Friday, February 9, 2018

NYPD ignored more than 1,500 federal requests to detain immigrants last year, official says - Fox News

8/2/2018
NYPD ignored more than 1,500 federal requests to detain immigrants last year, official says
By Samuel Chamberlain | Fox News
NYPD officers ordered to limit cooperation with ICE
Retired NYPD Lieutenant Joe Cardinale says the move by Mayor Bill de Blasio makes citizens less safe.
New York City police ignored all 1,526 requests from federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to detain undocumented immigrants for up to 48 hours last year, a top NYPD official said Wednesday.
The Daily News reported that Oleg Chernyavsky, the NYPD's legislative affairs director, revealed the numbers at a City Council meeting.
The number of requests for 2017 was nearly 20 times higher than the 80 the department received over the previous year. Chernyavsky said the department responded to just two of ICE's 2016 requests because those immigrants had federal arrest warrants.
Under New York City law, prisoners can only be handed over to ICE if they've been convicted of one of 170 crimes and federal officials present a warrant.
@ICEgov
ICE recently arrested 9 in New York who were illegally in the U.S. All were released from NYPD custody with active detainers in place, and had pending criminal charges.
5:27 AM - Feb 8, 2018
Chernyavsky said the police response to ICE requests "speaks volumes to our intent as a city. ... It's important for victims of crimes, irrespective of their immigration status, to trust their police and to come forward and inform their police."
8 Feb
@ICEgov
Replying to @ICEgov
ICE Field Office Director Thomas Decker: "The release of criminal aliens back on New York City streets continues to pose a dangerous risk to our communities ...
@ICEgov
(cont) "As Acting ICE Director Thomas Homan has made clear, ICE will continue to dedicate more resources to conduct at-large arrests to ensure the safety of the law-abiding citizens of these communities. "
5:27 AM - Feb 8, 2018
ICE responded by slamming New York City law enforcement in a series of tweets while the council meeting was taking place.
But one mayoral official accused the agency of "overbroad enforcement."
"The people they’re seeking are essentially anybody," said Bitta Mostofi, acting commissioner of the Mayor’s Office of Immigrant Affairs, "regardless of the nature of the crime."

War doesn't have to be nuclear to kill indiscriminately - Al Jazeera

9/2/2018
War doesn't have to be nuclear to kill indiscriminately
Alexander Gillespie by Alexander Gillespie
Syria war: Hospitals being deliberately targeted, medics say
today
Libyan commander wanted by ICC hands himself in
today
Yemeni Nobel laureate: Saudi Arabia, UAE occupy Yemen
yesterday
Over the past year, the escalation of tensions between the United States and North Korea has caused much anxiety about the possibility of a nuclear war. Since the creation of the first nuclear bomb and the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, international diplomacy has focused its non-proliferation efforts on nuclear weapons.
In doing so, it has overlooked the proliferation of conventional weapons, which have killed millions since World War II and which continue to kill on a massive scale today.
As Amnesty International noted in a report released in late 2015, "reckless arms trading" encouraged atrocities committed by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and other armed groups in Iraq. In 2016, more than 100,000 people were killed in conflicts in which conventional weapons were used.
And while the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty has limited the new production of nuclear weapons, the world has experienced an uncurbed proliferation of conventional weapons with no effective international legal tools to control it.
Since 1960 - the early days of the Cold War nuclear arms race - international military spending has increased twenty-fold from $82bn to $1.69 trillion; and year on year, it continues to grow. While some of it goes to infrastructure maintenance and salaries for personnel, a significant part is spent on the acquisition of conventional weapons.
In 2015, the US, the country with the biggest defence budget in the world, spent $90bn of its $600bn defence spending on the procurement of conventional arms; it spent around $20bn on maintaining its nuclear arsenal.
The growing demand for conventional weapons is making many providers very wealthy. The top 100 arms companies have sold over $5 trillion worth of merchandise since 2002. In 2016, some $31bn was generated by the international arms trade, the US earning $9.9bn of it, followed by Russia with $6.4bn and Germany with $2.8bn.
Although there is no international law on how much can be spent on conventional arms, the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) of 2014 sought to prevent weapons from being sold to countries that are under embargo or illegally transferred to state or non-state actors. According to the treaty, signatories should ensure the weapons they are selling are not going to be used in "terrorism", acts of genocide, crimes against humanity, serious violations of human rights, or the undermining of peace and security.
Unfortunately, over the years since its signing, the treaty has proven too weak to make a difference.
The first reason the ATT is failing is that the power of profit-seeking is trumping all other considerations. This is most evident with Saudi Arabia, which is currently the second largest weapons importer in the world. Although some countries like Germany have stopped selling weaponry to Riyadh - which stands accused of indiscriminate, reckless and wrongful targeting of civilians in the war in Yemen - others have not been able to resist the revenue to be made.
The UK, which has signed and ratified the ATT, made $1.5bn in 2017 selling arms to Saudi Arabia, while the US, which has signed but not ratified the treaty, made windfall deals worth potentially $110bn.
The second problem is that even if ATT signatories start implementing the commitments they made by signing the document, there are other countries that have either not signed or not ratified it, such as China, Russia, India and Iran. This means that a country like Myanmar, which is facing serious accusations of crimes against humanity, can still obtain a steady stream of weapons from some of these countries despite an ongoing European arms sales embargo.
Similarly with the war in Syria, despite strong evidence of war crimes by multiple parties, especially the Assad regime, countries such as Russia, Iran and possibly even North Korea, have not hesitated to sell weapons to Damascus. On the other hand, those fighting Assad have received weapons illegally re-routed by the US and Gulf countries from Eastern and Central European countries.
The above point highlights the other difficulty with the ATT - namely, that it primarily deals with legal transfers. The problem is that many conflicts are now fuelled by weapons supplied via illegal trade, especially in small arms. Although the size of this trade is estimated at being between 10 to 20 percent of the value of the legal arms sales, in some conflicts, illegal sources of weapons dominate the supply.
For example in Mexico, 70 percent of guns seized in the country and traced by the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) from 2009 to 2014 came from illegal transfers from the US.
In Afghanistan, the Taliban is buying large amounts of illegal weapons, including but not limited to hundreds of thousands of diverted US weapons.
This uncontrollable proliferation of conventional weapons will continue to take a heavy death toll each year unless the international community comes up with an effective international tool to control it - the way it did with nuclear weapons.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.

US leads record $30.6bn outflow from global stock funds - Financial Times


9/2/2018
US leads record $30.6bn outflow from global stock funds
Weekly figures show pullouts in US, Europe and Asia offset by emerging market inflows
Adam Samson in London
Investors yanked a record $30.6bn from global equities funds this week, with the US facing particularly heavy withdrawals amid an intense bout of volatility on Wall Street.
Outflows from US stock funds totalled $34bn in the five trading days to Wednesday, according to EPFR data compiled by Jefferies. Funds holding stocks from developed European countries also faced significant withdrawals of $3.4bn, while foreign investors pulled $7.7bn from Asia Pacific funds.
“Investors turned heavy sellers in equities,” said Kenneth Chan, strategist at Jefferies, who added that the outflow marked an abrupt turnround from January in which global equities funds posted record inflows.
Emerging markets fared well this week, however, drawing $2.1bn in inflows.
The data include the start of the week, which saw the S&P 500 take on Monday its heaviest fall since 2011.
The sell-off began with worries over a pick-up in inflation causing a rapid rise in bond yields. It intensified after a record spike in a key measure of volatility caused severe pain in strategies that bet against just that, causing the collapse of at least two exchange-traded products.
The issues at the so-called inverse-vol funds are thought to have ignited broader ructions that are likely being exaggerated by algorithmic trading, according to several strategists.
The weekly figures from EPFR do not cover the tumultuous trading session on Thursday. The S&P 500 ended the day down 3.8 per cent, leaving America’s main stock gauge in correction territory, defined as a 10 per cent fall from a recent high.
Analysts have noted that the volatility may continue for some time, particularly given the unusually tame run-up in US stocks in 2017.


“The trading pattern suggests that markets may now be susceptible to both fundamental and technical factors but most importantly uncertainty that could keep volatility elevated and leave us in a choppier trading pattern than we have seen in some time,” Goldman Sachs said in a note.

Shenzhen Stocks Enter Bear Market - Bloomberg

Shenzhen Stocks Enter Bear Market
By
February 9, 2018, 6:28 PM GMT+11
Shenzhen’s stock index sank into a bear market as investors fled the home of China’s new economy companies.
The Shenzhen Composite Index dropped 3.2 percent on Friday, taking its loss since its November 2016 high to more than 20 percent. The gauge has struggled to recover since China’s 2015 equities bust as a deleveraging campaign drove up costs for smaller companies and investors sought blue chip state-owned firms listed in Shanghai.
China opened the Shenzhen bourse to the outside world in December 2016 with the start of an exchange link with Hong Kong. While some large-cap companies such as surveillance camera maker Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Co. and liquor company Wuliangye Yibin Co. found favor with foreign investors, the broader market has been largely shunned.
It’s not hard to see why: at 26 times reported earnings, the gauge index is far more expensive than benchmarks in Shanghai and Hong Kong, while the stock collapse of former Internet star Leshi Internet Information & Technology Corp. illustrates the risks facing companies started by entrepreneurs, rather than the state.
The Shenzhen Composite closed at its lowest level since February 2016 on Friday.

North Korea got what it wanted from the Winter Olympics - BBC News

9/2/2018
North Korea got what it wanted from the Winter Olympics
Anti-North Korea protesters demonstrate against the arrival of their art troupe
Sport has always been a highly political affair for North Korea and this Winter Olympics has proved to be no exception. But sports diplomacy expert Jung Woo Lee says North Korea will enter this Games feeling like its image has been burnished - at least to its own people.
The Pyeongchang 2018 Winter Olympics is getting underway and already the state of relations between North and South Korea is dominating the narrative about the Games. That in itself is a small victory for Pyongyang.
North Korean leader Kim Jung-un uses sport as a propaganda device more actively than his father and grandfather, and so it should be no surprise that he used his New Year message to raise the prospect of Olympic attendance.
It was certainly a positive signal, given the escalating political and military tensions surrounding the Korean peninsula. But by no means was this seemingly peaceful gesture a free offer.
By negotiating with South Korea and the International Olympic Committee (IOC), the North Koreans got what they wanted. Originally only two of their athletes qualified for the competition on sporting merit alone - and skating pair Ryom Tae-Ok and Kim Ju-Sik were set to miss out after missing the registration deadline.
But after a hastily arranged series of meetings, the two Koreas eventually agreed to march together, bearing the united Korean flag, and to field a unified women's ice hockey team. Twenty-two North Korean athletes were due travel to the games, after extra spaces were given to North Korean skiers in negotiations. It is now sending its largest winter delegation ever to the South Korean venue.
And these athletes are key to the North's propaganda offensive. Time and time again they pour adulation on their Dear Leader when they win at international events. State media relay these emotive moments to the people back home. It shows North Korea winning on an international stage and that is channelled directly back.
North v South: A history of sport, bombs and diplomacy
North Korea's cheerleading charm offensive
All you need to know about North Korea at the Olympics
Image copyrightAFP
Image caption
Ryom Tae-ok and Kim Ju-sik spent weeks in Canada training
The fact that skiers were afforded places is also no coincidence.
North Korea opened the huge Masikryong ski resort in December 2013, after building it at breakneck speed. It has become a symbol of national pride and a significant propaganda tool for the nation - "Masikryong speed" has become a political slogan to overcome hardships the country is facing.
So seeing their countrymen attain "Masikryong speed" will be something to transmit to North Koreans - they may leave out the bit where they don't win the medals.
But the North's participation in the Winter Olympics is not entirely a propaganda initiative. The sports extravaganza does also function as an initial contact point between the two sides, meaning they reopened a diplomatic channel with South Korea after an almost two-year hiatus.
Coaching North Korea's figure skaters in Canada
Their collaboration and demonstration of unity at the Olympic Games may pave the way for further cultural and humanitarian exchanges between the two sides.
A delegation of cheerleaders are among those who travelled south
On Wednesday, North Korea announced that Kim Yo-jong, a senior politburo official and Kim Jong-Un's sister, will attend the opening ceremony. If she comes, it will be the first visit to the south by a member of North Korea's ruling family since the country's partition.
Dispatching such top-level delegations from Pyongyang to Pyeongchang could imply the willingness of the North to improve its relations with the South.
Kim Jong-un may well use these winter games as yet another propaganda show to sustain his regime, but at the same time Pyeongchang 2018 offers a unique initiative for both sides to repair their relations, too.
The famed "hotline" connecting the nations has also been reopened through the games, which can only be seen as a positive development.
Who knows what might have happened if there had been no Winter Olympics in South Korea? But, for now, North Korea gets its athletes on an international stage, a lot of headlines, and a temporary rapprochement with the South.
Dr Jung Woo Lee is Lecturer in sport policy at the University of Edinburgh. He is also the founding member of Edinburgh Critical Studies in Sport research group. He recently published (with two co-editors) an edited volume of Routledge Handbook of Sport and Politics.

US government shuts down as Congress fails to vote on budget - BBC News

9/2/2018
US government shuts down as Congress fails to vote on budget
Senator Rand Paul (C) poses with friends from the House during a break in proceedings
The US government has officially shut down for the second time this year because Congress failed to meet a deadline to vote on a new budget.
Senators struggled with last-minute objections from Republican Rand Paul, but have now passed the bill, which has gone to the House for its vote.
Federal funding for government services expired at midnight (05:00 GMT).
The 600-page plan proposes an increase in spending, by about $300bn (£215bn), on defence and domestic services.
If the plan is passed in the House of Representatives and signed by the president in the next few hours, the shutdown could be rescinded before the US working day begins on Friday.
Stacks of pizzas were ordered in to Senators' offices in anticipation of a long night
But it is not clear how the House will vote, and how public services would be affected on Friday if the shutdown were to continue.
What does a shutdown mean for ordinary people?
Many government agencies close during a shutdown as their future funding is theoretically not secure. Many employees are asked not to come to work and will not be paid - although some will get back pay.
Employees deemed essential - including military personnel and air traffic controllers - are required to work regardless of shutdowns.
Three weeks ago, some people lost three days of work in a shutdown but this time, it is not yet clear which agencies will close.
The federal Office of Personnel Management said employees should "refer to their home agency for guidance on reporting for duty".
CNN is reporting that if the shutdown is not averted, government agencies will still be able to call their employees in for a half day's work to make the shutdown go smoothly.
The winners and losers of the last government shutdown, three weeks ago
Some Twitter users shared stories of how the uncertainty would affect people.
@brianschatz
I was leaving the building and met a woman who cleans offices in the capitol. She came at 1 am to start her shift and was sent home without pay because of the shutdown. She was planning to buy a car today and is unsure what to do. A solemn reminder that this isn’t a game.
6:24 PM - Feb 9, 2018
BiRevgal
@BiRevgal
Replying to @BiRevgal
But for those of you wondering how do these impact Govt workers—for ppl like me they are obnoxious. For new Govt workers & lower wage Govt that have student loan debt, no savings, and rely paycheck to paycheck etc—these shutdowns are scary as hell
10:17 AM - Feb 9, 2018
Cerebral Mischief
@CerebralMisjif
Replying to @CerebralMisjif
if you had no ability to plan/budget to pay crucial bills not to mention groceries. I have huge respect for you folks and wish you nothing but the best. Hang in there and hopefully the children in Washington will figure out how to do their damn jobs. /end
2:38 PM - Feb 9, 2018
End of Twitter post by @CerebralMisjif
Why are budget hawks opposed to the bill?
While the spending bill's funding for the Pentagon has delighted the national security wing of the party, fiscal conservatives are up in arms about ramifications for the nation's debt.
In a doom-laden speech, Senator Paul angrily charged his fellow Republicans with fiscal profligacy, accusing his colleagues of "spending us into oblivion".
"I ran for office because I was very critical of President Obama's trillion-dollar deficits," he said.
Government workers on what happens during a shutdown
"Now we have Republicans, hand in hand with Democrats, offering us trillion-dollar deficits.
"I can't in all good honesty, in all good faith, just look the other way just because my party is now complicit in the deficits."
This would be "the very definition of hypocrisy", he added.
What's in this bill?
The 650-page spending plan was only unveiled on Wednesday night, so the finer details are unclear.
White House legislative affairs director Marc Short said the package would increase spending by "just shy" of $300bn.
The Washington Post puts the figure at half a trillion dollars.
The bill contains $165bn of additional defence spending and $131bn in domestic spending, including funding for healthcare, infrastructure and tackling the US opioid crisis, reports Reuters news agency.
The proposal would raise the US debt ceiling until March 2019.
Why are some Democrats unhappy?
Despite the support of their Senate leader Chuck Schumer, who says the budget accord will "break the long cycle of spending crises", some Democrats have complained that the bill does not address immigration.
The party's leader in the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, said on Thursday morning she was opposed to the plan, but would not order rank-and-file Democrats to vote against it.
The California congresswoman has called for the bill to include a provision shielding so-called Dreamers, young immigrants who entered the US illegally as children, from deportation.
Top Democratic Nancy Pelosi breaks record in eight-hour speech
Her remarks came a day after she told the stories of immigrants for eight hours on the floor of the lower chamber in a record-breaking speech.
Obama-era guarantees for those immigrants were cancelled by US President Donald Trump and are set to become invalid next month.
Illinois representative Luis Gutierrez, one of the leading congressional advocates for immigrants, is urging colleagues to vote against the plan.
"Don't collude with this administration," he said.