MercoPress, en Español
Get our news on your inbox! Suscribe x
Montevideo, September 21st 2018 - 06:31 UTC
A Brazilian businessman famous for amassing and then losing a multi-billion-dollar fortune has been convicted of corruption and money laundering and sentenced to 30 years in prison. Read full article
FUNNY! I always thought that G. Mendes was his buddy!
Right, but even Gilmar needs to keep a low profile now and then...If I were Eike, I wouldn't worry, I'm sure something ($$$???) can be negotiated...
RE Pence visits Brazil...
it reminded me of Hiltler and the Holocaust...nothing else.
That's in the eye of the beholder, not in the article; it didn't occur to me at all. I do think the press are playing it up because of their dislike of Trump, but unlike you I think they are in the right now and were going too easy on Obama. It's perfectly true that some of those pictures of children are from Obama's era, although unlike with Trump, they were nearly all children who arrived at the border alone. Even so, the fact he was putting children in cages and imprisoning entire families until stopped by the courts is something that should have been more widely reported at the time. It also makes it very hard to believe he was not enforcing border security properly.
The press haven't said the families will never be reunited, but that the officials have not made any effort or records to ensure they can be, and also that no particular provision was made for caring for the kids before the policy was implemented. AFAIK the government has not denied any of this. I don't believe they intended to take the children away permanently, but since they didn't think it important enough to do proper planning, that may easily be the result.
As for the parents, I'm not suggesting they have no idea what awaits them, just that this family separation policy was new and they probably did not know about *that*.
RE Congress, why on earth would the Republicans give up a chance to criticise Obama over something? They don't need a majority to make a fuss, and in any case they had one by the end of his term. Even if you think they secretly supported his policies(!), that needn't have stopped them complaining as long as they still had Obama around to continue them. Now Trump is trying to override states and cities who want to be more lenient with immigrants. Neither side cares about the rights of states unless it suits them.
Do these American friends of yours work on the border or something?
That's in the eye of the beholder, not in the article....yes, it is.
I think they are in the right now and were going too easy on Obama....too easy on Obama...not at all surprising…’n can imagine why;
...they were nearly all children who arrived at the border alone....so, with regards to the current separation of families due to the 'zero-tolerance' policy, not much difference from back then, when parents were already aware that their children would be on their own....while there's no point in discussing what their strategy was, what calls my attention is the MSM's attempts to sway opinions with fake news.
“The press haven't said the families will never be reunited, etc…” Perhaps, but you wrote “with NO provision made to ever reunite them”, “not knowing if I'd ever see them again”, “don't think the parents knew their children would be taken away, possibly permanently”…
What then, if not the press - trying to create incorrect impressions - made you reach those conclusions , which now you too, believe may be incorrect ?
“…why on earth would the Republicans give up a chance to criticize Obama…?”
Hard to tell, but one thing sticks out like a sore thumb, the more you read about the US Congress, you realize that personal ambition, more than the good of the people, is what drives them.
My friends included P.A. directors, plus people in charge of enforcing security measures after 9-11 (regarding cargo entering the US)…although they were not directly involved in illegal immigration itself, they were kept in the loop by the CBP as it was considered a potential security threat.
One of the good things about Trump being president is that it has woken the press up to various abuses they weren't giving enough attention to. Trump is very different in manner, but in general the two parties can be very close on many issues (economics, war, terrorism...)
But IMO the crisis under Obama was very different. Firstly, children travelling alone were mostly older teenagers, so more able to cope with separation, and secondly they were usually either trying to join their parents already working (probably illegally) in the US, or going to stay with other relatives. So they could be sent to live with family members while their cases were processed, rather than being put in care or kept in tent cities. Besides, it was impossible for Obama to keep them with their parents if the parents weren't there.
And I don't believe my conclusions were incorrect. Having no records etc doesn't guarantee families will never be reunited, but it makes it harder, and likely that some cases will slip through the cracks. It just strikes me as extremely irresponsible and uncaring on the part of the administration. The latest news says they are now working on tracking down the kids, and using DNA tests to check the children belong to the parents.
the more you read about the US Congress, you realize that personal ambition, more than the good of the people, is what drives them.
Possibly. But the way I see it, they always say what their voters want them to say, but they don't necessarily do what their voters want them to do. Immigration is good for business so there is generally much talk and little action, to the by-now-extreme frustration of certain voters. But for that reason, as long as Obama was there to take the fall and continue his policies, I would expect them to complain long and loud. Only when he was gone and it came time to put their money where their mouth is would they go quiet, as with Obamacare (still not repealed 1.5 years later).
RE your friends, what is PA?
“Firstly, children travelling alone were mostly older teenagers, so more able to cope with separation,…”
The whole thing boils down to : ILLEGAL immigration….why should the US receive them with open arms, when businessmen and tourists need a visa to get in ? people tend to forget that entering a country illegally is a crime, and from then on, come up with tons of excuses to justify it.
It’s hard to imagine that the families wouldn’t eventually be reunited, whether in the US or in their homelands…because what would the US do with ‘parent-less’ kids ?
While I agree that the control (or lack of it) of who’s who may lead to temporary problems, but I still believe the drama is being exaggerated.
Illegal immigration has become a very sensitive matter, probably leaving many congressmen in doubt (regardless of their personal convictions) as to how they should go about it, as any decision today can bite them in the ass tomorrow.
PA is Port Authority. Representing a carrier doing the South America / North America route, I was obliged to accompany the implementation of safety measures demanded of the carriers by DHS.
I hope you are right that all the families will be reunited eventually. It's not like the US wants to be left with the kids, but they can just send them into foster care with their own neglected children. I wonder if American foster care has as disastrous outcomes as ours does?
Agree immigration is a sensitive matter these days. Most Americans seem to be opposed, but not all, and a lot of them (but not all) care about the welfare of illegal immigrants even if they don't want them to stay.
I think immigration used to be viewed differently in the US (and maybe Brazil?) to Europe. For a long time they wanted immigrants and encouraged them, and saw themselves as the country that welcomed new citizens and let them contribute. I think many people were sympathetic to the illegal immigrants because they remembered their own parents or grandparents who had arrived in the US poor and built a new life there, and wanted others to have the same opportunity. For them the solution to illegal immigration was simply to make it legal, the way it used to be. (And if they had their way, you would not need a visa.)
Visas are funny things, actually. When I looked up if I needed one to cross the Brazilian border, I found I don't (at least pre-Brexit), but Americans have to get a visa in advance and it costs US$160. My friend was sent to India for a week by his company and he had to spend a whole day in Birmingham filling out forms to get a very expensive business visa. I doubt there is a big problem of illegal immigration from the UK to India.
Port Authority, huh. Is it common for people to try and sneak in through the ports? It is here, but then it would be, wouldn't it?
RE Brazil, I was going to say I think the Vz refugees will be a bigger problem because they are arriving into a poor and isolated area. When people flee wars or other problems, surely there should be some option in between building fences to keep them out and letting them join your society and stay permanently?
REF: Gilmar needs to keep a low profile:
He BETTER! But being tough-skinned and also being a nightmare of the rest of the eunuchs; looks like his goose is not going to be cooked THAT soon!
Lawyers are loath to 'attack' Gilmar, because the know that judges usually have each other's backs, so if they don't win, they'll be persecuted.
What I've seen and read about foster care - in the US, as well - sounds like a lottery for both sides.
Ok, while many people might feel sorry for the illegal immigrants, they also realize tt by simply opening the gates and letting them in, is transferring the problem to themselves...I think most people here don't see immigration as a problem, but with Brazil's current experience in the north - Venezuelans overwhelming some small towns on the border, and Africans in the SE, whom are seen as sucking up enormous amounts of public funds without tangible results - that could change. On the other hand, since many immigrants identify pretty well with the conditions of many of the local population, that is in their favour.
...people sympathetic to illegal immigrants because they remembered their own parents/ grandparents who arrived in the US poor 'n built a new life there, and wanted others to have the same opportunity.
I've heard many 2nd (or 3rd) generation Cubans (now Americans) in the US, voicing just the opposite....when their parents arrived, they were eventually 'legalized', but not before facing hardship to succeed, so quite a few are not in favour of opening the flood gates now, for new illegal immigrants, whether from Central America, or Cuba.
Differently to the UK, in the US, I think sneaking in through sea ports is far less common (more difficult) than over the dry border, but the PA's, working in a sensitive area for national security, everyone needs to be made aware of the eventual risks, and adopt certain rules, even if not directly in contact with them.
One of the problems with illegal immigration is that it occurs in waves, catching the countries they try to enter, unprepared to deal with them...and their being destitute doesn't help either...quite different to the early 1900s immigrants.
I think most people here don't see immigration as a problem
That was lucky for you. In Britain many people do see legal immigrants, even from other parts of Europe, as a problem.
Could the Federal government move the Venezuelan refugees to richer parts of the country and spread them out so they wouldn't be such a burden on the North? It's unfortunate that Brazil is still in a recession and they'll be competing for jobs with the natives (if they are allowed to work?)
Re the Cuban Americans, that is an attitude I've never understood. I was forced to suffer, so I want other people to suffer too. Do they think they themselves are bad for America, or not integrated? If not, why do they object to other Cubans coming?
For the more pro-immigration Americans, they say people had these same fears before, that immigrants would bring poverty and crime, and change society, and it all turned out fine:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DgoNaR3UwAAeZv2.jpg (Apparently we weren't sending them our best people.)
I wasn't expecting people to be sneaking in by sea much in the US. If we had a border with France I'm sure it would have been fenced off long ago; our government is no fonder of illegal immigration than the US. My cousin worked at Dover searching lorries for illegal immigrants (who must have travelled through several safe, rich countries in Europe to get there), and has a very jaundiced view of them. AFAIK the law says if someone steps on your country's soil you must let them request asylum, but it seems kind of stupid to me. If they need asylum then why do we force people to sneak in illegally to get it? Why can't they turn up at the border and just ask for asylum there? Seems like rewarding crime to do it this way.
One of the problems with illegal immigration is that it occurs in waves
That's true for Brazil, and Europe with the Syrian refugees, but the US has had high illegal immigration for decades, you'd think they'd be better at dealing with it by now.
30 years in prison - yes - EVERYONE believes!
Not sure, but get the impression most African emigrants trying to settle in Britain are just looking for a country where social benefits are the most generous.
The Federal government is now shouldering most of the burden of VZ refugees up north ; once they’re in, they’re being issued work permits, but unless they’re qualified don’t see a great future for them.
Think Cuban Americans attitude towards their countrymen, rather than wanting them to suffer, is that that they be submitted to the same rules their parents were. Have met many Cuban Americans (work colleagues in Miami), and they all seem to be perfectly integrated in the American way of life. More recently I’ve rode with many Cuban Uber drivers (again in Miami, arrived last 10 - 5 years) and none seem to be clinging to past ties, far less complaining of hardship.
Also, emigration to the US 100 years ago seemed more controlled, and they - both emigrants, and Americans – thought they should have the ‘automatic’ right to enter…and they arrived with a fixed objective : construct a better future for their families, but work hard to get it…today, obviously with exceptions, seems the motive of many trying to enter the US, isn’t all that noble.
Illegal immigration is what it is :illegal. And every country has the right to check/decide who they let in, whether people like it or not.
As far as I know, Canada, Australia ‘n N. Zealand used to - or still do – have immigration systems whereby you only got in if you qualified under strict rules.
It’s disgusting how some immigrants of Arab descent manifest their ‘gratitude’ to Britain, for the privilege of living there….AFAIC, those identified in violence-threatening protests should be rounded up and deported…send them back to where they should never have left.
As to the US, think the ‘mess’ is due to one Administration after the other just avoiding to take the issue 'seriously'…too many interest groups ‘n not enough cooperation in dealing with it.
are just looking for a country where social benefits are the most generous.
Possibly, but if so they'll be disappointed. Benefits for asylum seekers here are no more generous than in France. Maybe it's easier to work under the table in Britain. I've also heard some want to come because they have family here, and others because they already speak English and don't want to go to the effort of learning another language.
I've heard the qualified Venezuelans are going to Argentina and Chile, so Brazil is probably getting the poorer ones. They'll be better off if they are able to work, but I should think would have to move far away from the border to find a job.
Objectively, immigration to the US was much less controlled 100 years ago; I think they only turned away people with infectious diseases. That cartoon was published by the 'Know Nothing' party who wanted to limit it, but unlike today they weren't a majority. The difference is that no one was sneaking in back then because no one needed to, so the process of arrival was indeed more controlled.
But as to motives, as far as I can see they are much the same; get a job and build a better future for your family. Americans object because having illegal workers can drive down wages in the area, but employers love it and you can guess which their administration listens to more when making policy. Thus you end up with this situation:
I agree they should be able to decide who can enter, but they need to be realistic that there are certain jobs Americans won't do and provide visas for those. Also, they should help the governments in Central America deal with the gang violence etc so people don't feel forced to leave.
Australia definitely has a points system, not sure about the other two. And the way Australia treats illegal immigrants (eg refugees from Burma) is way worse than America. They basically stick them in jail indefinitely on remote islands, children as well.
10 years ago, I met several wealthy Venezuelans in Panama City…recent arrivals, fleeing VZ, responsible for part of the construction boom (started) circa 2008.
“Objectively, immigration to the US was less controlled 100 years ago…” think you’re right…back then, wasn’t a problem as it is today.
Even if the majority of C. America emigrants trying to enter the US are well-intentioned, sneaking in still isn’t justified…apply for asylum ‘n wait…most know they’re not going to be welcomed with open arms by US immigration services, yet they insist.
Re driving down wages (in lower paying jobs) I agree, but if entry were rationally controlled, impact might be less.
Every time the US has tried to ‘help’ Central /S. America countries, against gangs or drug cartels, they pay a heavy price (political/financial)…and few people appreciate their presence.
If Australia sends such a strong message tt they don’t want refugees, why do the latter insist ?
To answer yr question under “Brzln currency ‘n Stock mkt” …”...hard to understand people from the NE then? Why is it so much poorer than the SE? …seems the hotter /more tropical a country, less developed it is, and that's even true within countries. I don't know why”.
Neither do I, but most poor in the NE, as versus those in SE, usually don’t learn how to speak correctly, and their diction is lousy.
In colonial Brazil the NE was rich, as the economy was driven by sugar cane ‘n slavery…later, with mass immigration of workers fm Europe (& Japan, mostly small farmers), mainly in the SE, industrialization took off and the wealth shifted down south, while the NE was largely neglected.
Don’t know if temperature plays a role in development, but by looking at most countries in the LatAm ‘n central/ southern Africa, you can see what they share in common - besides higher temperatures, being exploited, relatively recent independence(200 years, ‘n in Africa far less), ‘n for which largely unprepared, and corruption.
I read this yesterday. I'm sure you'll disagree with it, but I think there is something to the idea that Trump is testing out ideas and seeing how far he can go before his base object:
If Australia sends such a strong message tt they don’t want refugees, why do the latter insist ?
Probably because even a prison camp is better than going back to Myanmar:
Besides, I daresay a lot went to other countries instead, after seeing what happened in Aus, but they are often treated badly there, too.
The C Americans don't have it as awful as that, but they are still willing to risk the US Immigration service. I think plenty do turn up at the border and hand themselves in asking for asylum, but as you say, they aren't welcomed with open arms.
If the immigrants were legal they would have minimum wage and normal employment rights, which would help stop them undercutting locals, but Americans won't vote for that. Besides, employers would probably still fiddle the visas in order to save money; I gather that is what happens with workers on H1B visas. They claim they can't find anyone to do the job locally, but really they just want cheaper foreign workers.
I think the US has too often tried to 'help' Latin American by propering up dictators and training the police in torture techniques, so they are naturally looked at with suspicion. But there was a program that seemed to helping:
RE hot countries, recent independence and being exploited before and after surely does explain a lot. Not sure why corruption is worse in some countries than others so would need to explain that instead. Possibly it's just easier to copy a successful 'formula' for development if your country is similar to the originals.
Have seen ‘trial runs’ (test marketing) here, tried by several govts (incldng PT’s): propose outrageous legislation, then depending on public reaction, either retreat (alleging it’s not what they proposed) or, reinforce it. “That what is being trialed, is ‘fascism’” as people generally conceive it, am not so sure…but authoritarianism, with a view to perpetuating power, certainly...encroaching on people’s basic rights without them realizing they’ve lost them until it’s too late.
Rigging of elections – by foreign interference, don’t know what to believe, but by internal manipulation, or pure fraud, I do. Re ‘moral boundaries’, I see the Brazilian left’s attempt to deconstruct the ‘family’ structure, as a means to create a disoriented society – by implementing policies such as the PT’s school curriculum, now removed, which promoted gender identity (the idea that being born male/female means nothing etc), with the objective of easier manipulation of ‘lost’ souls. Class-hatred was incentivized by the left (mainly PT), and up to a point, succeeded. The PT’s most fanatic followers, the MST and other social movements (not clearly defined), usually resort to violence, and to absurd lies, distorted claims, just to confuse the lesser-informed.
Don’t agree with the last 3 paragraphs (“taste for savagery/ devious infants/ Fox news”) ; AFAIC, it's leftist propaganda : Instead of interpreting the facts as a normal process of people reacting to an instinct of self-preservation, he distorts them (highly exaggerating the bad, omitting the good, and creating fake news), trying to make it sound as if people did not have the legitimate right to want to protect their way of life. It’s taking the extreme views of a few, and generalizing.
Right, IF the immigrants were “legal”, which excludes the illegals, sneaking in. If employers take on illegals to take advantage of them, clamp down on them. Myanmar's actions are indeed barbaric, 'n am glad to hear about Honduras.
RE The last 3 paragraphs, here's the guy making weird noises about the down syndrome child (don't know what the hell that was all about):
Here's Ann Coulter saying the kids are given scripts and coached on what to say:
Or was it the part about Republicans supporting the policy that you didn't believe?
”Republican voters support the separation policy 55 - 35 percent, the only listed party, gender, education, age or racial group to support it, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe- ack) University National Poll finds.
But why wouldn't they support it? They watch Fox News, they read fake news on Facebook. They have no idea what is really happening in the world, and if they are accidentally confronted with the truth, they start talking about crisis actors and the deep state. Extremist views are rapidly becoming common, which is kind of the point.
And this part is definitely happening: Another is the generation of tribal identities, the division of society into mutually exclusive polarities.
As for registering Roma, see here:
It's very popular apparently, which is sad but not surprising; if you want to hear a supposedly liberal, tolerant European being unashamedly racist, ask them about Gypsies. It's also alarmingly comparable to what happened in the 30s.
Re rigging of elections, I think that's the wrong way to put it. What we have seen is lying to people to make them vote a certain way, particularly using social media. No one can make a good decision if they don't have the facts.
If employers take on illegals to take advantage of them, clamp down on them.
Clamp down on campaign donors?!
the Brazilian left’s attempt to deconstruct the ‘family’ structure”
Do you think Britain has a disorientated society, then? We had that sort of curriculum at my school
Youtube links didn’t open, so can’t comment (“noises of down-syndrome child/A.Coulter). Rgdng the poll, not knowing what the truth is, I’ll accept the figures at their face value.
“But why wouldn't they support it? They watch Fox News, read fake news on FB, have no idea what's happening in the world, if accidentally confronted with the truth, start talking abt crisis actors ‘n the deep state. Extremist views are rapidly becoming common, which is kind of the point”…“Extremist views are rapidly becoming common, etc”, agree 100%, but I’d add tt this hat fits the liberal lefties as well…they watch tendentious MSM, also read fake news on FB ('n gobble it up), aren’t any better informed because they're lefties, they too run away fm the truth when it’s inconvenient – i.e., political correctness…So yes, extremism (re both sides of the political spectrum) misleads people, intentionally.
What’s going on in Italy boils down to some not liking the entry of immigrants as has been happening, ‘n others who think they are not a problem…I don’t know. There is no clear cut policy in place which rapidly weeds out the bad, but time will tell who was nearer the truth. In this sense, Merkel must be wondering now if she didn’t screw things up in Germany, after opposing the mass entry of immigrants, then opening the flood gates ; If the immigrants integrate into German society, adopt European values, great…but what if they shut themselves in their own communities, forming ghettos, start demanding special treatment ? It’s not an easy task, but a bit of prudence - on both sides - might be good before jumping in with both feet.
Unless someone has experienced uncontrolled immigration, which may have turned out well, or badly, it’s hard to judge…people can be overly fearful or grossly naïve.
“No one can make a good decision if they don't have the facts” - agree.
Clamp down on employers, not donors.
Don’t know abt GB, but leftist policies in BZL have caused hatred, 'n f'd people's minds.
Commenting for this story is now closed.If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!
Get our news on your inbox!