Turn Off Your Miserable Summer and Enjoy Simple Family Caper Comedy The Sleepover

sleepover_1160x653_1161x653

The Sleepover. Available now from Netflix.

Call it my own little bugaboo. But I laughed out loud when Kevin, the lovably loutish 7th-grade-dork protagonist of The Sleepover, learns that his smiley blonde mom is not actually the suburban blond cookie-pusher she appears, but an international-fugitive jewel thief who has been hiding out in the witness protection program, he cuts immediately to the horror-struck chase: “We’re CANADIAN?”

Netflix’s dystopian-family comedy The Sleepover, a daffy cross between the Home Alone movies and the caper flick of your choice, isn’t going to make anybody forget Lucille Ball or Married … With Children. But it’s got some good laughs—mostly, I’m sad to report, not involving Canadians—and holds the saccharine well below the diabetic level. As the dreary summer of 2020 fades and we have to face the most wretched presidential election since—well, since 2016, but still—this may be about the best we can hope for.

The un-June-Cleaver mom in question is Margot, played by a dressed-down Malin Akerman, the wife of reptilian hedge-fund trader Bobby Axelrod on the first three seasons of Billions. Kevin and his sister Clancy call her “boring!”—often—and they may err on the side of generosity: no job, a thoroughly neutered pastry chef for a husband, and she seemingly leaves the house only on days when she’s the volunteer cafeteria monitor at the kids’ school. (One tiny clue that Margot’s not quite the ‘burb Barbie she looks: When she smilingly warns some of the rowdies at school to quiet down or she’ll cut the brakes on their parents’ cars, sending them to a fiery death like pigs screaming in hell.)

But her cover story cracks wide open when some of Margot’s old gangbanger friends snatch her one night and demand that she pull one last job for them. Her kids, naturally, pursue, and lots of knives, bullets, karate kicks and wrecked cars are soon flying through air, all PG-rated but impressively staged. (The scariest stunt: The kids swim in Boston Harbor.)

Akerman plays her role well, if predictably, and that goes also for Ken Marino (Black Monday) as the mighty-thumbed pastry chef dad. And Joe Manganiello does a pleasantly fearsome turn as the gang boss. (The kids would have been even more scared of him if they knew he used to be a werewolf.)

Forget the grown-ups, though. The real strength of The Sleepover is the kids. Kevin and Clancy, played by Disney Channel regulars Maxwell Simkins and Sadie Stanley, are hilariously authentic as children united in loving contempt for their dorky dad and fascist mom.

Kevin in particular is a hoot whenever he opens his mouth—he’s a compulsive and utterly unskilled liar. Instructed to give an oral report on a family member, he breathlessly recounts how his astronaut grandfather learned how to grow crops in his own poop to survive a crash in outer space. When the teacher breaks in to tell him to shut up, he demands an explanation.

“For one thing, it’s the plot of The Martian,” the bored teacher replies. To which Kevin counters, in a tone of sweet reason: “Where do you think they got the idea?”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2CLFUH8
via IFTTT

Turn Off Your Miserable Summer and Enjoy Simple Family Caper Comedy The Sleepover

sleepover_1160x653_1161x653

The Sleepover. Available now from Netflix.

Call it my own little bugaboo. But I laughed out loud when Kevin, the lovably loutish 7th-grade-dork protagonist of The Sleepover, learns that his smiley blonde mom is not actually the suburban blond cookie-pusher she appears, but an international-fugitive jewel thief who has been hiding out in the witness protection program, he cuts immediately to the horror-struck chase: “We’re CANADIAN?”

Netflix’s dystopian-family comedy The Sleepover, a daffy cross between the Home Alone movies and the caper flick of your choice, isn’t going to make anybody forget Lucille Ball or Married … With Children. But it’s got some good laughs—mostly, I’m sad to report, not involving Canadians—and holds the saccharine well below the diabetic level. As the dreary summer of 2020 fades and we have to face the most wretched presidential election since—well, since 2016, but still—this may be about the best we can hope for.

The un-June-Cleaver mom in question is Margot, played by a dressed-down Malin Akerman, the wife of reptilian hedge-fund trader Bobby Axelrod on the first three seasons of Billions. Kevin and his sister Clancy call her “boring!”—often—and they may err on the side of generosity: no job, a thoroughly neutered pastry chef for a husband, and she seemingly leaves the house only on days when she’s the volunteer cafeteria monitor at the kids’ school. (One tiny clue that Margot’s not quite the ‘burb Barbie she looks: When she smilingly warns some of the rowdies at school to quiet down or she’ll cut the brakes on their parents’ cars, sending them to a fiery death like pigs screaming in hell.)

But her cover story cracks wide open when some of Margot’s old gangbanger friends snatch her one night and demand that she pull one last job for them. Her kids, naturally, pursue, and lots of knives, bullets, karate kicks and wrecked cars are soon flying through air, all PG-rated but impressively staged. (The scariest stunt: The kids swim in Boston Harbor.)

Akerman plays her role well, if predictably, and that goes also for Ken Marino (Black Monday) as the mighty-thumbed pastry chef dad. And Joe Manganiello does a pleasantly fearsome turn as the gang boss. (The kids would have been even more scared of him if they knew he used to be a werewolf.)

Forget the grown-ups, though. The real strength of The Sleepover is the kids. Kevin and Clancy, played by Disney Channel regulars Maxwell Simkins and Sadie Stanley, are hilariously authentic as children united in loving contempt for their dorky dad and fascist mom.

Kevin in particular is a hoot whenever he opens his mouth—he’s a compulsive and utterly unskilled liar. Instructed to give an oral report on a family member, he breathlessly recounts how his astronaut grandfather learned how to grow crops in his own poop to survive a crash in outer space. When the teacher breaks in to tell him to shut up, he demands an explanation.

“For one thing, it’s the plot of The Martian,” the bored teacher replies. To which Kevin counters, in a tone of sweet reason: “Where do you think they got the idea?”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2CLFUH8
via IFTTT

Immigration Nation Brilliantly Captures the Brutal Logic Behind America’s Immigration Enforcement Regime

It doesn't need to exist

Netflix’s Immigration Nation is a damning portrayal of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). And yet it is not damning enough! The directors of the six-part series, Christina Clusiau and Shaul Schwarz, got unprecedented access to the inner workings of the agency tasked with enforcing America’s Kafkaesque immigration system, but the most oppressive side of the agency—where sexual and other abuse occurs on a regular basis—remains hidden from the camera.

Still, the glimpse we get reveals an agency that thinks nothing of inflicting the cruelest punishment for the smallest offense, and sometimes for no offense at all—all because the people concerned were born on the other side of the border.

Given just how secretive ICE is, Clusiau and Schwarz pulled off a small miracle by using their pre-existing relationship with an ICE spokesperson to embed themselves in the agency just when President Donald Trump assumed office. For the next three years, they followed ICE around the country, from New York to Texas to Arizona, watching agents conduct raids, debate enforcement tactics, and plot media strategy while blithely upending—and ending—lives.

The documentary, whose more incriminatory parts the Trump administration tried to suppress, opens with a pre-dawn ICE raid on undocumented immigrants in New York. The raid marks the first day of the weeklong Operation Keep Safe—whose actual purpose, contrary to its name, was to instill fear. One ICE agent gushes as he gets ready for action: “I love my job.” A Hispanic agent, on the first day of his job, is giddy: “It’s Christmas for us.” Another exults that the change of administration means “it’s a different world now” where the “floodgates have opened.”

But who exactly is getting swept away? Not folks with serious criminal histories. ICE’s own records show that only 13 of the 225 people arrested during that operation had serious crimes on their record. The vast majority of those arrested either had committed minor misdemeanors, such as DUIs, or were that unfortunate breed called “collaterals.”

Collaterals are undocumented people who have committed only visa violations—akin to speeding in a rational world—but happened to be in the vicinity when ICE came looking for someone else. If any agent has qualms about going after them, those reservations dissolve as the pressure of filling arrest quotas kicks in. ICE agent Brian’s experience makes this abundantly clear. Just when he was expressing his distaste for the practice, he got a call from his supervisor, who tells him “I don’t care what you do” just “get me two” arrests.

None of this is news to anyone who follows the issue. But what’s jaw-dropping is to watch ICE agents openly bend and break the rule of law in the name of…enforcing the rule of law.

A typical Operation Keep Safe raid involved scores of agents surrounding an apartment building, stealthily climbing the stairwell, and banging on doors. By law, ICE agents can’t enter and arrest until they are asked in. So how did they obtain an invitation? By lying and identifying themselves as police. If someone protested on seeing who they really were, the reaction essentially was “Tricked ya!”. The agents then calmly go about the grim business of handcuffing dazed fathers (and sometimes moms) while ignoring the pleas of their shell-shocked spouses and wailing children.

Or that’s what the relatively well-behaved agents did. The really out-of-control ones went further. The documentary shows one attempting to break in by picking an apartment building’s lock, apparently unperturbed that he was being filmed.

Nor is that the worst of it.

In Charlotte, North Carolina, local immigration activists turned Sheriff Irwin Carmichael’s cooperation with ICE via the 287(g) program into a huge issue in his 2018 reelection bid. This program is essentially an ICE “force multiplier,” as one official puts it: It allows ICE to deputize local officers for enforcement purposes and use local jails to park unauthorized immigrants much longer than their original offense merits, until ICE whisks them away for deportation. (When some activists got into a heated exchange about this with an official at a press conference, he responded: “One more profanity and I’ll pick you up myself.”) The activists won, and Carmichael’s replacement scrapped the program on his first day.

ICE instantly started plotting reprisals. Over the ensuing weeks, it assembled 50 agents and created six transport teams to patrol Latino neighborhoods, often in unmarked cars, looking for anyone who looked unauthorized. Racial profiling was of course rampant. They stopped Latino work crews at traffic lights, intersections, and gas stations on the smallest of pretexts, such as a broken tail-light. Unless they claimed to be U.S. citizens, the agents would intimidate them into being fingerprinted on a mobile machine, arresting them on the spot if no match was found.

The upshot was even more terror. And that was exactly the point, as Bryan Cox, ICE’s public affairs spokesperson openly admitted. Anti-287(g) activists, he explained, have to be taught that scrapping cooperation with ICE will result in more—not fewer—deportations. “You thought we were bluffing and whatnot?” he smirked. “The whole goal here is to get them to change their policy.” Plainclothes off-duty ICE agents started attending activist meetings. ICE’s answer to Americans protesting its reign of terror against immigrants was a reign of intimidation against the protesters.

ICE and its sister agencies terrorize immigrants not just through its enforcement squads and detention camps, but by weaponizing its bureaucracy.

In recent days, reports have surfaced that immigration authorities—in an administration allegedly dedicated to slashing red tape—have quietly adopted a no-blanks policy that rejects visa applications if any part of a form is left unfilled. If someone does not have a middle name and skips that line, their petition gets thrown out. Ditto if they leave out the apartment number because they live in a house. The strategy is to make the process so hard for people who are trying to do it by the book that they abandon their quest to live in the United States.

One of the most heart-wrenching stories in Immigration Nation shows how the immigration bureaucracy chews up and spits out Carlos Perez. As a police officer in El Salvador, he offered intel on Salvadoran gangs to the New York Police Department. When the gangs found out, he and his wife fled, at one point swimming across a river with their two toddlers strapped to their backs. The precise details are a bit fuzzy, but it seems Perez sought asylum and was released into the country with work authorization, which he dutifully renewed on a regular basis. But his lawyer forgot to file a formal petition—something that occasionally happens because these migrants are too poor to buy quality representation and don’t have the language skills to navigate the byzantine system themselves. Many years later, when ICE realized this, it took Perez into custody. And after some months, ignoring his pleas that he’ll be killed if he returns home, sends him packing back. The fact that he had risked his life to help American law enforcement counted for nothing against his trivial lapse in paperwork.

At one point, we see him calling his family from a detention camp prior to deportation. He poignantly gives his son, a teenager who has to prematurely step into his dad’s shoes, instructions on making car payments and other such business. The ICE supervisor, who had total discretion over Perez’s fate, admits that Perez was trying to play by the rules. But in the end, he says, he gets “an inherent kind of satisfaction—I won’t say ‘joy’—in removing people who don’t belong in the country regardless of public sentiment.”

After Perez’s deportation, his son drops out of school, cashes in his meager savings, and tries to support the family. “I’ve lost all faith in the U.S. government,” he mourns.

The documentary also introduces us to Cesar Lopez, a U.S. marine veteran turned translator, who was refused entry when he tried to return from an assignment in Central America because he had a 12-year-old marijuana conviction on his record. He had to sneak back via Mexico to rejoin his wife. The only legal way for him to return would have been to die, because then his remains would be brought back for a military funeral.

Cesar’s story, unlike Perez’s, has a happy ending—one of very few in the series. After a herculean effort, he eventually gets a pardon from the governor of New Mexico.

When the administration adopted its zero tolerance policy, the filmmakers captured the horror show in real time because their crew happened to be at the El Paso detention center when it began. They capture scenes of grown men weeping uncontrollably because their kids had just been snatched from them. The story that will break every parent’s heart comes when a Honduran mother describes how her toddler behaved when he was reunited with her after months of separation. He would timidly raise his hand before asking her questions. Using the bathroom was stressful for him because he wasn’t toilet trained when he was ripped away, and whoever trained him used force.

And then there is the 63-year-old Guatemalan woman—petite, frail, terrified, and the furthest thing from a threat to the United States—who fled her country with her 12-year-old granddaughter. According the grandmother, an MS-13 gang member took a fancy to the preteen and demanded that grandma let him marry her or he’d kill them both. The two traveled for 10 days by land to reach the U.S. border and immediately turned themselves in at a port of entry, exactly as legally required. The granddaughter was released from detention after two months to join her mom, who lives in the U.S. The grandmother, however, was held in detention for 17 months—illegally, her lawyer claims, since she met the test for being released into the country while her asylum petition was considered. But she was a pawn in the Trump administration’s deterrence game, so the rules didn’t matter.

Her petition was eventually rejected. Before her lawyer could file an emergency appeal—as is perfectly in keeping with the rules—she was deported in the dead of the night. She wasn’t even allowed a phone call to bid her granddaughter good-bye.

Story after story in Immigration Nation shows how the government systematically games and breaks the rules to keep immigrants out. Yet one ICE agent smugly tells unauthorized immigrants, as he leads them to the bridge back to Mexico, to “try to do it the right way” next time, because, the right way is “always the best way.” He seems oblivious to the fact that even before Trump arrived on the scene and gutted legal immigration, few options to come in the “right way” existed for low-skilled migrants: Every administration since President Lyndon Johnson has been slamming doors in their faces.

Johnson scrapped the Bracero program that had allowed Mexican guest workers to come and go relatively easily, following the demand for their labor in this country. That program was never replaced with anything remotely analogous. (Currently, there is no queue where low-skilled migrants can wait to obtain a full-year legal work visa.) After President Ronald Reagan offered amnesty to the undocumented immigrants who had gathered in the shadows since the Bracero program ended, the incensed nativist right (along with leftist labor unions) browbeat President Bill Clinton into putting border enforcement ahead of visa reforms. Ever since, every president has doubled down on the first and backed off from the second in an effort to appease the restrictionists, who keep moving the goal post.

Clinton criminalized immigration, making nonviolent offenses that are relatively minor infractions under U.S. criminal law deportable aggravated felonies under immigration law. He also sealed off the San Diego corridor that migrants had commonly used to come to the United States. So instead they walked through the harsh Arizona desert, in extreme temperatures, without food or water, relying on human coyotes or smugglers—all of which the documentary captures in horrific detail.

The Clinton administration knew that rerouting the migrants would result in more deaths. Indeed, that was the point. The UCLA archeologist Jason De Leon, who excavates human remains in the desert, notes that one of the official metrics used to gauge the success of this “prevention through deterrence” policy was the number of migrant deaths. The government couldn’t go and shoot 3,000 migrants in the desert, he noted. But it thought nothing of consigning 3,000 migrants to their deaths if it could be chalked up to the travelers’ decision to put themselves in harm’s way.

One of the concluding stories in Immigration Nation features Camerina Santa Cruz, a Tucson-based mother whose 20-plus-year-old son, Marco, lived in Nogales, Mexico, 63 miles away—shorter than some Americans’ commute to work. Marco was denied a visa to join her in America. So he decided to make the schlep through the Sonoran desert with some buddies and disappeared. She kept waiting for him to show up for five years. Then one day she learned from the Pima County Medical Examiner that they had matched his DNA to partial remains they’d retrieved from the desert. We watch her drive to the examiner’s office, dressed all in black, to bring her son home.

Reason has long argued that immigrants who come to the United States to work hard and live in peace are an unmitigated blessing. But let’s assume, arguendo, that their economic and cultural costs make them a net negative. Would that make America’s border wars rational? Not too many who watch this documentary with an open mind and a heart would say yes. The series shows that the more America cracks down on the border, the more it has to crack down. Every round of brutality begets another, still more brutal round. There is no brutality equilibrium that can buy America lasting deterrence. As one unsentimental agent puts it, when it comes to hunting the “human species,” the hunter is always behind the curve because the prey is adapting faster than him. The border jumpers are always “a little bit smarter than you,” he says. So the hunter compensates for what he lacks in smarts by ratcheting up his brutality level.

That’s the tragic logic that Immigration Nation brilliantly captures.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2QdFyw3
via IFTTT

Immigration Nation Brilliantly Captures the Brutal Logic Behind America’s Immigration Enforcement Regime

It doesn't need to exist

Netflix’s Immigration Nation is a damning portrayal of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). And yet it is not damning enough! The directors of the six-part series, Christina Clusiau and Shaul Schwarz, got unprecedented access to the inner workings of the agency tasked with enforcing America’s Kafkaesque immigration system, but the most oppressive side of the agency—where sexual and other abuse occurs on a regular basis—remains hidden from the camera.

Still, the glimpse we get reveals an agency that thinks nothing of inflicting the cruelest punishment for the smallest offense, and sometimes for no offense at all—all because the people concerned were born on the other side of the border.

Given just how secretive ICE is, Clusiau and Schwarz pulled off a small miracle by using their pre-existing relationship with an ICE spokesperson to embed themselves in the agency just when President Donald Trump assumed office. For the next three years, they followed ICE around the country, from New York to Texas to Arizona, watching agents conduct raids, debate enforcement tactics, and plot media strategy while blithely upending—and ending—lives.

The documentary, whose more incriminatory parts the Trump administration tried to suppress, opens with a pre-dawn ICE raid on undocumented immigrants in New York. The raid marks the first day of the weeklong Operation Keep Safe—whose actual purpose, contrary to its name, was to instill fear. One ICE agent gushes as he gets ready for action: “I love my job.” A Hispanic agent, on the first day of his job, is giddy: “It’s Christmas for us.” Another exults that the change of administration means “it’s a different world now” where the “floodgates have opened.”

But who exactly is getting swept away? Not folks with serious criminal histories. ICE’s own records show that only 13 of the 225 people arrested during that operation had serious crimes on their record. The vast majority of those arrested either had committed minor misdemeanors, such as DUIs, or were that unfortunate breed called “collaterals.”

Collaterals are undocumented people who have committed only visa violations—akin to speeding in a rational world—but happened to be in the vicinity when ICE came looking for someone else. If any agent has qualms about going after them, those reservations dissolve as the pressure of filling arrest quotas kicks in. ICE agent Brian’s experience makes this abundantly clear. Just when he was expressing his distaste for the practice, he got a call from his supervisor, who tells him “I don’t care what you do” just “get me two” arrests.

None of this is news to anyone who follows the issue. But what’s jaw-dropping is to watch ICE agents openly bend and break the rule of law in the name of…enforcing the rule of law.

A typical Operation Keep Safe raid involved scores of agents surrounding an apartment building, stealthily climbing the stairwell, and banging on doors. By law, ICE agents can’t enter and arrest until they are asked in. So how did they obtain an invitation? By lying and identifying themselves as police. If someone protested on seeing who they really were, the reaction essentially was “Tricked ya!”. The agents then calmly go about the grim business of handcuffing dazed fathers (and sometimes moms) while ignoring the pleas of their shell-shocked spouses and wailing children.

Or that’s what the relatively well-behaved agents did. The really out-of-control ones went further. The documentary shows one attempting to break in by picking an apartment building’s lock, apparently unperturbed that he was being filmed.

Nor is that the worst of it.

In Charlotte, North Carolina, local immigration activists turned Sheriff Irwin Carmichael’s cooperation with ICE via the 287(g) program into a huge issue in his 2018 reelection bid. This program is essentially an ICE “force multiplier,” as one official puts it: It allows ICE to deputize local officers for enforcement purposes and use local jails to park unauthorized immigrants much longer than their original offense merits, until ICE whisks them away for deportation. (When some activists got into a heated exchange about this with an official at a press conference, he responded: “One more profanity and I’ll pick you up myself.”) The activists won, and Carmichael’s replacement scrapped the program on his first day.

ICE instantly started plotting reprisals. Over the ensuing weeks, it assembled 50 agents and created six transport teams to patrol Latino neighborhoods, often in unmarked cars, looking for anyone who looked unauthorized. Racial profiling was of course rampant. They stopped Latino work crews at traffic lights, intersections, and gas stations on the smallest of pretexts, such as a broken tail-light. Unless they claimed to be U.S. citizens, the agents would intimidate them into being fingerprinted on a mobile machine, arresting them on the spot if no match was found.

The upshot was even more terror. And that was exactly the point, as Bryan Cox, ICE’s public affairs spokesperson openly admitted. Anti-287(g) activists, he explained, have to be taught that scrapping cooperation with ICE will result in more—not fewer—deportations. “You thought we were bluffing and whatnot?” he smirked. “The whole goal here is to get them to change their policy.” Plainclothes off-duty ICE agents started attending activist meetings. ICE’s answer to Americans protesting its reign of terror against immigrants was a reign of intimidation against the protesters.

ICE and its sister agencies terrorize immigrants not just through its enforcement squads and detention camps, but by weaponizing its bureaucracy.

In recent days, reports have surfaced that immigration authorities—in an administration allegedly dedicated to slashing red tape—have quietly adopted a no-blanks policy that rejects visa applications if any part of a form is left unfilled. If someone does not have a middle name and skips that line, their petition gets thrown out. Ditto if they leave out the apartment number because they live in a house. The strategy is to make the process so hard for people who are trying to do it by the book that they abandon their quest to live in the United States.

One of the most heart-wrenching stories in Immigration Nation shows how the immigration bureaucracy chews up and spits out Carlos Perez. As a police officer in El Salvador, he offered intel on Salvadoran gangs to the New York Police Department. When the gangs found out, he and his wife fled, at one point swimming across a river with their two toddlers strapped to their backs. The precise details are a bit fuzzy, but it seems Perez sought asylum and was released into the country with work authorization, which he dutifully renewed on a regular basis. But his lawyer forgot to file a formal petition—something that occasionally happens because these migrants are too poor to buy quality representation and don’t have the language skills to navigate the byzantine system themselves. Many years later, when ICE realized this, it took Perez into custody. And after some months, ignoring his pleas that he’ll be killed if he returns home, sends him packing back. The fact that he had risked his life to help American law enforcement counted for nothing against his trivial lapse in paperwork.

At one point, we see him calling his family from a detention camp prior to deportation. He poignantly gives his son, a teenager who has to prematurely step into his dad’s shoes, instructions on making car payments and other such business. The ICE supervisor, who had total discretion over Perez’s fate, admits that Perez was trying to play by the rules. But in the end, he says, he gets “an inherent kind of satisfaction—I won’t say ‘joy’—in removing people who don’t belong in the country regardless of public sentiment.”

After Perez’s deportation, his son drops out of school, cashes in his meager savings, and tries to support the family. “I’ve lost all faith in the U.S. government,” he mourns.

The documentary also introduces us to Cesar Lopez, a U.S. marine veteran turned translator, who was refused entry when he tried to return from an assignment in Central America because he had a 12-year-old marijuana conviction on his record. He had to sneak back via Mexico to rejoin his wife. The only legal way for him to return would have been to die, because then his remains would be brought back for a military funeral.

Cesar’s story, unlike Perez’s, has a happy ending—one of very few in the series. After a herculean effort, he eventually gets a pardon from the governor of New Mexico.

When the administration adopted its zero tolerance policy, the filmmakers captured the horror show in real time because their crew happened to be at the El Paso detention center when it began. They capture scenes of grown men weeping uncontrollably because their kids had just been snatched from them. The story that will break every parent’s heart comes when a Honduran mother describes how her toddler behaved when he was reunited with her after months of separation. He would timidly raise his hand before asking her questions. Using the bathroom was stressful for him because he wasn’t toilet trained when he was ripped away, and whoever trained him used force.

And then there is the 63-year-old Guatemalan woman—petite, frail, terrified, and the furthest thing from a threat to the United States—who fled her country with her 12-year-old granddaughter. According the grandmother, an MS-13 gang member took a fancy to the preteen and demanded that grandma let him marry her or he’d kill them both. The two traveled for 10 days by land to reach the U.S. border and immediately turned themselves in at a port of entry, exactly as legally required. The granddaughter was released from detention after two months to join her mom, who lives in the U.S. The grandmother, however, was held in detention for 17 months—illegally, her lawyer claims, since she met the test for being released into the country while her asylum petition was considered. But she was a pawn in the Trump administration’s deterrence game, so the rules didn’t matter.

Her petition was eventually rejected. Before her lawyer could file an emergency appeal—as is perfectly in keeping with the rules—she was deported in the dead of the night. She wasn’t even allowed a phone call to bid her granddaughter good-bye.

Story after story in Immigration Nation shows how the government systematically games and breaks the rules to keep immigrants out. Yet one ICE agent smugly tells unauthorized immigrants, as he leads them to the bridge back to Mexico, to “try to do it the right way” next time, because, the right way is “always the best way.” He seems oblivious to the fact that even before Trump arrived on the scene and gutted legal immigration, few options to come in the “right way” existed for low-skilled migrants: Every administration since President Lyndon Johnson has been slamming doors in their faces.

Johnson scrapped the Bracero program that had allowed Mexican guest workers to come and go relatively easily, following the demand for their labor in this country. That program was never replaced with anything remotely analogous. (Currently, there is no queue where low-skilled migrants can wait to obtain a full-year legal work visa.) After President Ronald Reagan offered amnesty to the undocumented immigrants who had gathered in the shadows since the Bracero program ended, the incensed nativist right (along with leftist labor unions) browbeat President Bill Clinton into putting border enforcement ahead of visa reforms. Ever since, every president has doubled down on the first and backed off from the second in an effort to appease the restrictionists, who keep moving the goal post.

Clinton criminalized immigration, making nonviolent offenses that are relatively minor infractions under U.S. criminal law deportable aggravated felonies under immigration law. He also sealed off the San Diego corridor that migrants had commonly used to come to the United States. So instead they walked through the harsh Arizona desert, in extreme temperatures, without food or water, relying on human coyotes or smugglers—all of which the documentary captures in horrific detail.

The Clinton administration knew that rerouting the migrants would result in more deaths. Indeed, that was the point. The UCLA archeologist Jason De Leon, who excavates human remains in the desert, notes that one of the official metrics used to gauge the success of this “prevention through deterrence” policy was the number of migrant deaths. The government couldn’t go and shoot 3,000 migrants in the desert, he noted. But it thought nothing of consigning 3,000 migrants to their deaths if it could be chalked up to the travelers’ decision to put themselves in harm’s way.

One of the concluding stories in Immigration Nation features Camerina Santa Cruz, a Tucson-based mother whose 20-plus-year-old son, Marco, lived in Nogales, Mexico, 63 miles away—shorter than some Americans’ commute to work. Marco was denied a visa to join her in America. So he decided to make the schlep through the Sonoran desert with some buddies and disappeared. She kept waiting for him to show up for five years. Then one day she learned from the Pima County Medical Examiner that they had matched his DNA to partial remains they’d retrieved from the desert. We watch her drive to the examiner’s office, dressed all in black, to bring her son home.

Reason has long argued that immigrants who come to the United States to work hard and live in peace are an unmitigated blessing. But let’s assume, arguendo, that their economic and cultural costs make them a net negative. Would that make America’s border wars rational? Not too many who watch this documentary with an open mind and a heart would say yes. The series shows that the more America cracks down on the border, the more it has to crack down. Every round of brutality begets another, still more brutal round. There is no brutality equilibrium that can buy America lasting deterrence. As one unsentimental agent puts it, when it comes to hunting the “human species,” the hunter is always behind the curve because the prey is adapting faster than him. The border jumpers are always “a little bit smarter than you,” he says. So the hunter compensates for what he lacks in smarts by ratcheting up his brutality level.

That’s the tragic logic that Immigration Nation brilliantly captures.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2QdFyw3
via IFTTT

The Democratic Convention Was a Brief for Biden’s Character. Policy Got Left Behind.

lrphotos130377

Just before the Democratic National Convention, the Pew Research Center released a poll finding that the single biggest reason Joe Biden supporters preferred him to President Donald Trump was that he wasn’t Trump.

Looked at one way, this was less a reason than a tautological statement of fact: Biden is Biden and Trump is Trump, and never the twain shall meet. But it was also an electoral strategy in waiting, a readymade narrative for a campaign that needed a story to tell. In this result you can understand why the convention took the shape it did. Over four nights this week, Democrats went about making the case for Biden’s campaign by pointing out, over and over, that he is very much not Donald Trump. 

Trump, in this telling, is a man of low character, devoid of empathy or decency, unable to care about anyone but himself. He is not just a bad president but a bad person, a soulless and addled narcissist who cannot be redeemed or trusted. Biden, the speakers implored viewers to understand, was the precise opposite of this: a man of decency, integrity, and empathy, someone who has known personal tragedy and can feel others’ pain. 

Sometimes this contrast was implicit, as in the repeated, heartbreaking invocations of Biden’s personal losses: his wife and daughter as a young man, his son as an elder statesman. The convention gave viewers a Biden haunted by personal tragedy who had the personal will—the strength of character—to carry forward anyway. 

At other times the contrast was explicit. “Character is on the ballot,” Biden said in last night’s acceptance speech. “Compassion is on the ballot. Decency, science, democracy. They are all on the ballot. Who we are as a nation. What we stand for. And, most importantly, who we want to be.” It wasn’t just Biden’s character that was at stake. It was the character of the entire country. The election, as Biden has said before, would be “a battle for the soul of this nation.” 

The appeal of this pitch is clear. Even among those who support the president, many grumble about his tweets and offhanded offenses, his coarseness and lack of focus. Trump’s counterpunching style has its fans, of course, but it has always been polarizing, to say the least. And it sidesteps more prosaic political disagreements over, say, trade policy or taxes. To focus on Trump’s character, and how Biden departs from it, is in many ways the safe and obvious choice. 

Yet this approach also has drawbacks, and it served to obscure as much as it revealed, minimizing Biden’s actual plans for the presidency. The convention told us plenty about who Biden was. But it said much less about what exactly he would do. 

Yes, Biden sketched out a plan to fight the coronavirus—produce medical supplies, make sure schools have resources, develop rapid tests, impose a national mask mandate—but the sketch was brief to point of seeming almost pro forma. Early in the week, a segment on health care promised to build on Obamacare but spent far more time on stories of personal tragedy than on the particulars of Biden’s plan. A determined viewer could find an agenda for a Biden presidency, but it was the kind you could fit in a tweet

Biden’s defenders might offer any number of excuses for the decision to relegate policy to a glossy, emotionally laden skim: the compressed nature of the convention, the need to hook viewers with individual stories rather than boring policy explainers, the availability of more detail online, the widespread sense that personal decency is actually the most urgent issue in this election. All of these reasons have at least some degree of validity. 

And yet there remains a certain disconnect with the liberal project that rose up during the Bush presidency and dominated through the Obama years, a project that insisted that policy, and policy detail, mattered more than the personalities on stage. There were variations to this approach, but the underlying idea was that for too long politics had been covered as a personality contest, a sweeping drama of presidential wills and colorful characters, rather than a technocratic discussion of policy merits built around white papers and expert legislative analysis. Mainstream journalism outlets put together special teams and sections just to cover policy, and policy journalists—often with good reason—criticized Republicans for being too vague, too unconcerned about policy particulars. 

Biden’s campaign isn’t substanceless. Since he started running, he’s put forth any number of policy proposals, and a group of Biden affiliates recently released an extensive list of policy recommendations negotiated with Biden’s primary rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders (IVt.). But aside from a brief appearance by Sanders himself, the convention mostly left this aside, focusing on what Pew found to be his primary advantage, and what has arguably become his signature issue: not being Trump. 

Character may well be the deciding factor in the election. Trump is no policy savant, and throughout his political career has defined himself largely via his performance in culture war skirmishes, moments in which he demonstrated his character, almost always to his detriment. And it certainly true that in the Oval Office, character influences policy, which Trump has shown time and time again, particularly (but not only) when it comes to trade and immigration

Yet as important as character is, it only tells you so much about how a political candidate will act in office. And the DNC, for the most part, was a brief for character, not policy, for decency, not ideology. That’s not nothing, especially when you’re deciding who will occupy the White House, and it may well be enough to win in November. But it won’t be enough to govern in the years that follow. 

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2ElyLxV
via IFTTT

Does COVID-19 Strengthen the Case for Medicare for All? A Soho Forum Debate

medicare for all

The COVID-19 pandemic makes it all the more urgent for the U.S. to install a system of Medicare for All.

That was the topic of an online Soho Forum debate held on August 19, 2020. Arguing in favor of the proposition was Gerald Friedman, a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts and the author of the book, The Case for Medicare for All. He went up against Sally Pipes, president of the Pacific Research Institute and author of False Premise, False Promise: The Disastrous Reality of Medicare for All. Soho Forum director Gene Epstein moderated.

The Soho Forum runs Oxford-style debates, meaning the audience voted on the proposition before and after the presenters’ remarks. The winner is the person who moves more votes in his or her direction. At the start of the evening, 20 percent of the Zoom audience agreed that the pandemic furthered the case for Medicare for All, 60 percent were against, and 20 percent were undecided. At the end of the debate, 27 percent agreed with the proposition, 73 percent disagreed, and no one was left undecided. Because she gained the most votes, Sally Pipes was declared the winner.

The Soho Forum, sponsored by the Reason Foundation, is a monthly debate series at the SubCulture Theater in Manhattan’s East Village. Debates will remain online until New York allows public events again. For information on how to watch and vote in the next online Soho Forum debate, go here.

Produced by John Osterhoudt.

Photo: Molly Adams/Flickr.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Qbfy4w
via IFTTT

It’s Time to Permanently Suspend Regulatory Barriers to Telehealth

westendrf527653(1)

After years of unfulfilled predictions about high-tech health care, the use of telehealth—like telecommuting—boomed during the pandemic and lockdowns. While the delivery of medical services via phone call, videoconference, and other electronic communications isn’t universally appropriate, it’s often helpful, and a huge boon for people who have limited mobility or live far from medical providers.

But while the COVID-19 pandemic has driven the use of telehealth technologies, that’s largely because of the emergency suspension of regulatory barriers. Once the crisis is over, telehealth could disappear as an option for many people if regulators move to reclaim the ground they temporarily ceded.

I’ll say up front that, as a rural dweller who lives far from most specialty providers, I’m a big fan of telehealth. In recent months, I’ve had the preliminaries of a skin cancer diagnosis done through emailed photos and a videoconference with a dermatologist 100 miles away. My son’s acne was similarly treated by a distant doctor. The proliferation of phones with built-in cameras, video tools, and secure online portals for sharing files and lab results makes much of this a breeze.

Not everything can be done remotely, of course. I did have to make an in-person trip for a biopsy, and another to have the offending cells sliced away. But my son has yet to meet his dermatologist in-person. We’ve avoided multiple long drives and opportunities for catching COVID-19 or other diseases.

My wife is on the other side of this phenomenon in her role as a pediatrician. She meets with patients and their families through videoconference calls as a tactic for reducing the chance of infection.

We haven’t been alone in embracing remote medical visits. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) data shows that “nearly half of Medicare primary care visits were provided via telehealth in April, compared with less than one percent before the [public health emergency] in February.”

Even after lockdowns eased, many medical appointments continued through phones and computers. “As in-person visits started to resume from mid-April thru May, the use of telehealth in primary care declined somewhat but appears to have leveled off at a persistent and significant level by the beginning of June,” HHS adds.

Telehealth services were so rare before this year partially because of discomfort among providers with providing services to people who aren’t physically present. It’s new, it’s different, and it’s not always appropriate to diagnose and treat patients without in-person visits.

But even if physicians and other providers were less resistant, they still would have been stymied by regulatory barriers that hobbled the use of telehealth. Until March of 2020, seeing a patient remotely meant navigating a maze of privacy rules, licensing restrictions, and the very real likelihood that the visit was an act of uncompensated charity.

“Beginning on March 6, 2020, Medicare—administered by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)—will temporarily pay clinicians to provide telehealth services for beneficiaries residing across the entire country,” CMS announced earlier this year. “Prior to this announcement, Medicare was only allowed to pay clinicians for telehealth services such as routine visits in certain circumstances. For example, the beneficiary receiving the services must live in a rural area and travel to a local medical facility to get telehealth services from a doctor in a remote location. In addition, the beneficiary would generally not be allowed to receive telehealth services in their home.”

Medicare isn’t the only game in town when it comes to paying for care, but Medicaid follows much the same rules, and, sad to say, private insurers tend to stick closely to the government program’s policies.

Payment restrictions, while a huge concern, weren’t the only regulatory barrier to the use of telehealth. A list of pandemic-inspired HHS policy changes regarding telehealth assures providers that “the federal government has taken concrete steps to make telehealth services easier to implement and access during this national emergency.”

Under the revised rules, providers can now treat patients across state lines—something not permitted in the past. They can also see new patients online and not just continue existing relationships.

Importantly, given the minefield of privacy rules in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), providers can meet with patients using common “non-public facing” tools including Apple FaceTime, Facebook Messenger video chat, Google Hangouts video, Zoom, and Skype. That means patients don’t have to install and master the use of specialized software to see the doctor.

Also important: “A practitioner can prescribe a controlled substance to a patient using telemedicine, even if the patient isn’t at a hospital or clinic registered with the DEA.”

But, as helpful as all that is, don’t get too comfortable. “These changes are temporary measures during the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency and are subject to revision,” warns the document.

Also temporary is the relaxation of state rules—medical licensing, in particular—that stand in the way of telemedicine. Traditional licensing makes it illegal to hold a videoconference appointment across a state border, although driving across that border to see the same doctor in person is perfectly acceptable.

“The removal of state licensure restrictions allowed physicians to practice across state lines, which played a major role in allowing telehealth to step in as a national ‘load balancer’ of medical services,” points out Roy Schoenberg, a physician and head of Amwell, a telehealth company. “For the first time in history, the nation could beam in specialists from where they were available to where they were needed most.”

If old-fashioned licensing requirements are reinstated, that will leave patients and providers alike stuck in little boxes of medical care defined by their state borders, even though they have the ability to easily speak and share information with anybody on the planet.

Then again, if old payment, HIPAA, and prescription restriction are put back in place, it won’t matter what size boxes we’re stuck in, since telehealth will go back to being a rarity. That uncertainty hangs like a cloud over the whole practice of remote medicine.

“Multiple physicians mentioned that the lack of certainty regarding the post-pandemic policy environment reduced their willingness to invest in telehealth over the long term,” writes Lori Uscher-Pines, a RAND Corporation senior policy researcher. “By signaling their intentions sooner rather than later regarding payment policy, policymakers could reduce uncertainty and encourage investment in sustainable telehealth models. For example, Congress should act to permanently remove geographic and originating site requirements for telehealth in Medicare.”

To his credit, President Donald Trump ordered in early August that some telehealth rule revisions be extended. But the effect is largely limited to rural areas. And what can be done by executive order can be undone the same way.

It’s great that regulators backed off a bit on telehealth-hobbling red tape that proved to be life-threatening during a pandemic. But if those rules are potentially deadly during a crisis, they’ll still be inconvenient and dangerous once life returns to something like normal. If they care at all about health, politicians and bureaucrats need to get out of the way—permanently.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/32bQQ9H
via IFTTT

What if Joe Biden Were a Libertarian? We Fixed His Acceptance Speech.

joe

Presidential nominee Joe Biden gave his acceptance speech from the Democratic National Convention last night.

Since what he had to say wasn’t particularly libertarian, we fixed it.

Photo by Gage Skidmore.

Produced by Paul Detrick.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2EqSfks
via IFTTT

The Democratic Convention Was a Brief for Biden’s Character. Policy Got Left Behind.

lrphotos130377

Just before the Democratic National Convention, the Pew Research Center released a poll finding that the single biggest reason Joe Biden supporters preferred him to President Donald Trump was that he wasn’t Trump.

Looked at one way, this was less a reason than a tautological statement of fact: Biden is Biden and Trump is Trump, and never the twain shall meet. But it was also an electoral strategy in waiting, a readymade narrative for a campaign that needed a story to tell. In this result you can understand why the convention took the shape it did. Over four nights this week, Democrats went about making the case for Biden’s campaign by pointing out, over and over, that he is very much not Donald Trump. 

Trump, in this telling, is a man of low character, devoid of empathy or decency, unable to care about anyone but himself. He is not just a bad president but a bad person, a soulless and addled narcissist who cannot be redeemed or trusted. Biden, the speakers implored viewers to understand, was the precise opposite of this: a man of decency, integrity, and empathy, someone who has known personal tragedy and can feel others’ pain. 

Sometimes this contrast was implicit, as in the repeated, heartbreaking invocations of Biden’s personal losses: his wife and daughter as a young man, his son as an elder statesman. The convention gave viewers a Biden haunted by personal tragedy who had the personal will—the strength of character—to carry forward anyway. 

At other times the contrast was explicit. “Character is on the ballot,” Biden said in last night’s acceptance speech. “Compassion is on the ballot. Decency, science, democracy. They are all on the ballot. Who we are as a nation. What we stand for. And, most importantly, who we want to be.” It wasn’t just Biden’s character that was at stake. It was the character of the entire country. The election, as Biden has said before, would be “a battle for the soul of this nation.” 

The appeal of this pitch is clear. Even among those who support the president, many grumble about his tweets and offhanded offenses, his coarseness and lack of focus. Trump’s counterpunching style has its fans, of course, but it has always been polarizing, to say the least. And it sidesteps more prosaic political disagreements over, say, trade policy or taxes. To focus on Trump’s character, and how Biden departs from it, is in many ways the safe and obvious choice. 

Yet this approach also has drawbacks, and it served to obscure as much as it revealed, minimizing Biden’s actual plans for the presidency. The convention told us plenty about who Biden was. But it said much less about what exactly he would do. 

Yes, Biden sketched out a plan to fight the coronavirus—produce medical supplies, make sure schools have resources, develop rapid tests, impose a national mask mandate—but the sketch was brief to point of seeming almost pro forma. Early in the week, a segment on health care promised to build on Obamacare but spent far more time on stories of personal tragedy than on the particulars of Biden’s plan. A determined viewer could find an agenda for a Biden presidency, but it was the kind you could fit in a tweet

Biden’s defenders might offer any number of excuses for the decision to relegate policy to a glossy, emotionally laden skim: the compressed nature of the convention, the need to hook viewers with individual stories rather than boring policy explainers, the availability of more detail online, the widespread sense that personal decency is actually the most urgent issue in this election. All of these reasons have at least some degree of validity. 

And yet there remains a certain disconnect with the liberal project that rose up during the Bush presidency and dominated through the Obama years, a project that insisted that policy, and policy detail, mattered more than the personalities on stage. There were variations to this approach, but the underlying idea was that for too long politics had been covered as a personality contest, a sweeping drama of presidential wills and colorful characters, rather than a technocratic discussion of policy merits built around white papers and expert legislative analysis. Mainstream journalism outlets put together special teams and sections just to cover policy, and policy journalists—often with good reason—criticized Republicans for being too vague, too unconcerned about policy particulars. 

Biden’s campaign isn’t substanceless. Since he started running, he’s put forth any number of policy proposals, and a group of Biden affiliates recently released an extensive list of policy recommendations negotiated with Biden’s primary rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders (IVt.). But aside from a brief appearance by Sanders himself, the convention mostly left this aside, focusing on what Pew found to be his primary advantage, and what has arguably become his signature issue: not being Trump. 

Character may well be the deciding factor in the election. Trump is no policy savant, and throughout his political career has defined himself largely via his performance in culture war skirmishes, moments in which he demonstrated his character, almost always to his detriment. And it certainly true that in the Oval Office, character influences policy, which Trump has shown time and time again, particularly (but not only) when it comes to trade and immigration

Yet as important as character is, it only tells you so much about how a political candidate will act in office. And the DNC, for the most part, was a brief for character, not policy, for decency, not ideology. That’s not nothing, especially when you’re deciding who will occupy the White House, and it may well be enough to win in November. But it won’t be enough to govern in the years that follow. 

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2ElyLxV
via IFTTT

Does COVID-19 Strengthen the Case for Medicare for All? A Soho Forum Debate

medicare for all

The COVID-19 pandemic makes it all the more urgent for the U.S. to install a system of Medicare for All.

That was the topic of an online Soho Forum debate held on August 19, 2020. Arguing in favor of the proposition was Gerald Friedman, a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts and the author of the book, The Case for Medicare for All. He went up against Sally Pipes, president of the Pacific Research Institute and author of False Premise, False Promise: The Disastrous Reality of Medicare for All. Soho Forum director Gene Epstein moderated.

The Soho Forum runs Oxford-style debates, meaning the audience voted on the proposition before and after the presenters’ remarks. The winner is the person who moves more votes in his or her direction. At the start of the evening, 20 percent of the Zoom audience agreed that the pandemic furthered the case for Medicare for All, 60 percent were against, and 20 percent were undecided. At the end of the debate, 27 percent agreed with the proposition, 73 percent disagreed, and no one was left undecided. Because she gained the most votes, Sally Pipes was declared the winner.

The Soho Forum, sponsored by the Reason Foundation, is a monthly debate series at the SubCulture Theater in Manhattan’s East Village. Debates will remain online until New York allows public events again. For information on how to watch and vote in the next online Soho Forum debate, go here.

Produced by John Osterhoudt.

Photo: Molly Adams/Flickr.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Qbfy4w
via IFTTT