U.S. Senate poised to pass
overhaul of immigration law


The U.S. Senate is poised to approve a landmark overhaul of America’s immigration laws. A vote could come late today or Friday.
 
Wednesday the Senate formally adopted tough border security requirements as a condition for legalizing millions of undocumented immigrants in the United States. It also acted to limit debate on the bill, setting the stage for a final vote expected by the end of the week.
 
The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee tasked with oversight of immigration matters, Democrat Patrick Leahy, all but proclaimed Senate passage of immigration reform a done deal.
 
“It is obvious that a majority, a very large majority, a bipartisan majority, of the Senate will support an immigration bill," he said.
 
Democratic senators, who are in the majority, all support the bill, as do about a third of Republicans.  Those opposing the legislation, like Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, say they do not believe it will succeed in blocking future illegal border crossers.

---

---

“A bill that fails to guarantee a border that is secure and offers only promises, which historically Congress has been very, very, very bad at keeping.  Does that sound like real immigration reform?  I know we can do better," he said.
 
But fellow Republican Marco Rubio argues the immigration overhaul will be a vast improvement over the status quo.
 
“We have a badly broken immigration system. Not only one that does not work, it actually encourages illegal immigration.  We have a border with Mexico that, despite billions of dollars already spent, is still not secure.  And we have 11 million people living in this country illegally in de facto amnesty.  This is the status quo, and it is a terrible mess," he said.
 
Senate passage, should it occur, does not guarantee a vote in the Republican-led House of Representatives, or passage if a vote is held.  Only approval by both houses of Congress will send the bill to the White House for President Barack Obama’s signature.


Official mouthpiece role urged
for U.S. agency broadcasting


A former leader of U.S. international broadcasting Wednesday urged Congress to re-organize the journalistic agency so that broadcasters follow foreign policy directives. The proposal came during a U.S. House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee hearing critical of the management of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the agency that oversees the Voice of America and other international broadcasters.

The title of Wednesday's hearing gave away its main question: "The Broadcasting Board of Governors:  An Agency Defunct."  In January, then-secretary of State Hillary Clinton told a congressional panel on Benghazi that the agency that oversees U.S. broadcasting, known as the BBG, is dysfunctional and practically defunct.  The House Foreign Affairs chairman, Republican Ed Royce, stressed that the problem is not with the journalists working for Voice of America and other broadcasters.

"Each broadcasting service is full of enterprising reporters who literally risk their lives for what they do," Royce said.

But Royce and others at the hearing said that BBG's structure makes reporters' jobs more difficult and that the agency's overall mission is unclear in the post-Cold War era.  An inspector general report issued earlier this year concluded that the BBG is failing in its mandated duties.  Committee member Eliot Engel, the senior Democrat on the panel, cited that report.

"And it attributed that failure to a flawed structure and strong internal dissension," Engel said.

James Glassman, a former BBG chairman, said the BBG is not defunct, but alive and well and serving an audience of more than 200 million people worldwide each week.  But Glassman called for ending the journalistic agency's independent status and putting it under the U.S. State Department.

"It should be made clear to the various broadcasting services that they are in the public sector and are part of the U.S. foreign policy team.  This does not simply mean performing in a manner consistent with the broad foreign policy objectives of the United States as the law states, but instead following actual strategic directives," Glassman said.

Glassman argued this would remove what he called confusion about the BBG's mission. The Voice of America is required by law to provide accurate, objective and comprehensive news, and to present the policies of the United States clearly and effectively.

Among the witnesses at the hearing were two other former BBG governors who differed on the future management structure.  All of them agreed that it is difficult for a part-time board to oversee all the broadcasters.

But Jeff Hirschberg, a former BBG governor, strongly disagreed with Glassman that the Voice of America and other broadcasters should be put under the State Department.

"The most important thing that U.S. international broadcasting has in its favor around the world is its credibility," Hirschberg said.

Hirschberg stressed that doing away with individual broadcasters or putting them under the State Department would destroy credibility won through decades of maintaining journalistic integrity.

After the hearing, the BBG issued a statement saying the current BBG board has been working on ways to address the structural issue, reduce overlap and promote innovation, with the aim of providing the best support possible for its award-winning journalists' work around the globe, under increasingly tight budget constraints.

Some lawmakers pointed out that other international broadcasters such as al-Jazeera operate with much bigger budgets, and called for more funds for the Voice of America and other broadcasters to help them compete on the world stage.

 
Twin decisions advance cause
of same sex marriages in U.S.


Supporters of same-sex marriage in the United States won two victories Wednesday at the Supreme Court with potentially far-reaching legal and political consequences.

Just after the decisions were made public, chants of “USA” and “thank you” from gay marriage supporters filled the air outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington.

In a five-to-four decision, the high court struck down a federal law passed in 1996 known as the Defense of Marriage Act that barred same-sex couples from receiving federal tax, health and pension benefits.

The majority opinion was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy and was joined by the court’s four liberal-leaning members.  The court’s four leading conservatives were in the minority.

Kennedy cited the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law in striking down a law that barred federal benefits to same-sex couples who were married in states where same-sex marriages are legal.

The case was brought by 84-year old Edie Windsor who was denied a federal tax break given to married couples because the federal law did not recognize her marriage to her partner, Thea, who died in 2009.

“And to the justices of the Supreme Court, thank you for affirming the principle of equal justice under the law," Ms. Windsor said to reporters in New York City.

"To all of the gay people and their supporters who have cheered me on, thank you, thank you, thank you!  I am sure Thea is thanking you too.”

In a second case, the Supreme Court cleared the way for same-sex marriages to resume in California.  By a five-to-four decision, the high court ruled that defenders of the state’s gay marriage ban known as Proposition 8 did not have the legal standing to bring a challenge to a lower court ruling that struck the law down.

That decision was welcomed by plaintiff Sandy Stier, who can now marry her partner, Kris Perry, in California.

“We thank the justices for overturning DOMA," she said, using the acronym for the Defense of Marriage Act. "It is so, so important for us and for all families.  And we thank the justices for letting us get married in California, but that is not enough.  It has got to go nationwide and we can not wait for that day!”

The court rulings do not establish a nationwide right to same-sex marriage.  But the Defense of Marriage decision bars the federal government from treating same-sex couples differently than heterosexual couples. Prior to Wednesday's ruling on California, same-sex marriage was legal in 12 states and the District of Columbia.

Opponents of gay marriage were disappointed with the two decisions, including the Rev. Rob Schenck, who represents an organization of evangelical Christians.

“One thing true about today’s court decisions on marriage, they do not change the biblical or timeless truth of the nature of marriage as between a man and a woman," he said.

Same-sex-marriage opponents also vowed to fight on, including Rep. Tim Huelskamp, a conservative Republican from Kansas.

“The court has taken it upon itself the attempt, a radical attempt, to redefine marriage," Huelskamp said. "In this decision the courts have allowed the desires of adults to trump the needs of children.  Every child deserves a mommy and a daddy.”

President Barack Obama welcomed the court’s decision. First on Twitter, then later, in a written statement. Obama said the decision has righted a wrong and the country is better off for it.


Public seems to be ready
for homosexual unions


The latest U.S. Supreme Court rulings on gay marriage have been welcomed by many Americans, but not all.

In Manhattan’s Greenwich Village neighborhood, Ken Kidd stood resplendent in a hot pink suit and tie, and celebrated Wednesday's Supreme Court rulings.

"I’m euphoric. It gives me hope and I never thought I’d live to see this day," he said.  "It’s never the end of the story.  There are 37 states that have their own fights to fight.  Once they get recognized in their states, they do have full national freedom, they are entitled to the same 11-hundred plus rights that their heterosexual counterparts have in marriage.  It’s huge, absolutely huge.  I’m still just a little bit in shock, actually."

Underground in a subway car, a young immigrant named Nadia rejected the idea that homosexuals should be treated differently than other citizens. 
 
“They’re just people!  As people, they do have right like the rest of us.  Marriage is one of those rights.  I don’t know many people who are against.  Most of the people I know that are against it are older,” Nadia said.

A few seats down, a high school student named Spencer sat with his friends and seconded the point.

“My parents are actually against same same-sex marriage.  They are Christian so they don’t believe in it, but I have to disagree with them on this one.  I think it should be legal," he said.

Above ground, a young Christian woman said she supported the idea of civil unions for gays, but not state-sanctioned marriage, per se. 

"I think the term marriage is a biblical term.  I mean the biblical view is of marriage is between a man and a woman.  One man, one woman," she said. 

"I think that the government, the direction it’s going, is creating disunity among the people and they are utilizing these hot topics to create disunity.  In the long run it’s not going to really matter.  It’s going to matter whether we actually love one another or not.  And that is in itself what people need to focus on," she added

In a nearby pizza restaurant, Tim Nissen put down his slice to assert that technically, marital status should be a strictly secular matter.

“Consenting adults should be at liberty to do what they want as long it’s not harming anybody else. Religious people may use the word marriage, but there is a legal definition of it in our country, and the law should apply equally to everybody.  That’s something that conservatives and liberals can agree on,” Nissen said.

Two construction workers, also on their lunch break, offered their opinions.

Worker #1: "Why shouldn’t they get married?  They should be miserable just like I am, right?

Worker #2: Let them live their lives and whatever is going to make them happy.  So be it.  I have nothing against them.

Reporter: What do you think about people who say it’s against God’s law and all that?

Worker: There are too many gods for me to judge.  If they feel comfortable with what they’re doing and they don’t hurt or harm anybody in the interim, I give them my blessing."

Although the U.S. Supreme Court rulings do not offer a definitive judgment on whether same-sex partners have the same constitutional right to marry as opposite sex partners do, advocates of legalized same-sex marriage were universally heartened by the news, and promised to continue their fight at the ballot box, in the courts and in the streets.


Obama in Senegal to back
democracy and U.S. trade


U.S. President Barack Obama has arrived in Senegal, the first stop of a three-nation African trip focused on supporting democratic progress, and increasing U.S. trade and investment. 
 
Senegal is the starting point for what is only Obama's second visit to sub-Saharan Africa as president.
 
It is an opportunity to speak directly to the large French-speaking population in Africa and voice support for emerging democracies and institution-building.
 
"In Senegal you have a country that is an emerging democracy, that is a partner with us in situations like Mali, that we want to invest in, on issues like food security, and the development of civil society," said the deputy national security adviser for strategic communications, Ben Rhodes.
 
After talks Thursday with President Macky Sall, Obama goes to Senegal's Supreme Court to meet with judicial leaders from across the region.
 
He is then joined by his wife, Michelle, for a visit to Goree Island, to tour the museum about the history of the slave trade.
 
Obama also will meet there with Senegalese civil society leaders.
 
Friday, Obama joins private and agricultural sector leaders from Senegal and West Africa to discuss steps to enhance food security, one of his key policy priorities.


U.N. says flow of new drugs
challenges the legal system


Designer drugs that are sold openly and legally are on the rise and the international drug control system is foundering under the speed and creativity of their proliferation, the United Nations said in a global report Wednesday. 

A swathe of new drugs is hitting the international market. New psychoactive substances are marketed as legal highs and designer drugs and they are proliferating at an unprecedented rate, according to the U.N.’s 2013 World Drug Report.

Thomas Pietschmann, a co-author of the report, says a major effort needs to be made to prevent the manufacture, trafficking, and use of the drugs. But he says managing the drug’s proliferation is proving difficult because their make-up is constantly shifting.

“Substances emerge on the market only for a short period of time, emerge, disappear, and then another substance emerges, which creates the problem," he said.

According to the report, the number of new phychoactive substances reported by member states to the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime rose from 166 in 2009 to 251 by last year. That’s a 50 percent rise.

The U.N. report says it’s an alarming problem.

But Pietschmann says there is also some good news from the report.

“When we come to the traditional drugs, like cannabis and cocaine, we see some stabilization," said Pietschmann.

According to the report, heroin use seems to be declining in Europe while cocaine use is falling in the United States, the world’s largest cocaine market.

John Collins is Project Coordinator for the IDEAS International Drug Policy Project at the London School of Economics. He says drugs statistics as listed in Wednesday’s U.N. report should be treated with caution.

“There is a broader cultural shift happening," said Collins. "Maybe people are shifting toward new psychoactive substances. Maybe they will go back to more traditional drugs, maybe they will not. We will not actually know. That is a process that is still playing out, so it's hard to predict to be honest.”

He says the current global approach to cannabis, cocaine and opium is a very singular, prohibitionist-oriented approach in which its production, manufacture and distribution is criminalized.

He says so far that is not happening with new psychoactive substances and it has yet to be seen how governments and global bodies decide to tackle their proliferation.


Brazilians continue the protests
despite some concessions


Tens of thousands of Brazilians took to the streets on Wednesday in new demonstrations calling for a crackdown on corruption and better public services, just a day after congress ceded to a handful of the key demands galvanizing protests across the country.
 
Police deployed in force and shut down traffic in the central esplanade of the modernistic capital of Brasilia ahead of Wednesday's marches.
 
In Belo Horizonte, some 50,000 people gathered to demand improved education and health care as Brazil's third-largest city hosted a Confederations Cup semi-final soccer game between Brazil and Uruguay. Police fired tear gas at stone-throwing marchers to stop them from reaching the stadium.
 
Almost two weeks after a wave of discontent suddenly erupted into Brazil's biggest protests in 20 years, the country's shaken political leadership is scrambling to respond to popular pressure for change.
 
Tuesday night, congress rejected a constitutional amendment that would have limited the power of federal prosecutors to investigate crimes, a measure protesters saw as a self-serving attempt by politicians to avoid corruption probes.
 
“Our representatives are listening to the people now. We are creating a new political consciousness,” said Amanda Caetano, spokeswoman for a group called Enough is Enough that hopes to mobilize 10,000 people in Brasilia to demand an end to the privileges enjoyed by politicians.
 
In another response to the protests, the lower house of congress voted overnight in favor of a bill allocating royalties from future oil production to education and health programs. And a senate committee approved a measure that would cut taxes on public transport, making it easier for cities and states to lower bus and subway fares.
 
The senate also was expected to vote later on Wednesday on a bill that introduces stiffer sentences for corruption.
 
It was a relatively small protest against an increase in transport fares and an ensuing police crackdown earlier this month that ended up igniting the unrest that has shaken Latin America's largest country and economy.
 
Several Brazilian cities have since agreed to roll back the fare increases, but the leaderless protest movement has widened its focus to a litany of grievances, from the billions of dollars spent on soccer stadiums for the 2014 World Cup to a gay cure bill in Congress that would allow psychologists to treat homosexuality as an illness.
 
But one common theme remains: a deep distrust of a political class that is widely viewed as corrupt, overpaid and more worried about serving itself than society at large.
 
Most of the protests have unfolded peacefully, though some have been marred by vandalism and looting. Last Thursday, for instance, a demonstration by an estimated 40,000 people in Brasilia turned violent when vandals threw molotov cocktails at the iconic building that houses Brazil's Foreign Ministry.

The demonstrations against Brazil's political establishment have jolted politicians of all stripes and clouded the outlook for left-leaning President Dilma Rousseff, who is expected to seek re-election next year.
 
Ms. Rousseff sought to defuse the protests by proposing on Monday that Brazil hold a plebiscite to convene a constituent assembly that would adopt political reforms to make the political system more accountable and transparent.
 
The proposal lasted 24 hours. Rousseff withdrew the plan for an assembly late Tuesday after it was shot down by politicians and lawyers who questioned the legality of a president bypassing congress to amend the constitution.
 
Her workers' party government and its coalition allies are now discussing putting political reforms to the country in a referendum later this year after consulting congress.
 
However, many, including the chief justice of Brazil's supreme court, doubt that a meaningful overhaul of Brazil's political system to increase transparency and accountability will prosper without the input of the general public.
 
Political analysts are waiting to see how the protests will affect Ms. Rousseff's approval ratings in new opinion polls. Her popularity had already begun to slip prior to the protests, hurt by concerns about high inflation and a sluggish economy.


Foreign direct investment
declined in 2012, U.N. reports


A new United Nations Report finds global foreign direct investment -- or investment of foreign assets into domestic structures, equipment, and organizations -- fell by 18 percent last year to $1.35 trillion.  But, the U.N. Conference on Trade and Development’s annual World Investment Report notes developing countries, for the first time ever, received the majority of investment. 

The conference's annual survey of investment trends finds global foreign direct investment declined in 2012 to below the pre-economic crisis level.  It attributes this mainly to economic fragility and policy uncertainty for investors. 

The report says developing countries took the lead in attracting foreign direct investment in 2012.  For the first time ever, it says developing economies did better than developed countries, accounting for 52 percent of global investment flows. 

The report says inflows to least developed countries rose by 20 percent in 2012 to a record $26 billion.  It notes the growth was led by strong gains in Cambodia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia, Mauritania, Mozambique and Uganda.

The report says flows to African countries increased by 5 percent to $50 billion in 2012, mainly due to investment in extractive industries.  While natural resources are still the mainstay of investment flows to Africa, the report notes consumer-oriented manufacturing and services are attracting more money.

Panduit Costa Rica photo