Connect with us

News

As Democrats fold to GOP on border policy, immigrants pay the price

Published

on

As Democrats fold to GOP on border policy, immigrants pay the price
YouTube video

Kamala Harris has made it clear that, while a new name is now at the top of the Democratic ticket in the 2024 elections, the party policy on immigration and the border has not changed and will not change. At the 2024 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Harris and other speakers continued to adopt the language of Donald Trump and Republicans when speaking about immigration policy and the “crisis” on the US-Mexico border. Harris also declared her commitment to signing the Bipartisan Border Security Bill, which Republicans and six Democrats killed in the Senate earlier this year, into law; the bill would, among other things, require hundreds of millions of dollars of unspent funds to be used to continue building a wall on the border. However, prominent voices within the Democratic party are speaking out and urging the Biden-Harris Administration and the Harris campaign to change course on immigration and border policy. TRNN Editor-in-Chief Maximillian Alvarez speaks with Juanita Martinez, chair of the Maverick County Democratic Party in Texas, about how the so-called “immigration debate” is shaping this election, and who and what is being left out of that debate.

Studio Production: Cameron Granadino
Post-Production: David Hebden


Transcript

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

Maximillian Alvarez:

We’re back here in Baltimore after an intense week of filming inside and outside the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. The 2024 DNC concluded on August 22nd with Kamala Harris officially accepting the party’s nomination, and addressing the convention laying out her platform and her vision for the country. But one of the things that was made abundantly clear in Harris’s speech is that, while a new name is now at the top of the Democratic ticket in this election, the party policy on immigration and the border has not changed and will not change. To loud applause, Harris declared her commitment to signing the bipartisan border security bill, which Republicans and six Democrats killed in the Senate earlier this year, into law. Take a listen.

Kamala Harris:

Advertisement

Last year Joe and I brought together Democrats and conservative Republicans to write the strongest border bill in decades. The Border Patrol endorsed it. But Donald Trump believes a border deal would hurt his campaign so he ordered his allies in Congress to kill the deal. Well, I refuse to play politics with our security, and here is my pledge to you. As president, I will bring back the bipartisan board of security bill that he killed and I will sign it into law.

Maximillian Alvarez:

The border security legislation would grant presidential administrations greater power to turn migrants away from the border in mass. And it would require hundreds of millions of dollars of unspent funds to be used to continue building a wall on the border. Moreover, as Chris Walker reported for Truthout earlier this year, “The bill expedites the processing time for those seeking asylum which can sometimes take several years to just six months. It also removes the process from immigration courts potentially denying asylum seekers their due process rights. And would raise legal standards by which asylum seekers can apply for temporary or permanent entry in the US.”

Democrats openly admitted that the bipartisan border security bill was a political gambit. It was an attempt by Democrats to counter criticisms from Trump and the Republicans that the Biden administration is too “Soft” on immigration by effectively adopting the Republican platform on immigration. And it was a stunt designed to offer Republicans what they say they want on immigration and border policy just to prove that Trump would direct the party to kill the bill so as not to give Democrats a political win. But who exactly would win if this bill is signed into law? And what are we as a country, as a people losing? Who is “Winning” now that there is a clear bipartisan consensus on the “Border crisis” and the “Immigration debate?” And that the terms of that consensus have been set largely by Trump and the far right themselves.

Advertisement

So to talk about this I’m honored to be joined today by Juanita Martinez, chair of the Maverick County Democratic Party in Texas. I got to meet Juanita at the DNC in Chicago. And while we were unable to find time to record an interview at the convention, we felt an urgent need to have a post-convention discussion here about the role the so-called immigration debate is playing right now in shaping this election, and about who and what is being left out of that debate. So Juanita, thank you so much for joining us today on The Real News Network, I really appreciate it. And I wanted to just jump right in here and ask, now that both conventions are over, the Democratic Convention and the Republican Convention, what role do you see immigration playing in this election? What is each party offering to address it? And what is not being addressed here?

Juanita Martinez:

Well, to be honest, I did read most of the immigration bill that they were trying to pass. Many of us that have been involved with immigrants and seeing their strife and seeing their suffering here directly, eyewitnesses on the border, we’re not happy with it at all, at all. But I understand why we had to do something drastic. Not this past October but the October before, I went to the DNC meeting. It was held in Philadelphia. Yes, it was in Philadelphia. I stood there because I was going to shake President Biden’s hand but he actually let me speak. And I told him, “Mr. President, there’s a humanitarian crisis on the border we’re going to need help. And you know the Republicans are going to use that against us during the election.” And, of course, he was very kind. Oh my gosh, he is the kindest person in the world.

I mistakenly called him Joe because there were signs … There were posters everywhere that said Joe. And then I was just so embarrassed and I said, “I’m so sorry I meant Mr. President.” And he just tapped my shoulder he said, “You can call me Joe.” Such a simple, nice, everyday guy. I just fell in love with him at that point. I advised him that the situation on the border was getting worse and we needed to do something about it because that was going to be a weapon against us during the election by the Republicans. Of course, nothing was done. Exactly as I had said, that’s the only issue that they have running on. Making people afraid and telling people how there’s a invasion on the border, there’s a crisis on the border.

Advertisement

We have been living it here in Eagle Pass because Governor Abbott has decided to make this his stage for his political propaganda. For people to vote Republican just to keep us safe because there there’s a crisis, we’re getting invaded, they have to protect the United States. That’s bull shit. This thing about continuing with the border wall, I can tell you right off … My daughter, Dr. Adriana Martinez out of the Southern Illinois University in Edwardsville, she was doing an article way past … Way before this. We spoke to some immigrants and I went with her.

And she was interviewing some immigrants and asking, “What did they think of the border” which was at that time barely being built. I’ll never forget one man that said, “They can build the border” … He had been deported from Austin, Texas. In Austin, Texas he had his family, he had his children and they had deported him because he was illegal in the US. And he told my daughter, “They can build the wall all the way up to the heavens and we’ll just dig under it like a gopher. There is nothing they can do to keep me from going back to my family where I have to support them, where I have to work for them.” That just tells you their determination.

The concertina wire is just brutal, and just vicious, and inhumane. Because this bill has that as part of it, a lot of the Democrats … I’m serious that I’ve talked to several people, especially those of us dealing with the actual situation here, we were very sad about it, about many parts of that bill. Because you hear these people that came from Venezuela, and the harshest part, the hell that they go through crossing Mexico, and then finally reaching the river where there’s some hope for a better life for their children. How is it that now they’re just going to turn them back, on this river, to where they came from? There has to be a better solution, sir. There has to be a better solution. And this bill is not the right way to go. It is my personal opinion. Of course, I 100% support Kamala Harris and I am going to work like crazy here to get … To make sure that monster Trump does not get near the White House.

However, when you talk about that issue I do have a problem. What can I tell you? This issue is very close to our heart. When you saw me there at the … Doing the interview outside the stadium at the convention, I was reaching out to a family that we helped them get there, her name is [inaudible 00:09:52]. I lost contact with them. But one morning I woke up to a message from her that said, “I am [inaudible 00:09:59], Mrs. Martinez. I want to let you know that we’re in Chicago and my husband is already working, the children are in school, and I’m going to go interview for a job at a cafeteria.” This family is the family that their little boy has a horrible scar, has a terrible scar on his leg. Their identical twins. And I always do the speech and say they are no longer identical because one of them bears the Abbott scar from that concertina wire.

Advertisement

Now when I went to the national convention … To me, I went for a purpose. And I felt like there’s a reason why I’m the first person from my community, from my county to represent the congressional district, it’s because I had a message and I had to spread it, I had to say it to everybody there at the convention. I took my canvas because I paint a little bit. I painted a canvas and I attached a piece of actual concertina wire from the Rio Grande, from the edge of the river so people can see what Abbott has put in our river. Besides militarizing our river he has put that and it’s just plain wrong. That’s why I feel very passionate about this.

And there’s a reason why I was there. I always think there’s a reason for things to happen the way they did. And that’s when you saw me interviewing with that Spanish network outside, that’s exactly what I was telling them. And I say this, and I want people to listen and know what’s happening on the river here, what Abbott is doing to us, to my small community. Nobody knew where we were until he decided to make us his stage for his false propaganda. I have seen a father and his daughter face down in the river where he was still holding onto her. And all these people want is to cross into the US and have a better life for themselves and their children. That’s why they risk it all because they’re suffering from hunger. Who wouldn’t do that? Me as a mother, if my children were hungry, my children were facing war violence, of course, I would risk everything I could for their future. That’s just something I feel very strongly about, sir.

Maximillian Alvarez:

And I could hear it in your voice there in the United … Outside the United Center and here now. It affects me deeply, as I told you there in Chicago, as well not only as the son of immigrants but as the foster father of an undocumented daughter myself as well. But also I think just as a human being with a heart to see what people are going through, flesh and blood human beings are going through to cross the border, to find that better life, to see the conditions that they are fleeing. And our own country’s complicity in creating those conditions and seeing the humanitarian crisis across the board. I just feel like you can’t have a heart and not want to approach this in a human way. And yet on the policy level that is not what we are getting.

Advertisement

And I wanted to ask you just two questions here because I know I got to let you go in a minute. Is first, could you just say more about the reality that you and your neighbors are seeing there on the ground, on the border over there in Texas? And the disconnect between what you’re seeing and experiencing and what you’re hearing in the media, what you’re hearing from Trump and the Republicans, but also what we were hearing on the Democratic National Convention stage. Can you talk a bit about that disconnect between the rhetoric and the reality on the ground? And what would a more humane immigration and border policy look like for the Democrats? What would you like to see this party do to counter the fear and hatred that Trump and the Republicans are pushing right now?

Juanita Martinez:

Well, just to give you an example. There was a caravan that came from North Texas, I don’t know how far they were from … That they came down because they heard of the invasion on the border, and it was in Eagle Pass. When they got here guess what? They were so disappointed. They even told the reporters, “Well, it’s not what we expected.” Well, duh, pendejos, of course, it’s not. You’re being lied to, you’re being lied to. They were very disappointed. They saw themselves with their rifles going up next to the river, fighting off the immigrants that were trying to rush into the United States.

These people are poor, these people want a better life. They are humble, poor people they sure as hell don’t have weapons. They don’t have weapons, they barely have what they can survive on. You’ll go to the edge of the river and find the wet clothes. Where they had another set of clothes that was dry in a plastic bag where they change right by the river. You’ll see little kids shoes just filthy with mud where they trotted across the bank of the river and they leave them there. And just searching for a better life.

Advertisement

They were very disappointed, let me tell you. And they went back knowing that they had been lied to. If it’s true, if it’s true that immigrants do not hurt our economy, and do not hurt the United States, and that if … And that they’ve proven they’re the ones that are bringing the drugs across … It’s US citizens that are drug traffickers. And if it’s a blatant lie that they’re all liars and murderers like the Republicans say then what the hell? Let’s make a process where they can come across without risking their life but without them having to cross all that Mexican territory. Come straight from Venezuela into the United States, if that is the process, if they want to come work.

There’s a big problem in Venezuela, what are we going to do go after the government in Venezuela to make their situation better? Climate change. A lot of this has to do with climate change. A lot of this has to do with climate change, that … What’s happening down there. There has to be a better process. But this turning them back from the river when they struggled so hard and they fought their way through Mexican cartels and Mexican deserts to get to the river and then to turn them back, that’s just inhumane, inhumane. That should not be happening. There has to be a way to take care of this. And if it’s not turning them away let them in. Every single worker at the hotel where I was staying, there in Chicago, were from Guadalajara, Venezuela. All of them were immigrants, okay? There was a real nice chef, his name is Robert, who was super nice, he was from Chicago. But every other worker that was working there was from Guatemala, from Guadalajara, from Mexico, from South America mostly. So they’re here and they’re working. We need them here.

So there has to be a better way than what is proposed in that bill. That bill should not, should not happen. But like I said, it was a forced bill by the Republicans. Because just as I told President Biden to his face, “That one time in Philadelphia, this is going to be their only weapon, the only issue they have to run on, and they’re going to juice it.” And that’s exactly what they’re doing.

Maximillian Alvarez:

Advertisement

Thank you so much for watching The Real News Network where we lift up the voices, stories, and struggles that you care about most. And we need your help to keep doing this work so please tap your screen now, subscribe, and donate to The Real News Network. Solidarity forever.

Creative Commons License

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

News

Civil Liberties at Risk Under Vietnam’s Tô Lâm

Published

on

army

On May 25, 2023, a Vietnamese court in Danang sentenced 39-year-old noodle vendor Bui Tuan Lam to six years in prison for posting an online clip deemed anti-government propaganda. Detained since 2021, Lam was isolated from his wife and children for two years before his trial drew international attention for its bizarre background and questionable legality. The dangerous video in question? A TikTok-style parody video mocking then-Minister of Public Security Tô Lâm’s extravagant culinary selection at a steakhouse in London.

One year into the food vendor’s sentence, now-President Tô Lâm’s political fortunes changed dramatically. On August 3, the former top security official was unanimously elected as Vietnam’s next Communist Party General Secretary, the most powerful position in the country. It was the culmination of his meteoric political rise, facilitated by the death of his mentor and longtime party boss Nguyen Phu Trong, in July. Pledging to build on his predecessor’s legacy, Tô Lâm made it clear that he will continue prioritizing the anti-corruption policies and security measures that defined his tenure at the Ministry of Public Security. 

However, as Bui Tuan Lam and the other 160 Vietnamese political prisoners have come to realize, Tô Lâm’s extrajudicial definition of a security threat includes public dissent, civil liberties, and even lighthearted comedy. 

Born on July 10, 1954, Tô Lâm has always prized security. After graduating from the People’s Security Academy in 1979, he held various law enforcement roles until his elevation to the Ministry of Public Security in 2016. There, he defined himself as an excellent political enforcer, leading an impressive anti-corruption campaign under Trong’s direction. Together, Lâm and Trong’s “Blazing Furnace” campaign targeted over 20,000 government officials in 2023, a dramatic increase from previous efforts. 

Advertisement

“Tô Lâm was appointed one of five deputy chairmen of the Central Steering on Anti-Corruption that was the spearhead of Trong’s blazing furnace campaign,” Carl Thayer, an emeritus professor of politics at the University of New South Wales, told me. “As Minister of Public Security, Tô Lâm was also responsible for the harassment, intimidation, arrest and imprisonment of political and civil society activists.”

To General Secretary Trong, Tô Lâm’s role in Hanoi as an enforcer quickly became apparent. In Lâm’s first week at the Ministry, the former law enforcement officer oversaw the brutal suppression of protests against Formosa Ha Tinh Steel, the company responsible for arguably the worst environmental disaster in Vietnamese history. 41 protesters were arrested, including activist Hoang Duc Binh, who was sentenced to 14 years in prison for advocating on behalf of local fishermen affected by the disaster. 

Two years later, Tô Lâm’s Ministry of Public Security significantly expanded government surveillance powers. The Law on Cyber Security, passed by the National Assembly in 2018, required telecommunication providers to record and store their users’ private data, including “full name, date of birth, place of birth, nationality, profession, position, place of residence, contact address.” Despite widespread condemnation and international outrage, the law continues to undermine Vietnamese civil liberties and online privacy. 

It’s not just democratic organizers and human rights advocates who have been targeted under Tô Lâm’s security regime. Le Trong Hung, a former middle school teacher, was arrested in 2021 after challenging General Secretary Nguyen Phu Trong to a nationally televised debate. Another teacher, 43-year-old Bui Van Thuan, was also arrested that same year and sentenced to nearly a decade in prison for publicly criticizing the Communist Party. Even Lâm’s own police officers, such as Captain Le Chi Thanh, have been prosecuted for exposing corruption within the Ministry of Public Security. 

Advertisement

Tô Lâm’s self-styled campaign to root out “corruption” and enhance state security also coincidentally targeted political opponents within his own party. “Tô Lâm used the Investigative Police Department of the Ministry of Public Security to gather evidence of corruption by the President Vo Van Thuong, the Chairman of the National Assembly Vuong Dinh Hue, and the Permanent member of the party Secretariat Truong Thi Mai,” says Thayer. “These were the three most powerful figures in the leadership under General Secretary Trong. All were pressured into resigning in turn.”

Since taking office in August, General Secretary Lâm has moved quickly to solidify his position on the international stage. Last week, the Vietnamese leader visited Beijing to meet with China’s Xi Jinping, marking his first official overseas trip. The visit came nearly a year after Vietnam upgraded its diplomatic relations with both Japan and the United States. However, this continuation of former President Trong’s “Bamboo Diplomacy” should not be interpreted as a sign that Lâm intends to govern as a carbon copy of his mentor. Tô Lâm’s particularly abysmal human rights record distinguishes him as a unique threat to civil liberties and basic freedoms, further cementing a decade-long trend of increasing censorship and political persecution in Vietnam.

[Ting Cui edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Record Indian gold imports help drive bullion’s rally

Published

on

A surge in demand among Indian consumers for gold jewellery and bars after a recent cut to tariffs is helping to drive global bullion prices to a series of fresh highs.

India’s gold imports hit their highest level on record by dollar value in August at $10.06bn, according to government data released Tuesday. That implies roughly 131 tonnes of bullion imports, the sixth-highest total on record by volume, according to a preliminary estimate from consultancy Metals Focus. 

The high gold price — which is up by one-quarter since the start of the year — has traditionally deterred price-sensitive Asian buyers, with Indians reducing demand for gold jewellery in response.

But the Indian government cut import duties on gold by 9 percentage points at the end of July, triggering a renewed surge in demand in the world’s second-largest buyer of gold.

Advertisement

“The impact of the duty cut was unprecedented, it was incredible,” said Philip Newman, managing director of Metals Focus in London. “It really brought consumers in.”

The tariff cut has been a boon for Indian jewellery stores such as MK Jewels in the upmarket Mumbai suburb of Bandra West, where director Ram Raimalani said “demand has been fantastic”.

Customers were packed into the store browsing for necklaces and bangles on a recent afternoon, and Raimalani is expecting an annual sales boost of as much as 40 per cent during the multi-month festival and wedding season that runs from September to February. 

Raimalani praised India’s government and “Modi ji”, an honorific for Prime Minister Narendra Modi, for reducing gold duties.

Advertisement
Column chart of tariff cut triggers import leap last month showing Indian gold imports

Expectations of rapid interest rate cuts by the US Federal Reserve have been the main driver of gold’s huge rally this year, according to analysts. Lower borrowing costs increase the attraction of assets with no yield, such as bullion, and are also likely to weigh on the dollar, in which gold is denominated.

The Fed cut rates by half a per cent on Wednesday, pushing gold to yet another record high, just below $2,600. 

But strong demand for gold jewellery and bars, as well as buying by central banks, have also helped buoy prices. 

India accounted for about a third of gold jewellery demand last year, and has become the world’s second-largest bar and coin market, according to data from the World Gold Council, an industry body.

However, that demand has meant that domestic gold prices in India are quickly catching up to the level they were at before the tariff duty cut, according to Harshal Barot, senior research consultant at Metals Focus. 

Advertisement

“That entire benefit [of the tariff cut] has kind of vanished,” said Barot. “Now that prices are going up again, we will have to see if consumers still buy as usual.”

Jewellery buying had been flagging before the cut in import duty, with demand in India in the first half of 2024 at its lowest level since 2020, according to the World Gold Council.

India’s central bank has also been on a gold buying spree, adding 42 tonnes of gold to its reserves during the first seven months of the year — more than double its purchases for the whole of 2023. 

A person familiar with the Reserve Bank of India’s thinking called the gold purchases a “routine” part of its foreign exchange reserve and currency stability management.

Advertisement
Line chart of  showing Rate cut expectations send gold to record high

In China, the world’s biggest physical buyer of gold, high prices have meant fewer jewellery sales, but more sales of gold bars and coins, which surged 62 per cent in the second quarter compared with a year earlier.

“We observed strong positive correlation between gold investment demand and the gold price,” wrote the World Gold Council, referring to China.

All of this has helped support the physical market and mitigate the impact that high prices can have in eroding demand. 

“It acts as a stable foundation for demand,” said Paul Wong, a market strategist at Sprott Asset Management. “In parts of Asia, gold is readily convertible into currency,” making it popular for savings, he said.

Western investor demand has also been a big factor in bullion’s rally, with a net $7.6bn flowing into gold-backed exchange traded funds over the past four months. 

Advertisement

After hitting a fresh high on Wednesday, analysts warn there could be a correction in the gold price.

“When you have this scale of anticipation [of rate cuts], for this long, there is room for disappointment,” said Adrian Ash, London-based director of research at BullionVault, an online gold marketplace. “I think there is scope for a pullback in precious alongside other assets.”

Whether or not gold pulls back from its record highs, Indian jewellery demand looks set to remain strong through the coming wedding season, according to MK Jewels’ Raimalani.

Soaring prices of bullion have been no deterrent to his customers, he added. “Indians are the happiest when prices go high because they already own so much gold. It’s like an investment.”

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

News

‘Doomsday’ Glacier Is Set to Melt Faster

Published

on

‘Doomsday’ Glacier Is Set to Melt Faster

Tidal action on the underside of the Thwaites Glacier in the Antarctic will “inexorably” accelerate melting this century, according to new research by British and American scientists. The researchers warn the faster melting could destabilize the entire West Antarctic ice sheet, leading to its eventual collapse.

The massive glacier—which is roughly the size of Florida—is of particular interest to scientists because of the rapid speed at which it is changing and the impact its loss would have on sea levels (the reason for its “Doomsday” moniker). It also acts as an anchor holding back the West Antarctic ice sheet.

Warmed ocean water melts doomsday glacier faster
Yasin Demirci—Anadolu/Getty Images

More than 2 kilometers (1.2 miles) thick in places, Thwaites has been likened to a cork in a bottle. Were it to collapse, sea levels would rise by 65 centimeters (26 inches). That’s already a significant amount, given oceans are currently rising 4.6 millimeters a year. But if it led to the eventual loss of the entire ice sheet, sea levels would rise 3.3 meters.

While some computer models suggest reductions in greenhouse gas emissions under the 2015 Paris Agreement may mitigate the glacier’s retreat, the outlook for the glacier remains “grim,” according to a report by the International Thwaites Glacier Collaboration (ITGC), a project that includes researchers from the British Antarctic Survey, the U.S. National Science Foundation and the U.K.’s Natural Environment Research Council.

Thwaites has been retreating for more than 80 years but that process has accelerated in the past 30, Rob Larter, a marine geophysicist who contributed to the research, said in a news release. “Our findings indicate it is set to retreat further and faster.” Other dynamics that aren’t currently incorporated into large-scale models could speed up its demise, the new research shows. 

Advertisement

Using a torpedo-shaped robot, scientists determined that the underside of Thwaites is insulated by a thin layer of cold water. However, in areas where the parts of the glacier lift off the seabed and the ice begins to float, tidal action is pumping warmer sea water, at high pressure, as far as 10 kilometers under the ice. The process is disrupting that insulating layer and will likely significantly speed up how fast the grounding zone—the area where the glacier sits on the seabed—retreats.

A similar process has been observed on glaciers in Greenland.

The group also flagged a worst-case scenario in which 100-meter-or-higher ice cliffs at the front of Thwaites are formed and then rapidly calve off icebergs, causing runaway glacial retreat that could raise sea levels by tens of centimeters in this century. However, the researchers said it’s too early to know if such scenarios are likely.

A key unanswered question is whether the loss of Thwaites Glacier is already irreversible. Heavy snowfalls, for example, regularly occur in the Antarctic and help replenish ice loss, Michelle Maclennan, a climate scientist with the University of Colorado at Boulder, explained during a news briefing. “The problem though is that we have this imbalance: There is more ice loss occurring than snowfall can compensate for,” she said. 

Advertisement

Increased moisture in the planet’s atmosphere, caused by global warming evaporating ocean waters, could result in more Antarctic snow—at least for a while. At a certain point, though, that’s expected to switch over to rain and surface melting on the ice, creating a situation where the glacier is melting from above and below. How fast that happens depends in part on nations’ progress to slow climate change.

Source link

Continue Reading

Business

David Lammy seeks emergency boost to aid cash to offset rising cost of migrant hotels

Published

on

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Britain’s foreign secretary David Lammy is pushing for an emergency top-up to development spending as ballooning costs of supporting asylum seekers threaten to drain overseas aid to its lowest level since 2007.

The UK government spent £4.3bn hosting asylum seekers and refugees in Britain in the last financial year, more than a quarter of its £15.4bn overseas aid budget, according to official data. This more than consumed the £2.5bn increases in the aid budget scheduled between 2022 and 2024 by former Conservative chancellor Jeremy Hunt.

Advertisement

People familiar with Lammy’s thinking say he fears that if Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, resists calls to at least match Hunt’s offer, the aid budget will be further eviscerated, undermining the government’s ambitions on the global stage.

Currently, the housing of asylum seekers in hotels is controlled by the Home Office but largely paid for out of the aid budget, a set-up introduced in 2010 when spending on the programme was relatively modest.

In the longer term, development agencies and some Foreign Office officials want the costs capped or paid for by the Home Office itself.

However, such a move would be politically fraught, the people said, as it would require billions of pounds of extra funding for the Home Office at a time the government is preparing widespread cuts across departments.

Advertisement

Sir Keir Starmer, the prime minister, is due to attend a string of upcoming international events, starting with the UN general assembly this month, then a Commonwealth summit in Samoa, a G20 meeting in Brazil, and COP-29 climate talks in Azerbaijan later this autumn.

International partners will be looking at these meetings for signs that the change of government in the UK marks a change in direction on development.

Britain’s leading role was eroded by Rishi Sunak after he cut the previously ringfenced spending from 0.7 per cent of gross national income to 0.5 per cent when he was chancellor in 2020.

“When he turns up at the UN next week and the G20 and COP a few weeks later, the PM has a unique opportunity to reintroduce the UK under Labour as a trustworthy partner that sees the opportunity of rebooting and reinvesting in a reformed fairer international financial system,” said Jamie Drummond, co-founder of aid advocacy group One.

Advertisement

“But to be that trusted partner you need to be an intentional investor — not an accidental cutter.”

Speaking on Tuesday in a speech outlining UK ambitions to regain a leading role in the global response to climate change, Lammy said the government wanted to get back to spending 0.7 per cent of GNI on overseas aid but that it could not be done overnight.   

“Part of the reason the funding has not been there is because climate has driven a migration crisis,” he said. “We have ended up in this place where we made a choice to spend development aid on housing people across the country and having a huge accommodation and hotel bill as a consequence,” he said.

Under OECD rules, some money spent in-country on support for refugees and asylum seekers can be classified as aid because it constitutes a form of humanitarian assistance.

Advertisement

But the amount the UK has been spending on refugees from its aid budget has shot up from an average of £20mn a year between 2009-2013 to £4.3bn last year, far more than any other OECD donor country, according to Bond, the network of NGOs working in international development.

Spending per refugee from the aid budget has also risen from an average of £1,000 a year in 2009-2013 to around £21,500 in 2021, largely as a result of the use of hotels to accommodate asylum seekers.

The Independent Commission for Aid Impact watchdog argues that the Home Office has had little incentive to manage the funds carefully because they come from a different department’s budget.

In her July 29 speech outlining the dire fiscal straits that Labour inherited from the previous Conservative government, Reeves projected the cost of the asylum system would rise to £6.4bn this year.

Advertisement

Labour was hoping to cut this by at least £800mn, she said, by ending plans to deport migrants to Rwanda. A Home Office official said the government was also ensuring that asylum claims were dealt with faster and those ineligible deported quickly.

But the Foreign Office projects that on current trends, overseas aid as a proportion of UK income (when asylum costs are factored in) will drop to 0.35 per cent of national income by 2028.

Without emergency funding to plug the immediate cost of housing tens of thousands of migrants in hotels, that will happen as soon as this year, according to Bond, bringing overseas aid levels to their lowest as a proportion of national income, since 2007.

The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office said: “The UK’s future [official development assistance] budget will be announced at the Budget. We would not comment on speculation.”

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

News

AI translation now ‘good enough’ for Economist to deploy

Published

on

AI translation now 'good enough' for Economist to deploy

The Economist has deployed AI-translated content on its budget-friendly “snack-sized” app Espresso after deciding the technology had reached the “good enough” mark.

Ludwig Siegele, senior editor for AI initiatives at The Economist, told Press Gazette that AI translation will never be a “solved problem”, especially in journalism because it is difficult to translate well due to its cultural specificities.

However he said it has reached the point where it is good enough to have introduced AI-powered, in-app translations in French, German, Mandarin and Spanish on The Economist’s “bite-sized”, cut-price app Espresso (which has just over 20,000 subscribers).

Espresso has also just been made free to high school and university students aged 16 and older globally as part of a project by The Economist to make its journalism more accessible to audiences around the world.

Siegele said that amid “lots of hype” about AI, the questions to ask are: “What is it good for? Does it work? And does it work with what we’re trying to do?”

Advertisement


He added that the project to make The Economist’s content “more accessible to more people” via Espresso was a “good point to start”.

Content from our partners
Advertisement

“The big challenge of AI is the technology, at least for us, is not good enough,” he continued. “It’s interesting, but to really develop a product, I think in many cases, it’s not good enough yet. But in that case, it worked.

“I wouldn’t say that translation is a solved problem, it is never going to be a solved problem, especially in journalism, because journalism is really difficult to translate. But it’s good enough for that type of content.”

The Economist is using AI translation tool DeepL alongside its own tech on the backend.

“It’s quite complicated,” Siegele said. “The translation is the least of it at this point. The translation isn’t perfect. If you look at it closely it has its quirks, but it’s pretty good. And we’re working on a kind of second workflow which makes it even better.”

Advertisement

The AI-translated text is not edited by humans because, Siegele said, the “workflow is so tight” on Espresso which updates around 20 times a day.

“There is no natural thing where we can say ‘okay, now everything is done. Let’s translate, and let’s look at the translations and make sure they’re perfect’. That doesn’t work… The only thing we can do is, if it’s really embarrassing, we’ll take it down and the next version in 20 minutes will be better.”

One embarrassing example, Siegele admitted, is that the tool turned German Chancellor Olaf Scholz into a woman.

But Siegele said a French reader has already got in touch to say: “I don’t read English. This is great. Finally, I can read The Economist without having to put it into Google Translate and get bad translations.”

Advertisement

The Economist’s AI-translated social videos

The Economist simultaneously launched AI-translated videos on its social platforms in the same four languages.

The videos are all a maximum of 90 seconds meaning it is not too much work to check them – crucial as, unlike the Espresso article translations, they are edited by humans (native language speakers working for The Economist) taking about 15 minutes per video.

For the videos The Economist is using AI video tool Hey Gen. Siegele said: “The way that works is you give them the original video and they do a provisional translation and then you can proofread the translation. So whereas the translations for the app are basically automatic – I mean, we can take them down and we will be able to change them, but at this point, they’re completely automatic – videos are proofread, and so in this way we can make sure that the translations are really good.”

In addition they are using “voice clones” which means journalists who speak in a video have some snippets of themselves given to Hey Gen to build and that is used to create the finished product.

Advertisement

The voice clones are not essential, Siegele explained, as translations can be done automatically regardless. Journalists can opt out of having their voices used in this way, and any data stored will be deleted if the employee leaves The Economist. But the clones do mean the quality is “much better”.

They have a labelling system for the app articles and videos that can show they are “AI translated” or “AI transformed”. But, Siegele said, they are “not going to have a long list of AI things we may have used to build this article for brainstorming or fact checking or whatever, because in the end it’s like a tool, it’s like Google search. We are still responsible, and there’s almost always a human except for edge cases like the Espresso translations or with podcast transcripts…”

Economist ‘will be strategic’ when choosing how to roll out AI

Asked whether the text translation could be rolled out to more Economist products, Siegele said: “That’s of course a goal but it remains to be seen.”

He said that although translation for Espresso is automated, it would not be the goal to do the same throughout The Economist.

Advertisement

He also said they still have to find out if people are “actually interested” and if they can “develop a translation engine that is good enough”.

“But I don’t think we will become a multi-linguistic, multi-language publication anytime soon. We will be much more strategic with what we what we translate… But I think there is globally a lot of demand for good journalism, and if the technology makes it possible, why not expand the access to our content?

“If it’s not too expensive – and it was too expensive before. It’s no longer.”

Other ways The Economist is experimenting with AI, although they have not yet been implemented, include a style bot and fact-checking.

Advertisement

Expect to see “some kind of summarisation” of articles, Siegele continued, “which probably will go beyond the five bullet points or three bullet points you increasingly see, because that’s kind of table stakes. People expect that. But there are other ways of doing it”.

He also suggested some kind of chatbot but “not an Economist GPT – that’s difficult and people are not that interested in that. Perhaps more narrow chatbots”. And said versioning, or repurposing articles for different audiences or different languages, could also follow.

“The usual stuff,” Siegele said. “There’s only so many good ideas out there. We’re working on all of them.” But he said he wants colleagues to come up with solutions to their problems rather than him as “the AI guy” imposing things.

Advertisement

Email pged@pressgazette.co.uk to point out mistakes, provide story tips or send in a letter for publication on our “Letters Page” blog

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Kentucky sheriff held over fatal shooting of judge in court

Published

on

Kentucky sheriff held over fatal shooting of judge in court

A Kentucky sheriff has been arrested after fatally shooting a judge in his chambers, police say.

District Judge Kevin Mullins died at the scene after being shot multiple times in the Letcher County Courthouse, Kentucky State Police said.

Letcher County Sheriff Shawn Stines, 43, has been charged with one count of first-degree murder.

The shooting happened on Thursday after an argument inside the court, police said, but they have not yet revealed a motive.

Advertisement

Officials said Mullins, 54, was shot multiple times at around 14:00 local time on Thursday at the court in Whitesburg, Kentucky, a small rural town about 150 miles (240km) south-east of Lexington.

Sheriff Stines was arrested at the scene without incident, Kentucky State Police said. They did not reveal the nature of the argument before the shooting.

According to local newspaper the Mountain Eagle, Sheriff Stines walked into the judge’s outer office and told court employees that he needed to speak alone with Mullins.

The two entered the judge’s chambers, closing the door behind them. Those outside heard gun shots, the newspaper reported.

Advertisement

Sheriff Stines reportedly walked out with his hands up and surrendered to police. He was handcuffed in the courthouse foyer.

The state attorney general, Russell Coleman, said in a post on X, formerly Twitter, that his office “will fully investigate and pursue justice”.

Kentucky State Police spokesman Matt Gayheart told a news conference that the town was shocked by the incident

“This community is small in nature, and we’re all shook,” he said.

Advertisement

Mr Gayheart said that 50 employees were inside the court building when the shooting occurred.

No-one else was hurt. A school in the area was briefly placed on lockdown.

Kentucky Supreme Court Chief Justice Laurance B VanMeter said he was “shocked by this act of violence”.

Announcing Judge Mullins’ death on social media, Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear said: “There is far too much violence in this world, and I pray there is a path to a better tomorrow.”

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2017 Zox News Theme. Theme by MVP Themes, powered by WordPress.