a growing repressive climate that jeopardizes everyone’s liberties.
Fire on the Border
Free trade agreements create the conditions that force people to migrate to the United States as an underpaid, politically disenfranchised, and therefore unprotected labor force. Now the economic crisis in the United States has increased pressure to expel undocumented workers, violating a host of human rights standards in the process. Deportations also increase labor pressure in immigrants’ countries of origin, where the global economic crisis stands to further decrease the already limited opportunities for work in “legitimate” industries.
From a purely humanitarian perspective, the governments of the United States, Mexico, and Central America need to address this crisis by developing policies that improve the conditions of poverty that cause immigration. Throwing guns at the problem will only make things worse.
Sure, drug lords are firmly entrenched in the Guatemala-Mexico border region. But Plan Mexico will no more eliminate their presence, than the Mano Dura campaigns eliminated the gangs. Or, for that matter, any more than the militarization of borders has eliminated immigration. Instead, Plan Mexico, like its predecessors, will increase the level of violence in the region by providing more weapons to corrupt police and military forces.
As more and more resources shift toward militarization, policing and surveillance, fewer resources are available for programs that ease pressure to emigrate—namely, education, jobs, medical care, food subsidies, housing, and legal recourse. Meanwhile, governments are increasingly ceding responsibility for protection of even narrowly defined human rights to under-funded non-governmental organizations.
Repressive immigration policies, narcotrafficking, and free trade all combined to form a combustible situation along the Mexico-Guatemala border. Plan Mexico is the spark, and once the flames start, no one will be able to put out the fire. And it’s the undocumented migrants who will continue to get burned.
Category Archives: Whistleblower
Obama/Kerry Cant Modify Iran, Cyber Army
Iran’s cyber army – the latest in a series of maleficence
TheHill: In July, when the P5+1 struck a nuclear deal with Iran dubbed as “historic,” administration officials spun it as a first step on a path toward improving Tehran’s behavior. That path hit yet another bump in recent weeks, when Iran launched nuclear-capable missiles in defiance of a United Nations Security Council resolution that endorsed the nuclear deal.
In a letter to the U.N., the U.S., France, Great Britain and Germany decried the missile tests. Secretary of State John Kerry speaking on a visit to Bahrain on April 7, 2016, condemned “the destabilising actions of Iran.”
Iran’s Minister of Defense Brig. Gen. Hossein Dehghan shot back: “If John Kerry actually thought about these subjects, he would no longer utter nonsense and foolish words.” The U.S., he said, should “leave the region and stop supporting terrorists.”
The Iranian regime, in contrast, clearly has no plans to curtail its regional meddling. According to reports from inside the Iranian regime, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has dispatched hordes of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), mercenary militias, as well as groups of regular army forces to Syria in anticipation of new attacks against the opposition and Free Syrian Army (FSA).
In a move unparalleled since the Iran-Iraq war, Khamenei has deployed his military on a large scale abroad.
The missile launches, coupled with the Iranian regime’s expanding role in wreaking havoc in Syria, naturally grabbed the headlines, overshadowing a no less disturbing report by the U.S. Justice Department that Iran was behind a series of cyber attacks against the U.S., targeting at least 46 companies and a dam by 2013. Now, new and stunning intelligence about the scope and depth of the Iranian regime’s investment in a cyber war against the U.S. are widening the anti-terror focus.
According to the U.S. indictment, between 2011 and 2013, hackers linked to the IRGC attacked U.S. financial institutions as well as a flood-control dam 25 miles north of New York City. Other targets included the New York Stock Exchange, Bank of America, and AT&T.
The hackers broke into the command and control system of the dam in 2013, according to Washington, and may have been able to release water from behind the dam if not for the fact that the sluice gate had been manually disconnected at the time of intrusion.
This is an unequivocal warning that the Iranian regime is preparing to mount a larger cyber attack against American infrastructure.
According to new reports from inside the Iranian regime, IRGC commander Mohammad-Ali Jafari has thrown his weight behind designating a “Cyber Force” to act as the IRGC’s “sixth force” – alongside its ground forces, navy, aerospace, extraterritorial Qods (Jerusalem) Force, and domestic Bassij militia.
The IRGC has been deeply involved in cyber warfare aimed at domestic suppression and supporting terrorists abroad since 2007. IRGC Brigadier General Hossein Hamedani (killed in late 2015 leading the charge in Syria) announced in 2010, “The Bassij cyber council has trained over 1,500 active ‘cyber jihadis,’” promising that their activities would increase in the near future.
When the IRGC’s Intelligence Organization was formed following the 2009 nationwide uprisings against the theocracy, the Cyber Army was placed under it. In November 2010, the Cyber Army claimed that it had hacked 500 sites simultaneously, while disrupting the intelligence networks and private websites of other counties.
Tehran has no intention of getting “right with the world,” as President Obama once suggested. The Iranian regime is committed to pursuing a strategic war against the U.S. and its allies. Any hopes of change in behavior are illusory at best.
Washington needs to develop a more comprehensive strategy to confront this threat before it’s too late. Since the regime’s cyber force, now targeting U.S. sites was formed to counter social protests and political activism inside Iran, America’s natural allies in this war are the Iranian people and the organized opposition.
Related: 2013: The Iranian Cyber Threat, Revisited
Statement before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security/Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection, and Security Technologies
******
In 2014: As international scrutiny remains focused on the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear program, a capability is developing in the shadows inside Iran that could pose an even greater threat to the United States. The 2010 National Security Strategy discusses Iran in the context of its nuclear program, support of terrorism, its influence in regional activities, and its internal problems. There was no mention of Iran’s cyber capability or of that ability to pose a threat to U.S. interests. This is understandable, considering Iran has not been a major concern in the cyber realm. Furthermore, Russia and China’s cyber activities have justifiably garnered a majority of attention and been widely reported in the media over the past decade. Iran’s cyber capabilities have been considered third-tier at best. That is rapidly changing. This report discusses the growing cyber capability of Iran and why it poses a new threat to U.S. national interests.
Iran in a Cyber Context.
Just as computing power grows exponentially each year, so can an adversary’s cyber capabilities. When one considers the origins of world-class cyber threats to the United States, two countries immediately come to mind—Russia and China. Yet with its growing cyber capabilities and intent to use them, Iran is rapidly striving to earn a position among the ranks of this nefariously elite group. For decades, the U.S. Government has publicly acknowledged concern over Iran’s efforts to develop a nuclear program to counter U.S. military capabilities. Recently, the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review stated that, “Over the past 5 years, a top Administration priority in the Middle East has been preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.”2 This focus on Iran’s nuclear ambitions has distracted many from Iran’s other developing capability. In the last few years, Iran’s cyber proficiency has garnered the attention of a select few government officials and private industry leaders. In late-2011, the executive chairman of Google stated, “The Iranians are unusually talented in cyber war for some reason we don’t fully understand.”3 Stopping a cyber adversary from disrupting activity or stealing intellectual property has been the primary concern of government and private sector organizations, but in the military and intelligence communities, there are other concerns about Iran. More here.
Obama Gives Qatar Top Grade, then Trump
Remember it was Qatar that was the designated headquarters for the Taliban, it was also Qatar that provided a ClubMed resort for the 5 former Gitmo detainees traded for Bowe Bergdahl.
Qatar also hosted the Muslim Brotherhood leadership until they quietly expelled but a few, but the faithfulness still remains.
So how could any businessman do business with Qatar with any conscience?
Obama Gives Qatar Undeserved A+ on Fighting Incitement
Hate Preachers on Qatar Campus: Obama Gives Qatar Undeserved A+ on Fighting Incitement
David Andrew Weinberg
“Kill the infidels… Count them in number and do not spare one.” Blatant religious incitement of this sort feels like such a caricature of radical Islam that it borders on the implausible. Yet it is happening right under the noses of six prestigious American universities on their satellite campuses in Qatar.
Although this incitement violates a prominent pledge by Qatar’s government to the U.S. administration, President Obama gave Qatar’s Emir Tamim a free pass on the issue after they met in Riyadh on Thursday. Their one-on-one meeting was on the sidelines of a U.S.-Gulf summit, following which the President signed onto a joint communique that said America “commended” the Gulf states for their efforts to combat terrorism. Among these, it praised “actions by Gulf partners to counter ISIL’s hateful ideology and message, and more broadly to counter violent extremism.”
Yet there can be no more pivotal component to the Islamic State’s hateful ideology than its call to murder infidels. Thus, even if President Obama has chosen to give the Qatari regime an undeserved A+ report card on combating religious incitement, legislators who represent these public and private American schools must urgently speak out. Similarly, conscientious students, faculty, and other community members at these schools should spread the word and stand up in opposition to this dangerous new development on campus.
These particular hateful remarks about killing infidels were delivered on March 18th by preacher Mudassir Ahmed at the main mosque in Education City – a project of the quasi-governmental Qatar Foundation. The sprawling Education City campus, located not far from downtown Doha, is also home to satellite programs for Virginia Commonwealth, Cornell, Georgetown, Northwestern, Carnegie Mellon, and Texas A&M Universities. Since the mosque was inaugurated last year, the Foundation has promoted a slew of appearances there by speakers with records of religious incitement.
The Foundation’s newspaper regularly encourages readers to “join the QF community for prayer” at the Education City Mosque and to “avail the services of the Education City buses to and from the mosque.” The Foundation’s Housing and Residence Life office reportedly emailed students to inform them that the mosque’s Friday sermons would be translated into English “to ensure that everyone is benefiting.” As for hate preacher Mudassir Ahmed in particular, the Foundation promoted his sermon in advance on social media, posting and reposting a flier with its logo as well as that of Qatar’s Ministry of Endowments and Islamic Affairs.
That sermon, however, was not the first time incitement was uttered from the Education City Mosque. Last November, less than a week before Michelle Obama visited Doha to address a conference at the Foundation, Saudi preacher Tareq al-Hawas used its pulpit to condemn “the aggressor Zionists,” urging God to “count them in number and kill them completely; do not spare one.” And just this month, a different preacher with a record of glorifying Hamas (including specifically its military wing) called at the campus’s mosque for God to “render victorious our brothers the mujahideen… in every place” and even to “guide their shooting.”
Such language should not have come as a surprise. Ahmed had delivered similar remarks in a 2013 sermon at Qatar’s state-controlled Grand Mosque, where another preacher called just last year for Allah to “destroy” Christians, Alawites, Shi’ites and Jews. Also in 2013, Hawas reportedly lamented on air that Hitler had not “finished off” the Jews, thus “relieving humanity” of them. And in spite of Hawas’s 2015 incitement at the Education City Mosque, he was just invited back, delivering additional militaristic remarks there on March 11th, just one week before Ahmed’s outrageous appearance.
In fact, every Friday preacher at the mosque this March has had a distinguished past record of religious incitement. Omar Abdelkafi, who addressed the mosque on March 25th, is an Egyptian fundamentalist who recently declared that the Charlie Hebdo murders in Paris were “the sequel to the comedy film of 9/11,” in which Muslims “played no part.” He also seems to have instructed pious Muslims not to shake hands with Christians or even walk on the same sidewalk.
And on March 4th, the Education City Mosque hosted Mohammed al-Arefe, a prominent hardliner from Saudi Arabia with more followers on Twitter than Beyoncé. In the past, Arefe has reportedly described Shi’ite Muslims as purveyors of “treachery” and “evil,” and in 2013 as “non-believers who must be killed” according to Human Rights Watch. He has allegedly offered tips on wife-beating, called Osama bin Laden a “sheikh,” and proclaimed that “one’s devotion to jihad for the sake of Allah and one’s will to shed blood, smash skulls, and chop off body parts… constitute an honor for the believer.”
This was not the first time any of these four preachers was permitted to deliver a guest sermon at the Education City Mosque. Nor are they its only speakers with a record of hate speech. When the facility was inaugurated a year ago, the Foundation misleadingly proclaimed that it reflected a “strong commitment” to pluralism.
Yet the mosque’s guest preacher for that very event was Saudi cleric Saleh al-Moghamsy, who had previously opined on Qatari TV that bin Laden died with more dignity than any Christian, Jew, Zoroastrian, apostate, or atheist simply by virtue of being a Muslim. Moghamsy has also asserted that God created women as an “ornament“ to men. Another guest preacher at the mosque has previously declared that “the dumbest girl is that who judges her beauty with the number of those who molest her. This poor idiot girl does no [sic] know that flies fall only on stinking things.”
[“Skyline of Doha at Night”; Source: Wikipedia]Freedom of speech is a touchstone of the American academy, and freedom of religion is a fundamental American value enshrined in the Bill of Rights. But that doesn’t mean these six U.S. universities should remain silent in the face of such blatant hate speech. President Obama missed a real opportunity to make clear that Qatar’s embrace of such hate preachers violates its 2014 pledge to aid the fight against the Islamic State by “repudiating their hateful ideology.” Even the Emir himself has embraced several such hate preachers in the past year. And providing prestigious platforms to those who advocate killing infidels would seem to be a rather blatant violation of that 2014 pledge.
Further, if these six American colleges turn a blind eye to the problem, they would convey the impression that they care more about Gulf petrodollars than creating a tolerant atmosphere for female students and religious minorities, for whom such incitement could pose even a physical danger on campus. The U.S. universities with programs in Qatar reportedly receive a combined $320 million a year from the Qatar Foundation to sustain their campuses in the energy-rich city state. Cornell alone reportedly receives an astonishing yearly outlay of $122 million.
Of course, such generous, recurring payments give school administrators a powerful incentive to remain silent about the revolving door of hate preachers at the Education City Mosque. But improving the selection of these guest preachers would actually make U.S.-Qatari education programming more sustainable by removing one of the biggest potential obstacles to continued cooperation.
Regardless, these schools may have no choice in the matter. Their students and faculty have already begun to raise concerns about systematic labor abuses in Qatar, as well as potential risks to academic inquiry in a nation that throws people in jail for insulting religion or the ruler.
There are many more people of good conscience in student government, campus groups, faculty bodies, and university boards who would be shocked to learn about the appalling promotion of hate speech inside Qatar’s glittering Education City. They can and should let their voices be heard.
$600 Billion, Failing Classrooms
US Spends $600 Billion/Year on Education, But Large Majority of H.S. Seniors Not College-Ready
Hollingsworth/(CNSNews.com) – Despite the fact that the U.S. spends more than $600 billion per year on public education, a large majority of high school seniors are not ready for college-level work in math and reading, according to the latest results of the 2015 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), also known as “the nation’s report card”.
Demonstrating proficiency in a core subject like math or reading is considered proof of being academically prepared for college-level courses.
However, just 25 percent of 12th graders tested “Proficient” or above in math on the 2015 NAEP, down slightly from the 26 percent reported in 2013.
That means that three-quarters of the nation’s soon-to-be-graduating high school seniors are not prepared to succeed in college math courses.
Although more 12th graders (37 percent) tested “Proficient” or above in reading, that figure was also down one percent from the 2013 results.
According to NAEP, nearly two-thirds of high seniors do not have the written language skills they will need in college.
The average score of the 31,900 12th graders who took the 2015 NAEP math test was 152, which was down in all four content areas and one point lower than the average score (153) in 2013, Peggy Carr, acting commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), told reporters during a webinar on Wednesday announcing the latest NAEP results.
Only three percent of those taking the math assessment tested “Advanced.” Another 22 percent tested “Proficient”, with 37 percent of test-takers demonstrating a “Basic” mastery of mathematics.
However, the largest contingent – 38 percent – tested at the lowest “Below Basic” level. “There is a larger proportion of students at the bottom of the distribution” than in 2013, Carr acknowledged.
English Language Learners, who posted a six-point gain, were the only student sub-group to significantly increase their math scores over 2013 levels, she pointed out.
The average score in reading (287) was not significantly different from the average score reported in 2013 (288), Carr said.
Six percent of high school seniors scored in the “Advanced” reading category, with 31 percent testing “Proficient”, and 35 percent scoring in the “Basic” range.
However, 28 percent failed to demonstrate even basic mastery of the written word – three percent more than in 2013.
Carr noted that the 2015 NAEP results remained virtually unchanged for various racial and ethnic sub-groups compared to 2013. In general, white and Hispanic males tended to do better on the math tests, while females overall did better on the reading assessments, she pointed out.
Education experts also noted that average math scores were higher for students who took more challenging pre-calculus and calculus classes, and average reading scores were the highest for students who reported reading more than 20 pages of text a day in school or while doing their homework assignments.
When CNSNews.com asked how the latest reading and math NAEP scores compared to student test scores worldwide, Carr replied that “we will wait to see” when the next international results are released in November and December.
According to the latest available figures from NCES, “the 50 states and D.C. reported $603.7 billion in funding collected for public elementary and secondary education in 2013.”
State and local governments provided 91 percent of all education funding, while the federal government paid the remaining 9 percent.
*****
Don’t go away yet, there is more and it is worse.
Obama budgets $17,613 for every new illegal minor, more than Social Security retirees get
Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner: President Obama has budgeted $17,613 for each of the estimated 75,000 Central American teens expected to illegally cross into the United States this year, $2,841 more than the average annual Social Security retirement benefit, according to a new report.
The total bill to taxpayers: $1.3 billion in benefits to “unaccompanied children,” more than double what the federal government spent in 2010, according to an analysis of the administration’s programs for illegal minors from the Center for Immigration Studies. The average Social Security retirement benefit is $14,772.
The report notes that the president’s budget, facing congressional approval, includes another $2.1 billion for refugees, which can include the illegals from Central America, mostly Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador.
What’s more, the administration is also spending heavily on a program with the United Nations to help the illegal minors avoid the dangerous trip by declaring them refugees and handing them a plane ticket to the U.S. where, once here, they get special legal status.
The report, titled “Welcoming Unaccompanied Alien Children to the United States,” is a deep dive into the administration’s evolving efforts to let hundreds of thousands of mostly 16- and 17-year-old males settle in the country.
It said that most of the undocumented minors do not qualify for refugee status or are even in any danger in their native countries. Instead, they are seeking to unify with their family members, commonly parents in the United States illegally.
The report cited Department of Health and Human Services data showing the trend. “New data,” said CIS, “shows that 80 percent of the 71,000 Central American children placed between February 2014 and September 2015 were released to sponsors who are in the United States illegally.”
Go here for charts and full report.
Author Nayla Rush suggested that the administration’s Central American Refugee/Parole Program with the United Nations that declares minors refugees could have the effect of giving legal status to their illegal parents once in the U.S.
“Children will be able to qualify for refugee status and then be flown to the United States. As a reminder, refugees receive automatic legal status and are required to apply for a green card within their first year following arrival. They can apply for citizenship five years from the date of entry.
“Since parents from Central America illegally present in the United States could not benefit from the CAM program and sponsor their children, perhaps the reverse can take place with children admitted under this new version of the refugee program. Children, acquiring legal status followed by naturalization by the time they reach adulthood, could indeed sponsor their parents,” wrote Rush.
Shadow Lobbying in DC on Policy, it’s Dark
There is a certain Senator who generated a mission to Make DC Listen, knowing that individual American voices were drowned out by power, money and influence.
Hat tip to the Sunlight Foundation for this summary.
What is shadow lobbying? How influence peddlers shape policy in the dark
Earlier this year, we asked you to help us find out which Democratic superdelegates are also lobbyists. We didn’t want to limit it to just registered lobbyists, because there’s an increasing number of people in Washington who do what most of us would think of as lobbying activity, but avoid registering — known as “shadow lobbyists.” But that left us, and our readers, with some questions: What exactly is a shadow lobbyist? How do they avoid registering? How did we get here?
What is shadow lobbying?
Shadow lobbying refers to someone who performs advocacy to influence public policy, like meeting legislators or their staff, without registering as a lobbyist — and it’s a big problem for anyone who cares about transparency in Washington. (For further reading on this topic, you can’t do better than to read Lee Fang’s 2014 investigation of shadow lobbying at The Nation.)
If you just looked at the number of federal registered lobbyists, you would think lobbying was a dying profession. Since a peak of 14,829 registered lobbyists in 2007, the number has steadily declined; in 2015, it was 11,504. But it’s not that the lobbyists have packed up their offices and left D.C. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the amount of money spent on lobbying has remained near its 2009 peak, even as the number of lobbyists has supposedly decreased: In 2015, $3.21 billion was spent on lobbying, down only slightly from $3.5 billion in 2009. (Some estimate that number, which is based on reported spending on lobbying registrations, is actually up to three times higher; we’ll get to that later.)
Shadow lobbying is also sometimes known as the “Daschle Loophole,” named after Tom Daschle. A former senator from South Dakota, Daschle worked as a “policy adviser” at lobbying shops like Alston and Bird and global firms like DLA Piper after leaving the Senate, but never registered as a lobbyist. As The Huffington Post pointed out, that doesn’t mean his clients didn’t “receive the full benefit of his contacts and expertise, and that those assets can’t be used to influence legislation.” Last month, Daschle unexpectedly registered as a lobbyist; however, there are many who followed his blueprint of behind-the-scenes influence.
After years of lobbying, Daschle finally registers as a lobbyist
The pioneer of shadow influencing has put on paper what many have known for years — that he is, in fact, a lobbyist.
So where did all the lobbyists go?
The simple answer is nowhere. They’re still here — they just stopped registering as lobbyists.
The system of lobbying registration has never been ideal. Lee Fang notes that a General Accounting Office study in 1991 revealed more than 10,000 lobbyists who had failed to register, and of those who did register, “94 percent failed to complete their registration forms as required by law.” The 1995 Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA), while far from perfect, cleaned up the system and clarified the definition of lobbying. In 2007, following the Jack Abramoff scandal, Congress passed the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act (HLOGA), which extended the “cooling off” period — the period of time after a lawmaker or their top staff leaves Congress during which they are forbidden from lobbying.
As the law stands now, lobbyists are required to register if they spend at least 20 percent of their time lobbying on behalf of a client, or if they make at least two contacts with covered government officials (members of the House or Senate, their staff and select members of executive agencies). Firms are also exempt from registration if their total income from an individual client is less than $3,000 per quarter.
The problem is that this threshold is reasonably easy to get around. I spoke to James Hickey, the president of the Association of Government Relations Professionals (AGRP), formerly the American League of Lobbyists. (That’s right: Even the people who represent lobbyists no longer call themselves lobbyists.1) He believes the 20-percent threshold doesn’t work as a way to measure lobbying activity: “Personally, and it’s not AGRP’s position, it’s mine, I think anybody who lobbies should register” — whether it makes up 20 percent of their time or not.
Hickey said there should be some exceptions — people “that ask their CEO to come in one day of the year for a fly-in to talk to half a dozen members,” for example, shouldn’t register. But “as long as that 20 percent threshold exists,” he said, “there’s no way those who are in charge of enforcement can keep tabs on what are roughly estimated to be 20,000 lobbyists in Washington, D.C.” (Hickey told me that he registers even though he doesn’t hit the 20 percent threshold because of his position as president of the AGRP.) The Government Affairs Yellow Book, for example, includes information for 23,000 “government affairs professionals” in Washington, more than twice the current number of registered lobbyists.
There’s data to back this up, too. According to a 2012 study by the Center for Responsive Politics:
More than 46 percent of the active 2011 lobbyists who did not report any activity in 2012 are still working for the same employers for whom they lobbied in 2011 — supporting the theory that many previously registered lobbyists are not meeting the technical requirement to report or have altered their activities just enough to escape filing.
American University Professor James Thurber, who’s studied lobbying for more than 30 years and served on the American Bar Association’s Lobbying Task Force when it recommended strengthening lobbying laws, said, “Anyone who is paid to influence public policy, we should know about it” — whether it’s Boeing or the Boy Scouts. Thurber thinks there are around 100,000 people working in lobbying and advocacy in Washington.
Another lobbyist I spoke to, Paul Kanitra, agreed that there are those in D.C. who “take advantage” of the “gray area” created by the lobbying disclosure laws. He runs a firm called LobbyIt that focuses on smaller clients, and its ethos is very different to other lobbying firms. Its website claims, “Large corporations and their high priced representation have a stranglehold on the Capitol,” describing the firm as a “new breed of lobbyists [who] know the United States is supposed to be a government of the people and for the people.” Kanitra argued that the obvious value for a lobbying firm of hiring a former lawmaker is their contacts, saying, “I have to imagine they aren’t sitting the members of Congress down and having them do research and write white papers all day long.”
Why would a lobbyist want to avoid registering?
There are a lot of reasons. It’s certainly possible that lobbyists might not want the public to know that their client is lobbying Congress, or how much they’re spending on it, but that wouldn’t explain the big drop in lobbying registrations after 2007. One big explanation is the passage of HLOGA in 2007, which tightened disclosure and penalties for registered lobbyists, which we wrote about in 2014: “Before these changes in the rules, individuals registered under the LDA just in case. There was no downside. Now, being a registered lobbyist subjects people to additional campaign finance disclosure and gift rules, as well as steep civil and criminal penalties for non-compliance. So, political lawyers simply say don’t register.”
Hickey pointed, as many others have, to the Obama administration’s 2009 decision to bar former lobbyists from working on “regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years” in his White House, saying it had a big effect on lobbyists: “If by being registered I preclude myself from that opportunity, then I think I’m going to have to look carefully at exactly my threshold and how much I lobby, and if I can justify the fact that I don’t do 20 percent or more, then I’m going to go ahead and deregister.” Thurber thinks that while the 2009 rule did have a big impact, along with the 2007 law, shadow lobbying has been a problem since “well before” those changes. “Basically, there has been no serious enforcement for decades,” Thurber said. “That did not change with the 2007 reform, except there was a surge in de-registrations after 2007.”
He’s right: There is very little enforcement of the Lobbying Disclosure Act. The Department of Justice has never brought criminal charges against anyone for failing to register as a lobbyist. According to Fang, “The Justice Department has largely pursued cases in which a registered lobbyist has failed to update a quarterly statement or fallen delinquent, and the House clerk or Senate secretary has spotted the error.” (I reached out to the Department of Justice to check if any cases had been filed since Fang’s article; they told me that their “office is unaware of any criminal cases brought under the Lobbying Disclosure Act. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia has not brought a criminal case under the LDA.”). Kanitra pointed out that those who do register actually put themselves more at risk of investigation than those who just circumvent the system entirely, because they’re then open to being penalized for submitting registrations late or putting something incorrect on their registration forms.
Thurber says we could know a lot more about shadow lobbying than we do. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) does an audit of lobbying disclosure, examining how well lobbyists comply with the registration compliance — but it only looks at those who are registered. The audit doesn’t scrutinize “people who are actually lobbying but are not registered, which is what’s going on mainly in town.” He says the GAO has that authority “to look at all kinds of advocacy” under the existing law, but doesn’t.
What can be done to shine a light on shadow lobbying?
Some, like Thurber, advocate for expanding the definition of lobbying activity to include marketing, public relations and advertising costs. He believes if you include “all the ads, all the shadow lobbyist activities, all the marketing,” the money spent on lobbying is more like $9 billion. Many lobbying firms also have in-house strategic communications arms, and those sorts of services aren’t cheap — and neither are TV ad campaigns. The Glover Park Group, which received $7 million in lobbying income in 2015, boasts about its content creation services on its website:
GPG’s creative group melds left-brain and right-brain thinking to create campaigns that drive conversation, educate, persuade, sell and move to action.
It’s the story that matters, whether we tell it through a new website or blog, traditional ads, such as TV, radio, newspaper and magazine ads, billboards or bus wraps, or interactive and native ads across the social, mobile web. We use every tool available: photos and videos, infographics and sharegraphics, informational one-pagers and brochures, chart packs, slide decks, reports and white papers, and more.
Whether it’s a 30-second spot on national TV or an interactive digital ad on a news site, our creative output is stronger and more effective because it’s built on the input that only GPG’s combination of research and experience can provide.
But other lobbyists I spoke to disagreed with Thurber’s proposal. Hickey said, “Public relations is really a different discipline. Sometimes they overlap and sometimes they coordinate, but your goal for public relations is really company brand or product brand than it is for influencing legislation.” He argues: “If there’s no reference to that legislation, then it’d be hard for anyone to say that clearly falls in the realm of lobbying.”
Paul Kelly, a registered lobbyist and member of AGRP, concurred, saying these activities are protected by the First Amendment right to petition one’s government and that “policymakers ought to be very careful about treading into those waters to regulate those activities.”
Even Kanitra, who describes himself as an advocate for transparency and open government, sees problems with this idea. “The problem is, to find a definition that can’t be worked around is so incredibly difficult. I’m open to somebody telling me a specific threshold or a specific approach that would work that would actually wind up having an effect on the people who are abusing it now as opposed to the little guys.”
It’s certainly likely that some, maybe many, lobbyists would continue to find ways around any new regulation on registration. A good start would be enforcement of the existing law; until someone is held accountable for breaking the rules and circumventing the system, the laws have no weight. It’s also clear that there’s no shortage of informed ideas about reforms that could make the system work better, from the ABA Task Force recommendations to Thurber’s modest suggestion that congressional offices keep records of everyone who contacts them.
There will always be lobbying in Washington, and that’s not a bad thing. But it doesn’t have to stay in the shadows.