Split (1)

train · 2.59M rows

text stringlengths 9 41.2k
Nielsen said Monday that agents are not acting cruelly, but are enforcing the laws passed by Congress.
There is no law mandating the separation of children and parents at the border. Neilsen said past administrations asked immigration agents to look the other way when families crossed the border illegally, but no longer.
The White House has said it would reject a narrow fix to address children separated from their parents at the U.S.-Mexico border, saying it wants Congress to "fix the whole thing."
Press secretary Sarah Sanders said President Donald Trump's priorities, like funding a border wall and tightening immigration laws, must also be fulfilled. She says, "We want to fix the whole thing, we don't want to tinker with just part of it."
Ted Cruz, a Republican senator from Texas, said Monday he would introduce a bill that would allow for faster hearings for people seeking asylum — and speedier deportation of those who don't qualify. The bill would also call for parents and children to be detained together as they await a decision, unless there's "aggravated criminal conduct or threat of harm to children."
He's not the only one suggesting legislative changes. John Cornyn, another Republican senator from Texas, said he's going to introduce an updated version of a 2014 bill he backed alongside a Democratic representative. The bill would contain provisions to keep families together while they wait to go before the courts.
"We have to keep family members together and prevent unnecessary hardship, stress and outrage," Cornyn said in a statement. "I would ask our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to take a hard look at this bill and to work together to find a reasonable solution for this component of the crisis at our border."
Trump emphatically defended his administration's policy Monday, again falsely blaming Democrats.
"The United States will not be a migrant camp and it will not be a refugee holding facility," he declared. "Not on my watch."
See images of two of the centres holding migrants to the U.S.
Presidents and prime ministers are convening for the Summit of the Americas in Peru this weekend. Although US President Donald Trump has cancelled his trip to Lima because of the escalating situation in Syria, one of the highlights could still be the announcement of an agreement in principle over a renegotiated North American Free Trade Agreement.
Mexico’s Secretary of Economy Ildefonso Guajardo Villarreal said on Monday that the NAFTA renegotiation was 80 percent likely to be concluded in April. And, with Vice President Mike Pence replacing Trump at the summit, further updates could come soon.
Whether or not significant progress on NAFTA is announced, the White House is briefing that Pence will urge fellow Americas leaders to engage with Washington, not Beijing, on international trade. The argument will be that the US should be the hemisphere’s economic and political “partner of choice,” even though China is now the top trading relationship for a number of its nations, including Brazil and Uruguay.
With this intended summit pitch, the White House has in recent days been attempting to push forward the NAFTA renegotiation, which had previously stalled for months. Especially with the White House now embarking on what could yet become a trade war with China, the president has decided to dampen tensions with Canada and Mexico to reduce the number of fronts on which he is battling.
The other key reason why NAFTA progress appears to have sped up is the Mexican presidential elections on July 1. Campaigning began on March 30 and, during the period leading up to election day, Ottawa and Washington feared the government of Enrique Pena Nieto could slowly disengage from NAFTA talks.
This concerned Canada and Washington because international trade skeptic Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador leads in recent presidential polls. The leftist populist has positioned himself as a big critic of Trump and his “campaign of hatred” against Mexico, while he is also no fan of Pena Nieto. It was feared, at least until the recent uptick in NAFTA progress, that Pena Nieto may have decided there was little to no benefit to his administration of being engaged in the long-troubled trade talks at the end of his mandate while his party’s presidential candidate, Jose Antonio Meade, tries to regain electoral ground against Lopez Obrador.
In this context, and with November’s US congressional ballots on the horizon, the NAFTA talks, without the progress of recent days, could have collapsed or been suspended until at least 2019. In this scenario, with the US House of Representatives and Senate going into summer recess in July, and only briefly reconvening this autumn, the Republicans who control Congress may well have preferred that potentially contentious NAFTA issues did not cloud the congressional campaign, given that more protectionist-leaning Democrats are seeking to retake both chambers of the legislature.
NAFTA issues aside, the US administration has — to date — paid relatively little attention to the Americas region and Trump is widely unpopular there. This is why there will be a mixed reaction to the president cancelling his visit, with some fellow leaders breathing a sigh of relief, while others will be concerned about the perceived lack of prioritization the administration is giving to the hemisphere.
This will be Pence’s second trip to the region following his travels last August to Colombia, Argentina, Chile and Panama, which came in the aftermath of Trump’s remarks that he was considering “military options” to intervene in Venezuela — an unfortunate comment given long memories on the continent of US interventionism. As he will do this week, Pence emphasized during last year’s trip the strength of US commitments to economic, political and security partnerships throughout the region. However, he was forced to cut his previous trip short to join Trump at Camp David for a meeting on North Korea.
NAFTA issues aside, the US administration has — to date — paid relatively little attention to the Americas region and Trump is widely unpopular there.
To date it is NAFTA that the Trump team has placed most attention on in terms of relations with the Americas, and the president last week said he hoped to see a renegotiation announcement soon. The deal, which originally came into force in January 1994, is the most comprehensive trade deal outside the EU, and the first major trilateral trade agreement negotiated between a developing country (Mexico) and developed counterparts (the US and Canada).
The chief reason why the renegotiations have dragged has been the intransigence of Trump, who has called NAFTA “the worst trade deal maybe ever signed anywhere, but certainly ever signed in this country.” The president has repeatedly raised the rhetoric on Canada and Mexico, with both previously concerned he may deliver Washington’s six-month notice of withdrawal from the treaty.
A key reason for the Trump team’s stance is that, despite the fact NAFTA has much US business support, it has long been criticized by elements of both the political left and right in the country. For instance, US labor unions have blamed it for contributing to a hollowing out of the country’s manufacturing industry, partly because of increased trade deficits with Mexico and Canada.
Yet Trump now appears ready to perform a volte-face over the treaty, and Pence will use the summit more broadly to try to re-anchor hemispheric neighbors into the US alliance system. Whether or not a NAFTA breakthrough is announced this weekend, Washington appears determined to double down on delivering a renegotiated treaty soon.
Skyscanner takeover: Good or bad news?
A young Scottish company is bought by a bigger Chinese rival for £1.4bn. Is this good news or bad news?
Is it another vote of confidence in a UK "open for business"? Or is it a crying shame to see another of the crown jewels of UK technology sold to a foreign acquirer?
Earlier this year, Skyscanner successfully raised £120m from investors to fund expansion and acquisitions - and yet it finds itself being acquired. Just yesterday the chancellor proudly announced a £400m fund to help small companies grow into the giants of tomorrow, rather than selling up to the first foreign rival who writes a big enough cheque.
It's not the first time such deals have provoked mixed feelings. Previous ministers have shown concern when important British companies fell into foreign hands.
Sir Vince Cable, when Business Secretary, wanted to make it more difficult by imposing a "national interest" test and seek commitments to preserve jobs and investment after Kraft cut jobs following its acquisition of Cadbury and Pfizer threatened to swallow AstraZeneca.
The truth is that Skyscanner doesn't really fit into either of these categories. The chancellor's new fund is for small companies that sell up because they find it hard to raise money - Skyscanner didn't. It's also quite a stretch to describe a travel website with 500 UK employees as a company that would trigger a national interest veto - even if one existed.
This government might want to take a more interventionist role in business, but unless it wants to actually legislate against foreign takeovers (an unthinkable move for a free market conservative party) it will have to accept that deals like this prove that "open for business" also means "up for sale".
Listed below are the phone numbers and email addresses for each section. Any questions relating to bcheights.com can be directed to the online manager at [email protected]. For other general queries, contact the managing editor (info below).
In anticipation of growing interest in developing wind energy projects offshore California, the Department of the Navy has conducted a mission compatibility assessment for the outer continental shelf. The compatibility assessment reflects the requirements of Navy and Marine Corps missions conducted in the air, on the surface, and below the surface of these waters.
If you have questions about the Navy assessment please contact the Department of the Navy at (703) 693-1785 or John.C.Pierson@navy.mil.
Nationals minor league roving coordinator and former Triple-A Syracuse manager Billy Gardner Jr., was a third baseman in the majors himself, so he has a unique perspective when working with third base prospect Drew Ward. Gardner believes Ward has a chance to make it to the next level.
Ward had a very good start to the 2016 campaign at high Single-A Potomac, hitting .278 with 11 homers and 32 RBIs.
Last season, Ward played in 121 games at Double-A Harrisburg, hitting .235 with 10 homers and 53 RBIs. Gardner has been able to put eyes on him during spring training in Florida. Ward got two at-bats so far this spring with the Nationals after playing in 10 spring training games in 2017.
Left-hander Bryan Harper, the older brother of Nats slugger Bryce Harper, was recently reassigned to minor league camp but had some solid outings with the big club in spring training games, going 0-1 with a 5.40 ERA in five appearances. Bryan Harper sat out last season rehabbing from Tommy John surgery. Gardner believes Harper has a shot to make it to the next level if he can pitch the way he is capable of when healthy.
Nats believe Tomas Alastre showing ability "well beyond his years"
Stanek will serve as the opening pitcher Wednesday against the Orioles, Juan Toribio of MLB.com reports.
Stanek last appeared as an opener Friday and recorded three strikeouts over two scoreless innings. Yonny Chirinos figures to be an option to pitch after Stanek, but the Rays haven't fully announced their pitching plans. The 27-year-old has a 2.16 ERA, 0.84 WHIP and 10:2 K:BB over 8.1 innings to begin the season.
BERLIN – Police say a fire at a mosque in Berlin may be the result of arson and they are looking into a possible political motive.
Police spokeswoman Patricia Braemer said Tuesday that a new extension of a mosque in Berlin's immigrant Kreuzberg neighborhood went up in flames late Monday.
Braemer said there were no injuries, but the extension, which was still under construction, was destroyed and the original mosque building was also damaged by the flames.
The president’s favorite cable-news show shared its interview scripts and its oh-so-hard-hitting questions in advance with an embattled Trump official.
Former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt was clearly taken aback last year when occasional Fox & Friends fill-in host Ed Henry grilled him about a number of ethical scandals facing his administration.
And Pruitt had a good reason to be surprised. In past interviews with President Trump’s favorite cable-news show, the then-EPA chief’s team chose the topics for interviews, and knew the questions in advance.
In one instance, according to emails revealed in a Freedom of Information Act request submitted by the Sierra Club and reviewed by The Daily Beast, Pruitt’s team even approved part of the show’s script.
Fox & Friends has long been a friendly venue for Trump and his allies, but the emails demonstrate how the show has pushed standard cable-news practices to the extreme in order to make interviews a comfortable, non-confrontational experience for favored government officials.
Cable-news veterans told The Daily Beast that it is common for television producers to discuss topics in advance with their subjects; and, on occasion, producers will ask pre-interview questions to understand what a subject has to offer, and why their information is relevant.
However, it is widely frowned upon to offer public officials pre-interviews, as this can help the official avoid difficult questions.
And providing and seeking approval scripts is even more of a taboo.
“I can’t imagine why a high-level newsmaker—like a White House official—would ever receive a formal pre-interview,” added Sid Bedingfield, a former CNN executive who now teaches journalism at the University of Minnesota.
Pruitt resigned from the EPA this year after more than a dozen probes were launched into his handling of the agency. But before that, Pruitt’s team was set on getting him good press, and they focused much of their attention on securing interviews with Fox News.
In multiple interviews on Fox & Friends, Pruitt was essentially allowed to dictate the terms for the interview and avoid any difficult questions.
And so then-EPA press secretary Amy Graham proposed an interview to Fox & Friends producer Andrew Murray, who quickly agreed to bring Pruitt on the next day to discuss the topic.
Once Graham sent over the talking points, Aloi sought the government official’s approval for the script introducing Pruitt’s segment.
“Yes — perfect,” Graham replied.
And when the segment aired the next day, the network stuck to that exact government-approved script.
“President Trump trying his best to drain the swamp and much of that draining happened at the Environmental Protection Agency after the Obama administration left behind—get this—a huge toxic mess,” host Brian Kilmeade said.
“More than 1,300 Superfund sites that are heavily contaminated still require cleanup,” his co-host Ainsley Earhardt added.
Before a separate interview in April, a Fox & Friends producer sent an email to Pruitt’s staff with three topics the show wanted to cover: a lawsuit from right-wing Judicial Watch claiming EPA employees were working against Trump; a claim that environmentalists said Trump’s proposed Mexico border wall would kill jaguars; and Pruitt’s visit to U.S. coal mines.
The only question that a Fox & Friends host asked that was not previously discussed with Pruitt staff did make an incremental amount of news: Pruitt said he believed the U.S. should exit the Paris climate accord, a small change from calling it a “bad deal” in an interview just a month before.
But after Pruitt stated his view, host Steve Doocy did not press Pruitt. Instead, the host quickly transitioned back to the agreed-upon topic: the administrator’s upcoming visit with coal miners.
Fox & Friends’ friendly emails are just one of many examples of the network’s cozy relationship with Trump and his allies.
Fox News hosts have spoken at Trump rallies, openly lobbied or partied at the White House, and taken on roles as unofficial White House advisers, at times being included on Oval Office conference calls about policy decisions. Republican lawmakers have repeatedly made direct appeals to the president by appearing on his favorite television shows on the network. Trump’s communications chief of staff is a former Fox News executive who is still being paid by the network, while his former communications director now works as a top spokesperson for Fox News’ parent company.
The FOIA’ed emails showed how Pruitt’s team valued the network, prioritizing cultivating relationships with Fox News personalities and producers.
In the early months of the administration, Pruitt’s staff reached out to numerous Fox News hosts and reporters to set up off-the-record lunches and dinners. When Pruitt had to cancel a Fox & Friends interview last-minute, his team solicited the hosts’ addresses to send them personal apologies for canceling.
And while the former EPA chief’s team often passed on the lower-rated daytime shows, his press arm tried to connect with Sean Hannity and offered exclusives to the fervently pro-Trump host.
In April 2017, EPA press secretary Lincoln Ferguson emailed the Fox star’s producer to say that Pruitt was “eager to get in the studio with Hannity” to discuss the EPA’s accomplishments. Despite the spokesperson’s pleas that the producer pass on to Hannity that Pruitt had “really been wanting to make this happen,” the top-rated prime-time show passed.
And in July 2017, the administrator’s comms team offered to fly Hannity in a private jet with Pruitt to Oklahoma to meet a rural family to discuss the Obama administration’s water policy.
But even for Hannity, the opportunity didn’t appeal.
Our leaders of the freedom movement used Lenin's ideas for the cause of independence. An attempt is being made to do violence to that glorious legacy by pulling down his statue.
The pulling down of the statue of Lenin in Tripura and its defence in a disparaging tone by some well-known public figures occupying high positions in a way constitutes the denunciation of the legacy of freedom struggle concerning Lenin, Lokmanya Tilak, Mahatma Gandhi and Bhagat Singh who had the progressive vision woven around ideals of liberation and freedom from foreign rule and exploitation.
Lokmanya Tilak, who electrified the nation by his slogan "Swaraj is my birthright", commanded admiration from Lenin for his role in standing against British imperialism and colonial rule which devastated India. When Tilak was charged with sedition and sentenced to six years' imprisonment in Burma, Lenin described it as "infamous sentence pronounced by the British jackals on the Indian democrat Tilak." In hailing Tilak as a democrat and condemning his unjust treatment at the hands of the British, Lenin made invaluable contributions in recognising the leadership of India in the first decade of the 20th century for the cause of India's freedom. In fact, Lenin was one of the top ranking global leaders of that time who could discern the emerging phase of the freedom struggle marked by large-scale participation of masses under the leadership of Tilak and wrote that the "British regime in India is doomed." And, the appreciative remarks of Lenin on Tilak underlined the global stature of Indian leadership in fearlessly standing up to the mighty British empire in the early part of the 20th century.
The Bolshevik revolution of 1917 cast a spell all over the world and fired the imagination of the exploited sections of humanity. Like many leaders of India who were impacted by the revolution, Lokmanya Tilak reflected on it and wrote an editorial in his newspaper Kesari under the caption "The Russian Leader Lenin". He appreciated Lenin as a lover of peace and held him in high esteem for his uncompromising stand against the upper classes who, according to him, were engaged in military conflicts and wars to promote their selfish motives and interests. Tilak particularly flagged Lenin's contributions in distributing the land of the nobility to the peasantry and hailed it as a landmark step for the cause of the uplift of the exploited and suffering people.
Lenin occupied a prominent place in the poems and prose of literary geniuses of country who were fired by the spirit of freedom struggle and who contributed to it by their creative writings and revolutionary action. One such fine representative of litterateurs was Subramanya Bharathi who wrote a poem "New Russia" in Tamil, extolling the role played by Lenin in spearheading the landmark Russian revolution.
It is well known that leaders of the freedom movement, cutting across the political spectrum, were influenced by the legacy of Lenin and used his ideas for the cause of independence. Lenin, in that sense, was there in the core ideals of our remarkable liberation movement which has remained distinguished in the annals of human history for its attributes rooted in non-violence, reconciliation, understanding.
With such a record of linking Lenin with the ethos of the freedom struggle, it is strange that an attempt is being made to do violence to that glorious legacy by pulling down his statue. It is nothing but vandalism and violence which is equal in importance to the Taliban destroying the Bamian Buddha statues in Afghanistan. The tragic pulling down of Lenin's statue has triggered another regressive reaction in Tamil Nadu, where a public figure aims at pulling down the statue of the revered Periyar, a key figure of the Dravidian movement which stressed on equality and equal opportunity, irrespective of caste status.
Many years back, Prof Hiren Mukherjee had said that there was hoodlum politics in the periphery of the Indian public life. Unfortunately, the "hoodlum politics" in the periphery of Indian politics is getting mainstreamed. The legitimacy it acquires spells danger to the public life of the nation. Dr Ambedkar had cautioned that any attempt to eschew constitutional method on the part of people and political formations would result in the grammar of anarchy. The dismantling of the statue of Lenin is an affront to the ethos of the freedom struggle and our Constitution.
Our revolutionary leader Bhagat Singh read Lenin's works extensively and it shaped his outlook and action not only for India's independence but also for nation-building and social reconstruction. The biographer of Bhagat Singh, Gopal Tagore, affirms that a few days before his hanging, when Bhagat Singh was asked to spell out his final wish, he famously stated that he was engaged in reading Lenin's writings and he was keen to complete them. While in jail, he asked a friend to send him some books for reading and one of the books specifically asked for was Lenin's "Collapse of the Second International." In 1930, Bhagat Singh is said to have celebrated Lenin day and heroically stepped into the courtroom by putting on a red scarf and pleaded the authorities to convey his greetings to the leaders of Russian revolution.
It is early in the second half of a tight Six Nations encounter. The home side holds a narrow but deserved lead over England, when one of their most experienced players takes the ball near his own line and shapes himself for a clearance.
But then Charlie Hodgson races forward, charges down the kick and follows up for a match-changing try. Haven’t we seen this movie before?
Seen it? Dan Parks has starred in it. Hence the wry smile on the former Scotland fly-half’s face as he watched Saturday’s Italy v England match and saw Hodgson do to Andrea Masi what he had done to him at Murrayfield seven days earlier. Masi was the RBS Six Nations player of the tournament last year. It really can happen to the best of them.
Parks announced his retirement from international rugby three days after Scotland’s 13-6 loss to England. With the championship just one game old, it was a startling move, but Masi’s misfortune only reinforces his argument that Hodgson’s try, and the criticism that came Parks’s way after it, did not push him out the door.
Parks is sitting in a Cardiff hotel, talking for the first time about his decision to draw down the curtain on a Scotland career that brought him 67 caps on an eight-year roller-coaster ride between acclamation and vilification. More of that in due time, but first his thoughts on Hodgson.
Parks’s admiration for Hodgson can only have been heightened by the way the two players have walked parallel paths in Test rugby, both rejected, then being recalled to produce match-winning performances for their countries. Parks’s time in the wilderness was far briefer than Hodgson’s four-year sojourn, but it coincided with difficulties in his private life, including an 18-month ban for drink-driving.
That was in 2009. In the autumn of that year Andy Robinson, newly appointed as Scotland coach, made it clear that Parks was not part of his plans for the future. However, his outstanding club form brought a recall after two matches of the 2010 Six Nations, and a critic-silencing sequence of games in which he scooped one Man of the Match award after another.
That streak of matches – it included a Test series win in Argentina – changed many people’s view of Parks. Derided as an opportunist carpetbagger when he first arrived from Sydney and found a path to the Scotland side by way of his Ayrshire-born grandfather, the strength of character he had shown revealed a very different individual. In which context, he is emphatic that the (relatively modest) criticism he received last week did not hasten his going.
“I played 67 times for Scotland,” he says firmly. “In about half of those I have been given a hard time. It’s not a case of running out.” So why go now? His explanation is that he never intended to play a full championship, that he had only made himself available as Ruaridh Jackson, who established himself as Scotland’s first-choice playmaker last year, was injured. It’s fair to suggest – and Robinson certainly hasn’t denied it – that the plan would have changed had Scotland gone on winning, but Parks’s version of events is that he simply brought his retirement forward by a couple of weeks.
In retrospect, he admits that it might have been better to call it a day after the World Cup, which he had finished, against England, with another Man of the Match display.
Scotland’s Six Nations defeat by England signalled the end of the road. Last Tuesday morning, Parks stood up in the same dressing room where he had first been told, eight years earlier, that he was to be a Test player, and announced to his team-mates that the journey was over.
The long-running saga over embattled Bradford Bulls edged closer to a resolution today when the joint administrator revealed he has found a new potential buyer for the Super League club.
Brendan Guilfoyle, partner at Leeds-based The P&A Partnership, says he has put a new, undisclosed offer to the Rugby Football League and is expecting an answer from them today.
It is the fourth offer Guilfoyle has received for the financially-stricken club, who have been in administration since June 26.
The RFL rejected a bid from a local group of businessmen known as the ABC consortium because it contained unacceptable conditions but they have yet to formally receive an offer from a separate consortium fronted by local MP Gerry Sutcliffe.
In an attempt to end the short-term uncertainty over the club's future, Super League (Europe) stepped in last Thursday with an offer to buy the Bulls on behalf of the other 13 clubs but they could be ''gazumped'' by the latest offer.
Guilfoyle said: ''I put the offer to the RFL last Friday and they will make their decision later on this afternoon.
''I understand the frustration of fans, players and staff that we haven't sold the club yet.

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.