Añaden plásticos a sus recetas para alertar sobre la cantidad de microplásticos que comemos cada día

Añaden plásticos a sus recetas para alertar sobre la cantidad de microplásticos que comemos cada día

Necesitas un Website? www.rodulfox.com

¿Sabías que se estima que una persona come de media más de 100.000 microplásticos al año? Esto supone comer una tarjeta de crédito a la semana. Al menos, eso es lo que cuenta esta campaña de WWF que ha contado con la ayuda de algunos influencers gastronómicos para crear unas recetas bastante peculiares.

La ONG se ha unido con la Asian Food Network (AFN), el canal de televisión y online más grande de Asia, para llevar a cabo esta curiosa acción. En los diferentes vídeos, chefs muy conocidos en esta plataforma cocinan deliciosos platos que condimentan con un puñado de plástico al final para alertar sobre la cantidad de microplásticos que comemos sin darnos cuenta.

#ComidaSaludable #RecetasSaludables #Contaminacion #Microplasticos

Powered by WPeMatico

Courts blocked Trump’s public charge rule to bar low-income immigrants – Vox.com

A rule that creates new barriers to low-income immigrants seeking to enter the US went into effect on Monday, bringing to fruition the kind of vast restrictions on legal immigration that President Donald Trump has long sought.

The so-called “public charge” rule, published in August by the Department of Homeland Security, establishes a test to determine whether an immigrant applying to enter the US, extend their visa, or convert their temporary immigration status into a green card is likely to end up relying on public benefits in the future.

Immigration officials will now have more leeway to turn away those who are “likely to be a public charge” based on an evaluation of 20 factors, ranging from the use of certain public benefits programs — including food stamps, Section 8 housing vouchers, and Medicaid — to English language proficiency.

The rule affects immigrants applying for green cards nationwide and at consulates abroad, as well as those applying for temporary visas overseas such as tourists, business travelers, students, and skilled workers.

It’s not clear exactly how many people could be affected by the rule. But Julia Gelatt, a senior policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank, told Vox that 69 percent of the roughly 5.5 million people who were granted green cards over the past five years would have had at least one negative factor under the rule — which officials could have used as justification to reject their applications for immigration benefits.

For about four months, federal judges prevented the rule from being implemented while lawsuits challenging it made their way through the courts. Opponents of the rule, including the state of New York and immigrant advocacy groups, had argued that the rule flouts the narrow definition of what it means to be a “public charge” under federal immigration law.

But rather than waiting for those courts to issue final rulings, President Donald Trump asked the Supreme Court in January to intervene — a once-rare occurrence that has become standard practice under this administration — and to allow the rule to go into effect. The US Supreme Court’s conservative majority gave it the green light later that month without explaining their reasoning.

Trump has justified the rule as a means of ensuring that immigrants are “financially self-sufficient” and has argued it will “protect benefits for American citizens.”

“I am tired of seeing our taxpayer paying for people to come into the country and immediately go onto welfare and various other things,” Trump said when announcing the rule. “So I think we’re doing it right.”

The rule, which has been anticipated for more than a year, has had a chilling effect already: Noncitizens have been needlessly dropping their public benefits out of fear that they will face immigration consequences. It’s difficult to quantify just how many immigrants have unenrolled already, but one survey suggested that about one in seven had done so as of 2018.

Many immigrants aren’t eligible for public benefits unless they have green cards or certain humanitarian protections — and not all public benefits are available to noncitizens. In the majority of cases, the best advice for immigrants is to keep using the programs to which they’re entitled because they won’t be penalized for doing so under the rule, Doug Rand, a former White House official who worked on immigration policy in the Obama administration, said.

But for many immigrants who have already decided to drop their benefits, that advice is coming too late. Even before the rule went into effect, the publicity surrounding it accomplished what the Trump administration wanted: Immigrants were being driven away from public benefits. By the time the rule went into effect on Monday, it had, in that sense, already succeeded.

The rule fits in with one of the broader ideas guiding Trump’s immigration policy: that immigrants take advantage of public assistance without offering the US anything in return. It enacts the philosophy that acting US Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Ken Cuccinelli once described, amending Emma Lazarus’s famous poem on the Statue of Liberty: “Give me your tired and your poor who can stand on their own two feet.”

It also makes getting into the US much harder for immigrants sponsored by family members, the phenomenon Trump has excoriated as “chain migration.”

The rule is only one of several policies the Trump administration has pursued to dramatically shift which immigrants are legally able to come to the United States. Under Trump, the legal immigration system increasingly rewards skills and wealth over family ties to the US, while shutting out a growing number of people from low-income backgrounds.

Heeding calls from 31 states to end refugee admissions from Syria, Trump has slashed the total number of refugees the US accepts annually to just 18,000 this year, the fewest in history and down from a cap of 110,000 just two years ago.

He’s placed restrictions on the citizens of many Muslim-majority and African countries. His travel ban prevents citizens of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, Venezuela, and North Korea from obtaining any kind of visa allowing them to enter the US. He recently added new restrictions on immigrants from six additional countries: Myanmar, Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Nigeria, Sudan, and Tanzania. Critics have called it an “African ban” since about four in five of those affected are from African nations — places Trump has reportedly previously derided as “shithole countries.”

And Trump is also cracking down on foreigners giving birth to children in the US, who automatically become American citizens, particularly if they can’t prove they can pay for their medical treatment.

With the public charge regulation, Trump is painting immigrants as abusing public benefits. But they are actually “less likely to consume welfare benefits and, when they do, they generally consume a lower dollar value of benefits than native-born Americans,” according to the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.

In 2016, the average per capita value of public benefits consumed by immigrants was $3,718, as compared to $6,081 among native-born Americans. Noncitizens were slightly more likely to get cash assistance, SNAP benefits and Medicaid, but far less likely to use Medicare and Social Security.

“The rhetoric around the use of public benefits programs is largely smoke and mirrors,” Erin Quinn​, a senior staff attorney at the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, told Vox. “It’s feeding a rhetoric that immigrants are draining our public services when in fact these immigrants don’t even have access to those services and also galvanizing fear in immigrant communities.”

The US has been able to reject prospective immigrants who are likely to become a “public charge” — dependent on the government for support — since 1882, but since World War II, few immigrants were turned away using that criteria. In 1999, the Clinton administration issued guidance that said only cash benefits, which very few immigrants use, would be considered in making the determination.

The Trump administration is defining “public charge” much more broadly, giving immigration officials at US Citizenship and Immigration Services and US Customs and Border Protection a laundry list of factors to consider. And the new rule allows individual immigration officials to implement this complicated, 217-page regulation as they see fit.

The rule gives individual, low-level officials much more vetting power than they have had previously, and injects a lot of uncertainty into the green card process. It could have a significant impact on who is allowed to enter and remain in the US as a lawful permanent resident.

Lower court rulings had argued that the public charge rule conflicts with how federal immigration law has been interpreted for two decades and appears to ignore the tens of thousands of public comments that opposed it.

“Defendants do not articulate why they are changing the public charge definition, why this new definition is needed now, or why the definition set forth in the Rule—which has absolutely no support in the history of U.S. immigration law—is reasonable,” US District Judge George Daniels wrote in his opinion in October.

But the final version of the regulation is much less stringent than earlier versions that were leaked to the public (including one to Vox). Those drafts would have allowed immigration officials to consider immigrants’ use of a long list of federal public benefits programs, including CHIP and Head Start, the federal early childhood education program. It also would have looked at any programs used by an immigrant’s household — meaning that immigrants could be penalized if they sought benefits for their children instead of themselves.

Early reports raised the alarm about how the rule targeted immigrants on public benefits. The Trump administration got hundreds of thousands of comments about it. And immigrants started dropping out of those programs, worried that their chances of getting a green card or citizenship would be affected.

An Urban Institute study found that, based on a survey of about 2,000 adults in immigrant families, 13.7 percent of them said that they or one of their relatives chose not to use non-cash benefits programs in 2018 as a result of reports about the rule. Eventually, the rule could lead up to 4.7 million people to withdraw from Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) alone, according to a report by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

The Los Angeles Times reported that some immigrants with children enrolled in special education programs withdrew them from school and that refugees and asylum seekers dropped out of food assistance programs.

Quinn said that her organization has found that immigrants are also avoiding applying for asylum and citizenship, even though the final version of the rule does not affect either process.

“The rule has falsely created an impression that undocumented immigrants and temporary residents are gobbling up public benefits, which they’re not because they’re generally not eligible,” Rand said. “And it has scared those who are eligible, who are primarily permanent residents with green cards, legal immigrants, into unenrolling from programs they are perfectly eligible to take advantage of under the law.”

Some federal programs are eligible to all immigrants regardless of status, including the National School Lunch Program; the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); and Head Start. Some immigrants can also become eligible for Social Security benefits and Medicare in old age.

But “means-tested welfare programs” — federal public benefits for those in poverty including Medicaid, CHIP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) — are primarily reserved for naturalized and US-born citizens, green card holders, refugees, and asylees.

Unauthorized immigrants and most people with temporary immigration status, such as employment-based visas, are ineligible, and green card holders have to wait for five years before becoming eligible (although some states give them access earlier).

All of this means that relatively few immigrants would end up being penalized, under the final version of the rule, for using public assistance. But the rule has already been effective in dissuading many immigrants from continuing to access the public benefits they need.

Reporting about the potentially drastic effects of the rule, and advocacy groups’ decision to condemn it, all helped spread the word. Most immigrants will face no consequences for keeping their benefits, Rand said. But advocates and attorneys are reluctant to make any such blanket statements for fear of being responsible for giving bad advice, especially now that the rule has gone into effect.

“Unfortunately, I think a lot of the damage has already been done through the rhetoric and the media cycles around the various proposals,” Quinn said.

DHS’s cost-benefit analysis of the rule is premised on the fact that many people will unnecessarily unenroll from public benefits or refrain from enrolling from such programs in the future, Rand said. The economic gains the department cited in its analysis are almost entirely attributable to the anticipated reduction in “transfer payments,” or government payments to public benefits recipients.

“In other words, the ‘chilling effect’ isn’t a second-order consequence of the rule; according to DHS, it’s practically the only thing that makes the rule economically beneficial,” Rand said.

Powered by WPeMatico

New Donald Trump immigration policy could ban thousands of African immigrants from US – USA TODAY

WOODLAND PARK, N.J. – In Kansas City, Kansas, the Baraza African Cultures Center has been fielding calls from Nigerians and other African immigrants “highly concerned” about how an expanded travel ban that went into effect last week will affect their families. 

And in New Jersey, Steve Nwaaogu, 38, was hoping the travel ban would be temporary, and that a petition to bring his 13-year old daughter from Nigeria to join him, his wife, and son in the United States will be processed and approved this year. 

A new Trump administration immigration policy that went into effect Friday has some immigrant communities across the country expressing fear and concern about what happens next for their family members, many of whom will no longer be able to move legally to the United States after waiting years for visas.

“Some are people that came to this country because they were fleeing harm and danger and were so grateful to end up in the United States, and others came for education to build a real future for their families,” said Andrea Khan, chief operating officer for the Baraza African Cultures Center, which serves refugees and other immigrant communities in the greater Kansas City metropolitan area. “And for the country to turn around and do something like this, they are very much in shock, because that is not the America they know.”

President Donald Trump shakes hands with Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari during a news conference in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, Monday, April 30, 2018.

The Trump administration announced the expansion of its controversial travel ban late last month, saying it would add immigration restrictions on citizens from Nigeria, Myanmar, Eritrea and Kyrgyzstan who want to live or work in the U.S. permanently. It also bars citizens from Sudan and Tanzania from the U.S. diversity visa program, also known as the “green-card lottery,” which aims to diversify the immigrant population in the United States by selecting applicants from countries with lower rates of immigration.

The federal government cited security as the reason for expanding the travel ban to those countries, saying they had deficiencies in sharing terrorist, criminal or identity information.

“It is logical and essential to thoroughly screen and vet everyone seeking to travel or immigrate to the United States,” said Chad Wolf, acting secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in a statement announcing the new restrictions. “However, there are some countries from whom the U.S. does not receive the necessary information about its travelers and, as a result, pose a national security or public safety risk that warrants tailored travel restrictions.”

Supporters of the Trump administration’s tougher policies on both legal and illegal immigration applauded the travel ban. 

“This is more directed at the governments than at the individual immigrants,’’ said Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for the Federation of American Immigration Reform or FAIR, a group that favors limiting immigration. “The individual immigrants are being put in this position by their own government’s refusal to cooperate and provide the necessary information, or their inability to do so.”

In this Jan. 29, 2017 file photo, demonstrators carrying signs chant as they protest outside of the White House in Washington during a demonstration to denounce President Donald Trump's executive order banning travel to the U.S. by citizens of Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen.

But Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said the travel ban should end and not be expanded.  

“President Trump is doubling down on his signature anti-Muslim policy – and using the ban as a way to put even more of his prejudices into practice by excluding more communities of color. Families, universities, and businesses in the United States are paying an ever-higher price for President Trump’s ignorance and racism,” he said in a statement. 

As Trump Barricades the Border, Legal Immigration Is Starting to Plunge – The New York Times

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s immigration policies — from travel bans and visa restrictions to refugee caps and asylum changes — have begun to deliver on a longstanding goal: Legal immigration has fallen more than 11 percent and a steeper drop is looming.

While Mr. Trump highlights the construction of a border wall to stress his war on illegal immigration, it is through policy changes, not physical barriers, that his administration has been able to diminish the flow of migrants into the United States. Two more measures took effect Friday and Monday, an expansion of his travel ban and strict wealth tests on green card applicants.

“He’s really ticking off all the boxes. It’s kind of amazing,” said Sarah Pierce, a policy analyst with the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan research group. “In an administration that’s been perceived to be haphazard, on immigration they’ve been extremely consistent and barreling forward.”

The number of people who obtained lawful permanent residence, besides refugees who entered the United States in previous years, declined to 940,877 in the 2018 fiscal year from 1,063,289 in the 2016 fiscal year, according to an analysis of government data by the National Foundation for American Policy. Four years ago, legal immigration was at its highest level since 2006, when 1,266,129 people obtained lawful permanent residence in the United States.

And immigration experts say new policies will accelerate the trend. A report released on Monday by the foundation projected a 30 percent plunge in legal immigration by 2021 and a 35 percent dip in average annual growth of the U.S. labor force.

Trump administration officials have said that immigration into the country should be based on merit and skills, not the family-based system that for decades has allowed immigrants to bring their spouses and children to live with them.

“President Trump continues to deliver on his promise to the American people to enforce our nation’s immigration laws,” Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II, the acting deputy secretary of homeland security, wrote in The Hill, a Capitol Hill newspaper, on Monday.

The rapid declines come as record-low unemployment has even the president’s acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, confiding to a gathering in Britain that “we are desperate, desperate for more people.”

But the doors have been blocked in multiple ways. Those fleeing violence or persecution have found asylum rules tightened and have been forced to wait in squalid camps in Mexico or sent to countries like Guatemala as their cases are adjudicated. People who have languished in displaced persons camps for years face an almost impossible refugee cap of 18,000 this year, down from the 110,000 that President Barack Obama set in 2016.

Family members hoping to travel legally from Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen and Somalia were blocked by the president’s travel ban.

Increased vetting and additional in-person interviews have further winnowed foreign travelers. The number of visas issued to foreigners abroad looking to immigrate to the United States has declined by about 25 percent, to 462,422 in the 2019 fiscal year from 617,752 in 2016.

And two more tough policies have now taken effect. The expansion of Mr. Trump’s travel ban to six additional countries, including Africa’s most populous, Nigeria, began on Friday, and the wealth test, which effectively sets a wealth floor for would-be immigrants, started on Monday. Those will reshape immigration in the years to come, according to experts.

The travel and visa bans, soon to cover 13 countries, are almost sure to be reflected in immigration numbers in the near future. Of the average of more than 537,000 people abroad granted permanent residency from 2014 to 2016, including through a diversity lottery system, nearly 28,000, or 5 percent, would be blocked under the administration’s newly expanded travel restrictions, according to an analysis of State Department data.

But the wealth test — or public charge rule — may prove the most consequential change yet. Around two-thirds of the immigrants who obtained permanent legal status from 2012 to 2016 could be blocked from doing so under the new rule, which denies green cards to those who are likely to need public assistance, according to a study by the Migration Policy Institute.

Before Monday, immigrants were disqualified from permanent resident status only if they failed to demonstrate a household income above 125 percent of the federal poverty line, a threshold set by Congress. Now, immigration officials will weigh dozens of factors, like age, health, language skills, credit score and insurance as well as whether an applicant has previously used public benefits, to determine if the applicant is likely to use them in the future.

One factor that could also count against an applicant is the action the immigrant is undertaking: applying for a green card. Applying for the legal status is one of the negative factors that immigration officials could use to determine if someone will be a public charge, a Catch-22 that has been a key criticism from immigration advocates.

Even before the policy went into force, it discouraged immigrants and citizens in immigrant families from seeking public assistance they qualify for, such as Medicaid, food stamps, free or reduced-price school meals, or housing help, according to immigration analysts.

“Data suggest that millions of people, including U.S. citizens, have already pulled out of safety net programs they’re legally entitled to, based on fear of the public charge rule — even though it doesn’t apply to them and never will,” said Doug Rand, a founder of Boundless Immigration, a technology company in Seattle that helps immigrants obtain green cards and citizenship. “That’s not a ‘chilling effect’ — that’s a fraud upon the American people.”

Broadening the rule has been a long-sought-after goal of the White House and specifically the president’s senior adviser Stephen Miller, who admonished career officials for taking too long to enforce the policy.

After the Supreme Court on Friday lifted an injunction that blocked the policy in Illinois, the White House praised the plan the next day.

“This final rule will protect hardworking American taxpayers, safeguard welfare programs for truly needy Americans, reduce the federal deficit and re-establish the fundamental legal principle that newcomers to our society should be financially self-reliant and not dependent on the largess of United States taxpayers,” it said in a statement.

Other more subtle steps have also helped trim the number of immigrants arriving on American shores, such as requiring in-person interviews for most immigration visas and a proposed 60 percent increase in citizenship fees for most applicants.

Tara Battle, 42, a nurse in Chicago, now finds multiple policies are affecting her life and family. After meeting Daberechi Amadi Godswill, a Nigerian, in 2016 while on vacation in Gambia, Ms. Battle struck up a relationship and they married in 2018.

Since then, Ms. Battle, who supports a 12-year-old daughter on a $35,000 annual salary, said she and Mr. Godswill had spent around $1,000 on lawyer and processing fees, trying to bring him to the country. She believed she had taken the last step when she submitted her financial documents on his behalf this month.

Then Ms. Battle’s lawyers told her Mr. Trump had banned immigration from Nigeria. She said she would wait to see if the president lifted the ban, but if he does, she is likely to be saddled with much higher processing fees.

“Everything is up and running, the ball is already rolling. Why is it now on hold?” Ms. Battle asked in exasperation. “They’ve already done the background checks. They already did everything. The money, the fees, everything’s paid for.”

There is little sign that Mr. Trump will relent. He is already showcasing the immigration results to supporters as the election nears. While the administration recorded 36,679 arrests at the border last month, slightly up from the 33,657 arrests in January 2016, the president has been celebrating an eight-month decline in border crossings since a surge of Central American families approached the border last year.

“Washington Democrats put the needs of illegal immigrants before the well-being of American citizens,” Mr. Trump said at a campaign rally last week in Nevada. “You know that, you’ve been complaining it about for a long time. It’s one of the reasons you voted for Trump. They want to let anyone from around the world simply walk across the border.”

Mr. Mulvaney struck a different tone with a crowd of several hundred during a question-and-answer session with the Oxford Union in Britain, a tape of which was obtained by The New York Times.

“We created 215,000 jobs last month,” he said. “We are running out of people to fuel the economic growth.”

One aspect of Mr. Trump’s stringent immigration policies has not happened yet: The president has not deported “millions” of immigrants, as he frequently promises in speeches. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrested about 143,000 immigrants in the country from October 2018 to September 2019, 10 percent fewer than the previous fiscal year and the lowest level since Mr. Trump took office.

The administration has tried to change that trend by threatening retaliation against localities that embrace the policies of so-called sanctuary cities. Tactical units from the Border Patrol have been deployed to assist ICE agents. Mr. Trump took aim at those cities, including New York, in his State of the Union address, claiming they allowed “dangerous criminal aliens to prey upon the public.”

Fashion Gold Dragon Sculpture Watch

MEGALITH Fashion Gold Dragon Sculpture Watch Men Quartz Watch Waterproof Big Dial Sport Watches Men Watch Top Luxury Brand Clock, Go: www.whatimeisit.store

#GoldWatch #LuxuryWatch #TopBrandWatch #CasioWatch #FreeShipping

Powered by WPeMatico