Zion Tech Group

Tag: Policy

  • Expect a Trump-driven ‘policy fog’ to overshadow a strong corporate earnings season


    Fourth quarter earnings season is off to a strong start. Unfortunately, that may not matter much for the stock market.

    Many equity strategists anticipate a solid earnings season for companies in the S&P 500 (^GSPC) to take a back seat in the coming weeks as investors dissect President Donald Trump’s return to the Oval Office and his first slew of executive orders.

    “Right now, earnings are almost the undercurrent of the stock market, and policy is taking center stage,” Ritholtz Wealth Management chief markets strategist Callie Cox told Yahoo Finance.

    Cox pointed to Tuesday’s market action as a prime example of Trump’s policies serving as the key market driver at the moment. In the first full day of trading under the new Trump presidency, the US dollar index (DX=F, DX-Y.NYB) saw its worst one-day drop in a year, falling more than 1% after Trump didn’t take a major tariff action on his first day in office.

    Subsequently, stocks rallied. Industrials (XLI) and Materials (XLB), which are considered areas of the market that would benefit from a weaker greenback, were among the top-performing sectors and jumped on the dollar weakness.

    The Trump trade boosted tech stocks in midday trading too. A report that Trump would announce a $500 billion investment in private-sector artificial intelligence infrastructure sent Oracle (ORCL) shares more than 6% higher.

    The sum of the market action shows that, for now, investors are squarely focused on whether Trump will or will not keep his campaign promises.

    Under the surface, the fundamental story for stocks has been humming along. Thus far, 43 companies in the S&P 500 have reported, led by many large banks, and results have been better than expected. FactSet data shows the S&P 500 is now pacing for 12.5% year-over-year earnings growth this quarter compared to the 11.5% expected last week. It would mark the best quarter for S&P 500 earnings growth in more than three years.

    Stocks have been rewarded for beats more than they normally are too, according to data from Bank of America Securities equity strategy team. Companies that beat analysts’ estimates on both sales and earnings per share have seen their stocks outperform the S&P 500 by 3.34% the following trading day, well above the historical average of 1.5%.

    But Citi US equity strategist Scott Chronert noted that the positive earnings vibe might not be what lifts markets in the coming weeks.

    “Short term, markets will have to contend with building fiscal, trade, and monetary policy uncertainty, even if [earnings] reports are solid,” Chronert wrote in a note to clients on Friday.





    The stock market is gearing up for a busy earnings season, with many companies expected to report strong financial results. However, investors may find it challenging to focus on corporate earnings as a cloud of uncertainty and volatility looms overhead.

    President Donald Trump’s unpredictable and often controversial policy decisions have the potential to overshadow even the most impressive earnings reports. From trade tensions with China to the ongoing government shutdown, Trump’s actions can create a sense of uncertainty and unease in the market.

    As a result, investors should prepare for a “policy fog” to descend over the stock market, obscuring the positive impact of strong corporate earnings. This fog may lead to increased market volatility and make it difficult for investors to accurately gauge the health of individual companies.

    Despite this potential distraction, it’s important for investors to stay focused on the fundamentals of the companies in which they are invested. While Trump-driven policy uncertainties may create short-term challenges, strong earnings and solid business fundamentals will ultimately drive long-term success in the stock market.

    In conclusion, while the upcoming earnings season may be overshadowed by Trump-driven policy uncertainties, investors should remain focused on the underlying strength of the companies in which they are invested. By staying informed and maintaining a long-term perspective, investors can navigate through the policy fog and position themselves for success in the stock market.

    Tags:

    • Trump policy impact
    • Corporate earnings season
    • US economy forecast
    • Political uncertainty
    • Business outlook
    • Market analysis
    • Trump administration effects
    • Financial markets update
    • Political influence on markets
    • Economic trends

    #Expect #Trumpdriven #policy #fog #overshadow #strong #corporate #earnings #season

  • Henrico students weigh in on school system’s cell phone policy


    https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?url=40Yx3N_0yHhAqNR00

    The return to school this month marked a new phone policy for some Virginia school divisions, but not Henrico County.

    While other districts such as Richmond City and Hanover County have adopted the Virginia Department of Education’s recommended “bell-to-bell” phone ban , which restricts students from having their phone on them from the first bell until the dismissal bell, Henrico has so far stuck with its current phone policy, which it first adopted at the start of this school year.

    The current HCPS policy requires middle and high school students to put their phones away during all classes, either in a division-provided pouch or lockbox or in their backpack, but allows students to have phones out between classes and at lunch. While the Henrico School Board is not set to make any immediate changes to the phone policy, they will review it along with the rest of HCPS’ Code of Student Conduct later this spring, Cox said.

    But despite HCPS’ phone policy being the most lenient in the Richmond region, many students are still not a huge fan of putting their phones away, saying that it makes them feel more vulnerable if an emergency were to occur.

    “I mean it’s a great idea, love the idea, you know, put phones away, less distractions. It just, you know, it just feels wrong,” said Richard, a junior at Highland Springs High. “It feels wrong not being able to have something that you can connect to your parents at any time just like that. Sure, if they call the school, they’ll get to you eventually, but if it’s something really, really pressing, they would want to get to you first.”

    Other students said that having their phones during class and throughout the day, even if they are just listening to music, can help them unwind and destress, especially on hard days.

    “I hate it,” Kevonte, a sophomore at Henrico High School, said about the phone policy. “Some kids would rather just be on their phone than talk to other people, some kids are like that. Some kids are more active and talkative, but some kids use [their phones] just to listen to music to kind of help calm down.”

    “I don’t think it’s necessary,” said Makyi, a senior at Highland Springs High. “We all need our phones, like when we’re having a hard day. It’s a positive when you’re having a hard day and can listen to music or something like that. Sometimes you just need to get away from everything. So I don’t really like it, I understand it, but I don’t like it.

    Implementation of policy varies

    However, some students have already seen the benefits of the new policy, especially when it comes to school fights. Students have often used phones to record fights and even instigate or coordinate fights on social media, Ashley said, but ever since the new policy went in place last August, she believes the number of student fights at Highland Springs High has gone down.

    “We haven’t really had any fights since people don’t have their phones, which is a great thing,” she said. “With the phones, people will be talking on the internet and people will be gossiping.”

    When it comes to implementing the phone policy, it often depends on the teacher, students said. Ashley said that she noticed that teachers at her school tend to be more lenient with upperclassmen students, but stricter when it comes to freshmen and sophomores.

    “Some of the teachers are strict. My teachers are more laid back with it, and I feel like the freshmen’s and the sophomores’ teachers are a little bit stricter with it, since they’re more the people that get into drama and stuff,” she said. “But my teachers are pretty laid back with it and pretty understanding.”

    D’quan, a sophomore at Highland Springs High, said that most of his teachers will let him listen to music during class, as long as he isn’t scrolling on his phone. However, some teachers have run into problems with students refusing to turn in their phones during class, he said, and administrators have had to be brought in.

    “There’s still a group of people who don’t turn their phone in,” he said. “Teachers try to enforce it. Some are strict and some don’t care. And then it gets to the point where some teachers start calling admin, and that’s when it gets real.”

    A senior at Henrico High, who wished to remain anonymous, said that their teachers are very lenient with the phone policy, and have not taken their phone away yet, instead letting them have it out only at the beginning and the end of class.

    “A lot of teachers don’t enforce it, so there’s that. Teachers are very chill about it. I haven’t had my phone taken yet, for months,” they said. “You can’t have it out, they’ll tell you to put it away, but they won’t put it in a [lockbox]. But for the first 10 minutes of class and the last 10 minutes of class, you can have it out.”

    And while they admitted that having their phone on them in school is highly distracting, even affecting their academic performance, they can’t seem to get on board with the idea of parting with it during the school day.

    “It’s badly distracting to all of the kids. It definitely is bad to have it in school,” they said. “Me personally, my grades would probably be better if I didn’t have my phone [in school]. But I need my phone, you know. It’s my phone.”


    Liana Hardy is the Citizen’s Report for America Corps member and education reporter. Her position is dependent upon reader support; make a tax-deductible contribution to the Citizen through RFA here.



    In a recent survey conducted by Henrico students, opinions on the school system’s cell phone policy varied widely. Some students expressed frustration with the strict restrictions on cell phone use during school hours, citing the need for communication with parents and the importance of having access to their devices in case of emergencies.

    Others, however, supported the policy, arguing that cell phones are a distraction in the classroom and can disrupt the learning environment. They also pointed out that excessive cell phone use can lead to cyberbullying and other negative behaviors among students.

    Overall, the majority of students agreed that there should be some restrictions on cell phone use during school hours, but also believed that there should be more flexibility and allowances for certain situations. Whether it’s allowing students to use their phones during lunch or in between classes, there is a consensus that a balance needs to be struck between ensuring a focused learning environment and respecting students’ need for communication and access to technology.

    As the school system continues to evaluate and potentially update its cell phone policy, it’s clear that the input of students will be a crucial factor in shaping any changes that may be implemented. It’s important for school administrators to listen to the concerns and suggestions of students in order to create a policy that is fair, effective, and reflective of the needs and preferences of the student body.

    Tags:

    1. Henrico County
    2. School system
    3. Cell phone policy
    4. Students’ opinions
    5. Education
    6. Technology in schools
    7. Student perspectives
    8. Henrico County Public Schools
    9. Cell phone use in classrooms
    10. School policy debate

    #Henrico #students #weigh #school #systems #cell #phone #policy

  • Trump officials revoke Biden policy that barred ICE arrests near “sensitive locations” like schools and churches


    Washington — Just hours after President Trump’s inauguration, his administration revoked a Biden-era policy that prohibited arrests by U.S. immigration agents at or near schools, places of worship and other places deemed to be “sensitive locations.”

    Benjamine Huffman, whom the Trump administration installed as acting homeland security secretary pending the confirmation of South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, issued a memo on Monday reversing the Biden administration’s immigration arrest guidelines on “sensitive locations.”

    That policy, signed by former Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, instructed Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection to refrain from apprehending unauthorized immigrants at or near locations “that would restrain people’s access to essential services or engagement in essential activities.” Those locations included schools; places of worship; hospitals and other healthcare facilities; shelters; relief centers; and public demonstrations, like rallies and protests.

    In a statement defending the termination of the Biden administration rule, the Department of Homeland Security said the Trump administration “will not tie the hands of our brave law enforcement, and instead trusts them to use common sense.”

    Pro-immigrant advocates had feared the rescission of the Biden-era rules, warning that it would allow the Trump administration to bring its mass deportations plans to churches and schools.

    But the Trump administration said Monday’s decision was designed to target unauthorized immigrants with serious criminal histories.

    “This action empowers the brave men and women in CBP and ICE to enforce our immigration laws and catch criminal aliens — including murders and rapists — who have illegally come into our country,” DHS said in its statement. “Criminals will no longer be able to hide in America’s schools and churches to avoid arrest.”

    Monday’s action is part of a larger effort by the Trump administration to eliminate limits other administrations have placed on ICE operations as it lays the groundwork for what the president has pledged will be the largest deportation operation in American history. The administration is expected to ramp up immigration arrests in cities and communities with “sanctuary” policies that restrict cooperation between local enforcement and ICE.

    The administration is also expected to rescind other Biden administration memos that discontinued mass immigration sweeps at worksites like factories and that limited ICE arrests to serious criminals, national security threats and recent border arrivals. 

    Tom Homan, Mr. Trump’s “border czar,” has repeatedly said the new administration, like every administration, will prioritize the arrest of immigrants who are in the country illegally and who have committed crimes. But he has stressed that no one will be exempt from immigration enforcement if they are in the U.S. illegally, warning that arrests of non-criminal unauthorized immigrants are likely.

    Mr. Trump moved swiftly on his first day back in the White House to launch his long-expected immigration crackdown, issuing a blitz of orders that sought to deny birthright citizenship to the children of unauthorized immigrants and temporary visas holders; suspend asylum and refugee admissions; and enlist the military’s aid in border enforcement though an emergency declaration.

    Another executive order directed officials to expand detention sites to hold deportees and increase agreements with local law enforcement authorities, so they can arrest and detain unauthorized immigrants as deputized immigration officers.



    In a recent move, Trump officials have revoked a key Biden policy that previously barred Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents from making arrests near “sensitive locations” such as schools, churches, and hospitals. This decision has sparked controversy and raised concerns among immigrant communities and advocates.

    The policy, implemented by the Biden administration as part of its efforts to prioritize the protection of vulnerable populations, aimed to create a safe space for individuals to access essential services without fear of being detained by immigration authorities. However, the Trump administration argues that this policy hinders ICE’s ability to enforce immigration laws effectively and puts public safety at risk.

    Critics of the decision argue that revoking this policy will only serve to instill fear and uncertainty among immigrant communities, potentially deterring individuals from seeking help or accessing vital services. They also express concerns about the potential for increased racial profiling and discrimination in enforcement actions near these sensitive locations.

    As the debate over immigration policy continues to unfold, it is clear that the issue of ICE arrests near sensitive locations remains a contentious and divisive topic. Stay tuned for further updates on this developing story.

    Tags:

    1. Trump administration
    2. Biden policy reversal
    3. ICE arrests
    4. Sensitive locations
    5. Schools and churches
    6. Immigration enforcement
    7. Trump officials
    8. Immigration policy changes
    9. Law enforcement near schools and churches
    10. Public safety concerns

    #Trump #officials #revoke #Biden #policy #barred #ICE #arrests #sensitive #locations #schools #churches

  • Trump’s Foreign Policy Is Fit for a 19th-Century U.S.


    On Monday, U.S. President-elect Donald Trump will return to the White House. The key question is: What comes next? For those who follow U.S. foreign policy, it seems that the only thing predictable about Trump is that he is unpredictable, even a bit of a madman.

    That may well be true, but perhaps the best way to anticipate Trump’s future actions is to recognize that he’s a throwback. Or, more accurately, his foreign policy views hark back to a bygone era, one that he seems to want to make relevant, even great, again. In other words, to understand Trump is to recognize that he wants to bring a 19th-century foreign policy into the 21st century.

    I am not the only one to note Trump’s preferences for policies more in line with presidents from over a century ago. He’s been explicit in his admiration of William McKinley, who was president from 1897 to 1901. During his first term, some likened Trump to Andrew Jackson, the U.S. president known not only for being an outsider, but also for his forceful ethnic cleansing policies toward Native Americans. Trump appeared to embrace that comparison, with Jackson’s portrait hanging in the Oval Office. Even before he was elected in 2016, observers pointed to how Trump’s worldview seemed more at home in the late 19th or early 20th century. 



    In recent years, President Trump’s foreign policy decisions have drawn criticism from many experts and analysts, with some even going so far as to say that his approach is more suited to the 19th century United States than to the modern world.

    Trump’s “America First” stance, which prioritizes the interests of the United States above all else, has led to a series of controversial decisions on the global stage. From pulling out of international agreements like the Paris Climate Accord and the Iran nuclear deal, to imposing tariffs on allies and adversaries alike, Trump’s foreign policy has been marked by a unilateral and isolationist approach that harkens back to a time when the U.S. was more focused on its own affairs than on engaging with the rest of the world.

    Critics argue that this approach is outdated and ill-suited to the complex and interconnected world in which we live today. In an era where global challenges like climate change, terrorism, and pandemics require cooperation and coordination among nations, Trump’s go-it-alone mentality has been seen as short-sighted and ineffective.

    As we look to the future of U.S. foreign policy, it is clear that a more nuanced and cooperative approach will be needed to address the complex challenges facing the world. While Trump’s “America First” stance may have resonated with some voters, its implications for America’s standing in the world and its ability to effectively address global issues have raised serious concerns among many observers. Only time will tell if Trump’s foreign policy legacy will be seen as a relic of the past or as a lasting influence on the U.S.’s role in the world.

    Tags:

    1. Trump foreign policy
    2. 19th-century U.S.
    3. United States foreign policy
    4. Trump administration
    5. International relations
    6. Diplomacy
    7. Historical foreign policy
    8. American politics
    9. Global affairs
    10. Trump presidency

    #Trumps #Foreign #Policy #Fit #19thCentury #U.S

  • California Bans Insurance Policy Cancellations In Boost To Property Owners. The Insurance Industry Prepares For Record-Breaking Losses


    California Bans Insurance Policy Cancellations In Boost To Property Owners. The Insurance Industry Prepares For Record-Breaking Losses
    California Bans Insurance Policy Cancellations In Boost To Property Owners. The Insurance Industry Prepares For Record-Breaking Losses

    Benzinga and Yahoo Finance LLC may earn commission or revenue on some items through the links below.

    The yearlong ban that California’s insurance authority rushed to impose on cancellations in parts of Los Angeles hardest hit by wildfires was likely the last thing insurance companies wanted in the face of anticipated record-breaking claims.

    “Losing your insurance should be the last thing on someone’s mind after surviving a devastating fire,” Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara said in a statement. “This law gives millions of Californians breathing room and hits the pause button on insurance non-renewals while people recover.”

    Don’t Miss:

    The insurance commissioner is literally holding insurance companies’ feet to the fire. As Realtor.com reported, the moratorium on cancellations follows the commissioner’s unveiling of a new rule requiring private insurance firms to start writing new policies in high-risk areas if they wanted to keep doing business in California, but with the concession that they would be allowed to pass the costs on to their customers.

    As of Wednesday, Jan. 15, the Los Angeles area wildfires had killed at least 25 people, destroyed more than 12,000 structures and charred more than 60 square miles. The largest by far – the Palisades and Eaton wildfires – continue to burn out of control. The fire has come at the worst possible time for homeowners – just months after private insurers canceled 1,600 policies in Pacific Palisades over high fire risks. At the same time, major private insurers like State Farm, Nationwide, Farmers Insurance, Allstate, USAA and The Hartford stopped writing new policies in high-risk areas or limited their coverage.

    See Also: CEO of Integris gathered a team of senior investment managers who have $34.22 billion in combined owned and managed assets in the West Coast — here’s how to invest in their private credit fund that targets 12% annual interest rate.

    Faced with the prospect of having their homes uninsured, almost half a million Californians were forced to enroll in the Fair Access to Insurance Requirements (FAIR) Plan, the state-sponsored insurer of last resort. According to Reuters, more than 1,400 homes were covered by the FAIR Plan last year in the Palisades neighborhood alone, up 85% from the previous year.



    The state of California has taken a major step to protect property owners by banning insurance policy cancellations. This move comes as the insurance industry braces for record-breaking losses due to wildfires, hurricanes, and other natural disasters.

    The new legislation prohibits insurance companies from canceling policies for homeowners in high-risk areas, ensuring that residents can maintain coverage and protect their assets. This is a crucial development as climate change continues to increase the frequency and severity of extreme weather events.

    While this decision is a win for property owners, it is expected to have significant financial implications for the insurance industry. With the potential for more claims and payouts, insurers are preparing for unprecedented losses in the coming years.

    As California leads the way in protecting homeowners, other states may follow suit in enacting similar measures to safeguard residents from the growing threat of natural disasters. It is clear that the insurance industry will need to adapt to these changing realities and find innovative solutions to mitigate risks and support policyholders in the face of mounting challenges.

    Tags:

    1. California insurance policy cancellations
    2. Property owners’ insurance rights
    3. Insurance industry impact in California
    4. Record-breaking losses for insurance companies
    5. California regulations on insurance cancellations
    6. Property owners’ protection in California
    7. California insurance industry challenges
    8. Insurance policy changes in California
    9. Impact of California ban on insurance cancellations
    10. Property owners’ relief in California

    #California #Bans #Insurance #Policy #Cancellations #Boost #Property #Owners #Insurance #Industry #Prepares #RecordBreaking #Losses

  • Facebook, Instagram users delete accounts over policy changes


    After Meta and its CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced a series of changes that shifted the company and its policies to the right ahead of President-elect Donald Trump’s second term, some users are fleeing the company’s platforms, including Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp.

    In the barrage of changes made in recent weeks, the company ended its third-party fact-checking program in the United States and said it would pull back on content moderation around political discourse. Instead, Meta will use a community notes system similar to Elon Musk’s X. Updates to Meta’s policy on hateful conduct include that LGBTQ people can now be called mentally ill because of their identities. Meta also disbanded its diversity, equity and inclusion team. 

    Zuckerberg isn’t the only Big Tech billionaire currying favor with the incoming president. Musk and Jeff Bezos will both be seated in prominent spots at Trump’s inauguration Monday. But Meta’s changes, along with Zuckerberg’s personal appeals to Trump, have caused a cascade of reactions among its users. 

    NBC News reviewed hundreds of posts and comments across various social media platforms that said users would delete their Meta accounts, stop posting or boycott the company in response to the changes. Since Meta’s changes were announced, Google searches for deleting Facebook and Instagram have sharply increased, according to Google Trends. The exodus is reminiscent of when X (formerly Twitter) users left the platform in large numbers after the 2024 election. 

    “I no longer feel safe to post on either platform as a queer Chicana woman,” said Marie Valencia, a full-time artist who had more than 20,000 followers on Facebook and Instagram before she stopped posting. The term Chicana refers to American women of Mexican descent. “I have seen a steady stream of folks abandoning their profiles as well, especially in the last couple weeks as Meta has dismantled DEI and speech protections for those most vulnerable online.”

    Valencia has moved to posting on Bluesky, an alternative to X, as well as a platform for Latina women called Amigahood. “Meta will become another X,” Valencia said. 

    Cord Jefferson, director of Academy Award best picture nominee “American Fiction,” announced Sunday that he was leaving Instagram, but would remain active on Tumblr. 

    “So many things are getting bleaker and grosser by the day. And while we can’t place the blame for all of it at the feet of tech oligarchs, we can place the blame for a lot of it at the feet of tech oligarchs,” Jefferson wrote on Instagram. “I’m doing what little I can to shut the increasingly stupid ideas that shape online spaces like this out of my life.”

    Some people have abandoned some of Meta’s platforms while continuing to use others. Stanford University law professor Mark Lemley, who represents Meta in a copyright dispute involving artificial intelligence, announced Monday that he would be dropping the company as a client and reconsidering his use of Meta’s platforms. 

    “I have struggled with how to respond to Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook’s descent into toxic masculinity and Neo-Nazi madness,” Lemley wrote. “While I have thought about quitting Facebook, I find great value in the connections and friends I have here, and it doesn’t seem fair that I should lose that because Zuckerberg is having a mid-life crisis.” 

    Lemley said he deactivated his account on Threads, Meta’s X alternative, and that he will no longer buy products from ads he sees on Facebook or Instagram. Instead, he wrote that he will “go separately to the website to make sure Facebook doesn’t get any credit for the purchase.”

    The people leaving Meta still make up a small percentage of its overall user base. Close to 2 out of 3 people in the United States are on Facebook. There are almost 170 million Instagram accounts in the U.S. and almost 100 million accounts on WhatsApp. A weeklong “Lights Out” boycott of Meta platforms starting Jan. 19 attracted a few hundred likely participants in a Facebook group.

    Some users have said they feel trapped on Meta platforms, especially WhatsApp, because they use the services to communicate with family members, friends and personal networks. Others have built platforms as influencers or for organizations and small businesses. 

    Stacy Kess, founder of the nonprofit news organization Equal Access Public Media, told NBC News that she was “disheartened” to see other people and organizations in the disability community continue to post on Meta platforms after the policy on hateful conduct was updated to allow calling LGBTQ people mentally ill. 

    “I just saw so many people still actively posting on Instagram, and I wondered how many of them knew about the policy change,” Kess said. “That should be a hard line for both the disability and the LGBTQ community.”

    Equal Access Public Media has accounts on Facebook, Instagram and Threads, which issued statements concerning the policy change Tuesday that said “EAPM condemns this policy allowing dehumanizing and ableist language. We will continue to post elsewhere.” The organization, which is raising funds to produce accessible news products in video, audio, American Sign Language and simplified English, has its largest following on Bluesky. 

    “We don’t feel like we’re taking a moral absolutism kind of stance, we feel like we’re just living our values by saying ‘This is not OK,’” Kess said. “We’ll continue to explore other options, because we know that there are other options.”





    In the wake of recent policy changes on Facebook and Instagram, many users are choosing to delete their accounts in protest. The changes, which include updates to the platforms’ privacy settings and algorithms, have sparked backlash among users who feel their personal information is being compromised.

    Some users are concerned about the platforms’ handling of user data, citing a lack of transparency and control over how their information is being used. Others are frustrated with the constantly changing algorithms that determine what content is shown in their feeds, feeling like they are being manipulated by the platforms.

    In response to the policy changes, a growing number of users are opting to delete their accounts entirely. The hashtag #DeleteFacebook and #DeleteInstagram have been trending on social media, with many users sharing their reasons for leaving the platforms.

    While some users are simply taking a break from social media, others are making a more permanent exit. Whether or not these protests will lead to any significant changes from Facebook and Instagram remains to be seen, but it’s clear that many users are fed up with the current state of social media.

    Tags:

    1. Facebook policy changes
    2. Instagram policy updates
    3. Account deletion on social media
    4. User privacy concerns
    5. Social media policy backlash
    6. Online privacy issues
    7. Social media account deletion
    8. Facebook and Instagram controversy
    9. Social media platform changes
    10. User data protection concerns

    #Facebook #Instagram #users #delete #accounts #policy

  • Appeals court again declares DACA illegal, but keeps immigration policy alive


    Washington — A federal appeals court on Friday declared the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals immigration policy unlawful, casting a cloud of uncertainty over more than half a million unauthorized immigrants brought to the U.S. as children ahead of President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration.

    A panel of judges before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld a lower court ruling that found that a Biden administration rule to codify DACA violated U.S. immigration law. The 2012 Obama administration memo that originally created the policy has also been found to be unlawful by federal courts.

    Friday’s ruling, however, will not immediately change the status quo. By suspending its order, the panel of judges kept DACA alive for current recipients and closed to new applicants, as the program has been operating for the past few years.

    For more than 12 years, DACA has allowed hundreds of thousands of immigrants who crossed into the U.S. illegally or overstayed their visas as minors to live and work in the U.S., without fear of deportation. They are colloquially known as “Dreamers,” a moniker stemming from the Dream Act, a bipartisan effort to legalize them that Congress has considered, but failed to pass, for over two decades.

    While it affirmed the lower court order that voided the Biden administration’s DACA regulation, the 5th Circuit panel narrowed the ruling’s impact, making it applicable only in Texas, the state spearheading the Republican-led lawsuit against the program. The panel paused its ruling as it relates to current DACA beneficiaries, pending another ruling by the 5th Circuit or the Supreme Court, allowing renewals to continue.

    The panel also ruled that the deportation deferrals offered by DACA could be legally separated from the work permits that beneficiaries receive, giving the Biden administration a partial victory on its argument that the deportation protections should be left intact if the work authorization provision is struck down.

    As of the end of September 2024, there were roughly 538,000 immigrants enrolled in DACA, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the agency that oversees the initiative. To qualify for the policy, applicants had to establish they arrived in the U.S. by their 16th birthday and before June 2007; graduated from an American high school or enrolled in the military; and lacked any serious criminal records.

    Friday’s ruling could pave the way for the U.S. Supreme Court to finally settle the years-long legal battle over DACA. But it’s unclear how the incoming Trump administration will handle the case and whether it will try to terminate the program. While President Biden’s Justice Department has vigorously defended DACA in court, the first Trump administration tried phasing out the policy, arguing it was unlawful. The Supreme Court in 2020 prevented DACA’s termination on technical grounds.

    The Justice Department declined to comment on Friday’s court order.

    The Trump transition team did not immediately say how the incoming administration would approach DACA. Trump and his advisers have pledged to launch a sweeping crackdown on illegal and legal immigration, vowing to oversee mass deportations of those living in the U.S. illegally, enact tougher border controls and cut legal admissions of immigrants and refugees. 

    Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton called the 5th Circuit’s ruling “a win for Texas.”

    “I look forward to working with President-elect Donald Trump to ensure that the rule of law is restored, and the illegal immigration crisis is finally stopped,” Paxton said in a statement.   

    Meanwhile, Greisa Martinez Rosas, the executive director of United We Dream, a progressive group that advocates on behalf of DACA beneficiaries, denounced the court order as an “attack” on “immigrant young people.”



    In a recent ruling, the appeals court has once again declared the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program illegal. Despite this decision, the court has allowed the immigration policy to remain in place, providing a temporary relief for thousands of Dreamers.

    This decision comes as a blow to DACA recipients and advocates who have been fighting for years to protect the program. However, the court’s decision to keep DACA alive for now provides a glimmer of hope for those who rely on the program for protection from deportation and access to work permits.

    The battle over DACA is far from over, as the case is likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court. In the meantime, DACA recipients can continue to renew their protections and work permits, allowing them to remain in the country and contribute to their communities.

    While this ruling is a setback, it is important to continue advocating for a permanent solution for Dreamers and comprehensive immigration reform. The fight for DACA and immigrant rights is far from over, and it is crucial to continue pushing for policies that protect and support all members of our communities.

    Tags:

    1. DACA appeals court ruling
    2. Immigration policy update
    3. DACA legality
    4. DACA court decision
    5. Immigration law news
    6. DACA ruling impact
    7. DACA legal status
    8. Immigration policy updates
    9. DACA court case
    10. Immigration law developments

    #Appeals #court #declares #DACA #illegal #immigration #policy #alive

  • Republicans pledge Remain in Mexico policy will return under Trump | National


    (The Center Square) – Border-focused Republicans are eagerly awaiting the next Trump administration, and with it, the return of Remain in Mexico, an immigration policy that makes migrants who illegally cross the border to claim asylum wait in Mexico for their court date, rather than being released into the U.S. under parole.

    During a U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs hearing, witnesses confirmed to lawmakers that the president has the statutory power to reimplement the 2019 program, also known as Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), but added that Congress must do its part.

    “Congress must provide the president the resources he needs to accomplish that task,” Andrew R. Arthur from the Center for Immigration Studies testified. “But the current and incoming presidents, like their immediate predecessors, already have ample statutory authorities in the INA to secure the border. How and whether the president chooses to use those authorities, however, is up to him.”

    Remain in Mexico in particular is a crucial tool to combat the immigration crisis, he added, because successfully deterring illegal immigration starts before migrants physically reach the border. If potential migrants know the president is serious about securing the border, many of them will decide the risks and costs of travel are not worth the slim chances of success.

    Under the Biden administration, which scrapped Remain in Mexico and many other border security policies, more than 12 million migrants have illegally tried to cross the border. In fiscal year 2024 alone, nearly 3 million migrants crossed or attempted to cross the border.

    But Adam Isacson, director for Defense Oversight at the Washington Office on Latin America, testified against MPP, claiming it had “proved to be only a modest deterrent” as fewer than 68,000 migrants were returned to Mexico to await their asylum hearings when the program was in full swing.

    Additionally, he said, the policy had enriched Mexican cartels who exploited migrants waiting in northern Mexico.

    “By requiring non-Mexicans to linger for months or even years in border cities, Remain in Mexico created a rich new income stream for cartels,” Isacson said. “[T]hose made to Remain in Mexico were very motivated to pay extortions or ransoms because they could not miss their court dates. If migrants despaired of the MPP process, migrant smugglers – ‘coyotes’ – were waiting to take them across the border for a hefty fee.”

    Arthur disagreed with Isacson’s assertion that Remain in Mexico failed to work. Taking the 68,000 number without factoring in other statistics presents a misleading picture of the program’s efficacy, he said. 

    According to CBP data, agents encountered roughly 144,000 migrants attempting to cross the Southwest border in May 2019. By September of that year, after MPP had been operating for months and news of it had spread, encounters dropped to roughly 52,000 monthly. And in February 2020, CBP encountered fewer than 37,000 migrants.

    So the relatively low number of migrants sent to Mexico resulted from CBP encountering fewer migrants due to the MPP deterring people from traveling to cross the border in the first place, Arthur said.

    Kenneth Cuccinelli, former acting Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security from 2019 to 2021, added that the claim MPP enriched cartels is also false, because the drop in people who attempted to make the journey subsequently led to the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars for the cartels who transport migrants to the border.

    “The idea that the cartels benefitted from the Remain in Mexico program is relatively ludicrous compared to the alternative,” Cuccinelli said. “And the alternative we’ve lived with the last four years has been the greatest enriching of the most evil and vicious people in the Western Hemisphere.”

    Remain in Mexico could further depress migrant numbers by incentivizing Mexico to do its part and protect its own borders, Cuccinelli said. If thousands of migrants seeking asylum will remain in Mexico for long stretches of time – migrants coming from multiple unstable countries – Mexico will likely ban migrants from using its country as a route to the U.S.

    “The real success of programs like the Remain in Mexico program is not just that they screen out fake asylum seekers, but that they help deter illegal aliens from coming in the first place,” Cuccinelli said. “The goal of true border security is to be so effective at keeping attempted illegal entrants out, that they never try to come in the first place.”



    Republicans pledge Remain in Mexico policy will return under Trump

    In a recent statement, Republican lawmakers have pledged to reinstate the controversial Remain in Mexico policy if former President Donald Trump is re-elected in 2024. The policy, officially known as the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), required asylum seekers to wait in Mexico while their cases were processed in the United States.

    Critics of the policy argued that it put migrants in danger and violated their rights, while supporters claimed it was necessary to address the surge of asylum seekers at the southern border. The policy was implemented by the Trump administration in 2019 and remained in place until President Joe Biden ended it shortly after taking office.

    With the recent surge of migrants at the border, Republican lawmakers are calling for the reinstatement of the Remain in Mexico policy as a way to deter illegal immigration and enforce stricter border control measures. They believe that the policy is necessary to protect national security and prevent the abuse of the asylum system.

    The pledge to bring back the Remain in Mexico policy under a potential Trump presidency in 2024 has sparked debate among politicians and immigration advocates. While some argue that the policy is necessary to address the border crisis, others believe it is inhumane and ineffective in addressing the root causes of migration.

    As the debate over immigration policy continues to heat up, it remains to be seen whether the Remain in Mexico policy will indeed make a comeback under a Republican administration in the future. Stay tuned for more updates on this developing story.

    Tags:

    1. Republicans
    2. Remain in Mexico policy
    3. Trump administration
    4. Immigration policy
    5. Asylum seekers
    6. Border control
    7. US-Mexico border
    8. Immigration reform
    9. Trump presidency
    10. National news

    #Republicans #pledge #Remain #Mexico #policy #return #Trump #National

  • Analysis: Jimmy Carter’s foreign policy legacy is far more complex – and successful – than he gets credit for

    Analysis: Jimmy Carter’s foreign policy legacy is far more complex – and successful – than he gets credit for




    CNN
     — 

    Early in his presidency, in May 1977, then-President Jimmy Carter gave a commencement speech at the University of Notre Dame that outlined a new approach to America’s role in the world: Carter said human rights should be a “fundamental tenet of our foreign policy.”

    This was a sharp break from the foreign policy practiced by Carter’s predecessor, President Richard Nixon, who, during the Vietnam War, stepped up the secret American bombings of Vietnam’s neighbors Cambodia and Laos, causing untold misery in those countries. Nixon’s secretary of state, Henry Kissinger, successfully pushed to overthrow the democratically elected socialist government of Salvador Allende in Chile in 1973. Three years later, Kissinger also secretly gave a green light to the military junta in Argentina to carry out what’s known as the “Dirty War” to kill between 10,000 to 30,000 of its political opponents.

    Carter wanted to end such American support for dictators and to emphasize US support for human rights, while also trying to bring peace to the Middle East. His record largely reflects this effort – but the Iran hostage crisis has tended to obscure that Carter was otherwise a successful commander-in-chief on the foreign policy front.

    Within weeks of taking office, Carter wrote a letter of support to Andrei Sakharov, the leading Soviet dissident. While this angered the Soviet regime, it helped to sustain the dissident movement in the Soviet Union, knowing that they had the US president firmly in their corner.

    Carter’s approach to American foreign policy based on rights and justice also informed his decision to return the Panama Canal to the Panamanians. More than half a century earlier, President Teddy Roosevelt had supported Panama’s secession from Colombia, which resulted in the Americans building and owning the canal that traversed Panama, which enabled ships to avoid traveling an additional several thousand miles around Cape Horn at the bottom of South America.

    But by the time Carter assumed office, the Panama Canal had become a symbol of US colonialism; Carter was determined to fix what he saw as a historical wrong, even if this was not an especially popular move politically in the US. Polling showed that half of Americans didn’t want to give up the canal, and an up-and-coming Republican politician named Ronald Reagan said of the plan: “I’m going to talk as long and as loud as I can against it.”

    But in the end, Carter prevailed, getting the more-than-two-thirds vote in the US Senate necessary to ratify the Panama Canal treaties.

    In recent weeks, President-elect Donald Trump has publicly mused about getting the Panama Canal back, but since the US Senate has ratified the Panama Canal treaties and the Panamanian government has said it has no interest in handing the canal back to the US, the possibility of this happening seems quite remote.

    Peace between Israel and Egypt

    Another success for Carter was the Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt, which had fought three major wars against each other. Israel’s Prime Minister, Menachem Begin, and Egypt’s President, Anwar Sadat, were bitter enemies when Carter brought them together at the US presidential retreat at Camp David in Maryland for 13 days of intensive peace talks in September 1978.

    At Camp David, Carter cajoled the Israeli and Egyptian leaders into continuing to negotiate even when the talks broke down, and he brought to bear his own encyclopedic knowledge of the issues in the Middle East.

    James Fallows was Carter’s chief speechwriter and stayed at Camp David during the negotiations. Fallows says the peace agreement simply wouldn’t have happened without Carter, who brought considerable focus to the details of the talks. Carter sat down with Begin and Sadat to examine maps of the Sinai region, which lies between Egypt and Israel, and Carter would be “drawing lines and saying, ‘What about this? And does the road go here? And what about the water supply?’ So, he was able to out-detail anybody,” Fallows told me in an interview for the Audible podcast “In the Room.”

    The resulting peace agreement endures today, almost half a century later.

    It was Nixon who first traveled to China to begin the normalization process between the communist regime and the United States, but it was Carter who formally recognized China and established diplomatic relations between the two countries, which set the foundations for the largest trade partnership in history.

    And despite his peacenik image, it was Carter who started arming the Afghan mujahideen fighting the Soviets who invaded Afghanistan in December 1979.

    And yet what defined Carter’s record as commander-in-chief for most Americans was the Iran hostage crisis when Islamist revolutionaries seized the American embassy in Tehran along with more than 50 Americans.

    What precipitated the embassy takeover was the US providing refuge to the Shah of Iran, who the Iranian revolutionaries hated. Ironically, Carter had initially fiercely opposed letting the Shah into the US, but he was persuaded by Kissinger and other supporters of the Shah that the Iranian monarch was close to death from cancer and urgently needed medical treatment that only the US could provide. (The Shah’s medical prognosis was, in fact, better than was presented at the time).

    Carter authorized a rescue operation in April 1980 to free the American hostages in Tehran. Operation Eagle Claw, sometimes called Desert One, was doomed almost as soon as it started. Several of the rescue helicopters encountered a fierce sandstorm, and one of them collided with an American transport plane during a refueling in the Iranian desert, killing eight American servicemen.

    A Pentagon investigation found many problems with Operation Eagle Claw: The Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marines all wanted to play a role in this important operation, even though they had never worked together before on this kind of mission. An overemphasis on operational security prevented the services from sharing critical information, and there was no full-scale plan rehearsal.

    Something needed to be fixed. That fix was the creation in 1980 of the Joint Special Operations Command, which 31 years later would oversee the operation that killed Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad, Pakistan. However, the long-running hostage crisis that went on for 444 days and the failed rescue operation in Iran helped ensure that Carter was a one-term president.

    At a press conference in 2015, Carter was asked what he wished he might have done differently when he was president. Carter replied, “I wish I’d sent one more helicopter to get the hostages, and we would have rescued them, and I would have been reelected.”

    That seems like wishful thinking. The challenge of rescuing 52 American hostages held by fanatical revolutionaries inside the US embassy in downtown Tehran, a city of many millions of people, and then successfully getting them out of the country would have been formidable.

    That said, Carter’s legacy as commander-in-chief cannot be judged solely by the US hostages held in Iran and the failed rescue effort.

    Carter brokered a lasting peace between Egypt and Israel, opened US diplomatic relations with China, ended the colonial irritant of US control of the Panama Canal, and foregrounded human rights in American policy by, for instance, supporting Soviet dissidents while also taking a hardline when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979.

    All in all, that’s a successful record for any commander-in-chief.



    Jimmy Carter is often remembered for his struggles with domestic issues during his presidency, but his foreign policy legacy is far more complex and successful than he is given credit for. Despite facing numerous challenges on the international stage, Carter was able to achieve several notable accomplishments that have had lasting impacts on global affairs.

    One of Carter’s most significant achievements was brokering the Camp David Accords in 1978, which led to a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel. This historic agreement not only ended decades of hostility between the two nations but also established a framework for future negotiations in the region. Carter’s personal involvement in the negotiations and his willingness to take risks in pursuit of peace were instrumental in bringing about this breakthrough.

    Carter also played a key role in the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977, which transferred control of the canal from the United States to Panama. This move helped to improve relations between the two countries and demonstrated Carter’s commitment to promoting diplomacy and cooperation on the world stage.

    Additionally, Carter’s human rights policy was a defining aspect of his foreign policy approach. He made human rights a central focus of his administration and used America’s influence to advocate for the protection of basic freedoms and liberties around the world. Carter’s emphasis on human rights set a precedent for future presidents and helped to shape the way the United States engages with other countries on these issues.

    Despite facing criticism for his handling of the Iranian Revolution and the hostage crisis that followed, Carter’s overall foreign policy record is more nuanced and successful than many realize. His commitment to diplomacy, peace, and human rights left a lasting impact on global affairs and helped to shape America’s role in the world for years to come.

    In conclusion, Jimmy Carter’s foreign policy legacy is far more complex and successful than he is often given credit for. His achievements in brokering peace agreements, promoting human rights, and fostering international cooperation have had a lasting impact on global affairs and deserve recognition as part of his presidential legacy.

    Tags:

    Jimmy Carter, foreign policy, legacy, analysis, success, complex, presidential history, diplomacy, international relations, United States, humanitarian efforts, peace agreements.

    #Analysis #Jimmy #Carters #foreign #policy #legacy #complex #successful #credit

  • Meta will appoint Joel Kaplan to lead global policy team, replacing Nick Clegg

    Meta will appoint Joel Kaplan to lead global policy team, replacing Nick Clegg


    Meta is revamping its global policy team, with President Nick Clegg stepping down and being replaced by Joel Kaplan, his deputy and the company’s most prominent Republican, people familiar with the matter said.

    Kaplan, who was White House Deputy Chief of Staff under George W. Bush, has been one of the most forceful voices inside Meta against restrictions on political speech, arguing internally that such policies would disproportionately mute conservative voices. Clegg, a former British deputy prime minister and ex-leader of the country’s Liberal Democrats, joined Meta in 2018 to lead its policy and lobbying efforts and was named president in 2022.

    The shift, three weeks before Donald Trump’s inauguration, comes as US companies are embracing the president-elect, courting his inner circle, and backing away from progressive stances many had embraced in recent years. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg — whom Trump previously threatened to jail — dined with Trump at Mar-a-Lago in November and congratulated the president-elect on his win, one of many big tech executives to do so.

    Meta’s political operation is now well placed for a Republican-dominated Washington: Its just-elevated vice president of global public policy, Kevin Martin, was appointed to the Federal Communications Commission by President George W. Bush, and its general counsel, Jennifer Newstead, was the top legal adviser to the Trump State Department from 2017 until joining Meta in 2019.

    “I’m grateful for everything you’ve done for Meta and the world these past seven years,” Zuckerberg said of Clegg in a statement. “I’ve learned so much working with you and our whole team is better for having this opportunity. You’ve made an important impact advancing Meta’s voice and values around the world, as well as our vision for AI and the metaverse. You’ve also built a strong team to carry this work forward. I’m excited for Joel to step into this role next given his deep experience and insight leading our policy work for many years.”

    — Ben Smith contributed to this report



    Meta, the parent company of Facebook, recently announced that Joel Kaplan will be taking over as the head of its global policy team, replacing former deputy prime minister of the UK, Nick Clegg.

    Kaplan, who has been with Meta for over a decade, previously served as the company’s vice president of global public policy. In his new role, he will be responsible for overseeing the company’s policy efforts in key areas such as content moderation, privacy, and data protection.

    This move comes as Meta faces increasing scrutiny over its handling of misinformation and harmful content on its platforms. Kaplan’s deep understanding of the company’s policies and his experience navigating regulatory challenges will be crucial in helping Meta address these issues and rebuild trust with users and regulators.

    We look forward to seeing how Kaplan’s leadership will shape Meta’s global policy team and its approach to addressing the complex challenges facing the company in the coming months.

    Tags:

    Meta, Joel Kaplan, global policy team, Nick Clegg, leadership change, social media, Facebook, meta platforms, tech news, corporate updates, executive appointments, global strategy, policy development

    #Meta #appoint #Joel #Kaplan #lead #global #policy #team #replacing #Nick #Clegg

Chat Icon