ThinkProgress Logo

Security

Eight-Year-Old Sexually Abused Migrant Allowed To Stay In The U.S.

By Andrea Nill Sanchez on May 17, 2011 at 8:45 pm

Yesterday, immigration attorney Jessica Dominguez announced that an eight-year-old Salvadoran girl — Veronica — was granted humanitarian parole by U.S. Customs and Border Protection to legally enter the country. “After two weeks of agonizing diplomatic wrangling and public pressure on Mexican and Salvadoran consular representatives, 8-year old migrant Verónica, a victim of molestation and rape on Mexican soil, avoided deportation to El Salvador and is now in U.S. soil safe with loved ones who are U.S. citizens,” stated a press release issued Monday by the Coalition of Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles.

Veronica’s parents paid a smuggler in El Salvador $7,000 to take her to the United States after local gang members reportedly threatened her family and demanded a monthly “protection” fee. Upon arriving in Mexico, Veronica fell into the hands of a smuggler who — along with the 17 year-old-migrant who accompanied her — sexually abused the young girl. Veronica managed to flee from her attackers in Chihuahua City and spent weeks in the hands of Mexican authorities who were considering repatriating her before she was allowed to enter the U.S. with her grandmother — a U.S. citizen.

Veronica is one of the thousands of unaccompanied child migrants who try to enter the U.S. every year. In 2009, the New York Times reported that approximately 7,200 unaccompanied minors are apprehended in the United States each year. The Center for Public Policy Priorities estimated a couple of years ago that an additional 35,000 more children are immediately expatriated to Mexico and neighboring countries. “They share stories of rape on trains rumbling toward the border, starvation in the desert and a muddled idea of what to do when they reach the States,” reports the Latin America News Dispatch.

Some juveniles who have been victims of drug abuse, abandonment or neglect may qualify for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status. Yet, earlier this year, the advocacy group Appleseed found that the Trafficking Victims Protection and Reauthorization Act of 2008 which is supposed to protect unaccompanied children is often ineffectively applied.

“It’s well known that the trip is dangerous, but Veronica’s parents felt they had no other choice,” wrote Alejandro Martínez-Cabrera of the El Paso Times. Most migrants who risk their lives to embark on the increasingly perilous journey to the U.S. feel the same way. “Parents should really think twice — or more than twice — before they decide to either have an adult come over, a woman by herself, or even a child,” stated Jorge-Mario Cabrera, a spokesman for the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles. It’s good advice, but as long as the U.S. fails to modernize the outdated visa system and clear the backlog of family visa petitions, many migrants will likely choose not to heed it.

Politics

Ben Stein Responds To IMF Chief’s Arrest By Blaming The Alleged Victim

By Marie Diamond on May 17, 2011 at 8:30 pm

Dominique Strauss-Kahn, head of the International Monetary Fund, has been at the center of an international media maelstrom since his high-profile arrest on Saturday at New York’s JFK Airport on sexual assault charges. Strauss Kahn, who has faced allegations of impropriety in the past, allegedly tried to rape a 32-year old chambermaid in the luxury suite of a Manhattan hotel where he was staying for $3,000 a night. In France, everyone from magistrates to members of the press expressed their outrage that the French political figure was “perp walked” by the New York police after he was denied bail and sent to Rikers Island prison. Although Strauss Kahn should enjoy the presumption of innocence like every other defendant, some on the right are already rushing to declare his innocence and smear his accuser, an African immigrant.

Conservative economic guru and former Nixon and Ford speechwriter Ben Stein took up the disgraced IMF chief’s case in a column in the American Spectator. Stein wrote, “What do we know about the complainant besides that she is a hotel maid?” After expressing confidence in her character — “I am sure she is a fine woman” — he proceeded to suggest exactly the opposite:

On the other hand, I have had hotel maids that were complete lunatics, stealing airline tickets from me, stealing money from me, throwing away important papers, stealing medications from me. How do we know that this woman’s word was good enough to put Mr. Strauss-Kahn straight into a horrific jail?

Stein also sharply questioned the maid’s allegation, insinuating that she was a willing partner and suggesting that someone can only really be sexually assaulted if a gun or knife is involved:

The prosecutors say that Mr. Strauss-Kahn “forced” the complainant to have oral and other sex with him. How? Did he have a gun? Did he have a knife? He’s a short fat old man. They were in a hotel with people passing by the room constantly, if it’s anything like the many hotels I am in. How did he intimidate her in that situation? And if he was so intimidating, why did she immediately feel un-intimidated enough to alert the authorities as to her story?

Despite the fact that Strauss Kahn has allegedly “engaged in a pattern of sexual assaults dating to at least 2002,” Stein suggested he might be innocent by virtue of the lack of a pattern. “If he is such a womanizer and violent guy with women, why didn’t he ever get charged until now?” Bizarrely, he then goes on to wonder if economists or heads of nonprofit agencies are even capable of committing rape, writing, “Can anyone tell me any economists who have been convicted of violent sex crimes?” After objecting to Strauss Kahn’s detention, Stein ultimately dismissed the serious charges against him as “a case about the hatred of the have-nots for the haves.”

French philosopher and Israel hawk Bernard-Henri Levy, who lives and works in the U.S., also cast doubt on the maid’s claim and expressed his dismay that Strauss Kahn was treated as any criminal defendant would be:

It would be nice to know, and without delay—how a chambermaid could have walked in alone, contrary to the habitual practice of most of New York’s grand hotels of sending a “cleaning brigade” of two people, into the room of one of the most closely watched figures on the planet. [...]

This morning, I hold it against the American judge who, by delivering him to the crowd of photo hounds, pretended to take him for a subject of justice like any other.

I am troubled by a system of justice modestly termed “accusatory,” meaning that anyone can come along and accuse another fellow of any crime—and it will be up to the accused to prove that the accusation is false and without basis in fact.

The Washington Post noted that Levy’s defense of his longtime friend “smacks of sexism.”

Stein and Levy’s real objection to this whole affair seems to be that in this country, we treat illustrious men the same as everyone else in criminal cases, and take women seriously when they say they’ve been raped. They apparently resent the fact that the justice system is taking the word of an African maid against a famous economist. At the risk of stating the obvious, if the New York police had not immediately investigated the maid’s complaint and detained Strauss Kahn, they would have been giving him special treatment — something conservatives claim to detest.

Politics

Filibuster To Protect Big Oil Welfare Fueled By Oil Money

By Brad Johnson on May 17, 2011 at 7:45 pm

Tonight, Republicans filibustered the majority’s attempt to repeal $21 billion in subsidies for the big five oil companies — the same companies that made over $30 billion in profits in just the first three months of 2011. While three out of four Americans believe Exxon Mobil and the other oil majors should pay their fair share, instead of receiving taxpayer welfare, the oil-friendly Senate split 52 to 48 to end the subsidies. Though the majority of the Senate voted to repeal these oil tax breaks, the procedural motion required a 60 vote threshold. An analysis of campaign contribution records shows the gusher of dirty cash that fueled the filibuster:

A Center for American Progress Action Fund analysis finds that the 48 senators who sided with Big Oil received over $21 million in career oil contributions, while 52 senators who sided with the American people received only $5.4 million in contributions. Each senator who voted for Big Oil received on average more than four times as much oil cash as those who voted to end the subsidies.

While eight Republican senators voted for a bill that included a repeal of tax breaks for big oil in 2007, only Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine voted with the Democrats in supporting ending taxpayer handouts to big oil tonight. Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Mark Begich (D-AK), and Ben Nelson (D-NE) joined the Republicans to protect the oil companies’ corporate welfare.

Economy

Republicans Scoff At Reauthorizing Trade Assistance While Pushing For More Trade Agreements

By Pat Garofalo on May 17, 2011 at 7:40 pm

Sens. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT)

Back in February, Republicans in Congress allowed an expansion of federal trade assistance — meant to aid workers who lose their jobs due to international trade — expire, bumping thousands of workers off of the program. Workers who qualified under that expansion, which was funded by the 2009 Recovery Act, made up more than half of the 280,000 workers who benefited from trade assistance last year.

At the time, some Republicans, such as House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI), were ready and willing to extend the trade assistance, but Tea Partiers in the House balked. Senate Republicans then threw a fit and blocked an extension, saying that they refused to budge on trade assistance unless it was coupled with consideration of pending free trade pacts with Columbia, Korea, and Panama.

The Obama administration yesterday countered and said that it won’t move on the free trade pacts until trade assistance is reauthorized. “The administration will not submit implementing legislation on the three pending FTAs until we have an agreement with Congress on the renewal of a robust expanded TAA program,” said National Economic Council Director Gene Sperling. Republicans have responded to the administration’s stance with predictable disapproval:

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): “Our economy needs jobs and growth, not an ever-expanding list of reasons to delay the creation those jobs. It is my hope that the President will reconsider this decision and will not allow anything to get in the way of Congressional consideration of these trade agreements and the jobs they’ll create.”

SEN. ORRIN HATCH (R-UT): “[Tying trade agreements] to unrelated spending is hugely disappointing to American workers, farmers, and job creators, who are losing out to foreign competitors with every passing day. It makes no sense to shut the door on increasing U.S. exports by over $10 billion in order to fund a costly program.”

SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY (R-IA): “I don’t think the current funding level is sustainable,” said Senator Charles Grassley…“I see the possibility of more goal-post moving.”

So Republicans are allowed to hold benefits hostage for more trade deals, but the administration attempting to ensure that workers already affected by trade receive some help “makes no sense”? As CAP’s Sabina Dewan wrote, “threatening to let Trade Adjustment Assistance expire unless the administration ‘moves’ other trade agreements amounts to little more than a conservative anti-jobs and anti-worker agenda.”

Indeed, merits of the trade agreements aside, trade assistance should be reauthorized independently, as the current version of the program, which dates to 2002, “covers fewer workers and offers lower benefits and fewer opportunities” than the version of the program that expired. As AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said, “for years the TAA program has been a lifeline for working people trying to get the skills necessary to change careers after their lives have been turned upside down.”

Yglesias

Endgame

By Matthew Yglesias on May 17, 2011 at 7:25 pm

What do you do with a revolution?

— The success of Bridesmaids.

— Rick Perry considering presidential bid.

— Perry’s path to the nomination seems so obvious that you have to wonder what skeleton in the closet is holding him back.

— Liberal brains and conservative brains (PDF).

— Jane Mayer on Obama’s anti-whistleblower crackdown.

— Debunking the right’s latest Affordable Care Act conspiracy theory.

— Rick Santorum says torture victim John McCain doesn’t understand how torture works.

Hole’s “Rock Star” is an underrated slice of nineties culture.

Politics

Even Before NH Voter ID Bill Becomes Law, Illegal Signs Appear At Polling Stations To Disenfranchise Voters

By Travis Waldron on May 17, 2011 at 6:50 pm

Photo courtesy BlueHampshire.com

New Hampshire House Speaker Bill O’Brien (R) took to the House floor this morning to defend Senate Bill 129, which would require voters to show photo identification in order to vote. But even before the bill became law, a sign was hanging on the door of a polling station in O’Brien’s own district, demanding that voters show ID before they could vote. The progressive blog Blue Hampshire first reported the placement of the signs, which were hanging outside polling places for the special election to replace state Rep. Robert Mead (R):

Signs posted at the New Boston Elementary School, one of the five polling locations in the district, this morning read, “Per pending legislation you will be required to produce a photo ID in order to receive a ballot.” They were removed at the request of the New Hampshire Attorney General, but not before voters on their way into the polls turned saw them and turned around.

“Law abiding New Hampshire citizens were discouraged from voting this morning as a direct result of Speaker’s O’Brien terrible piece of legislation, SB129,” said Harrell Kirstein, press secretary for the New Hampshire Democratic Party. “Just moments before O’Brien defended this reckless bill in Concord, voters in his own district were walking away from the polls without having cast a vote.”

ThinkProgress has documented recent efforts by legislators in as many as 22 states, including South Carolina, Florida, and Wisconsin, to disenfranchise voters through voter identification laws and other methods. Republicans often justify these proposals by spreading fear about widespread voter fraud, but voter fraud is, in fact, extremely rare. For instance, in Kentucky, which is holding statewide primary elections today, the Lexington Herald-Leader reported that the state’s voting fraud hotline has not received a single call.

Health

Gingrich Would Offer Vouchers To Today’s Medicare Recipients

By Igor Volsky on May 17, 2011 at 6:45 pm

Newt Gingrich “clarified” his support for privatizing Medicare on a call with conservative bloggers and journalists this afternoon, as he continues to back away from his claim that Paul Ryan’s plan presented a “radical” change to the program. Gingrich admitted that he’s unsure if allowing seniors to purchase Medicare benefits from private insurers would work, but proposed moving bravely ahead by offering supplemental vouchers to today’s senior citizens:

While he continued to warn against imposing “radical change,” Gingrich called for an arguably bolder move on Medicare. “I would offer on a voluntary basis, a supplement plan, a voucher—I wouldn’t call it a voucher—but some kind of support plan this year,” Gingrich said. Paul Ryan’s plan wouldn’t begin to take effect for 10 years. [...]

“Part of what I’m worried about is going through a radical change that has not yet been tested,” Gingrich said. “But you could really start this year. And you could start to reduce some of the pressure on Medicare and on the budget this year. And you then put Obama in the position of saying, ‘No, I’m not going to let any senior citizen choose.’”

“There’s actually an advantage to starting with a voluntary plan,” he continued, “so you get practical operational experience with the first couple hundred thousand people, the first couple million people. And then you look comparatively.”

Someone should tell Gingrich that there is already such a voluntary plan and it’s called Medicare Advantage. And for all the raving you hear about private insurers lowering costs and providing better coverage for less, the data from that “experiment” doesn’t back it up. While some plans are certainly better than others, on the whole private insurers — which don’t have the bargaining power of Medicare — are receiving an average of 9 percent (about $8.9 billion) more than traditional Medicare and don’t seem to be saving the program any money (an estimated 13 percent of the payment going towards profits and administrative costs).

The Washington Examiner’s Phil Klein offers additional details from the call:

Gingrich explained that his differences with the Ryan approach is that he thinks instead of transitioning Medicare entirely into a system in which retirees are given money toward the purchase of private policies, seniors should be given the choice between the current system and a new system. He said he would support offering them that choice immediately, so that the government could study the results of the so-called “premium-support” model with the hundreds of thousands of people rather than implementing it system-wide for all Americans currently 54 and younger.

This is all very similar to what Sens. John Breaux (D-LA) and Bill Frist (R-TN) offered in 1999 and 2001 — which Gingrich seemed to support. Unlike Ryan, Breaux and Frist replaced the current Medicare program with competing health plans, while maintaining the CMS-sponsored Medicare fee-for-service coverage as an option. They also offered seniors a premium support that did a better job of keeping up with health care costs by establishing a contribution that was set as a percentage of actual plan bids for a comprehensive set of benefits. The beneficiary paid the difference between the plan bid and the government’s contribution (which is indexed to average costs).

Analysts at the time argued that the proposal would lead to severe adverse selection for seniors who remain in traditional Medicare and now concede that the cost savings from this kind of approach were likely overstated. Henry Aaron — who developed the premium support concept with Robert Reischauer in 1995 — has since walked away from the proposal, arguing that the Affordable Care Act may push Medicare to use its leverage to create much more substantial savings.

Alyssa

Lisa Edelstein Leaves ‘House,’ Lets Someone Else Ration Healthcare

By Alyssa Rosenberg on May 17, 2011 at 6:30 pm

The news that Lisa Edelstein is quitting House is a tragedy for people who want to see more hot Jews and competent administrators in our mass media. Our popular culture, particularly our procedural shows, are heavily skewed towards storylines where our Slightly Rebellious Heroes Tell The Administrator To Shove It And Save Lives, usually by continuing to investigate crimes or treat patients. Usually, the immediate supervisors of those Slightly Rebellious Heroes are on their side, rather than on the side of the higher-ups. We have very few shows where the administrator saying no is a sympathetic figure, much less a romantic or heroic one. Cuddy was the very rare exception.

That said, part of the reason Cuddy gets to be a Hero Administrator to the audience is that she knuckles under to House his team pretty regularly. Unless she thinks she’s getting a career $100 million value out of House (plus the $50,000 she’s built into the annual budget to defend him from lawsuits), blowing up a relationship with a major donor to defend his continued employment may not have been such a great call. Also, unless Princeton-Plainsboro Teaching Hospital is in every other area of practice the single most efficient hospital on the planet, House’s team must drive up average health care costs like crazy, much of it spent on testing and treatment that lead absolutely nowhere because, as we all know, diagnostic insights arrive as bolts out of the blue. Atul Gawande would probably tell Cuddy to fire House and invest in a really good preventative care program. But in the world of television, if she followed his advice, Cuddy would just be another evil bureaucrat.

To a certain extent, Cuddy’s behavior is fairly realistic. As that Gawande article points out, hospitals have strong incentives to order as many tests and as many procedures as possible totally irrespective of how much they actually improve patients’ health. And it may be that House is part of a larger cycle: some folks have theorized that the show contributes to patients’ desire for heroic care and more tests and procedures. I’m glad we had an image of a smart, savvy, sympathetic woman administrator on television for as long as we did. I just wish she was a hero for advocating for things that were actually good for us.

Politics

GOP Congressman Suggests Staving Off Default By Selling Most Of Utah

By Faiz Shakir on May 17, 2011 at 6:18 pm

Rep. Dennis Ross (R-FL)

To address the nation’s deficit as we reach our impending statutory debt limit, conservatives refuse to consider asking the wealthiest to pay their fair share. Instead, many want to place the burden on the backs of Main Street America. Florida Republican congressman Dennis Ross went a step further today, suggesting that the U.S. government could actually sell off part of America:

Dennis Ross, a House Republican and a member of the Tea Party caucus, told Reuters: “I don’t think Treasury has been up front with us. I am not convinced the sky will fall in on August 3.”

Ross added: “I’m not an economist, but I have maintained a household. The federal government owns 70 per cent of Utah, for example. There are federal buildings. If you need cash, let’s start liquidating.”

Among other novel approaches offered by conservatives to address the deficit: Selling off all the gold at Fort Knox.

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up