text:
Published by The Lawfare Institute
in Cooperation With
In early February, the European Union approved a major overhaul of its immigration laws. If approved by EU member states, the pact will drastically curtail the rights of migrants and asylum seekers entering the European Union. It’s part of a trend we’re seeing all over the world, including here in the U.S.
Lawfare Executive Editor Natalie Orpett sat down with Steve Meili, Professor of International Human Rights Law at University of Minnesota Law School. They discussed the EU Pact’s new provisions, why critics are calling them a violation of human rights law, and how asylum and migration law is evolving globally.
Click the button below to view a transcript of this podcast. Please note that the transcript was auto-generated and may contain errors.
I suppose even if it doesn't pass, it's just a sign of where things are going, and a case study of that. So the politics will be interesting. But even if it doesn't get passed by all of the EU states, the fact that it's gotten this far, many of these draconian measures, is an illustration of how the landscape has changed. I mean, the EU's been trying to develop a uniform system of asylum for many years because one of the issues there is the tremendous disparity in the asylum grant rate from country to country. The ideal is, it shouldn't matter what country you set foot in and claim asylum. Your chances should be the same wherever it is. And that's just not been true, even after the EU developed something called the Common European Asylum System a decade or so ago that consciously attempted to make the standards uniform across national boundaries. Didn't work. Hardly changed things at all.
I'm Natalie Orpett, Executive Editor of Lawfare, and this is the Lawfare Podcast, April 1st, 2024. In early February, the European Union approved a major overhaul of its immigration laws. If approved by EU member states, the pact will drastically curtail the rights of migrants and asylum seekers entering the European Union. It's part of a trend we're seeing all over the world, including here in the U.S. I sat down with Steve Meili, Professor of International Human Rights Law at University of Minnesota Law School. We discussed the EU Pact's new provisions, why critics are calling them a violation of human rights law, and how asylum and migration law is evolving globally.
It's the Lawfare Podcast, April 1st, 2024. Asylum Seekers and the EU Migration Pact.
Okay, Steve, I've invited you on to talk about the EU Migration Pact, which is some major legislation coming out of the European Union, which was recently approved, but has not yet been voted on. Reportedly, that's happening in April. But before we dig into that, I wanted to just start by defining the legal landscape of migration law and in particular, asylum law. So can you just get us started with a lay of the land? We have both international law, in particular, the Refugee Convention, also the patchwork of individual states’ domestic laws. What do you think is important to understand about that legal framework?
Thanks, Natalie. I think that I can give a brief overview of the asylum and refugee system that you've introduced. And it is based primarily on international law, and then what individual countries have done is incorporate that international law into their domestic law, and it's somewhat unusual, and that it's been done to the extent that it has been across the world. It doesn't mean that it is an efficient system, and it's become less efficient as time has gone on, but it's actually one of the few areas where many states, including the U.S., have incorporated international law and key parts of international law, that is the definition of a refugee, pretty much word for word into their domestic law.
So, we can talk a little bit about that international law because it is the basis of refugee and asylum law in different countries. And that's the Refugee Convention, which you mentioned, of 1951, which emerged as a result of the atrocities of World War II, when there were millions of refugees throughout Europe. And this was an effort to help those refugees achieve safety and security and relief from persecution that they had suffered under the Nazis. And so it was very time-specific, i.e. post-World War II and area-specific, mostly, or entirely, focused on refugees in Europe.
The main feature of that Refugee Convention is it protects individuals who either have suffered persecution in another country, typically in their home country, or are likely to suffer persecution if they are sent back. Persecution is not defined, but persecution has to be on the basis of one or more of five grounds: race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, and political opinion. As you can imagine, over the years, there have been many disputes about who fits into those categories and who does not.
But one of the issues all along is, because it was so time-specific and area-specific, it has had difficulty in many ways adapting to changes in refugee flows that just the dynamics of migration over the intervening years. Frankly, and you can see this in some of the in the preamble to the convention and other writings about it, the post-World War II refugee situation was seen as temporary. The idea was we're going to provide resettlement assistance for folks who are fleeing the Nazi regime. There might be an opportunity to have folks return once the regime was defeated, but it was seen as a temporary problem. And, obviously that didn't happen, and as a result of decolonization and other historical phenomena through the ‘50s, ‘60s and beyond, we've had an ever-increasing number of refugees throughout the world.
So, what that means is this relic, in some ways, of post-World War II Europe has had to adjust and been adjusted by those who practice in this area to very different phenomenon, very different forces that are driving people to leave their homeland and seek refuge elsewhere. So that's the [inaudible] that I would say, this idea that you have to show individual persecution. That's part of the problem and one of the reasons why the system suffers from delays and inefficiencies because people have to show that they themselves are going to be persecuted if they return to their home country. And that's much more difficult than saying, “Well, I am from country X. And because of that, if I head back, I'm going to be persecuted.” And that's actually, pre-World War II, the way the refugee system was set up, it was much more of a group-based model. But then, after World War II, or during World War II, it became much more focused on individual persecution by the state.
And just to clarify, the discussion of persecution is with respect to the standard you need to meet to claim asylum, correct?
Okay. And how do we define under international law, and as you said, in most states where they've adopted the international law specifically, how do we define the term refugee versus migrant versus asylum seeker?
Right. So, those terms often get conflated. I'll start with a refugee is someone who has demonstrated that either they have been persecuted in their home country and/or are likely to be persecuted if they're sent back. So, in some cases, people receive refugee status before they arrive at their country of refuge, and these are folks typically who are in refugee camps and then are assigned the status of refugee at some point and then sent to a designated country. Now many people stay for years, now we have generations of people in refugee camps. But anyway, the refugees are individuals who have met that definition, i.e. they have demonstrated that if they return to their home country, they will suffer persecution on one of those five grounds--race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, and political opinion.
Asylum seekers are those who have left their home country because of persecution or fear of future persecution and are seeking it in their country of refuge. So those are people who are arrived at the border of a country of refuge and claim asylum and then have to demonstrate that they have suffered persecution and/or are likely to suffer persecution if they are returned to their home country. And they have to show that that persecution is on the basis of one of those five grounds.
Migrants is a broader category and quite controversial. We often hear the term economic migrant to try and distinguish from asylum seekers or refugees, i.e. folks who are fleeing their homeland because of economic hardship and they want to improve their economic situation. It's often very difficult to distinguish between the motivations for people leaving their home and there can be multiple motivations. There can be persecution and there also can be economic justifications or economic reasons for fleeing their homeland. So migrants are, a broader category than either refugees or asylum seekers.
Yeah. And another, I think, interesting challenge, really serious challenge these days, which we've talked about on previous podcasts, also relates to climate migration, which I would like to come back to when we're talking more broadly.
But let's turn to the EU Migration Pact. I think it's a really interesting case study in how countries are trying to grapple with challenges of migration, of refugees, of asylum. So the background of the pact, as I understand it, is the process of drafting this legislation actually began in 2016. So it's been underway for a long, long time. And that was in response to a major influx of individuals seeking asylum, or at least seeking entry to the European Union, mostly from Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Eritrea at the time, and putting just an enormous amount of pressure on southern border countries to be able to handle this enormous influx of people. And of course, since then, there have been other influxes based on global events of migrants to southern border states within the EU, but also from elsewhere.
So with such a long process of coming up with this legislation to get it approved, can you talk through what the challenges were, what the areas of dispute were, and how we got to the pact as it has now been approved?
Sure. And it has been a long process. Pretty much, I think every aspect of it has been contentious and still is, as you say, it's been proposed, but it has to still be approved by each of the 27 countries of the EU. So there's going to be certainly still a lot of conflict and a lot of discussion, and we'll see what happens. But I think it is a good case study because it demonstrates several of the ways in which countries around the world, frankly, have been dealing with or trying to deal with the large and ever increasing influx of refugees, as you said, in addition to individuals fleeing armed conflict, domestic violence, gang violence, we now have and will continue to have an ever increasing number of what are called climate refugees or folks who are fleeing because of natural disasters, man-made disasters, natural events that are in some ways exacerbated by governmental decisions.
But anyway, this was a pact a long time in coming, very much, as I understand it, the result of pressure on the right to deal with the immigration issue. This ties into the politicization of the immigration issue and how politicians, particularly on the right throughout Europe, certainly in the U.S. and elsewhere, have utilized and exacerbated public fears about immigration to justify more draconian tactics. Whether they're tactics at the borders, whether they're tactics in terms of detention once folks get into the country, and then a range of what are called externalization of border policies where wealthier countries in particular are extending their borders by preventing refugees and asylum seekers from even getting to the border where they could assert their right to claim asylum.
I think one of the things we're seeing is, in a sense, an assault on the right to claim asylum, which has been part of international law for decades, and certainly is part of the Refugee Convention. And I think what countries have figured out is they do have these international obligations to afford people that right, but it only manifests itself if folks can get to the border and claim it. So what we're seeing we've seen in Europe, we've seen in Australia, U.S., we can talk about other examples later on, are these efforts by countries to keep folks from actually getting to the border. But that's a slightly different story, but certainly the EU pact, there's some of that in there. Also relying on certain countries in the EU to pick up the slack or take more of the burden on receiving refugees and asylum seekers.
On the point, just to ground a little bit in the actual text, I think one of the mechanisms by which this pact is trying to deter people from actually showing up at EU borders includes there's a new rule that if someone has traveled through what they call “safe countries,” which include countries like Tunisia, Egypt, Turkey, that they will not even be entitled to an assessment as to their eligibility for being admitted to the EU. They will just be sent back to those countries. This is, of course, something that sounds very familiar to Americans from our own discourse over immigration. I saw recently also there was a deal that the EU announced with Egypt where the EU is providing 200 million euros worth of assistance to Egypt to curb migration to bolster its own system, supposedly to be able to prevent people from leaving Egypt and showing up at the EU. Are there other aspects of the EU pact that you think speak to this broader trend you're talking about?
Yeah, I think those are great examples. The other aspects of it are they have something called the “solidarity mechanism” to supposedly take pressure off some of the more distressed countries, countries typically in Eastern or Southern Europe, which are the countries of first arrival into the EU. But again, here they're giving an option to countries more in either Western Europe or Northern Europe to accept a certain number of refugees or pay money. I mean, basically, they're putting a price tag on border control or on control of individuals, whether it's, as you mentioned, paying Egypt to bolster its enforcement of immigration or paying those countries within Europe who are bearing a larger part of the load.
I mean that, of course, bearing the larger part of the load has been in place for a long time. Italy, Greece, their asylum systems have just been deluged by new arrivals, particularly during that era, as you mentioned in 2015, where we had many, many entries from migrants from Afghanistan, Syria, etc. The pact is, perhaps, you could view it as a way to lessen the burden on those states of first entry by at least offering money to assist, but again, it's a way for these countries to get around their obligations under international law which is really what all of this is about. It's a way--there are several ways that countries are able to shirk their responsibilities, because, as you say, if they pass through a so-called safe third country, they're not even going to get any kind of hearing or opportunity to present their case.
The whole point or one of the points of the pact is a faster vetting of what are called “irregular arrivals.” And when you have these quick turnaround interviews, rapid decisions, there's usually never an opportunity to have an attorney present during that that procedure. No legal aid. People don't understand what's happening. Before they know it, they are removed from the country, or they're put in detention centers. I think that's the other thing that's going to happen. We're going to see more border detention centers throughout the EU. And that raises all kinds of concerns.
And how do we define, or how does the pact define, the term “irregular arrivals?”
In general, it--and this goes back to our discussion earlier about the conflation of some of the terms. I see it as the way we think of the term of “migrants.” So it can include asylum seekers or those who at least claim asylum, but it certainly includes those who are seen as economic migrants. It's basically people who don't have citizenship or other immigration status in the country that they're arriving to. And so, the idea is developing these systems to help countries decide in a very short order whether or not someone is entitled even not even to asylum necessarily, but just to the process of asylum. And that's where the so-called safe third country part of it comes in. If they travel through one of those countries, that's it. That's a quick decision. And the U.S. is doing that, too. We can talk about the U.S., but the U.S. is doing the same thing, including and certainly under Biden. It's not just something that was happening under Trump.
Right. I do just want to take a second to back up to just put some numbers on this, because, as you mentioned earlier, the initial context for creating the Refugee Convention, around which all these domestic laws are oriented, was thought to be temporary and of course hasn't been. And as we were talking about earlier, there have been repeated influxes. So I was just looking at the numbers. Just to give people a sense of the scope of the challenge, I think they're worth noting specifically. So in 2022, EU countries received about 966,000 asylum applications, and that's compared to about little under 500,000 in the U.S. I think there's a tendency in the U.S. to forget that this is not only a U.S. challenge. And that's compared to there is a difference in the population size of the EU versus the U.S.
But these are really significant numbers. And one of the phenomena that we've seen in the United States that has gotten a lot of attention and has been the subject of really some, frankly, horrifying stories is this tendency to increase detention of people who are trying to enter the United States. And as I understand it, the EU Migration Pact is now allowing for new and longer forms of detention and includes a provision that individuals who are being detained in these detention centers are not considered on EU soil for the purpose of being eligible for EU benefits and other resources that might be available to others. So can you comment on that?
Yeah, that's absolutely right. And again, that is, in a sense, a legal fiction that the EU has devised in order to prevent asylum seekers from accessing those benefits that you mentioned, healthcare, right to work, those kinds of things, but also prevents them from accessing the asylum system. Again, with this quick turnaround before really there's a reasonable inquiry into whether or not they have met the standard for asylum.
I mean, litigating an asylum case, which I've done for many years in the clinic that I supervise here at Minnesota, it takes months and months to gather the necessary evidence. People who are fleeing persecution don't bring all their documents. They have the clothes on their back usually and that's about it. And so, verifying their stories in a way that persuades an immigration judge to grant them asylum takes time. Getting in touch with witnesses who are often reticent to talk because of fear that they will suffer for persecution makes it difficult. It takes a long time for refugees to trust the lawyers or other advocates that they may be fortunate enough to find to tell their stories. That takes repeated interviews for people who have been traumatized to be able to talk about it with someone else.
So to expect someone without access to legal assistance to be able to make that case in a period of days or even weeks, frankly, is completely unrealistic, and in my view, is a violation of their right to seek asylum because it's not really asylum. I mean, it's not a formal enough process for folks to be able to demonstrate that they meet the standard and therefore are entitled to protection.
Yeah. Both of the asylum cases that I litigated when I was in practice took more than four years to fully adjudicate. And the extent, I mean, I'm not familiar with the adjudication system in EU countries or the extent to which they're standardized across countries. But I can say that from my brief experience in U.S. immigration court, the standard of proof is really amazing. As you said, it is very high. It is very detailed. It requires a lot of documentation. And when you're representing people, particularly people who are fleeing conflict areas or who, as is the standard for asylum, are fleeing serious forms of persecution, to expect people to be able to provide that degree of documentation and evidence in support of their claims, let alone to do so on such an expedited time frame, is really unimaginable to me. So I suppose I do just want to emphasize that for the listeners.
One other provision of the EU immigration pact that I was interested in your thoughts on as I've seen a lot of criticism of it from advocates relates to this provision, allowing for EU states to deviate from EU legal standards when they've assessed that there is a quote unquote “crisis situation,” which seems to be broadly, if at all, defined in the pact. And interestingly, it includes a term that I learned for the first time, which is instrumentalization. And that is, at least as I understand it, correct me if I'm wrong, the notion of using, of other countries, non-EU state actors, using migrants for political purposes. And the, prime example being the 2021 incident where the Belarusian government encouraged migrants from North Africa and the Middle East to come to Belarus and then gave them resources and information to travel to Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, EU countries with which Belarus shares a border to send them into the EU and create a migrant crisis from that direction as an express political move based on disagreements and tension between Belarus and the EU.
So I think this is just a real example of the type of politicization that you were referencing earlier. So what are your thoughts on that aspect of the pact?
We could talk a long time about this and the parallels to what's going on in the U.S. and elsewhere are striking. And I'll deviate there for a second and get back to the EU. But you see it in Texas in particular in two ways. So we've got the very much in the headlines right now, the SB4, the state law in Texas that courts have upheld and then put an injunction against and it's back and forth. But anyway, the constitutional argument that's being made is that basically states can do their own immigration control in the case of an invasion, and that's what's being claimed, right? That justifies it. And so the link to the EU pact is this idea of the crisis, the force majeure, that allows states to, in a sense, deviate or not follow legal norms because they can claim a crisis, and Texas is claiming an invasion.
I would imagine if this pact even gets approved, which is not a sure thing, you'll see a lot of countries claiming crises because of a large influx of migrants for any particular reasons. And they'll use that to justify all kinds of draconian measures. And then of course, any challenges to those measures can take a long time to adjudicate. But in the meantime, people are, whether it's being incarcerated or detained in horrible conditions, whether it's having these expedited procedures where people are deported without any due process, those kinds of things expanded before you can have a court rule that, no, this really wasn't a crisis and these things were wrong, that the damage has been done.
So yeah, that backstop that a lot of countries would rely on in violating the rights of asylum seekers is really troubling and is, I think, a very valid cause of concern from advocates and other critics of the EU pact.
What would be the mechanism for trying to challenge a state's assessment of a crisis situation, to the extent there is one?
Yeah, it's a good question. And EU law and procedure can get a little bit complicated. There are different ways that one could do it. And because of the court system within the EU, but also the domestic court systems where challenges might be tried, particularly if those states have incorporated international law, and including the European Convention on Human Rights, which, which may be applicable. There are treaty bodies that could be possible venues for challenging these practices because what a lot of refugee lawyers in the EU, and in other countries as well, but certainly in the EU, are following, or a basis of the challenge is on human rights grounds. That in addition to violating international refugee law, in terms of giving folks the opportunity to apply for asylum and meet that standard that we talked about earlier, these same practices are violating international human rights law, whether it's the right to be free from torture, whether it's the right to life, whether it's the rights of the child when we're talking about unaccompanied minors or families who are fleeing persecution. So, there are a lot of venues that advocates can use to challenge these practices. The problem is they all take a long time to win their way through the court systems. And as I say, by that time, a lot of the damage has already been done.
And as a matter of standing, do advocacy groups have standing to bring challenges, or do they need an actual individual who has applied for and been denied asylum?
Good question. And typically, yes, the latter. And that makes it more challenging also because then, given how long these processes take, it's not easy to find a claimant who has the wherewithal to see this litigation through. And their concerns are with their own survival and their own family survival in many cases. And for them to stick with litigation throughout the entire process can be very difficult. So that's certainly another hurdle in that advocate space. And unlike the U.S., there's in most EU countries, you don't have the class action mechanism. It makes it a little bit easier in the U.S. to challenge some of the practices where you can find a couple of name plaintiffs who, for a variety of reasons, are able to stay the course a little bit more.
Okay, so I did just want to come back to your point that this hasn't actually passed yet and there are 27 member states of the EU, each of which has to pass it. So what is the thought right now about the likelihood of its passage, or what else might happen over the next month or more as this effort is underway?
Yeah, I think the politics of it will be fascinating. You've already had a statement from governor of Poland that has some serious concerns about it. So, individual states--and I don't know how this is going to fall, whether it's ideological, whether it's economic, because if the border states Italy, Greece, perhaps they'll be more likely to support it if they see it as a means to take some of the pressure off of them. ut then again, if you've got these clauses that allow states to abdicate their responsibilities under EU law, or to just pay some money, but not take in any more refugees, I'm not sure they're going to see that as being in their interest either.
A lot of it depends on how strong immigration advocacy groups are in individual countries. And what we've seen in many of the EU states, including some states traditionally favorably disposed towards migrants, is a much stronger right-wing presence and ability to mobilize against the rights of asylum seekers. They're claiming that in a sense it's the rights of the citizens are being violated now because we've got this influx, this invasion of non-citizens. And that has some political power and we've seen it certainly in the States, we've seen it in other countries. We're seeing it more and more in the EU, including, as I say, in some countries that you wouldn't have expected it in the past, like Sweden.
And am I right that the expectation is that this will move through member states over the next month? There was an expectation that there will be a vote within the next month.
That's correct. That's correct. So there's going to be all kinds of lobbying and political maneuvering and attempts to influence public opinion on this. So yes, it's going to be--and I'm not a good predictor of political outcomes, so I'm not sure what's going to happen. But I suppose even if it doesn't pass, it's just a sign of where things are going and a case study of that. So the politics will be interesting, but even if it doesn't get passed by all of the EU states, the fact that it's gotten this far to many of these draconian measures is, an illustration of how the landscape has changed.
I mean, the EU has been trying to develop a uniform system of asylum for many years, because one of the issues there is the tremendous disparity in the asylum grant rate from country to country. The ideal is it shouldn't matter what country you set foot in and claim asylum. Your chances should be the same wherever it is. And that's just not been true even after the EU developed something called the Common European Asylum System, a decade or so ago, that consciously attempted to make the standards uniform across national boundaries. Didn't work. Hardly changed things at all. But this plan kind of moves away from that. I mean, it doesn't renounce the idea, but it's much more about control of borders and numbers and ways to deflect the migration of large numbers of people, which is unprecedented around the world.
The other thing in terms of the numbers, and you mentioned this disparity between the U.S. and the EU, and the other thing to keep in mind is that the numbers in other parts of the world dwarf the numbers in the EU in terms of migration. The numbers in so-called South to South migration are in the millions, and the countries who are bearing the largest burden of cross-border migration are not in the E.U., certainly, and certainly not the U.S. So that's just in terms of a perspective on this issue that migration to the U.S. and the EU gets a lot of attention in the media, but that's not where most of it is happening.
So yeah, let's open the aperture a little bit. I think first, let's talk about some of the overlaps that you've mentioned, but if there are others you want to comment on, between the EU and the U.S.
Sure, we've touched certainly on some of them with the externalization of borders, and in a sense turning over the responsibility of controlling borders to other countries. And we see this certainly in the safe third country model, which we've seen in the U.S. that the Trump administration introduced when it essentially said that if anyone has come to the U.S. southern border through the northern triangle of Central America, Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala, then they have to be returned to those countries to apply for asylum there because those are safe third countries. Many people didn't really take that very seriously because a lot of people are leaving those countries and applying for asylum in the U.S. and in some cases in Mexico. So it was a bit ironic that they were being described as safe third countries, but anyway, that was the idea.
But now we're seeing the Biden administration has taken a similar approach with migrants from really any countries that they pass through on the way to the U.S. if they haven't applied for asylum in those countries. And not just the Northern Triangle of Central America, they can be denied asylum in the U.S. So you've got countries throughout Latin America, for example, that are setting up systems to supposedly allow folks to apply for asylum as if they were in the U.S. Whether this is actually going to happen, who knows. But again, it's an effort by the U.S. to externalize the border and foist the responsibility under international law onto these other countries.
And you have the examples in the UK of the Rwanda policy, as it's called, where folks who are intercepted at sea on their way across the English Channel from France--the proposal hasn't happened yet because it's been stopped by advocates in the courts. But anyway, the idea is they don't get to come to the UK, they're going to be shipped to Rwanda, which is alleged to be a safe third country. And of course, Rwanda is receiving lots of money in exchange for that policy. Australia has been doing offshore resettlement of refugees for years and years. Countries borrow these ideas from each other. There's, in some sense, nothing new here, but we just see it repeated in various contexts around the world.
And then in the U.S. you have this interesting phenomenon now where individual states, Texas is taking the lead on this, are saying, “We're going to enforce immigration law on our own because the federal government isn't doing it.” I don't know of other examples of that, but it's part of the unique federal system that we have in the U.S. where individual states are taking this upon themselves.
But these offshore practices, the safe third country, these are happening all over and will continue to happen. Because again, it's a way to prevent people from getting to the country of refuge where they can, at least in theory, access that asylum system and make their claim.
Yeah, and I think this is reflective in the rhetoric, right, that we talk now in the U.S., and it sounds like also in the EU, about what's deemed “border security,” which is effectively making reforms to the ability of people to access or introduce themselves into the asylum system, rather than reforms to the system itself to try to make it better or more efficient. I will just note also from my venture into the immigration system while I was practicing, the backup of immigration courts is completely staggering. And you may have some of the statistics off the top of your head, but to the extent listeners are not familiar with the fact that immigration courts are years and years, and sometimes decades, behind being able to actually adjudicate claims. It is an important piece of the context to understand.
I did want to turn also back to your point that, in fact, despite the fact that the EU and the U.S. and other Western countries are the subject of most of the attention, that they are actually not the countries receiving and trying to accommodate the largest influx of migrants. So can you speak to those countries and what the challenges look like there?
Right. So some examples are Lebanon, Jordan, some of the countries in the Middle East who have had to absorb millions of migrants from Syria in particular. And in those countries, first of all, just the sheer numbers--and I don't have them off the top of my head--but the percentage of noncitizens in those countries is staggering compared to what we're seeing in the West. And some of the countries are not signatories to the Refugee Convention. It's a much more informal system, if there's a system at all. The borders are, in many cases, relatively porous. And so, in those countries, there's a similar breakdown to any notion of a formal system of applying for or obtaining asylum. In most cases, people are just crossing the border to achieve some safety, but any notion of an enduring or durable solution is pretty much off the table in many of those situations.
And in terms of any global response, there was a global agreement on migration a few years ago with burden-sharing and trying to get wealthier states to pay more to the less wealthy states who are bearing the disproportionate burden of migration. But those agreements are very aspirational and haven't really changed things in any significant way.
And I know there have been efforts also on climate migration, which we've talked about a couple of times as well.
Yeah, climate migration is, that's the next wave in a sense. And that obviously, because climate change isn't going to reverse itself anytime soon. So the migration that results from that, and again, climate change can exacerbate already existing forces that drive people to leave their homeland. That is going to require, I think, a whole new thinking about what we mean by asylum. Because in many cases, if folks are going to the West to seek refuge, those are the states who are actually creating the conditions that made them flee in terms of carbon emissions and other things that contribute so heavily to climate global warming. So it almost flips it on its head. And so, who's the persecutor in that case? And who are you escaping from if the persecutor is actually the country that you're arriving in?
So I think there has to be some creative thinking about this. Some scholars are doing that. They're thinking about it more in terms of the laws of displacement and giving people, whether it's temporary protection. That would include things like the right to work, the right to health care. Not necessarily, again, what we think of as the durable solution of asylum, which absolutely prevents people from being returned to their homeland.
Because again, that process takes a lot of time. You're absolutely right about the delays in the U.S. system. And one example that I use is when I started here at the University of Minnesota doing asylum cases, about 13 or 14 years ago, it was ideal for a law clinic situation because you could be pretty confident you could start and end a case within an academic year, which would give students a great learning experience and opportunity to help someone in need. That's virtually impossible now, as you said, your experience. These cases go on for years. They're still good learning experiences for students, but the idea that this could be a one academic year experiences is virtually impossible now. So it takes years and years. And that's going to get worse and worse as migration continues.
So I do think there has to be some more creative thinking. And as I say, some people are doing it, but we may have to think somewhat differently about what protection from harm means. And maybe it's a movement away from the focus on the individual, proving that they themselves are being targeted for persecution. And again, that's the model from the Refugee Convention and the post-World War II model or vision of how the system would work. And more to a group-based determination system that people are fleeing, let's say climate change from a particular country, a particular region. That would be enough to afford some form of protection.
Some countries are doing this, some isolated examples, but Uganda affords per se refugee status to folks from South Sudan. All they have to prove is their South Sudanese citizenship, and they are entitled to resettle in Uganda. Now, Uganda has gotten a lot of international accolades for that and some money, etc, etc. So, I mean in addition, besides humanitarianism, there's certainly some other motivations there. But again, these are the things that I think people are starting to look at. Some countries are. But it's going to take a sea change, I think, in terms of how we view protection for refugees. And I think climate change is going to be responsible for that. It's going to force countries to act in some way because it's just going to be too monumental a problem.
Are there any aspects, do you think, of rethinking or reframing or implementing major reforms to the global or international law understanding of asylum that are achievable in the short term?
That's a huge question. One area of international law or concept of international law that some scholars are looking at in the context of climate refugees, and other areas for that matter, is the idea of non-refoulement, which in a sense is the basis for asylum. And it says that individuals cannot be returned to life-threatening situations or situations where they're going to be subject to other forms of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. It doesn't guarantee or provide any guarantee a durable solution in the sense that if things get better in home country, then those folks could be returned. But it's the idea that you can't send folks back.
That I think, and reliance on that in terms of a variety of measures, whether it's temporary work permits, which also afford healthcare, temporary but renewable. Colombia is doing this in response to the large influx of Venezuelans over the past decade or so now. Again, not asylum where folks receive a pathway to permanent immigration status in their country of refuge. But certainly in a place like Colombia, where the asylum system is overwhelmed and takes forever to go through, many migrants, they're rational actors, they're opting for these temporary permits because they just want to get into a safe situation. They want to be able to work. They want to be able to take care of their families. So they're going to go for that temporary solution. Again, it's often renewable and also helps the host country in terms of its economy.
And that's the other piece of this. We talked about the policy of it, then there's the economics. And people have been talking about this for a long time. A lot of advocates say immigrants help the economy. We have an aging workforce around the country, particularly in some of the wealthier states, including the U.S. We have labor shortages. Immigrants, migrants, asylum seekers could help to fill that. That seems to be falling on deaf ears in the political world, but it makes a lot of sense economically. Germany, actually, in its initial response to the so-called Syrian refugee crisis in 2015, around that time, they had a very open policy. And part of the reason for that was because they recognized they had an aging workforce that they needed to re-energize. And the migrants helped them do that. They backtracked from that since then.
But I think an enlightened governmental policy would recognize that in addition to protecting the human rights of refugees and asylum seekers, there are ways to abide by their international law obligations that can actually help them in a more self-interested and economic way. The politicization of it makes that argument difficult for many governments to abide by or to follow in making policy. Maybe that'll change, but I don't see it happening soon, unfortunately.
Okay, we are going to have to leave it there. Steve Meili, thank you so much for joining me.
Thanks very much, Natalie.
The Lawfare Podcast is produced in cooperation with the Brookings Institution. You can get ad-free versions of this and other Lawfare podcasts by becoming a Lawfare material supporter at our website Lawfaremedia.org/support. You'll also get access to special events and other content available only to our supporters. Please rate and review us wherever you get your podcasts.
Look out for our other podcasts, including Rational Security, Chatter, Allies, and The Aftermath, our latest Lawfare Presents podcast series on the government's response to January 6th. Check out our written work at lawfaremedia.org.
The podcast is edited by Jen Patja, and your audio engineer this episode was Noam Osband of Goat Rodeo. Our music is performed by Sophia Yan. As always, thank you for listening.


text:
Healthy communities start at home! At NBCC, we believe that the health of our community is measured by the quality of our relationships. What better place to start than within our own families?
Because building healthy Christian relationships is a core priority of our church, we provide marriage and family outreach, meant to strengthen and support our congregation. The more empowered our families are, the more brightly they can reflect Christ within the home and in the surrounding communities. What God wants us to accomplish as a church we can only do together!
In the form, check "Married" for the area of interest.
If you are interested in leading a Married Life Group (small group), you can learn more on the Life Groups page.

domain: sociology


text:
Metro police detectives are busy fielding tip calls after the release of new information in the Tabitha Tuders case.
How your house compares to the county average will tell you if your property tax will go up or down.
Slick roads remain a concern into Thursday morning as temperatures in the 20s won’t rise until about midday.
Strong winds fed the flames into the attic, causing fire personnel to retreat and fight the flames from the outside.
It was reported at the Market Street Apartments at 150 Second Avenue North before 8 p.m.
A house subcommittee approved bill 1560, allowing district attorneys to request bodies be exhumed and autopsies ordered.
Before teaching in at Portland High School, Glenda Brinkley was an educator in Hendersonville.
And any major tuition hike would have to gain unanimous approval by the school’s governing board.
Pastor Pam Smith placed a cross of ashes on worshipper’s foreheads as they passed by.
Anne talked to the mostly-female audience through the challenges and rewards of her journey.
Royal Caribbean’s Anthem of the Seas is scheduled to dock at Bayonne’s Cape Liberty at 9 p.m. Wednesday.
There have been several crashes and people abandoning vehicles because of the icy, hilly stretch of Burkitt Road in Cane Ridge.
Video obtained by News 2 shows the two poachers, Densibel Calazada and Eddy Albert, in action.
The civil-rights lawsuit filed by the Justice Department alleged that Ferguson routinely violated residents’ rights and misused law enforcem…
Quinton Laster, 20, was arrested Tuesday after police found the bodies of Sharon Reed, 59, and James Earl Reed, 78.
Kentucky lawmakers have proposed two marriage license forms, one designed for gay couples and another for straight couples.
It’s called the Residential Sewer Service Repair or Replacement Program, or RSSRRP.
Katkeo Sayavongsa was discovered unresponsive inside his cell at the Crittenden County Detention Center just after 10:30 a.m. Tuesday.

domain: law


text:
The Arakan Liberation Party (ALP) and its armed wing, the Arakan Liberation Army, signed a preliminary ceasefire with the Rakhine State government in April 2012 before joining seven other ethnic armed groups in inking the nationwide ceasefire agreement (NCA) in October 2015.
Nineteen representatives from the ALP are currently attending the second session of the Union Peace Conference, also known as the 21st-Century Panglong Conference, in Nay Pyi Taw.
KIC News sat down with U Khaing Soe Naing Aung, vice chair of the ALP and leader of the ALP’s delegation to the conference, to talk about what the ALP hopes to discuss at the event and what can be achieved through these conferences. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Q: Why did the ALP decide to attend the 21st-Century Panglong Conference? What did you do to prepare in advance?
A: The decision to hold the 21st-Century Panglong [Conference] on May 24, 2017 was announced at the JICM [the Joint Implementation Coordination Meeting in April]. This same meeting didn’t allow the ALP to hold a national-level political dialogue, but did allow the RCSS to hold one. They didn’t allow the RCSS to hold [the dialogue] at the venue [of their choice], but instead allowed the RCSS to hold it only within areas under its control where there are just 30 or 40 houses. So the RCSS didn’t hold it. As for the ALP, State Counsellor Daw Aung San Suu Kyi said Arakan State is a sensitive region so it’s not easy to allow us to hold a national-level political dialogue…We submitted our request three times but it wasn’t accepted.
We discussed not attending the conference if political parties and social organizations from Arakan State had no desire to attend it. But, we also knew the other seven signatory groups would be attending the Union Peace Conference.
An emergency meeting of the PPST (Peace Process Steering Team) was held on May 13 and 14. At the meeting, we discussed the need for the NCA signatory groups to present a unified voice, which was hard since the ALP was not allowed to hold the national-level political dialogue. I pressed for us to be allowed to hold the national-level political dialogue in a suitable place since the Union Peace Conference was drawing nearer. The leaders of all eight NCA signatory groups, including the ABSDF (All Burma Students’ Democratic Front), wrote a letter to the State Counsellor. A copy of the letter was also sent to Commander-in-Chief Senior General Min Aung Hlaing. Another copy was sent to the [Peace] committee’s chair. But, this letter hasn’t been answered yet.
[So we thought] what could we submit to the second session of the 21st-Century Union Peace Conference when we couldn’t hold the national-level political dialogue? There’s nothing to submit. We could choose not to attend the conference. But, some ethnic groups such as the Karen, PaO, Chin, and the ABSDF have held their national-level political dialogues so they have something to submit. We [are attending] the 21st-Century Panglong Conference in order to show support for and contribute to the efforts of all ethnic people.
Q: Which topics will the ALP discuss at the conference?
A: As I have said, we have nothing to submit since we have not held a national-level political dialogue…We were told that we could still submit [a paper] from our party. So, I’m thinking about discussing the requirements in establishing a genuine federal Union. There needs to be a distribution of power between the central government and the state governments in a federal Union. When our federal Union is built, it will need to be a genuine federal Union that is built on the desires and views of the ethnic people such as the Shan, the Kachin, the Karenni, the Arakan, and the Mon people.
Q: Among three groups in Rakhine State – the ALP, the Arakan Army (AA) and the Arakan National Council (ANC) – the remaining two groups have not signed the ceasefire. How will the ALP cooperate with them?
A: All stakeholders need to be involved in the conference if they want peace. I have met with Senior General Min Aung Hlaing and the State Counsellor two or three times. The Tatmadaw especially needs to be broadminded. Everyone needs to be involved.
Q: What outcomes can be expected from the Union Peace Conference, or the 21st-Century Panglong Conference, if it does not involve input from all ethnic people? What does the ALP expect?
A: I don’t think there will be a good outcome from the Panglong Conference. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has said the conference will be held twice a year during her four-year term. The KNPP is not attending it. Other groups might not attend it as well. That’s why the upcoming conference cannot give a beneficial or even comprehensive perspective on nation-building. The eight signatory group will try to approve policies that can be accepted by everyone, while not accepting points or polices that are less commonly acceptable.
What I want to say is that this peace process won’t end quickly. If I were to quote Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, at least 75 percent [of all groups] need to participate. The country can be built if only there is a minimum of 75 percent participation. Burma’s independence was gained with only the Shan, the Kachin, the Chin and the Burmese. Peace wasn’t obtained even though a country was forged.
Q: The 21st-Century Panglong Conference has been criticized for following a roadmap laid by the previous government and the Tatmadaw. What’s your opinion on this?
A: This was pointed out in a speech given by General Mutu Say Poe at the JICM meeting held on April 24. What he has pointed out is true, but I don’t care. I believe we should not act hastily. Unity needs to be built between the NCA signatory groups and the non-signatory groups. If there is unity between the EAOs [ethnic armed organization], they will not cave to international pressure or public pressure [and agree to things that] don’t fulfill our demands…The EAOs need to unite and strive together. Otherwise [peace] will prove elusive.
Q: Critics say that no matter how many political dialogues are held in Myanmar, there is less chance of affecting peace without amending the 2008 Constitution. What’s your view on this?
A: Yes, we understand that every action we make for the peace process under the 2008 Constitution has been met with difficulties. All the eight EAOs who signed the ceasefire understand this. Members of the public who want democracy understand this. The Burmese understand this and other ethnic people understand this. In international experts’ view, the 2008 Constitution is a constitution that protects and prolongs military dictatorship. They have pointed out that we need to try to change it using various methods. These international experts advised us to make changes like what occurred in Indonesia. They told us that we need to make the changes slowly over time. It took over 20 years for Indonesia to gain a civilian government and good governance. Experts have advised us to follow this pattern. It won’t be easy.
Q: What should be done to make the Union Peace Conference all-inclusive?
A: It’s difficult to make it all-inclusive. But we need to start with policies that are accepted by everyone. Then, we need to take the time to negotiate the policies that are not agreed by everyone. We need to use the force of the public and the international [community to our advantage]. The military generals from the Tatmadaw need to relax some of their concerns. If we can do this, [peace] will be closer.
Q: Anything else you want to add about the Union Peace Conference?
A: Decisions on issues that are common understanding between the ethnic people need to be set down at this conference. The public and international countries need to show support. We need to amplify the voice of the CSOs and women. Only then can we mature this process.
Translated by Thida Linn
Edited by Laignee Barron


text:
Introducing the Gray Dream Short Set - the cozy solution for neutral color palettes. Crafted with buttery soft bamboo material, this ride-or-die short set is *bound* to keep you comfortable (and stylish) all day long. Make your dreams a reality in this one of a kind statement piece!
Made from the softest and most breathable seasonal bamboo viscose material, your babe won't want to take this off! Designed for all the love and extra snuggles! Sleep and play with zero irritation with our tag-less DreamyZzz!
All dreamyZzz items are snug fit to meet CPSC compliance
Sizes available: 6-12M, 12-18M, 18-24M, 2T, 3T, 4T, 5/6, 7/8. Runs true to size. Please refer to size chart for detailed measurements.
Material: 95% Bamboo from viscose; 5% spandex
Machine wash cold
All items listed are RTS and will ship within 3-4 business days of purchase

domain: design


text:
Douglas R. CookUniversity of California, Davis, USAProfessor, Department of Plant Pathology
Director, Feed the Future Innovation Lab Climate Resilient Chickpea
Director, NSF Project
Dr. Douglas Cook is a Professor at the University of California-Davis in the Department of Plant Pathology. He is currently Director of the Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Climate Resilient Chickpea, funded by US Agency for International Development, and Principal Investigator of a National Science Foundation Plant Genome Research Program project to investigate the impact of domestication on nitrogen fixation in chickpea. He received his doctoral degree from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in bacterial genetics in the Department of Plant Pathology and conducted postdoctoral research at the Carnegie Institution of Washington’s Department of Embryology at The Johns Hopkins University. He served on the faculty of Texas A&M University from 1992-2000, prior to joining UC Davis, and as an adjunct Professor of International Graduate School in Bioinformatics and Genome Research at the Universitat Bielefeld in Germany from 2002-2008. He was among a small group of colleagues who together pioneered the use of Medicago truncatula as a model genetic and genomic system for investigation of legume biology. For the past decade he has been a leading advocate for the application of basic legume science towards pressing agricultural needs in the developing world. His current research spans model and crop legume systems, with a dual focus on (1) forward genetics, biochemistry and cell biology to characterize genes governing symbiotic development in M. truncatula, and (2) ecological genomics and association genetics to understand gene function in complex natural and agricultural legume systems.
Dr. Varma Penmetsa a legume biologist/molecular geneticist at the University of California-Davis. His academic background spans both applied and basic plant sciences, from a BS program in Agricultural Science (GB Pant University, India), and graduate degrees in Crop Science (MS, Virginia Tech) and Genetics (PhD, Texas A&M University).
He has a longstanding engagement in basic research in legumes, particularly in molecular genetics of symbiotic development in the model legume Medicago truncatula. More recently he has been involved in comparative genetics and genomics of crop legumes with the goal of improving molecular/genomic resources in legume crops, particularly those of relevance to the developing regions of the world. This later work was conducted in collaboration with an international network of partners. Recent and current research activities are aimed at defining the genetic architecture and molecular cloning of genes underlying domestication and agronomic traits in several food crop legumes.
Dr. Brendan Riely is an Assistant Scientist working in the Cook Lab at the University of California-Davis. He received a BS in Broad Field Natural Science with a minor in biology (University of Wisconsin-Madison) and a PhD in Agronomy (Purdue University) before joining the Cook Lab as a post-doctoral researcher.
His primary research interests center around Molecular Plant-Microbe interactions. As a graduate student he investigated molecular mechanisms of pathogen recognition and disease resistance in tomato. Since joining the Cook lab, he has been engaged in elucidating the signaling pathways that regulate symbiotic nitrogen fixation in the model legume Medicago truncatula. He has recently joined the chickpea project where he will assist in germplasm development in addition to investigating the impact of domestication on symbiotic recognition.
Ms. Betsy Alford joins the Cook lab after working in industry researching microbial metabolism. During her time at Codexis, she served as a molecular biologist and analytical chemist on a project to produce mid chain fatty alcohols by fermenting cellulosic sugars. At Solazyme, she provided molecular biology support leading to the first microbially derived renewable diesel fuel registered with the EPA. Subsequently, she contributed to successful regulatory filings with both the United States and Brazilian governments. Betsy passionately believes that energy and food security are paramount to achieving social stability, and has focused her industrial and academic career to support these aims. She returns to UC Davis for her PhD after receiving her bachelor’s degree in Plant Biotechnology from UC Davis in 2004 followed by a master’s degree in Plant Pathology from University of Maine. She will be studying the interrelationship between native and cultivated chickpeas with their respective microbial communities.
Mr. Lijalem Balcha is a PhD student in the Institute of Biotechnology, Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia. He has been working as a researcher in the Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR) based at Debre Zeit Research Center in the crop research division. He received his BS in Plant Sciences from Alemaya University, Ethiopia and his Masters from the Universiteit Ghent, Belgium on Molecular Biotechnology. During his masters study, he particularly conducted genetic diversity and bio-chemical analysis of the Ethiopian grasspea (Lathyrus sativus L.) landraces and conducted in vitro experiments for Lathyrus regeneration protocol development and transformation using Agrobacterium-mediated gene transfer using floral dip method. He has served EIAR as legumes researcher in general and chickpea and lentil breeder in particular since 2001 in the Legumes Research Program.
His current PhD thesis entitled “Genetic Improvement of Ethiopian Chickpea Cultivars through Reverse Introgression of High-yielding and Climate-resilient Genes from Wild Accessions” is among the key milestones of the Feed the Future Innovation Lab Project. He is focusing on development of robust chickpea populations combining wild background on normalized elite cultivars, and establish phenotyping-genotyping research platforms leading towards the development of climate-resilient chickpea cultivars. His role in Cook’s lab at UC Davis is to work on hybridization of wild chickpea accessions with elite Ethiopian chickpea cultivars for population development and genotyping of F-generations.
Mr. Dagnachew Bekele is a PhD student in the Institute of Biotechnology (IOB), Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia with full sponsorship of USAID Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Climate Resilient Chickpea Project of the University of California, Davis, USA. He received his BSc degree in plant science from Hawassa University, and his MSc degree in Applied Genetics from Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia. He has also a European double MSc degree from University Copenhagen, Denmark and University of Catania, Italy. Before his study leave, he had been working as a researcher in Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural research (EIAR) on Chickpea and Lentil Breeding and Genetics based on Debre Zeit Research Center. Within USAID Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Climate Resilient Chickpea project, his current PhD thesis research mainly focuses on Genomics-assisted resistance breeding to improve Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) Fusarium wilt (Fusariumoxysporum f.sp.ciceris) and Ascochyta blight (Ascochyta rabiei) tolerance/resistance, in which he has strong passion to build his academic career.
Ms. Noelia Carrasquilla-Garcia conducts research on legume genomics and molecular biology to help identify genome regions and/or genes associated with several plant phenotypes. A current thrust activity is reduced representation sequencing via Restriction site Associated DNA (RAD) and high-throughput sequencing in several ongoing projects in chickpea and lentil. Additional research activities include preparation of whole genome (NGS) libraries for (re)sequencing, and functional analysis via quantitative gene expression (q-PCR) assays.
In addition to this research activity, Noelia maintains and provides training for equipment in the lab (3730xl DNA analyzer, Bioanalyzer and SPE confocal system) and guides lab members in genomics protocols and methods. Noelia is also responsible for coordinating all laboratory safety requirements and training of laboratory personnel.
She received her B.S. in Biology at the University of Alicante in Spain and her Advanced Studies Diploma (current day equivalent to M.S.) in Biotechnology & Molecular Biology at the University Polytechnic of Valencia in Spain.
Mr. Peter Chang is a Computational Biologist at the University of California-Davis in the Plant Pathology department. He is part of a US NSF Plant PGRP project to investigate the impact of domestication on nitrogen fixation in chickpea. As a team member of the concurrent Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Climate Resilient Chickpea, funded by the US Agency for International Development, Peter manages and analyzes genomic data from collections found around the world. Peter leverages his genomic expertise to analysis in other organisms studied in the Cook lab, such as Medicago truncatula, Lens culinaris and Mesorhizobia. His current research focuses on characterizing genomic changes that are beneficial for a population's adaptation to stress environments, such nickel tolerance in bacteria and salt, drought, and metal tolerance in plants. Dr. Chang received his doctoral degree from the University of Southern California, characterizing the long term effects of gene duplicates in Arabidopsis polyploids.
Ms. Zehara Mohammed is a PhD student in the School of Graduate Studies, Faculty of Life Sciences, Department of Cellular and Molecular Biology at Addis Ababa University in Ethiopia. She received her Bachelor’s degree in Forestry from Wondo Genet College of Forestry, Debub University, and her Master’s degree in Dryland Agronomy from Mekelle University. She has worked at the Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research as a researcher on Weed Science since April 2011. Her PhD research is funded by USAID's Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Climate Resilient Chickpea. Her studies focus on the genomic and functional diversity of Ethiopia’s endemic Mesorhizobium species that nodulate chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Towards that end, Mesorhizobium strains and DNA were collected systematically from the major chickpea growing areas of Ethiopia. Analysis of these strains is expected to provide the basis for improving nitrogen fixation and enhancing productivity in Ethiopia’s chickpea production systems. Moreover, the outcomes of these efforts are expected to complement the project’s breeding efforts on climate resilience in chickpea, including climate resilient nitrogen-fixation. Optimizing chickpea's ability to partner with efficient nitrogen fixing bacteria in the genus Mesorhizobium is expected to be a key strategy to enhance chickpea's role in Ethiopian agriculture.
Mr. Alex Greenspan is a PhD student in the department of Plant Pathology at the University of California, Davis. His doctoral research focuses on the genomic and phenotypic diversity of chickpea’s nitrogen-fixing bacterial symbionts of the genus Mesorhizobium. This research incorporates bioinformatics and microbial genomics with experimental methods in plant science and microbiology with the goal of understanding the factors that affect nodulation in chickpea, how the symbiosis varies geographically, and how it can be managed agriculturally.
Alex cut his scientific teeth at the University of Colorado where he obtained a bachelor’s degree in Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology and conducted research in culture-independent microbial ecology in the lab of Norm Pace. The Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Climate Resilient Chickpea offered Alex the perfect opportunity to match his background in microbiology with his inordinate fondness for hummus.
Ms. Susan Moenga is a Ph.D. student in the Plant Biology Program at the University of California-Davis. Her research is supported jointly by a fellowship from the Legume Innovation Lab at Michigan State University and by the Global Crop Diversity Trust. Within the Chickpea Innovation Lab her research aims to understand the physiological and molecular mechanisms of drought tolerance in wild chickpea.
Her research involves subjecting plants to low soil moisture and then assessing their performance relative to modern elite cultivars. Early results from her work suggest that wild species are more conservative for water use than are cultivated varieties, an observation that has potentially important implications for chickpea crop improvement. Among her objectives are to identify the genomic basis of drought resilience traits and to use this information to guide gene introgression into high-yielding cultivars.
Susan joined UC Davis in 2014 as an MSc student intern from Wageningen University. During her internship at UC Davis, she studied phenotypic diversity and patterns of local adaptation in wild Cicer populations.
While in Wageningen, Susan studied with Professor Ton Bisselling in the Department of Molecular Biology, where she investigated the genetic basis of nitrogen fixation traits in Parasponia. She received her undergraduate degree from Kenyatta University in Kenya. Prior to obtaining her MSc in the Netherlands, Susan worked on the Water Efficient Maize for Africa project, developing drought tolerant corn varieties.
Ms. Laura M. Perilla-Henao is a Ph.D. student at the UCD Plant Pathology department. She obtained her B.S. Cum laude in Biology from Universidad Militar Nueva Granada and her M.Sc. in Biochemistry from Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Her research experience has been built in plant breeding and plant pathology. Her broader interests are the technological transfer of biotechnology for improving agriculture in the tropics as well as the education as a motor for transforming society. In Cook Lab, her current research project is the study of domestication-driven traits as nitrogen responsiveness in chickpea.
Ms. Zahra Samiezade-Yazd is an undergraduate student in the College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences at the University of California, Davis where she is pursuing a B.S in Global Disease Biology. She is a member of Doug Cook’s lab in the Department of Plant Pathology where she is researching the genetics of chickpea resistance to Fusarium wilt, a disease caused by the fungal plant pathogen Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. ciceris.
Mr. Syed Gul Abbas Shah Sani is a Ph.D Scholar in the Plant Sciences Department, Quaid-i-Azam University Islamabad Pakistan. He received his Bachelor degree in Agricultural Sciences from Agriculture University Faisalabad,and his Masters from Gomal University D.I Khan Pakistan.During his master degree he particularly conducted pathogenic diversity in Ascochyta Raiei isolates collected from Pakistan. He recently join Cook’s Lab to conduct his Ph.D research. His role in Cook’s lab at UC Davis is to work on hybridization of wild chickpea accessions (donor) with elite Pakistani chickpea cultivars (recipient) and genotyping of F-generations of chickpea populations.
Ms. Shraddha Suman is a graduate student in the M.S. Forensic Science program at the University of California-Davis. She obtained her BS in Biochemistry with Molecular Biology and a Minor in Music from UC Davis as well. During her undergraduate education, she was exposed to the world of plant research via her internships with Dr. Bradford (lettuce seed dormancy), and Dr. Bostock (plant pathology). Her current research deals with the genotyping of chickpea seeds.
Lisa Vance is currently a Junior Specialist in Doug Cook’s lab in the Department of Plant Pathology at the University of California, Davis. She received her bachelor’s degree in Biological Sciences with an emphasis in Evolution and Ecology from the University of California, Davis in 2011. She worked in the Department of Plant Pathology (Cook Lab) and Department of Environmental Science and Policy (Grosholz Lab) as an undergraduate student. In the summer of 2009, she participated in the university’s Bodega Marine Laboratory program where she conducted a short research project looking at thermal stress in purple sea urchins. In her time with the Cook Lab she has helped with projects focusing on Medicago truncatula and Cicer spp. with some fieldwork in Portugal and India to aid with the harvest and data collection for these projects. Lisa provides a supporting role for the post-docs and researchers in the lab, as well as maintaining greenhouse activities and communication with greenhouse managers for care of project plants.
Mr. Sultan Mohammed Yimer is a doctoral student affiliated with the Chickpea Innovation Lab, jointly sponsored by the International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), the U.S. Agency for International Development and the 2Blades Foundation. His research focuses on developing genetic resources to combat the Fusarium wilt pathogen of chickpea.
Before joining the project, Mr. Yimer had surveyed a significant portion of chickpea’s cultivated area in Ethiopia, collecting pathogen isolates for analysis. His role in the Chickpea Innovation Lab is to characterize the diversity of this pathogen collection and to use that knowledge to screen germplasm for broad disease resistance traits and ultimately to breed for durable resistance.
Mr. Yimer received his Bachelor degree in Biology and his MSC in Botanical Science from Bahir Dar University, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia, and from 2011 he served as a lecturer and researcher in the Department of Biology at Woldia University, Ethiopia. He is currently a Ph.D. candidate in Plant Pathology in the Department of Plant Science at Haromaya University in Ethiopia. As part of his doctoral training he is conducting a research internship at the University of California Davis, gaining familiarity with fungal genomics, bioinformatics and disease resistance phenotyping.

domain: biology


text:
Sustainable Asset Valuation (SAVi) Tool: Helping Governments and Investors See the Value of Sustainable Infrastructure
Roads, bridges, power plants and other forms of infrastructure are critical to a functioning and sustainable economy. They are also extremely costly: the global infrastructure need through 2030 is estimated to be a whopping USD 90 trillion.
Infrastructure locks in land use, design, technologies and capital for decades. It will therefore be a missed opportunity if these assets are not planned, designed, procured and financed in a manner that optimises environmental stewardship, builds skills and crowds-in domestic businesses and investors.
The argument for investing in sustainable infrastructure is strong: planning and deploying a project to optimise environmental, social, economic performance reduces risk and enhances financial attractiveness. The design of our infrastructure also needs to change in order to help cities and nations adapt to the impacts of climate change and use infrastructure as trigger for more inclusive growth. Sustainable projects can accelerate economic development by triggering technological and industrial innovation and creating more long-term employment than business-as-usual infrastructure.
Yet prevailing financial valuation methodologies often favor business-as-usual infrastructure projects as they can entail lower upfront capital costs, fewer technology risks and shorter project preparation periods. Governments often don’t have the expertise or time to plan and tender for sustainable infrastructure.
IISD has developed a Sustainable Asset Valuation (Savi) tool to help governments and investors assess the true costs–and risks–associated with infrastructure projects in order to make better decisions.
As a baseline, SAVi provides an assessment of the Total-Cost-of-Ownership and financial feasibility of individual infrastructure projects, from highways and solar parks to buildings and irrigation projects. The financial feasibility analysis includes the pricing of environmental, social and economic performance in order to give governments and investors a clear and detailed picture of how and why a sustainable infrastructure project is more financially attractive.
The added value of SAVi, however, is its ability to identify and price the broader co-benefits that sustainable infrastructure brings to the domestic economy: enhanced GDP, avoided spending on pollution clean-up and public health services, more jobs, the opportunity to up-skill and much more. Governments and investors can then make infrastructure decisions based on the total value created by projects and not simply on the financial feasibility at the point of procurement. When a project is planned and deployed to create net value, the project is automatically de-risked across its entire life cycle. In other words, SAVi shows why sustainability and profitability in infrastructure go hand in hand.
SAVi also assesses project risks under three different climate change scenarios, such as the number of days a coal plant would need to shut down due to increased air temperatures and decreased water availability.
IISD seeks to work with policy makers, project developers, sponsors and investors, to assess the climate and other environmental, social, economic and governance risks of their projects, portfolios and project pipelines.
Governments and cities can use the results generated by SAVi to:
- Demonstrate the business case for sustainable infrastructure
- Implement policies that promote sustainable infrastructure and reward front-runners
- Prepare and procure sustainable infrastructure projects
- Develop infrastructure pipelines taking into account the environmental, social and economic co-benefits and avoided costs of individual projects
- Report on how the development and expansion of infrastructure supports the realization of national Sustainable Development Goals and National Climate Change Adaption Plans.
Investors can use the results generated by SAVi to:
- Understand why sustainable infrastructure can generate more attractive financial returns
- Identify and price a range of environmental, social, economic and governance risks that are currently not being accounted for
- Assess, disclose and monitor how climate risks are effecting infrastructure portfolios.The Financial Stability Boards has recommended that all investors identify, assess and disclose the risks of climate change on their portfolios including infrastructure assets.
- Report on how infrastructure investments are contributing towards low carbon and sustainable development
IISD can provide assistance in the following areas:
- Work with governments and cities to prioritize and deploy infrastructure projects based on their environmental, social, economic and governance (ESEG) risks, co-benefits and avoided costs
- Work with investors to analyse their infrastructure portfolios and prepare climate and other ESEG-related risks and opportunities mapping
- Customize SAVi to fit a specific portfolio, run different scenarios to assess potential impact stemming from climate-related risks and opportunities, demonstrate relevance to realizing SDGs
- Assess and report on how infrastructure projects contribute toward realizing sustainable development gaols
- Assist in preparing climate and other ESEG-related risks disclosure
For more information please contact:
For a deep dive into SAVi, please view our interactive presentation:
Sustainable Asset Valuation Tool: Water infrastructureTechnical background document for the Sustainable Asset Valuation Tool of IISD (SAVi) for water infrastructure. Read More
Sustainable Asset Valuation Tool: RoadsTechnical background document for the Sustainable Asset Valuation Tool of IISD (SAVi) for road infrastructure. Read More
Sustainable Asset Valuation Tool: Energy infrastructureTechnical background document for the Sustainable Asset Valuation Tool of IISD (SAVi) for energy infrastructure. Read More
Sustainable Asset Valuation Tool: BuildingsTechnical background document for the Sustainable Asset Valuation Tool of IISD (SAVi) for buildings. Read More
Sustainable Asset Valuation (SAVi) Tool brochureThis brochure highlights IISD's Sustainable Asset Valuation (SAVi) Tool, which helps governments assess the finanical impact of climate and other environmental, social, ecnomic and governance risks on infrastructure. Read More
How to Implement Strategic, Smart, Sustainable Public ProcurementPublic procurement is “not a back-office function anymore, but a crucial pillar for delivering government services, and a strategic one for tackling climate change.” Read More

domain: finance


text:
“... The Shadowblade tier was most likely based on Geist's, with this kind of undead being the...Shadowblade's Battlegear
“The Dark Coven tier was most likely inspired by the Cultists of The Cult of the Damned in...Dark Coven's Regalia
“Ahn'Kahar Blood Hunter's Battlegear is the lower hunter tier 10 set. Note that items from the...Ahn'Kahar Blood Hunter's Battlegear
“Ymirjar Lord's Plate is the low end Tier 10 set for DPS Warriors. Note that items from the...Ymirjar Lord's Battlegear
“ Sanctified Bloodmage's Regalia1,500 Armor +623 Intellect +623 Stamina Meta Socket Red Socket x1...Sanctified Bloodmage's Regalia (heroic)
This category has the following 19 subcategories, out of 19 total.
Pages in category "Tier 10 armor sets"
The following 66 pages are in this category, out of 66 total.

domain: hobby


ISLAMABAD: Islamabad High Court has postponed the local government elections in the federal capital as the ECP has sought time to complete the delimitation process.
The IHC issued the order during the hearing of petitions filed Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) and Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) for the postponement of local bodies elections in Islamabad. IHC Chief Justice Athar Minallah was hearing the case.
The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) told the court that the commission will first complete the delimitation of the constituencies then the schedule for the LG elections will be issued within 60 days.
The commission told the court that the government create hindrances in holding local bodies elections. It requested the court to order them to cooperate with the commission and fulfil its constitutional operation.
The court remarked that the petitions by the PPP and the PML-N has now become ineffective.
It ordered the ECP to complete the delimitation and issue new schedule for the LG elections in the federal capital within 65 days.


I'm not talking about pouring a beer--in the context of rinsing or sanitizing bottles, I'm not quite satisfied just holding each bottle upside down while I wait for the glug-glug-glug of water and air taking turns through the bottleneck. So, short of anything destructive (no shotgunning of bottles) what's method will get me through this the fastest?
Swirl the bottle. I like to point the bottle down, and draw a circle with it, so to speak. The centrifugal force of the circular motion pushes the beer to the bottle walls and created a void in the center, where air can enter.
Pros: Seems to be the fastest method I've tried.
Cons: Is the extra energy worth the time savings? Am I really saving time, when I have to start the whirlpool for each bottle? Do I have the coordination to empty one in each hand without breaking bottles?
I'm going with the swirl! It makes a HUGE difference when dumping 6 liter bottles (I put a 5 gallon batch in 3 of these bad-boys):
The reason the swirl works with these is because they're so fat. Now, it doesn't work when you first turn them over. But once about half of the glugging is done, you can muscle a swirl and the liquid tornadoes out of there on the last third!
Might sound like the voice of experience...a friend of mine knows the MillerCoors guy, and these home drafts are not selling very well. So the distributor picks up the bottles, dumps them, and my friend takes out the 'trash', so to speak. And so I get bottles with sour beer that needs oxyclean in the worst way. Then, of course, plenty of rinsing.
How fancy do you want to get? I have a friend that has a low power compressor that he has hooked up to a faucet bottle washer, next to the actual bottle washer. This way, he gets the washing done on one nozzle, and then he's able to force liquid out with the other one.
Pros: Fast and easy once set up and will speed up the entire process
Cons: Expensive and difficult to set up initially.
I myself have never gone to that extreme.


text:
120,000 Won per person (Tour duration = approx. 3-4 hours)
Gapyong station pick up and return ₩ 130000
130,000 Won per person (Total duration = approx. 5 hours)
What to expect
Experience Thrilling Canyoning at Serpent's Tail: Gapyeong's Hidden Gem
Dive into the heart of adventure with our Serpent's Tail half-day canyoning tour near Gapyeong. Perfect for beginners and those seeking to escape the city, this tour offers rappelling, zip-lining, and pristine swimming spots. Join us to discover secluded natural beauty.
Canyoning in Korea: Gapyeong - Serpent's Tail Half Day Tour
Nestled between Hwaaksan (Gyeonggi Province's highest peak) and Seokryongsan, is Jomurak Valley. We will hike for one hour along Jomurak Valley, along a shady and easy trail, until we reach one of its steeper tributaries. After enjoying a rest, we will then go off trail and make a short but steep ascent to get up above the waterfalls. Once reaching a point where very few ever venture to go, we begin our wet descent of Bukho Falls. On this tour, we tackle two waterfalls in 5 stages. We'll then show you some of the more secluded and beautiful swimming spots in the valley on our return back to the start.
Conditions of Participation
Who is this tour ideal for?
First time canyoneers, or long time residents of Korea who are looking to explore a new side of the country.
Groups: 2-6 people
Gapyeong station pick up and return: Total duration = approx. 5 hours
Meet at the venue: Tour duration = approx. 3-4 hours
What do we provide:
3mm neoprene socks
Harness and all safety equipment
Life jackets (if required)
What do you need to bring:
Any medication, if required
Waterproof camera, if desired
Your own Travel Insurance, if desired
Canyoning is the descent of streams and waterfalls by means of trekking, climbing, jumping, sliding and rappelling. It is an adventurous activity that can be enjoyed by any and all, under the diligent guidance of Canyoning Korea's professional instructors.
For those who would make the journey from Seoul by bus:**
We offer pick ups from Gapyeong Station (가평), on the Gyeongchun Line. This line can be accessed with the Seoul Metro Transportation cards.
From this station, it is possible to reach our meeting point via public buses (33-4 & 50-1, as well as 50-4 on weekends).
For those who require transportation from Seoul:
Subject to availability, we can provide transport by private car from, and back to, Seoul (contact us for pick up locations).
Subject to availability, we may also be able to provide assistance booking accommodation in the area for those who wish to extend their stay in the local area.
Canyoning Gapyeong, Serpent's Tail canyon, outdoor adventure Korea, rappelling, zip-lining, wilderness swimming, adventure tour Korea, canyoning for beginners.
Gyeonggi-do-Pocheon-Si, Korea South
경기도 가평군 북면 적목리
Jeongmok-ri, Buk-myeon, Gapyeong-gun, Gyeonggi-do

domain: geography


text:
Check Point experts have discovered a new campaign by the Chinese hack group Tropic Trooper, which uses a new Nimbda downloader and a new variant of the Yahoyah trojan – which is hidden in a tool called SMS Bomber, designed for attackers-beginners.Let me remind you that we also wrote that Chinese hack group APT10 attacks Taiwanese financial sector, and also that Chinese hackers attacked Ragnarok Online Developers.
SMS Bomber, as the name implies, allows entering a phone number to bombard its owner with messages and potentially disable the device by performing a Denial of Service (DoS) attack. Usually such ready-made tools are intended for script-kiddies who want to attack someone, but they lack their own skills.
The attack on the unfortunate script-kiddie begins with downloading a malicious version of SMS Bomber (in Chinese), which contains not only the SMS bombing program itself, but also additional code that injects notepad.exe into the process.
The Check Point report states that the downloaded executable is actually a Nimbda loader, which has the forethought to use the SMS Bomber icon and even SMS Bomber itself as an embedded executable.
The loader injects shellcode into the notepad.exe process to access a GitHub or Gitee repository, get the obfuscated executable, decode it, and then run it using the dllhost.exe process.
The payload is a new variant of the Yahoyah malware that collects host data and sends it to the command-and-control server. Information collected by Yahoo includes:
- SSID of the local wireless network;
- computer name;
- MAC address;
- OS version;
- information about installed anti-virus products;
- information about the presence of WeChat and Tencent files.
The final payload unfolded by Yahoyah is encoded into a JPG image using steganography. Check Point identifies this threat as TClient, a well-known Tropic Trooper backdoor that has been previously used by hackers in other campaigns.
Tropic Trooper, also known as Earth Centaur, KeyBoy and Pirate Panda, is known for its attacks on various targets in Taiwan, Hong Kong and the Philippines. The most common victims of these espionage attackers are government organizations, healthcare, transportation and high-tech industries.
The researchers write that the use of such an unusual tool as SMS Bomber for this campaign speaks of its narrow and very unusual focus. The choice of hackers is likely based on some data collected during previous spy campaigns.
User Review( votes)

domain: news


text:
About Poetry of Impact
In the early days of my finance career, I was falling asleep at my desk…literally. I knew I wanted to work with money, but there was a mental and physical disconnect in the way, a very real feeling of dis-integration. However, now, still a mediator of money, I also find myself leading songs and sharing stories from the heart at conferences and gatherings. What has made the difference?
For me, moving into the impact space has been propelled by those who came before me — those folks out there pushing and changing boundaries, renaming categories, and imagining the highest potentials of money. It’s their stories that summoned me to the impact space and led me to realize that the experience of money can be vastly different from what we’ve ever had before, once we invite our multidimensional selves to participate.
– Gino Borges, Ph.D.
Poetry of Impact is an invitation to impact-inspired investors, founders, authors and artists to figuratively strip off the suit and tie and change into our jeans…to, together, explore eternal topics often considered irrelevant or off-limits in “money” conversations: essence, loss, love, nature, and embodiment, just to name a few. Poetry of Impact is a discovery process in which we come to better understand the archetypal trends and patterns that we, as a collective impact space, carry forward. Our stories work best together, rather than in isolated frames, to move our mission forward and to offer insight into the evolution of the impact space, illuminating a deep sense of alchemy and — above all — heart.
You must be logged in to post a comment.

domain: artistic


text:
For over one hundred years, nurses have practiced in public health. The first public health nurses were in England. The United States and Canada started using nurses in public health in the early 1900’s.
Public health nurses practice in a “setting without walls” as the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario puts it. They are anywhere their clients are in schools, workplaces, homes, community agencies, community clinics, on the phone and they all work to promote health and prevent disease.
“A typical day?” says Public Health Nurse in Family Health, Lynda Burville, “There are no typical days, every day is different. And even if I have my day planned, sometimes I end up not doing anything I expected to do.” Burville’s comment is echoed by other nurses at the Health Unit. Her days may include teaching prenatal classes, staffing a well-baby drop-in, meeting with teachers, principals or students at schools, or sitting on an inter-agency committee.
Agreeing with her colleague about the lack of a typical day, Joanne Alessi, Injury Prevention PHN, notes that public health challenges one’s nursing skills. Her day may include a radio interview about a local issue, running a CHAT (Communities and Hospitals Against Trauma) program at a local high school, or discussing safe footwear for prevention of falls with seniors.
The work of the public health nurse sometimes appears invisible. Judith Hayman, Public Health Nurse and Lactation Consultant with Family Health, agrees there is truth in that. “Nursing is not what we do with our hands; it is about the mental process that directs our actions. Whether doing a bedside skill, or talking with a suicidal teenager or chairing a committee on health concerns, it is the brain that assesses the situation and decides what to do and how to do it. Nursing is what goes on between your ears.”
Thinking and knowing what to say are part and parcel of Marg Wilson’s day. Wilson is a nurse in Communicable Disease, which handles infections – there are sixty-six of them that must be reported to the province and followed for prevention of spread. To further prevent infection public education is also a key part of her job. Somewhat related, the Vaccine Preventable Disease team is in charge of keeping track of school immunisation records, running immunization clinics, and supplying vaccines to physicians’ offices and hospital. This team also uses the welcome skills of several clinical nurses on a casual basis.
Jayne Holmes and Terri Hartwick serve in the Sexual Health Clinics, counselling teens and adults. Their scope involves counselling about birth control, pregnancy choices and STD testing. Their hard work helps to keep the teen pregnancy below that of Ontario as a whole, and well below that of the five neighbouring health units.
For Lynne Larway, with the Healthy Babies, Healthy Children Program, work is “Babies. Babies. More Babies.” Larway is a part of the team that provides phone calls and home visits to parents of newborns. She loves the small luxury of time to relate to the clients in their own setting, and, with some clients, being able to establish a long-term relationship.
Many of the nurses represent the Health Unit on community committees, creating partnerships with local agencies, organization and businesses. From these committees comes the opportunity to define local issues, which leads to programs customized for the local community. They are also the opportunity for making others aware of health issues.
The diversity of work and the relevance of committees are also noted by Healthy Babies, Healthy Children Program Manager, RoseAnne Maracle Ringuette. A nurse for over thirty years, she moved into management nineteen years ago, to further challenge herself. One of those challenges is interpreting the guidelines laid down by the various ministries that govern public health and translating them into programs that work in Haldimand and Norfolk.
At the Haldimand-Norfolk Health Unit, there are approximately 30 nurses, full-time, part-time and casual. The jobs they do are as diverse as the thirty individuals. The casual nurses work primarily with immunization clinics held during the fall. The rest are front line staff and managers.
Patti Moore, the General Manager Health and Social Services for Haldimand and Norfolk Counties, is also a nurse who still feels strongly connected with nursing. Moore, who was at one time a public health nurse with the health unit, says, “I don’t think many people realize just how well a BScN (Bachelor of Science in Nursing) prepares you to go in so many directions.” She notes that the nursing skills of assessing, communication, problem solving, teamwork and evaluation fit perfectly with her current position.
For all these nurses, the important aspect of the job is making a difference in the lives of individuals, families, and the community. They work with a full range of the community and all social and economic levels.
Each year, nurses around the world celebrate Nurses’ Week, timed to honour the birth date of the founder of modern nursing, Florence Nightingale. Nightingale is renowned for her nursing care as “the lady with the lamp” in the Crimean War, and as the founder of modern nursing. Later in life, she also made important advances to the science of public health, providing the hard data that proved the connection between living conditions and disease.
For more information, contact:
RoseAnne Maracle Ringuette, Chief Nursing Officer
Haldimand-Norfolk Health Unit
905-318-5367 ext 305 or [email protected]