Where The January Jobs Were

While in recent months, we had documented that job growth was mostly observed in lower, or minimum-wage paying, jobs, in January, when as the BLS earlier reported the US added some 227K jobs, the increase was uniform across virtually all job sectors, with only Government and Transportation and Warehousing jobs declining by 10,000 and 4,000, respectively. All other sectors saw an increase in employees.

The breakdown is as follows:

  • Retail jobs rose by 46,000 in January, and by 229,000 in 2016. Three industries added jobs in January–clothing and clothing accessories stores (+18,000), electronics and appliance stores (+8,000), and furniture and home furnishings stores (+6,000). We find this surprising in light of the mass layoff announcements reported by retailers in recent months.
  • Construction jobs rose by 36,000. Residential building added 9,000 jobs over the month, while residential specialty trade contractors added +11,000. Over the past 12 months, the US has added 170,000 jobs.
  • Financial jobs rose by 32,000 jobs in January, with gains in real estate (+10,000), insurance carriers and related activities (+9,000), and credit intermediation and related activities (+9,000). Financial activities added an average of 15,000 jobs per month in 2016.
  • Employment in professional and technical services rose by 23,000, in line with the average monthly gain in 2016. Over the month, job gains occurred in computer systems design and related services (+13,000).
  • Food services and drinking places jobs – i.e., waiters and bartenders – continued to trend up in January (+30,000). This industry added 286,000 jobs over the past 12 months, and continues to
  • Health care jobs added another +18,000 positions, following a gain of 41,000 in December. The industry has added 374,000 jobs over the past 12 months.
  • Employment in other major industries, including mining and logging, manufacturing, wholesale trade, transportation and warehousing, information, and government, showed little change over the month.

And visually:

via http://ift.tt/2kZL9si Tyler Durden

US Unleashes New Sanctions On Iran; Russia Says “Counter-Productive”

The U.S. imposed fresh sanctions on Iran as President Donald Trump seeks to punish Tehran for its ballistic missile program after warning the Islamic Republic that it is “playing with fire." As Bloomberg reports, the Treasury Department published a list of 13 individuals and 12 entities facing new restrictions, some for contributing to proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and others for links to terrorism.

RIA is reporting that Russian foreign ministry officials have remarked that "sanctions against Iran are counter-productive."

The following individuals have been added to OFAC's SDN List:

  • AL-HAJJ, Yahya (a.k.a. AL-HAJ, Yahya; a.k.a. AL-HAJ, Yehia Issa Mohamad); DOB 23 May 1959; POB Aramta, Lebanon; Additional Sanctions Information – Subject to Secondary Sanctions; Gender Male; Passport RL 2544590 (Lebanon) issued 07 Jun 2013 expires 07 Jun 2018 (individual) [SDGT] [IRGC] [IFSR].
  • ASGHARZADEH, Abdollah; DOB 16 Sep 1968; Additional Sanctions Information – Subject to Secondary Sanctions (individual) [NPWMD] [IFSR].
  • DARIAN, Tenny (a.k.a. SHAKHDARIAN, Tenny); DOB 06 Sep 1979; POB Tehran, Iran; citizen Iran; Additional Sanctions Information – Subject to Secondary Sanctions; Passport B23545963 expires 05 Mar 2017 (individual) [NPWMD] [IFSR].
  • EBRAHIMI, Hasan Dehghan (a.k.a. IBRAHIMI, Hasan Dahqan); DOB 21 Mar 1961; POB Dezfool, Iran; Additional Sanctions Information – Subject to Secondary Sanctions; Gender Male; Passport U19707756 (Iran) issued 12 May 2011 expires 11 May 2016 (individual) [SDGT] [IRGC] [IFSR].
  • FARHAT, Muhammad 'Abd-al-Amir (a.k.a. FARHAT, Mohammad; a.k.a. FARHAT, Mohammad Abdul Amir); DOB 23 Aug 1969; POB Kuwait; Additional Sanctions Information – Subject to Secondary Sanctions; Gender Male; Passport RL 2325452 (Lebanon) expires 31 Jul 2017 (individual) [SDGT] [IRGC] [IFSR].
  • MAGHAM, Mohammad; DOB 16 Sep 1970; nationality Iran; Additional Sanctions Information – Subject to Secondary Sanctions; Passport H22452336 (Iran) (individual) [NPWMD] [IFSR].
  • ROSTAMIAN, Kambiz, Villa No 13, Cluster 31 Juemierah Islands, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; DOB 27 Aug 1960; Additional Sanctions Information – Subject to Secondary Sanctions; Passport RE0003026 (Saint Kitts and Nevis); alt. Passport I17217816 (Iran) (individual) [NPWMD] [IFSR].
  • SHARIFI, Ali (a.k.a. SALEHI, Ali); DOB 23 Feb 1966; POB Tehran, Iran; Additional Sanctions Information – Subject to Secondary Sanctions; Gender Male; Passport M31335740 (Iran); alt. Passport U30608043 (Iran) (individual) [SDGT] [IRGC] [IFSR].
  • XIANHUA, Qin (a.k.a. QIN, Jack; a.k.a. XIANHUA, Jack); DOB 08 Jan 1979; citizen China; Additional Sanctions Information – Subject to Secondary Sanctions; Passport E31457650 expires 21 Oct 2023 (individual) [NPWMD] [IFSR].
  • YUE, Richard (a.k.a. YAODONG, Yue); DOB 22 May 1974; Additional Sanctions Information – Subject to Secondary Sanctions (individual) [NPWMD] [IFSR].
  • ZAHEDI, Mostafa (a.k.a. KHAZE, Karim; a.k.a. LIU, Jhon; a.k.a. OMAR, Asem; a.k.a. "IBRAHIM, Mohammad"; a.k.a. "IBRAHIM, Mohammed"); DOB 29 Jun 1978; Additional Sanctions Information – Subject to Secondary Sanctions (individual) [NPWMD] [IFSR].
  • ZARGARI, Ghodrat (a.k.a. ZARGARI, Ghodratollah); DOB 1944; Additional Sanctions Information – Subject to Secondary Sanctions (individual) [NPWMD] [IFSR].
  • ZHOU, Carol; DOB 30 Oct 1982; Additional Sanctions Information – Subject to Secondary Sanctions (individual) [NPWMD] [IFSR].

The following entities have been added to OFAC's SDN List:

  • COSAILING BUSINESS TRADING COMPANY LIMITED, 2808 Number 1 Building, 98 Nanjing Road, Shinan District, Qingdao, China; Additional Sanctions Information – Subject to Secondary Sanctions [NPWMD] [IFSR].
  • EAST STAR COMPANY (a.k.a. SATEREH SHARGH MOBIN CO.; a.k.a. SATEREH SHARGH SAMIN CO., LTD.; a.k.a. SETAREH SHARGH CO.), Unit 5, Third Floor, 15th Street, Bokharest Avenue, Tehran, Iran; Additional Sanctions Information – Subject to Secondary Sanctions [NPWMD] [IFSR].
  • ERVIN DANESH ARYAN COMPANY (a.k.a. ERVIN DANESH), 5th Floor, No. 78, Forsat Shirazi Street, North Kargar Street, Tehran, Iran; Additional Sanctions Information – Subject to Secondary Sanctions [NPWMD] [IFSR].
  • MAHER TRADING AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (a.k.a. MAHER TRADING AND ENGINEERING; a.k.a. "MAHER COMPANY"), Concord building, 7th floor, Verdan, Beirut, Lebanon; Harik Harik, on the street near al-Husnayn Mosque, Malik bin Qazzam, 5th floor, Beirut, Lebanon; Additional Sanctions Information – Subject to Secondary Sanctions [SDGT] [IRGC] [IFSR].
  • MIRAGE FOR ENGINEERING AND TRADING (a.k.a. "MIRAGE FOR ENGINEERING"), Kalim Bechara Building, 2nd floor, Trabulsi Street, Badaro, Beirut, Lebanon; Additional Sanctions Information – Subject to Secondary Sanctions [SDGT] [IRGC] [IFSR].
  • MIRAGE FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES SARL, PO Box 113/6655, Msieleh Main Road, Rabiyeh Building, 2nd floor, Msieheh, Lebanon; Website www.miragewm.com; Additional Sanctions Information – Subject to Secondary Sanctions [SDGT] [IRGC] [IFSR].
  • MKS INTERNATIONAL CO. LTD. (a.k.a. MKS INTERNATIONAL; a.k.a. MKS INTERNATIONAL GROUP), Office No 4, Babataher Street, Dr Fatemi Avenue, Tehran, Iran; PO BOX 14155-4618, Tehran, Iran; Additional Sanctions Information – Subject to Secondary Sanctions [NPWMD] [IFSR].
  • NINGBO NEW CENTURY IMPORT AND EXPORT COMPANY, LTD. (a.k.a. NEW CENTURY IMPORT AND EXPORT CO. LTD), 5 Hongtang South Road, Jiangbei, Ningbo 315033, China; Additional Sanctions Information – Subject to Secondary Sanctions [NPWMD] [IFSR].
  • OFOG SABZE DARYA COMPANY, Unit Seven, Fourth Floor, Number 18, 15th Street, Khaled Eslamboli Street, Beheshti Avenue, Tehran, Iran; Additional Sanctions Information – Subject to Secondary Sanctions [NPWMD] [IFSR].
  • REEM PHARMACEUTICAL (a.k.a. REEM PHARMACEUTICAL, LLC; a.k.a. REEM PHARMACEUTICAL, S.A.R.L.; a.k.a. REEM PHARMACEUTICAL, SAL), Kalim Bechara Building, 2nd floor, Trabolsi Street, Badaro, Beirut, Lebanon; Website www.reempharma.com; Additional Sanctions Information – Subject to Secondary Sanctions [SDGT] [IRGC] [IFSR].
  • ROYAL PEARL GENERAL T.R.D. (a.k.a. ROYAL PEARL CHEMICAL; a.k.a. ROYAL PEARLS; a.k.a. ROYAL PEARLS GENERAL TRADING), PO Box 74382, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; Office No. 8, Near Regal International, Sheikh Zayed Road, Dubai 74382, United Arab Emirates; Website http://ift.tt/2l3s99k; Additional Sanctions Information – Subject to Secondary Sanctions [NPWMD] [IFSR].
  • ZIST TAJHIZ POOYESH COMPANY (a.k.a. POOYESH ENVIRONMENTAL INSTRUMENTS; a.k.a. ZIEST TAJHIEZ POOYESH), 16, Afshar Alley, Fajr Street, Motahari Avenue, Tehran, Iran; Website www.pooyeshenviro.ir; Additional Sanctions Information – Subject to Secondary Sanctions [NPWMD] [IFSR].

The following changes have been made to OFAC's SDN List:

  • DODIK, Milorad, Republic of Srpska, Bosnia and Herzegovina; DOB 12 Mar 1959; Gender Male (individual) [BALKANS]. -to- DODIK, Milorad, Republika Srpska, Bosnia and Herzegovina; DOB 12 Mar 1959; Gender Male (individual) [BALKANS].

Ahead of the announcement, Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, said, "Iran unmoved by threats as we derive security from our people." He added later: "We will never use our weapons against anyone, except in self-defense."

 

Iran has responded…

Iran will bar the American wrestling team from a major international meet this month in response to President Trump’s order severely limiting travel from several Muslim-majority countries, including Iran.

 

Bahram Qasemi, the Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman, announced the ban Friday morning, the Islamic Republic News Agency reported.

via http://ift.tt/2jFR2dQ Tyler Durden

Macy’s Surges On Hudson’s Bay Takeover Report; Would Add To Portfolio Including Saks And Lord & Taylor

With Macy’s making the headlines in the past few days on speculation it was shopping itself for a potential buyer, a thesis first laid out by David Einhorn one year ago, moments ago the WSJ reported that Hudson’s Bay, the Canadian owner of Saks and Lord and Taylor, has made a takeover approach for the landmark retailer, sending the shares of both companies surging, and tripping a circuit breaker for M, which was lst up just shy of 5%.

The likely catalyst for the sale is that Macy’s veteran CEO, Terry Lundgren, announced last June he would be stepping down later this year.

As the Post recently reported,  Lundgren is trying to avoid an ugly board shakeup that could tarnish his 13-year legacy and turn the largest US department store into a battleground littered with discarded top brass.

Lundgren, who had not planned to cap his tenure with a sale, has recently become open to offers from potential friendly buyers as a proactive measure to head off any attempt to mess with the board, sources familiar with the situation said.  A partner at a private equity firm told The Post that he’d been contacted about a Macy’s sale by a real estate investor — while other industry sources close to the situation say they, too, have had similar discussions.

As the Post further added, “the catalyst is Jeffrey Smith’s Starboard Value, the activist New York hedge fund. Smith is said to be fed up with Macy’s poor performance since he invested in it in July 2015. Macy’s shares are down nearly 60 percent since then. Smith is angling for seats on Macy’s board, according to several sources, who describe the situation as a looming proxy battle in advance of Macy’s annual meeting, which will likely take place in late April or May.”

Then, moments ago, the WSJ’s Dana Mattioli, who has an infamous “deep throat” source on Goldman’s M&A team, confirmed that indeed Hudson’s Bay is preparing to acquire Macy’s, completing a trifecta of US retailers, including Lord and Taylor and Saks, however she cautions that the talks are in the early stages and may not lead to a deal, especially since “complicating a takeover, Macy’s is saddled with about $7.5 billion in debt.

Some more details from the WSJ:

Hudson’s Bay is an acquisition-hungry owner of marquee names in retail including Lord & Taylor department stores and Saks Fifth Avenue. While its market value is dwarfed by that of Macy’s—$1.8 billion compared with $9.8 billion as of Friday morning—Hudson’s Bay could raise equity and debt against its real estate portfolio, which could be worth $14 billion, one of the people said. It could also bring in a partner.

 

Macy’s has struggled in recent years amid increasing competition from upstarts and as shopping habits change and consumers buy more over the internet. Its stock has fallen more than 50% from the highest level it reached in 2015. In January, Macy’s said it would slash more than 10,000 jobs and detailed plans to close dozens of stores after another weak holiday-sales season. It’s facing mounting investor pressure to turn around its performance and reverse the stock drop. Starboard Value LP took a stake and a board seat and called on Macy’s to hive off its valuable real estate, which the activist investor says is worth more than $20 billion.

It is unclear if Trump would have any particular objection to having America’s northern neighbor own three of the most valuable and well-known retail brands in the US.

via http://ift.tt/2jG1Okm Tyler Durden

US Factory Orders Are Unchanged In 11 Years

Absent the various seasonal and other) adjustments, non-adjusted (so actual) US Factory Orders in December were almost exactly the same as they were in March 2006 – unchanged in 11 years.

YoY, adjusted factory orders rose 3.6%, the best since July 2014. However, absent the adjustments, real orders continue to paint a very different picture.

The 24-month trend (dark red) is very clear and has historically implied one thing – recession!

via http://ift.tt/2k3LQN9 Tyler Durden

US Services Industry Stabilizes: Firms Warn “Margins Squeeze Acting As A Brake On Employment”

Business activity in the US Services industry accelerated to its fastest since Nov 2015, according to the 'soft' survey data from Markit, but some firms noted that squeezed margins had acted as a brake on employment growth at their business units in January. ISM Services slipped lower with unadjusted new orders tumbling to their lowest since Jan 2016.
 

The Trump Bump appears to have stalled…

 

And unadjusted new orders tumbled…

 

And The ISM Breakdown shows more stagflation…

 

ISM Respondents are mixed but uncertainty is a theme:

"Demand is relatively flat; down about 2 percent from December to January." (Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting)

 

"Strong second half. Exceeded 2016 revenue and earning targets. Q1 [is] looking strong so far. Cautiously optimistic for 2017." (Finance & Insurance)

 

"Current conditions stable. Uncertainty with Trump presidency and how it is going to impact health care." (Health Care & Social Assistance)

 

"The overall outlook from our perspective is that we are seeing an uptick in activities, both in the energy sector and the construction side of our business." (Mining)

 

"Market conditions are good with lower prices on most animal proteins, grains, and dairy prices. Butter still uncertain with increased demand [for] natural fats." (Accommodation & Food Services)

 

"A lot of activity to start the year. Companies reassessing their contracts and looking for savings whenever they can get it." (Professional, Scientific & Technical Services)

 

"The outlook for future business has improved, but there is still a degree of uncertainty regarding how the new administration will execute." (Public Administration)

 

"Continued optimism concerning the business environment in the near term." (Management of Companies & Support Services)

 

"Year-over-year for this period, we are down slightly, but that is primarily due to the mild winter we are experiencing. Outlook for upcoming season is very positive." (Wholesale Trade)

Commenting on the PMI data, Chris Williamson, Chief Business Economist at IHS Markit said:

“The US economy has started 2017 on the front foot. Business activity across the economy is growing at the fastest rate for over a year and optimism about the business outlook has risen to the highest for a year and a half.

 

“The January surveys signal annualized GDP growth of approximately 2.5%, setting the scene for a solid first quarter. With January seeing the largest inflow of new business for 18 months, there’s good reason to believe that firms will be even busier in coming months.

 

“Even more encouraging is the ongoing impressive rate of job creation, with the January PMI numbers comparable to around 200,000 jobs being added.

 

“A waning of price pressures takes some heat off the Fed, though the sustained strong output and jobs growth signalled by the surveys will fuel speculation that the next rate hike will be sooner rather than later, with June looking most likely.”

via http://ift.tt/2k9RO1D Tyler Durden

California High Court Gives Regulators Vast New Powers: New at Reason

A ruling by the high court in California supporting expanded powers for the insurance commissioner could embolden all kinds of state regulators.

Steven Greenhut writes:

President Donald Trump’s spate of executive orders has jump-started a national debate about the wisdom of executive edicts, especially those that stray into the area of lawmaking. While presidential orders grab the spotlight, the issues of administrative overreach and how to properly limit the power exerted by government officials are frequent subjects of court scrutiny at every level of our political system.

For instance, the California Supreme Court issued a Jan. 23 ruling in a case that challenged the insurance commissioner’s authority to issue rules governing how insurance companies calculate replacement-cost estimates for homeowners’ policies. The trial and appeals courts ruled the commissioner exerted power not granted to him by the legislature, but the high court overruled those decisions.

The decision has broad implications for the California Department of Insurance, which has been granted vast new regulatory powers. And while the 1959 statute at issue relates solely to the insurance industry, the court’s opinion could embolden other California regulatory agencies to take wider latitude as they implement business-related regulations.

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2k3SSBF
via IFTTT

New Poll Uses Huge “Oversample” To Suggest That 40% Of Registered Voters Support Impeaching Trump

This morning a lot of media outlets are citing a new poll conducted by “Public Policy Polling” (PPP) which suggests, among other things, that 40% of registered voters in the U.S. support impeaching President Trump.  Of course, about 15 seconds worth of actual critical thought could have saved these media outlets from embarrassingly pumping yet another “rigged poll” courtesy of aggressive “oversamples”.

To our great ‘shock’, this particular poll used one of the most aggressive “oversamples” we’ve seen, with 41% of respondents calling themselves Democrats versus only 30% Republicans.  With that kind of spread, the 2016 election should have been a blow out for Hillary…how could this be?

Oversample

 

Of course, when you’re willing to completely abandon all integrity to progress a chosen narrative then you can engineer almost any results you want.  Hence these results suggesting that 40% of the electorate would support impeaching President Trump.

Trump Impeach

 

Pumping his latest polling farce, PPP President Dean Debnam said that “Trump’s making history once again with a sizeable share of voters already wanting to impeach him.”

“Usually a newly elected president is at the peak of their popularity and enjoying their honeymoon after taking office,” PPP President Dean Debnam said in a statement.

 

“But Donald Trump’s making history once again with a sizeable share of voters already wanting to impeach him, and a majority of voters wishing they could have Barack Obama back.”

Meanwhile, angry Democrats continue to call for impeachment proceedings if Trump instructs federal agencies to ignore recent court rulings related to his immigrant ban.  Apparently choosing which laws should be enforced is a right afforded only to Democrat Presidents with the last name Obama.

Democrats and civil rights organizations have hammered Trump’s move as unconstitutional and biased against Muslims. Trump has dismissed those criticisms, arguing that the order is crucial for protecting the nation from terrorism.

 

Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) on Wednesday said Congress should mull impeaching Trump if he orders federal agencies to ignore a judge’s ruling halting parts of that order.

 

“There should be a resolution of censure,” he told BuzzFeed. “And if he does it again, there should be articles of impeachment.”

And while all of the results of this poll are pretty much useless, here are a couple other findings.

Even with a ridiculous Democrat oversample, Trump’s approval rating was found to be 47%.

Trump Approval

 

Unfortunately, Bannon didn’t make out so well with a 19% approval rating.

Bannon

 

And finally, while 40% of registered voters apparently think Trump should be impeached for his immigrant ban, 47% of voters somehow approve of the ban...figure that one out.

EO

 

#FakePolls

via http://ift.tt/2l4IQ3o Tyler Durden

Apple’s 2017 1st Quarter Results as Viewed Outside the Reality Distortion Field

Apple has been a money printing press for the last decade. At the behest of the late Steve Jobs, they have had one key, core ability that no other company has been able to match. No, it definitely wasn’t innovation or engineering. It was… the RDF. The Reality Distortion Field! For some reason, when normal people look at Apple hardware or financials, they don’t see reality, they see Reality Distooooorrrrtion! But before we get to that, let’s see what all of the smart people in the financial world had to say…

Apple Q1 117 earnigns google search

Apple’s 1st quarter 2017 earnings were horrendous, and I mean horrendous. This was called an “earnings report”, no? Not a revenue report, or an earnings per share report, but and “earnings” report. The franchise is slowing, and its slowing rapidly – despite the gratuitously lucky demise of its largest competitors flagship device, the Samsung Galaxy Note 7. This is bad!

 

This wasn’t the first time the Apple RDF field took effect around earnings time. This was 3 years ago,..

They Couldn’t Outperform, Even With the Competition Gone!

Apple’s major nemesis, and the only other vendor that competes closes with it in volume was forced to recall its flagship device very early in the quarter. That means that Apple had free reign in the space save some of the much smaller Android brands and the near non-existent Windows Phone and Blackberry.

As you can see below, that recall hurt Samsung materially.

 

 

The Note 7’s absence is also visible in the global rankings of handsets shipped and market share. Here, you can see Apple took the lead, albeit ever so slightly.

And therein lies the rub. Why is Apple’s lead “ever so slightly” when they were running a races against a one-legged man. Samsung didn’t even have a flagship model for the season and they still almost matched Apple. That means if the Note 7 didn’t get recalled, they would have spanked Apple in both handsets shipped and global market share.

That is a NOT a good sign!

Now, let’s take a look at Apple’s specific performance for the quarter. Before we go on, remember the gushing statements you found when Googling “Apple’s earnings”? Record quarter! Most revenue ever! Record earnings! Well, I don’t know what earnings report those guys read, but the one I read was horrible!

Net sales are up YoY, that’s good. They finally broke that losing streak (although they maybe didn’t since they didn’t have their traditional competitor), but…

  • Cost of sales are up!

  • Gross margins are down!

  • Operating income is down!

  • Pre-tax income is down!

Actually, the only things that are up (besides revenue boosted from a lack of competition) is share buybacks and dividends.

And that’s how Apple was able to fabricate the story of record earnings (per share).

Subscribers can access an extended version of this document that goes into these issues in a more detail, here . You can subscribe to our services here.

The following are legacy BoomBustBlog research reports on the topic.

  1.   pdfMobile Computing Vendor Long List Note WIP (734 KB)
  2.  spreadsheetIPhone Margin worksheet blog download (91 KB)
  3.  spreadsheetIPhone Margin worksheet blog download (91 KB)
  4.  pdfApple Margin Strategem WIP (405 KB)
  5.  pdfApple Earnings Guidance Analysis (255 KB)
  6.  pdfApple business model note (1.70 MB)
  7.  pdfApple 4Q2013 preliminary update (2.77 MB)
  8.  pdfApple 4Q2012 update professional & insitutional (657 KB)
  9.  pdfApple 1Q2013 update Pro & Institutional (1.41 MB)

via http://ift.tt/2kp8MHJ Reggie Middleton

Who Are Those Refugees Australia Doesn’t Want?

Submitted by Shoshana Bryen via The Gatestone Institute,

  • The refugees are the collateral damage in Australia's widely criticized "Stop the Boats" policy, the rule that asylum seekers who try to reach Australian shores by sea will never "make Australia home," even if they are genuine refugees, are children or have skills. — Los Angeles Times.
  • "[T]he arrivals by sea seem to prompt anger. One reason for this could be that migrants and refugees who try to reach Australia by sea are, in fact, coming illegally. Those that are being resettled through its Humanitarian Programme, meanwhile, are registered refugees being accepted under Australia's international obligations." — J. Weston Phippen, in The Atlantic.
  • Then-Secretary of State John Kerry worked out the deal with Australia to "fast track" the immigrants, but did not tell Congress. It would be illegal if the deal was considered a treaty negotiated by Kerry. According to the Constitution, it would have to have been sent to Congress for ratification.
  • It is hard to complain about Australia — democratic, sunny, cheerful, and oh, those koalas and kangaroos. On a more serious note, Australia is a welcome ally, participating in military operations around the world with American forces and sharing our concerns about aggressive Chinese behavior in the South- and East China Seas. Australia is spending billions to modernize its military forces.

But a few things about Australia should be made clear as President Trump scuttles an Obama-administration deal to take 1,250+ refugees currently in Australian-run internment camps in Papua New Guinea and Nauru. Internment camps? Papua New Guinea and Nauru?

The Wall Street Journal explains:

Under laws first put in place in 2001, successive Australian governments have required asylum seekers coming by boat to be intercepted. The conservatives, on winning power in 2013, set up a maritime blockade that Mr. Turnbull has offered as a model for Europe. But the system began to unravel after Papua New Guinea's highest court last year ordered the closure of the Australian-operated immigration center on Manus Island, ruling asylum seekers were being held illegally.

So chipper Australia has been intercepting ships at sea and dropping the passengers off on less well-developed islands. They are mostly men from Myanmar (Rohingya Muslims), Malaysia, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Somalia, although there some women and children. The Los Angeles Times further explains:

The refugees are the collateral damage in Australia's widely criticized "Stop the Boats" policy, the rule that asylum seekers who try to reach Australian shores by sea will never "make Australia home," even if they are genuine refugees, are children or have skills. "If you come to Australia illegally by boat, there is no way you will ever make Australia home," an Australian army chief warned in a 2014 video aired online and on television in countries such as Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

Australia does take thousands of refugees each year under official programs. J. Weston Phippen wrote in The Atlantic:

To be sure, it's not that Australia has an issue with refugees–in fact, it has agreed to resettle 12,000 Syrians, atop the refugees it typically takes through its Humanitarian Programme. It granted 13,800 refugee visas between 2013 and 2014, and 20,000 between 2012 and 2013.

But the arrivals by sea seem to prompt anger. One reason for this could be that migrants and refugees who try to reach Australia by sea are, in fact, coming illegally. Those that are being resettled through its Humanitarian Programme, meanwhile, are registered refugees being accepted under Australia's international obligations. The two main parties also contend that its policies deter human-smuggling.

So off they go to Nauru and Manus.

Out of sight, perhaps out of mind until the UN documented serious problems in the camps, including physical, emotional and sexual abuse. The Guardian (Australia) published a series last summer on abuses at the Manus camp, following the leak of more than 2,000 "incident reports" detailing "assaults, sexual abuse, self-harm attempts, child abuse and living conditions endured by asylum seekers held by the Australian government, painting a picture of routine dysfunction and cruelty." Although children make up only 18% of those in detention, more than 51% of the incident reports involve children.

The Manus Island regional processing facility, where Australia sends illegal immigrants. (Image source: Australia Department of Immigration and Citizenship)

Cases of depression and self-harm are high; two people set themselves on fire last year, one of whom died, and one girl swallowed bleach. Many have reported that the biggest problem is the sense of paralysis at being trapped in limbo indefinitely, according to Tracey Donehue, a former teacher at one of the facilities interviewed by the Los Angeles Times.

Following the very unpleasant exposure, the government of Malcolm Turnbull announced in August 2016 that it would close one center on Manus Island, but would bring none of its internees – 854 adults, all men – to the Australian mainland, raising the question of what to do with them. Australia's Immigration Minister, Peter Dutton, said Canberra's "position is very clear, and that is we are not going to accept people who have sought to come to our country illegally by boat, they will not settle permanently in our country."

Enter President Obama.

In September, Turnbull agreed to resettle Central American refugees who were in a processing center in Costa Rica. At the time, Australian officials said firmly there would be no quid pro quo. "There will not be a people swap," announced Scott Ryan, a special minister of state. The American agreement to take Australian internees came two months later, providing a convenient way for Mr. Turnbull to keep his promise to his people and get rid of people who had become a public relations disaster.

Then-Secretary of State John Kerry worked out the deal with Australia to "fast track" the immigrants, but did not tell Congress. In November, responding to information it received, WND reported that the chairmen of the House and Senate judiciary committees demanded details:

"Congress only learned of the deal through media reports two weeks ago [November, 2016] and – according to a letter sent to administration officials by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) – the deal is not only a matter of grave national security concern, but it could be illegal."

It would be illegal if the deal was considered a treaty negotiated by then-Secretary Kerry. According to the Constitution, it would have to have been sent to Congress for ratification.

Asked if he had discussed the deal with then-candidate Donald Trump, Turnbull said, "We deal with one administration at a time and there is only one president of the United States at a time." But Donald Trump is now president and his decision appears to have left the Australian government with few choices.

Asked if there was a "Plan B" for Australia, Turnbull said he was examining several options, but that Australia would not back down on its decision not to let those refugees stopped at sea enter the country:

"Our expectation naturally, given the commitments that have been made, is that it will go ahead. The only option that isn't available to [the refugees] is bringing them to Australia for the obvious reasons that that would provide a signal to the people smugglers to get back into business."

Whether there is an agreement to be had between the United States and Australia for the resettlement of Australia's interned population or not, it is clear that this deal had more to it than the Obama Administration — or the Turnbull government — wanted to admit. The United States and Australia both had reasons not to admit the migrants closest to their borders, but trading Central Americans who wanted to come to the U.S. for Muslims who wanted to reach Australian shores would allow Turnbull to keep a campaign promise and Obama to divert attention from the massive breach of America's southern border.

via http://ift.tt/2jL7tkc Tyler Durden

Legalizing Marijuana Would Hurt Mexican Drug Cartels More Than Trump’s Border Wall

A crucial part of President Donald Trump’s rationale for building a wall along the United State’s border with Mexico is that it would help to stop the trade of illegal drugs, including marijuana.

“I want to build the wall. We need the wall,” Trump said at one of the presidential debates last year. “We stop the drugs. We shore up the border.”

There’s other reasons for building the wall, of course. It would help to staunch what Trump sees as a flood of illegal, migrant workers from Mexico and would serve a symbol of the Trump administration’s protectionist, America-first policies on trade—the physical embodiment of Trump’s efforts to undo NAFTA. Beyond that, it would be a big, expensive building project and Trump likes big, expensive building projects.

Still, the idea of stopping the flow of illegal drugs from Mexico remains central to the border wall’s function. Kellyanne Conway, Trump’s White House counsel, said as much last week in an interview with CBS.

Mexico doesn’t want to pay for the well, Conway told CBS News’ Gayle King, “because they want to continue to allow people and I assume drugs, since they’re not doing much to stop that, pouring over our borders.”

If the Trump administration wants to stop the flow of drugs over the border, though, building a wall might not be the most effective policy, says David Bienenstock, the head of content at High Times and a reporter with 15 years of experience covering marijuana markets and the federal government’s war on those markets.

Instead of increasingly militant and expensive measures designed to stop the flow of drugs, Bienenstock told Reason in an email interview this week, Trump should be backing the legalization of marijuana, which has already begun to cut into the drug cartels’ profits while creating American jobs.

“It’s important to understand that the Drug War created the cartels, not the other way around,” says Bienenstock. “We’ve been wasting trillions of dollars for nearly 50 years on wholly ineffective, and even counterproductive, efforts to stop the flow of drugs into the United States, and those efforts have only made the cartels bigger, stronger, and more dangerous.”

Even by the wasteful standards of the War on Drugs, Trump’s wall looks like a boondoggle. Reason’s Shikha Dalmia did the math on The Wall this week, and the numbers are sobering.

“Just a single-layer fence—not a wall—on the 1,300 miles of the open Southern border will cost upwards of $6 billion—assuming, as per a CBO study, pedestrian fencing costs of $6.5 million per mile and vehicle fencing costs of $1.7 million per mile,” she wrote. “A single Border Patrol agent costs about $171,400 annually. So tripling that force would add up to a whopping $7 billion or so more a year, according to the CBO. Annual maintenance costs would be hundreds of millions of dollars. In short, the total hit if cost projections don’t balloon—a big if, assuming that Trump won’t use illegal Mexican workers and will use only American steel—would be somewhere close to $15 billion upfront.”

Trump says Mexico is going to pay for the wall, but slapping higher taxes on imports will force American consumers to bear most of the cost. And for what? If Trump actually builds the wall, the cartels will only build more and better tunnels, as the New York Times reported in September, citing Border Patrol agents who have worked to find and destroy drug tunnels for years. Trump says the wall will include technology to detect tunnels, but that technology doesn’t exist yet and would only add to the project’s price tag. Securing the full length of the 1,900-mile southern border is virtually impossible.

“No amount of enforcement, even military-level, can remove the financial incentive of the black market,” says Bienenstock, the author of How To Smoke Pot (Properly): A Highbrow Guide to Getting High. “In fact, every increase in enforcement only makes the black market more lucrative, and the fight to control this illicit trade more deadly and destructive.”

The less expensive, more effective way to reduce the flow of drugs over the border is loosen drug laws here in America. In fact, liberalized marijuana laws in some states are already having an effect. The Washington Post reported in March that “marijuana seizures along the southwest border tumbled to their lowest level in at least a decade.”

“Agents snagged roughly 1.5 million pounds of marijuana at the border, down from a peak of nearly 4 million pounds in 2009,” the Post reported. “The DEA has even found evidence that the flow of illegal marijuana is starting to reverse, with some cases of U.S. marijuana being smuggled into Mexico.”

In December 2014, NPR News spoke to a marijuana grower in Mexico who described a similar economic phenomenon created by the legalization of marijuana in some parts of the United States. “Two or three years ago, a kilogram of marijuana was worth $60 to $90,” the grower told NPR. “Now they’re paying us $30 to $40 a kilo. It’s a big difference. If the U.S. continues to legalize pot, they’ll run us into the ground.”

Trump knows this, even if he doesn’t say so anymore.

In April 1990, during a luncheon hosted by the Miami Herald, Trump described U.S. drug policy as “a joke” and said there was only way sure way to win the War on Drugs.

“You have to legalize drugs to win that war,” Trump said. “You have to take the profit away from these drug czars.”

Trump should listen to his own advice and look to legalize marijuana at the federal level, instead of spending political capital and lots of cash on a border wall that will deserve its place in the War on Drugs hall of shame.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2kx4T5X
via IFTTT