Manson and his ‘ family ’ became notorious for the murder of Sharon Tate and six others during the summer of 1969\nCharles Manson , the pseudo-satanic sociopath behind a string of killings that shocked California out of its late 1960s cultural reverie , died on Sunday after almost a half century in prison .\nThe 83-year-old , who died of natural causes , had been serving multiple life sentences in state prison in Corcoran , California , for orchestrating the violence in 1969 that claimed the lives of Sharon Tate , the heavily pregnant wife of film director Roman Polanski , and six others .\nWhile his death prompted the inevitable and renewed questioning around why his grim notoriety had been so enduring , Michele Hanisee , president of the Association of Deputy District Attorneys for Los Angeles County , said : “ Today , Manson ’ s victims are the ones who should be remembered and mourned on the occasion of his death . ”\nShe went on to quote the late Vincent Bugliosi , the prosecutor who put Manson behind bars , who had said : “ Manson was an evil , sophisticated conman with twisted and warped moral values . ”\nAs the leader of a cult known as the Manson Family , Manson had instructed his followers , made up mostly of disaffected young women , to carry out the killings . The brutality of the murders set Los Angeles on edge , and ended the sunny optimism of the 60s counterculture and its aspirations to a new society built on peace and love . Manson presented himself as a demonic force : at trial , he carved a Nazi swastika into his forehead .\nThe five received the death penalty but were spared when capital punishment was temporarily abolished following a ruling by the supreme court in 1972 .\nManson and three female followers , Susan Atkins , Patricia Krenwinkel and Leslie Van Houten , were convicted of murder and conspiracy to murder . Another defendant , Charles “ Tex ” Watson , was convicted later .\nThe second summer of Charles Manson : why the cult murders still grip us Read more\nTate , the wife of Polanski , who was out of the country the night of her murder , was eight and a half months pregnant when Manson ’ s followers broke into her home in Los Angeles . They stabbed and shot Tate and her visitors , Jay Sebring , Voytek Frykowski , coffee heiress Abigail Folger and Steven Parent . The word “ Pig ” was written in blood on the front door . Tate , who had starred in The Valley of the Dolls , was stabbed 16 times , and an “ X ” was carved into her stomach .\nThe next night , his followers murdered couple Leno and Rosemary LaBianca .\nAlthough the followers committed the murders , Manson had ordered them . At the LaBianca home , he tied up the couple before leaving others to carry out the killings .\nAfter his death on Sunday night , Tate ’ s sister Debra told NBC : “ One could say I ’ ve forgiven them , which is quite different than forgetting what they are capable of . It is for this reason I fight so hard to make sure that each of these individuals stays in prison until the end of their natural days . ”\nIn the 2004 book Sharon Tate Recollection , Polanski wrote : “ Even after so many years , I find myself unable to watch a spectacular sunset or visit a lovely old house or experience visual pleasure of any kind without instinctively telling myself how much she would have loved it all . ”\nProsecutors at the time said Manson and his cult were trying to spark a race war that he believed was foretold in the Beatles song Helter Skelter , and hoped the Black Panthers would be blamed for the killings .\nBefore the murders , Manson spent most of his teens and 20s in and out of prison , and he later became a singer-songwriter . He got a break in the music industry when he met the Beach Boys drummer Dennis Wilson . The group later recorded Never Learn Not to Love , which Manson had written .\nHe became friends with the Byrds producer Terry Melcher ( the son of Doris Day ) and even recorded 13 folksy songs for an album that eventually was titled Lie : The Love and Terror Cult ; it was released in March 1970 to help pay for his defense .\nManson had established himself as a would-be cult leader in the Haight-Ashbury district of San Francisco . He took a handful of followers , some of whom would later be convicted in the killings , to the old Spahn Movie Ranch north of LA and turned it into a hedonistic commune .\nVan Houten , the youngest member of the original Manson Family , later said that Manson had used sex , LSD , Bible readings , repeated playing of the Beatles ’ White Album and rambling lectures about triggering a revolution to brainwash her .\nVan Houten , 68 , was convicted of the killings of Leno and Rosemary LaBianca . She was recommended for parole in September but California ’ s governor , Jerry Brown , has yet to approve the recommendation . He rejected an earlier decision , concluding that Van Houten posed “ an unreasonable danger to society if released from prison ” .\nIn June , officials denied a parole request by Krenwinkel , the state ’ s longest-serving female prisoner , after her attorney said she had been abused by Manson or another person . She has been denied parole multiple times in the past .\nManson ’ s lawyer , Irving Kanarek , claimed his client was innocent during a 2014 interview with ███ . “ No question he was legally innocent . And , more than that , he was actually innocent , ” Kanarek said , arguing that there was no evidence connecting him to the case .\nAt a 2012 parole hearing , which was denied , Manson was quoted as having said to one of his prison psychologists : “ I ’ m special . I ’ m not like the average inmate . I have spent my life in prison . I have put five people in the grave . I am a very dangerous man . ”\nAccording to the LA Times , Manson committed hundreds of rules violations while being held at the Corcoran state prison , including assault , repeated possession of a weapon and threatening staff . Officials said he has spat in guards ’ faces , started fights , tried to cause a flood and set his mattress ablaze .\nIn 2014 , Manson and Afton Elaine Burton , a 26-year-old Manson devotee , were granted a marriage license , but it expired before the two could marry . She had faithfully visited him in prison for seven years . Manson had been denied parole 12 times , with his next hearing set for 2027 .\nHis death is unlikely to end interest in his crimes . Quentin Tarantino is believed to be preparing a film that uses the murders as a backdrop for its main plot , and an adaptation of Emma Cline ’ s bestselling 2016 novel , The Girls , is on the way .\nWriter Joan Didion interviewed Linda Kasabian , the Manson family member who acted as a lookout in the Tate and LaBianca killings and later gave evidence at the trial , and described the atmosphere in Hollywood in an essay from her collection The White Album ( 1979 ) .\n“ Everything was unmentionable but nothing was unimaginable… ” Didion wrote . “ A demented and seductive vortical tension was building in the community . The jitters were setting in . I recall a time when the dogs barked every night and the moon was always full .\nReached at home in Manhattan , Didion , 82 , told ███ : “ Manson ’ s legacy was never obvious to me . It wasn ’ t obvious when I went to talk with Linda Kasabian , and it isn ’ t obvious to me now . But I do find it easy to put him from my mind . ”\nIn 2008 , California officials ordered the search of a deserted ranch in Death Valley where Manson and his family briefly resided . The search turned up no evidence of human remains .\nManson may be gone but the persistence of his dark vision endures . “ I am crime , ” he proclaimed in a telephone call to the New York Post from prison in the mid-2000s .


Donald Trump likes to deliver big promises on infrastructure . Delivering an actual infrastructure plan , though , is a different matter . ( Sound familiar ? ) Trump ’ s problem is that while strengthening the nation ’ s infrastructure would be very popular with voters , who would benefit from the improved transit and water systems and new schools and the millions of jobs that would come from repairing or building all of that , Republican politicians are not interested in making rich people pay for any of that . ( Trump , you may recall , is a Republican politician . ) Also , Trump ’ s strong suit has not exactly been delivering workable plans to fulfill his positive campaign promises . He ’ s good at signing orders and bills undoing things President Obama did , but he ’ s not so good at coming up with his own policies , from health care to infrastructure .\nAnd so Trump keeps talking about infrastructure in his speeches :\nBut at this point , White House spokesman Sean Spicer has only said the Trump Administration is in the “ beginning phases ” of putting together an infrastructure plan – which means there is no legislative text ready for action in the Congress .\nThere have been indications that any infrastructure bill coming out of the Trump White House will be less about investing in America and more about gutting environmental regulations and selling roads and bridges off to corporations , but at this point even that is extremely hazy , and while Republicans seem content about it , Democrats are getting impatient :\n“ Every conversation or any interaction I have had with the president has been infrastructure , infrastructure , infrastructure , ” House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California said at a news conference last week . “ Where 's the bill ? Show us the bill . ”\nDemocrats would love a real infrastructure bill that put people to work repairing or replacing crumbling bridges , building tunnels to improve transit in congested areas—you could list important projects pretty much all day . But with Trump ’ s popularity and credibility in the basement , Democrats don ’ t seem like they plan to roll over and gratefully accept a massive privatizing giveaway to the wealthy . And Trump—or at least some of the people around him—may realize that continuing to talk vaguely about a popular idea serves his ego more as an applause line than unveiling a disappointing betrayal of an actual plan would . Don ’ t hold your breath on a solid infrastructure plan that Congress could vote on , in other words .


Story highlights `` Too early to conclude pilot error , '' NTSB chief says\nThe agency is also looking to see if the plane 's computer was handling landing\nSaturday marked the pilot 's first time landing a Boeing 777 at the San Francisco airport\nAsiana Airlines Flight 214 was flying far slower than recommended as it approached San Francisco International Airport just before its crash landing on Saturday , the head of the National Transportation Safety Board said Monday .\nThe Boeing 777 was traveling at approximately 106 knots ( 122 mph ) upon impact and at about 118 knots ( 136 mph ) 16 seconds before impact at an altitude of about 200 feet ; the recommended speed upon approach to the runway threshold is 137 knots ( 157 mph ) , Deborah Hersman told reporters .\nThe onboard systems warned the crew the plane was about to stall four seconds before the crash , she said .\nThat warning comes in the form of a `` stick-shaker , '' said Arthur Rosenberg , a pilot , engineer and partner with the New York-based law firm Soberman & Rosenberg , which specializes in litigation stemming from plane crashes . `` It 's basically saying , 'Hey idiot , wake up and do something ... Now ! ''\nThat something typically is to lower the nose of the plane and apply power , he said .\nJUST WATCHED Young plane crash survivors speak Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Young plane crash survivors speak 02:26\nJUST WATCHED NTSB : Plane angle was n't abnormal Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH NTSB : Plane angle was n't abnormal 03:18\nJUST WATCHED First responder : 'We had no time ' Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH First responder : 'We had no time ' 02:58\nJUST WATCHED Asiana 214 's fateful last seconds Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Asiana 214 's fateful last seconds 01:27\nThe plane was already close to the ground and could n't be lowered much further . But the crew apparently boosted the power to the engines , which were increasing from 50 % capacity three seconds before impact , according to Hersman .\nOne-and-a-half seconds before impact , the crew called for a `` go-around , '' meaning that they wanted to abort the landing and go around in the air to try to make another landing , she said .\nBut they did n't make it . `` There just was n't enough room to recover , '' Rosenberg said .\nInvestigators have found a path of wreckage that started at the seawall and continued to the main wreckage site hundreds of feet up the runway , Hersman added .\nThe pavement itself was scarred from contact with the landing gear , the engines and the fuselage , Hersman said .\nThe tail 's lower portion was in the rocks at the seawall and `` a significant piece of the tail '' was in the water , she said . Additional aircraft parts were visible at low tide . On the path that leads along the pavement away from the seawall were horizontal stabilizers , a vertical stabilizer and an upper portion of the tail cone , she said .\nThe air-traffic control team found no evidence on voice communications of any distress calls before the accident , she said .\nBut investigators have found that the pilots had the appropriate charts for the airport and approach in place in the cockpit , she added . The NTSB was working to find out what the four pilots had done during the 72 hours before the crash in an attempt to determine whether fatigue or sickness may have played a role , she said .\nA preliminary review of FAA radar data indicates that there was `` no abnormally steep descent curve that 's been detected '' in the landing approach of the jet , she said , reacting to media reports citing a steeper descent .\nAnd a preliminary review of the engines indicates that both engines were producing power when the plane crashed , she said .\nInvestigators were focusing on the crew and aircraft as they try to learn why the giant jet clipped the end of runway before crashing , she had said earlier in the day .\n`` We 're certainly looking at the crew and how they operated , how they were trained , at their experience , '' Hersman told CNN 's New Day .\n`` We 're also looking at the aircraft . We 're looking to see if the crew was using automation or was flying on autopilot , or they were hand-flying the airplane , '' she said .\nBoeing 777s can land automatically , but it was unclear if the plane 's computer was handling Saturday 's attempted landing or if it was being done by the pilot , who Asiana said was making his first San Francisco landing at the controls of that model of aircraft .\nThe flight , with 307 people on board , originated in Shanghai , China , and stopped in Seoul , South Korea . It was preparing to land Saturday in San Francisco when the rear of the plane struck the edge of the runway , severing the tail . Most passengers were able to escape before the plane erupted in smoke and flames .\nJUST WATCHED Up-close look at crash scene Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Up-close look at crash scene 00:52\nJUST WATCHED Man catches plane crash on camera Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Man catches plane crash on camera 00:57\nJUST WATCHED Flight 214 's communications revealed Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Flight 214 's communications revealed 01:43\nBoth of the girls had been seated in the rear of the plane , which suffered significant structural damage , Hersman said .\nInvestigators said they were looking into reports that one of the girls may have been run over by an emergency vehicle . `` We are still looking at this issue , '' she said . `` The coroner has not yet determined the cause of death and so we want to make sure we have all the facts before we reach any conclusions . ''\nLee Kang-kuk , the pilot who was in the captain 's seat of Flight 214 , had flown from Seoul to San Francisco several times between 1999 and 2004 , the airline said .\nBut Saturday marked his first time landing a Boeing 777 at San Francisco International Airport and was the ninth time he had flown the model , with 43 hours at the controls , the airline said . He has about 10,000 hours as a pilot , Asiana said .\nHersman , who has discouraged speculation about whether the crew bore responsibility for the crash , downplayed the significance of the pilot 's experience in her New Day interview .\n`` It 's not unusual for crew to change aircraft types , '' she said . And with air crews flying all around the world , it 's not unusual for pilots to fly into unfamiliar airports for the first time either .\nShe said it 's important for the two pilots in charge of the aircraft during the `` very risky '' landing phase to work closely together , and while she said investigators have no evidence of cockpit communications problems , it 's something investigators will be looking at .\nMary Schiavo , a former inspector general for the U.S. Department of Transportation , said video and other data related to the crash suggest the crew `` lost situational awareness '' while approaching the airport .\n`` They 're low and slow , and that 's a problem , '' Schiavo said .\nAll four pilots have been interviewed by NTSB and South Korean investigators , said Choi Jeong-ho , the head of South Korea 's Aviation Policy Bureau .\n`` We can not reveal what 's been said as it is an ongoing investigation , '' Choi said .\nThe pilots represented two teams -- a crew and a relief crew , said Hersman .\n`` I think it really is too early to conclude pilot error , because there is so much that we do n't know , '' she told CNN 's Wolf Blitzer .\nThe cockpit voice recorder -- which has been flown to Washington for analysis -- contains conversations between the pilots that were carried out in a combination of English and Korean , she said .\nHersman said that in most airplane crashes , investigators rarely find a single explanation for what went wrong .\n`` In most of our investigations , we find that it 's not just one thing , it really is a combination of factors that lead to an accident , '' she said .\nWhile weather has been ruled out as a factor , other factors officials are investigating include whether construction at the airport may have played a role , Hersman said Sunday .\nWork to extend a runway safety area required the temporary shutdown of a system designed to help pilots land planes safely , she said .\nThe pilots apparently tried to speed up seven seconds before the crash , cockpit voice and flight data recorders showed .\nA stall warning sounded three seconds later , telling the pilots the plane was about to lose its ability to stay in the air .\nThen -- just 1.5 seconds before the plane slammed into the runway -- the crew decided to call off the landing and try to pull up for another try , Hersman said .\nWith no warning from the cockpit , survivors said , the plane 's rear struck the sea wall at the end of the runway . The impact severed the plane 's tail and sent the rest of the body spinning on its belly .\nIn addition to the two deaths , 182 people were hospitalized with injuries ranging from severe scrapes to paralysis .\n`` We 're lucky there has n't been a greater loss of life , '' San Francisco Fire Chief Joanne Hayes-White said .\nSome injured passengers remained hospitalized Monday , including six in critical condition at San Francisco General Hospital , said Dr. Margaret Knudson , the hospital 's chief of surgery .\nAbout half of those admitted to the hospital had spinal fractures , she said . Others have head trauma .\n`` Their recovery could be months and months and maybe not even to full recovery , '' she said .\nMany of the injured said they were sitting toward the rear of the aircraft , Knudson said .\nBut 123 of the 307 people on board walked away uninjured . Benjamin Levy was among them .\n`` Honestly , I was waiting for the plane to ... start flipping upside down , in which case I think a lot of people would have not made it , '' Levy said .\n`` If we flipped , none of us would be here to talk about it , '' he said .


The co-pilot of the Germanwings plane that slammed into the Alps appears to have practiced for the deadly descent by setting controls to dangerously low altitudes during a flight earlier that day , French investigators said Wednesday .\nThe revelation contained in a 30-page interim report from the French accident investigation agency BEA appeared to support the theory that the crash was deliberate and premeditated .\nThe Airbus 320 co-piloted by Andreas Lubitz crashed in the French Alps on March 24 , killing all 150 people aboard , while on a flight to Duesseldorf , Germany , from Barcelona .\nThe agency said Lubitz set the plane into a descent several times during the earlier flight into Barcelona from Duesseldorf that morning . The plane 's `` selected altitude '' changed repeatedly and several times was set as low as 100 feet above sea level .\nThe report said Lubitz also put the engines on idle , which gives the plane the ability to descend quickly .\nOn the doomed flight from Barcelona to Duesseldorf , Lubitz set a 100-foot altitude before the plane crashed into the Alps .\n`` Several altitude selections towards 100 ft. were recorded during descent on the flight that preceded the accident flight , while the co-pilot was alone in the cockpit , '' the preliminary report said .\nAccording to the report , the resetting of automatic flight controls occurred during a four-minute period that begins after sounds picked up on the voice recorder indicate that the pilot had left the cockpit .\nAviation experts say it would be highly unusual for a pilot to repeatedly set a plane for such a low altitude for no apparent reason .\nThe report said Lubitz did so while air traffic controllers were asking him to bring the airplane down gradually from 35,000 feet to 21,000 feet for its descent to Barcelona .\nA BEA chart showed the plane did n't actually descend sharply while Lubitz was repeatedly adjusting the settings , so the passengers and crew might not have noticed any change .\n`` The captain did n't realize at all , because the co-pilot 's tests during the outgoing flight took place during a normal , preprogrammed descent and it never had an impact on the plane 's trajectory , '' said Remi Jouty , the director of BEA\nBecause the plane was already on descent into Barcelona , the setting of 100 feet minimum would not be noticeable to air traffic control or others on the plane . Lubitz kept the plane on this trajectory for about a minute and a half , leveling off at 25,000 feet shortly before the voice recorder notes the return of the pilot .\n`` I ca n't speculate on what was happening inside his head ; all I can say is that he changed this button to the minimum setting of 100 feet and he did it several times , '' Jouty said .\n`` These very brief actions on the previous flight were a sort of rehearsal of the maneuver , '' Jouty said .\nOn the flight that crashed into the Alps , only hours later , French and German prosecutors say Lubitz locked the pilot out of the cockpit and deliberately steered the plane into a ravine .\nHelmut Tolksdorf , a spokesman for Lufthansa , the parent company of Germanwings , told the Associated Press that the airline had not had time to analyze the new details and planned no immediate comment .\nThe BEA report also showed that the Lufthansa aeromedical center twice turned down Lubitz 's bid for a medical certificate re-validation in April 2009 because of depression and the medication he was taking to treat it , according to DPA , the German news agency .\nWhen he was eventually issued a new certificate in July 2009 , a note was attached specifying that he was required to undergo regular medical examinations . The limitation also required the medical examiner to contact the issuer of the license before conducting an evaluation for a medical certificate renewal .\nLubitz 's most recent medical certificate was issued in July 2014 and was valid until August 2015 .\n`` We are in a situation where the medical problem was known , was investigated and a decision was made , '' Jouty said .\nLubitz , who struggled with depression , had a doctor 's note excusing him from flying the day of the crash , but he had hidden it and been cleared for flying by Germanwings .


Trump ’ s proposal would be a step in the right direction .\nIf you think about the businesses you really hate , you ’ ll notice that many of them have something in common : They are in industries with a big federal footprint — banks , cable companies , health-insurance providers , and , bane of my personal existence , airlines .\nIf the word “ capitalism ” makes you think of the Apple Store , then it gives you a nice fuzzy Milton Friedman vibe ; if the word “ capitalism ” makes you think of Wells Fargo ’ s shenanigans or trying to get Nasty McEvil Stupidface Health Partners to approve your mom ’ s dialysis , then it gives you more of a Karl Marx , Shining Path kind of a feeling .\nAir travel in the United States is terrible , both in absolute terms and relative to air travel in other parts of the world . President Donald Trump has proposed trying to fix one of its defects — air-traffic control — by privatizing the activity and entrusting it to a new nonprofit corporation . The model here isn ’ t some Rothbardian fantasyland or a hypercapitalist city-state such as Singapore but our nice neighbor to the north , Canada , which keeps out-scoring the United States on the Heritage Foundation ’ s economic-liberty rankings in spite of its commie health-care system . Canada ’ s air-traffic control is managed by a truly private corporation , Nav Canada , which receives no government funding but instead operates on fees charged to airlines and other flight operators and raises capital in the private markets the same as any other business . It seems to work pretty well , and Nav Canada recently — get this — lowered its fees . The Trump administration , taking up legislation authored by Bill Schuster ( R. , Pa. ) , wants to emulate that model in the United States .\nThis is one of those blessed occasions when corporate management ( the airlines ) is on the same side as labor , with the air-traffic controllers ’ union friendly toward the idea : Privatization would not change the union ’ s status , and the FAA is so screwed up that even American union bosses shake their heads in dismay and disbelief at its incompetence . The main opposition comes from . . . people like Donald Trump , i.e. , the private-jet set and the firms that serve them . The general-aviation crowd fears that the board of the new nonprofit corporation will be too entirely dominated by the big commercial airlines , who may be tempted to use their position to shift some costs onto the smaller and less powerful private-flight industry . A few left-wing ideologues who oppose the privatization of anything also have made it known that air-traffic control falls within the category of “ anything , ” and that they oppose privatizing it .\nWhile the eternal plight of the private-jet owner must never be far from our thoughts , arranging the new nonprofit corporation in such a way that their interests are not overwhelmed by those of the major carriers ought not be too difficult . It certainly does not represent , on its own , a persuasive argument against privatization .\nIs this proposal an instance of “ corporatism ” ? Of course it is : Organizing industry and government interests into a cartel in the form of a nonprofit charged with serving the public interest is classical corporatism . Our progressive friends have a great affection for corporatism when it is the Corporation for Public Broadcasting , and some of our Chamber of Commerce friends seem to think that they would wither up and die without the Overseas Private Investment Corporation or the Export-Import Bank . But a genuine free-market alternative is not on the table . So , setting aside the question of nomenclature : Is this likely to improve air travel in these United States ? Put another way : Will this corporatist cartel represent an improvement over the current monopoly model ?\nWill this corporatist cartel represent an improvement over the current monopoly model ?\nThe problems with air travel are legion , and there is no single reform that will address all of them . The airlines are part of the problem in that they are poorly managed but big and politically connected enough to protect themselves from more nimble competition ( for example , foreign carriers are prohibited from operating domestic flights within the United States ) , which explains why airline incompetence rather than weather trouble was the biggest cause of flight delays in 2016 , according to the FAA ; the various unions are part of the problem , inflicting work rules on the industry that inhibit innovation and flexibility , contributing to those flight delays by making flight crews unavailable ; antiquated regulation is part of the problem . And the FAA is a big part of the problem , too : Supporters of privatization point out that its defective procurement process means that equipment often is outdated by the time it is installed , and a recent program to modernize its traffic-control practices descended into fiasco . And part of the reason the FAA is a problem is that Congress is part of the problem , with its unsteady budget practices making it difficult for federal agencies to commit convincingly to long-term projects .\nYou know what else is part of the problem ? New York . As recently as 2012 , problems originating in the New York air space accounted for more than half of all flight delays in the United States .\nAir-traffic control is one part of a very big picture , but making it more effective and more efficient would do a great deal to improve the overall functionality of the air-travel system , which would give airlines , airport authorities , and other responsible parties some breathing room to work on their own particular reforms . “ Privatization ” is a word that warms libertarian hearts , but institutional design matters a great deal here , too : The new private nonprofit will be theoretically accountable to federal regulators , but how that actually works in practice will end up mattering more than whether the new entity is formally private .\nThis is a step in the right direction , and we should take that step — carefully .


The Trump administration on Tuesday ended the most popular forms of U.S. travel to Cuba , banning cruise ships and a heavily used category of educational travel in an attempt to cut off cash to the island 's communist government .\nCruise travel from the U.S. to Cuba began in May 2016 during President Barack Obama 's opening with the island .\nIt has become the most popular form of U.S. leisure travel to the island , bringing 142,721 people in the first four months of the year , a more than 300 % increase over the same period last year .\nFor travelers confused about the thicket of federal regulations governing travel to Cuba , cruises offered a simple , one-stop , guaranteed-legal way to travel .\nBanned : Tourists ride inside a vintage car as they pass by the Norwegian Sky cruise ship in Havana . Cruises from U.S ports will be banned from Wednesday\nMassive activity : Tourists such as these near the Majesty of the Seas cruise ship , owned by Royal Caribbean , have become a key part of the Cuban economy - prompting the move by the Trump administration\nLocal concern : In Havana , businesses are concerned that the ban on U.S. cruise tourists will hit their income\n'Cruise ships as well as recreational and pleasure vessels are prohibited from departing the U.S. on temporary sojourn to Cuba effective tomorrow , ' the Commerce Department said in a statement to The Associated Press .\nThe new restrictions are part of a broader effort by the administration of President Donald Trump to roll back the Obama-era efforts to restore normal relations between the United States and Cuba , which drew sharp criticism from the more hardline elements of the Cuban-American community and their allies in Congress .\nU.S. national security adviser John Bolton , who declared Cuba part of a 'troika of tyranny ' along with Nicaragua and Venezuela as he outlined new sanctions in November , said the new policy is intended to deny the Cuban government a vital source of revenue .\n'The Administration has advanced the President 's Cuba policy by ending 'veiled tourism ' to Cuba and imposing restrictions on vessels , ' Bolton said on Twitter .\n'We will continue to take actions to restrict the Cuban regime 's access to U.S . dollars . '\nCruise lines carrying passengers booked before Tuesday had been hoping that they could request specific federal permits to complete their trips to Cuba , said Pedro Freyre , a Miami-based attorney who represents Carnival and three other major cruise lines .\n'For now , it 's prohibited unless the cruise lines requests a specific license , ' Freyre said . He said cruise lines had been trying to determine 'if there 's any opening there to at least complete trips that have been booked and passengers that have made travel plans . '\nNorwegian Cruise Line said in a statement that it was scrutinizing the new rules and consulting with lawyers and trade experts .\n'We are closely monitoring these recent developments and any resulting impact to cruise travel to Cuba , ' Norwegian Cruise Line said in a statement . 'We will communicate to our guests and travel partners as additional information becomes available . '\nShore excursions from cruise ships tend to be organized by the cruise lines in cooperation with Cuban government tour agency Havanatur .\nA smaller number hire private tour guides or drivers of restored classic cars who wait outside Havana 's cruise docks .\n'This affects all of us , ' said William Mártinez , 58 , a Cuban-born American who lived in Florida for 46 years but returned five years ago to drive a classic car for tourists . 'It 's inhuman , the sanctions that they 're putting on Cuba . '\nHardline move : John Bolton , Donald Trump 's national security adviser , unveiled the action against Cuba earlier this year , accusing it , Venezuela and Nicaragua of being a 'troika of tyranny '\nTreasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said the measures are a response to what it calls Cuba 's 'destabilizing role ' in the Western Hemisphere , including support for the government of President Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela .\n'This administration has made a strategic decision to reverse the loosening of sanctions and other restrictions on the Cuban regime , ' Mnuchin said . 'These actions will help to keep U.S. dollars out of the hands of Cuban military , intelligence , and security services . '\nCruise ships have brought thousands of Americans to Cuba since the U.S. began restoring full diplomatic relations with the communist government in December 2014 and have provided an important economic lifeline to the island .\nAlong with the cruise ships , the U.S. will also now ban most private planes and boats from stopping in the island .\n'Consequently , private and corporate aircraft , cruise ships , sailboats , fishing boats , and other similar aircraft and vessels generally will be prohibited from going to Cuba , ' according to the new rules published by the Commerce Department .\nThe new restrictions take effect Wednesday , but the government will allow anyone who has already paid for the trip to go ahead with it .\nCruises have become more popular than flights for leisure travelers to Cuba - nearly 30,000 more came by cruise ship than flights this year . The figures exclude Cuban-born Americans visiting family on the island .\nCommercial airline flights appear to be unaffected by the new measures and travel for university groups , academic research , journalism and professional meetings will continue to be allowed .\n'It kills the people-to-people category , which is the most common way for the average American to travel to Cuba , ' said Collin Laverty , head of Cuba Educational Travel , one of the largest Cuba travel companies in the U.S .\nThe new restrictions had been previewed by national security adviser John Bolton in an April speech in Miami to veterans of the failed 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion but details of the changed were not made public until Tuesday . Treasury said the sanctions would take effect on Wednesday after they are published in the Federal Register .


WASHINGTON ( ███ ) - Democrats in Congress will press U.S. President Donald Trump at a White House meeting on Wednesday for details on how to pay for a massive boost in U.S. infrastructure spending after agreeing in April to try to win approval of a $ 2 trillion package .\nHouse Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said in a joint statement late on Tuesday that Trump in April had agreed to provide “ ideas for pay-fors , ” a term used in Washington for new taxes or government spending reductions .\n“ On Wednesday , we look forward to hearing the President ’ s plan for how to pay for this package , ” they said . The pair will be joined by other key Democrats in Congress , including those on committees overseeing infrastructure issues .\nThe Democrats made no mention of Trump ’ s demand on Tuesday that Congress first approve a new North American free trade deal before moving to infrastructure . Trump also suggested Congress use a surface transportation measure that expires in September 2020 as a vehicle for infrastructure spending .\nOn April 30 , Trump and Democratic leaders agreed to build roads , bridges , power grids , water and broadband infrastructure , but delayed the tough decisions on how to fund it to another meeting .\nAdministration officials and congressional aides are skeptical that 18 months before the election both sides will have the political will to find substantial new revenue .\nSenator Tom Carper , the top Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee , said in an interview on Tuesday that the United States has an $ 800 billion backlog of badly needed projects .\n“ We need for ( Trump ) to show some leadership , ” Carper said , saying Trump needs to explain how he will fund repairs . “ If he does ... he will not be by himself . ”\nFitch Ratings said last week that any U.S. plan for boosting infrastructure “ will need to provide for consistent , continued federal funding and more diverse funding sources to fully address the infrastructure deficit . ”\nFitch noted that as the federal government has failed to act , 31 states have raised gas taxes since 2013 , including four in 2019 . But Fitch said state and local governments are unable to raise adequate funds to fully address infrastructure needs on their own .\nRepublicans are not willing to roll back tax cuts from Trump ’ s 2017 tax reform legislation , an idea Democrats who largely opposed that measure have floated as a way of financing the infrastructure plans .\nU.S. President Donald Trump delivers remarks on the Infrastructure Initiative at the Local 18 Richfield Training Site in Richfield , Ohio , U.S. , March 29 , 2018 . ███/Yuri Gripas\nLast month , top economic adviser Larry Kudlow said Trump has not decided whether he would support an increase in fuel taxes to fund infrastructure projects .\nOn Tuesday , Representative Earl Blumenauer , a Democrat , introduced legislation to hike the fuel tax by five cents a year over five years and index it to inflation to pay for repairs .


The left generally supports the deal as a marginal improvement on NAFTA and a win for organized labor .\n“ While this measure has some things not to like , it has others that are worthy . The USMCA would do away with a back-channel dispute resolution mechanism that corporations have used to demand concessions from the member governments . And the pact includes significant provisions on e-commerce , which was in its infancy when NAFTA was passed , as well as protections for U.S. copyright holders . The simple truth is that NAFTA has been a success , so a modest update is not a bad thing . Critics point to job losses in manufacturing since it went into effect . But most of the losses were from technological change or trade with countries like China… While not perfect , and leaving out some crucial areas like climate change , the USMCA is worth passing . ”\n“ The most important improvement — the one for which workers ’ advocates fought for hardest — is the facility-specific labor enforcement measures , because without those , the improved labor standards mean nothing . For the first time in any trade agreement , tariffs and fines can be imposed against specific products produced in facilities that are determined to deny workers collective-bargaining rights . If there are repeated violations , goods can be blocked at the border…\n“ The AFL-CIO has vehemently opposed almost every significant trade deal since NAFTA , but after playing an active role in the USMCA negotiations and forcing labor standards and enforcement improvements in Trump ’ s 2018 deal , they told their members , ‘ We have secured an agreement that working people can proudly support . ’ ”\n“ Democrats seem to have secured other important concessions in the deal . The original USMCA was widely considered a giveaway to pharmaceutical companies because it guaranteed the makers of expensive biologic drugs 10 years of protection from cheaper competition . That provision , which could have made it harder for the U.S. to lower its own drug costs , is out . The new agreement also adds more enforcement on environmental rules . The deal isn ’ t perfect : Nancy Pelosi failed to remove protections for internet companies that could make it more difficult for the U.S. to amend its own laws…\n“ But , at first glance , it looks like an improvement over both the original-recipe NAFTA and the first draft of the USMCA , and it could help set better standards for America ’ s future trade deals . ”\nCritics , however , contend that “ The United States International Trade Commission predicts the measures will succeed in the narrow purpose of shifting work to the United States , but only at a high cost : Consumers will pay more for new vehicles , resulting in fewer sales , and economic growth will suffer . There is a broader threat , too . Shifting work to Mexico has allowed American car companies to reduce costs , and to compete more effectively with foreign producers . Without NAFTA , there might be even fewer car-making jobs in the United States today . And as a result of the changes , there may be fewer in the future…\n“ The best argument for passage is prophylactic . President Trump has threatened to abandon NAFTA in the absence of a new deal , and the changes are less important than the part that would stay the same : a free-trade area for most goods encompassing the three largest nations of North America . ”\n“ Just what would the USMCA do for the economy in 2020 ? Not much , it turns out… One of the two big economic projections on the deal , performed by the U.S. International Trade Commission ( ITC ) , estimated it would add 176,000 jobs to the economy over the next six years . For context , that 's about as many jobs as we add in any single month of decent economic growth…\n“ The USMCA will add 51,000 new jobs to manufacturing , mining , and farming over its first six years of operation . For context , those three industries employ something in the vicinity of 14 million people . That 's an increase of less than one percent — and not even in 2020 , but spread out over six years . Similarly , employment in the auto sector would increase by about three percent over the deal 's first six years . The idea that such minute changes will lead to meaningful differences that workers in Michigan , Ohio , Pennsylvania , Indiana , Iowa , and Wisconsin would see and feel in their lives and communities before November 2020 seems like a stretch . ”\n“ By declaring that the United States will respond with airstrikes to any attacks on American targets or assets , Mr. Trump is drawing a bright red line that Iran can not cross . And yet , Iran relies on a network of proxy actors from Yemen , Syria , Iraq and Lebanon . Must they all respect Mr. Trump ’ s red line ? There are plenty of hotheads in those proxy forces that will be incensed by the assassination , the same way young men with weapons and minimal discipline often are… Mr. Trump can ’ t keep an entire region from crossing his red line , making violent conflict all the more likely if the president holds to it…  “ It is crucial that influential Republican senators like Lindsey Graham , Marco Rubio and Mitch McConnell remind Mr. Trump of his promise to keep America out of foreign quagmires and keep Mr. Trump from stumbling further into war with Iran . ”


The Trump administration has quietly altered its handling of visas granted to immigrants who cooperate with criminal investigations , allowing people to be deported even while they are waiting for their visas .\nThe change to U visas will make immigrants far less likely to report serious crimes , say immigration attorneys , who argue it also reflects the Trump administration ’ s efforts to deport as many immigrants as they can from the United States .\n“ This is going to have a chilling effect , ” Eileen Blessinger , a Falls Church , Va.-based immigration attorney , told ███ , because “ by applying , you ’ re essentially reporting yourself to ICE but now there ’ s a risk that ICE might pick you up . ”\nThe change was announced in a revised Immigration and Customs Enforcement ( ICE ) directive released on Aug. 2 .\nThe directive allows ICE to give permission for people to stay in the country as they await their U visas , which is a class of visa given to people who are cooperating with criminal investigations . But it also allows ICE to deport pending U visa applicants at their discretion .\nApplications for U visas can take up to four years . The government issues 10,000 per year but puts no limit on the number of visas that can be issued to spouses and children of applicants or to parents of applicants who are themselves under 21 .\nThe directive reserves the right for the agency to “ review the totality of the circumstances , including any favorable or adverse factors , and any federal interest ( s ) implicated and decide whether a Stay of Removal or terminating proceedings is appropriate . ”\nICE adds in the directive that it will “ exercise its discretion ” in determining whether to grant stay of removal requests , but cautions that the agency “ no longer exempts classes or categories of removable aliens from potential enforcement . ”\nIn a statement to ███ , an ICE spokesperson defended the change as necessary due to the volume of applications .\n“ As the number of U visa petitions submitted increased , this process became burdensome on both agencies and such determinations didn ’ t reflect a qualitative assessment of any assistance provided to law enforcement , '' the spokesperson said .\nBlessinger said the new directive piggybacks on another policy change that began about a year ago , when United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ended its practice of waiving fees for U visa applicants . This change cut down the number of people who could even seek out U visas .\nWhile the application itself does not cost any money , applicants with past criminal or immigration violations must pay a $ 585 fee to apply for a waiver .\nBlessinger told ███ that her firm , Blessinger Legal , had a client who had been deported twice before whose daughter was a victim of child sexual abuse and who had cooperated with the investigation .\nThe man was able to file for a U visa , which was eventually approved , and will be able to stay in the United States and continue to cooperate with the sexual abuse investigation .\nIf he had applied for the U visa under the terms of the new ICE directive , however , he could have been deported .\nAnother of her clients , Blessinger said , is a Salvadoran immigrant and victim of domestic violence who came to the U.S. in 2004 and has been detained in Caroline Detention Facility in Fort A.P . Hill , Va. , after failing to appear in court in El Paso , Texas , after receiving a notice to appear that Blessinger said did not include her hearing ’ s date or time .\n“ She missed the court hearing and got a deportation order and the motion to reopen was denied , but while it was pending we were able to get U visa certification signed off saying she was a victim of domestic violence and cooperated with the investigation , ” Blessinger told ███ .\n“ She ’ s not a criminal , she ’ s someone that in the past would be released on an ankle bracelet , ” added Blessinger .\n“ The U visa was created in 2000 by a bipartisan majority in Congress with two important purposes : one , to be a tool for law enforcement to investigate or prosecute criminal activity , and the other is to provide protection for immigrant survivors in coming forward and seeking protection , ” Cecelia Friedman Levin , senior policy counsel at ASISTA Immigration Assistance , told ███ .\n“ What we see here with new ICE policies that impact the U visa program is that some of these changes really contravene the purpose that Congress created these protections for , ” she added .\nComplicating the process further , Friedman Levin said , ICE has yet to publicly issue the full guidance for the new U visa policy .\n“ It ’ s leaving everyone in the dark in terms of what they ’ re actually supposed to do , ” she said , calling the change “ just another way of just continued and deliberate erosion of access to protection . ”\nKristian Ramos , communications director at the immigrant advocacy group Define American , told ███ the change was indicative of the administration ’ s general handling of long-standing immigration policy .\n“ This administration ’ s reckless changing of long-standing laws has very human casualties , ” Ramos told ███ .\nThe client “ came forward under the auspices that the law would protect her from deportation and it ’ s incredibly unfair to literally just change the rules on someone who is just trying to get help , ” he added .


A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that the Trump administration can make asylum seekers wait in Mexico for immigration court hearings while the policy is challenged in court , handing the president a major victory , even if it only proves temporary .\nThe 9th U.S . Circuit Court of Appeals — a frequent target of the president 's complaints — reversed a decision by a San Francisco judge that would have prevented asylum seekers from being returned to Mexico during the legal challenge .\nThe case must still be considered on its merits and could end up at the Supreme Court . But allowing the policy to remain in effect in the meantime lets the administration carry out an unprecedented change to U.S. asylum practices .\nThe administration has said it plans to rapidly expand the policy across the border , which would have far-reaching consequences for asylum seekers and Mexican border cities that host them while their cases wind through clogged U.S. immigration courts . Cases can take several years to decide .\nThe policy was challenged by 11 Central Americans and advocacy groups that argued it jeopardized asylum seekers by forcing them to stay in Mexico , where crime and drug violence are prevalent .\nU.S. District Court Judge Richard Seeborg agreed April 8 and said the policy should be halted because it failed to evaluate the dangers migrants faced in Mexico .\nThe administration introduced its `` Migrant Protection Protocols '' policy on Jan. 29 in San Diego and later expanded it to Calexico , California , and El Paso , Texas . Under the policy , asylum seekers report to a border crossing in the morning . The U.S. government provides transportation to immigration court and returns them to the border after the hearing .\nThe U.S. has returned 3,267 Central American asylum seekers through three border cities , Mexico 's immigration agency said Monday .\nThe administration briefly halted the policy after Seeborg 's ruling but resumed on April 16 , sending 673 people to Tijuana from San Diego since then , 298 to Mexicali from Calexico and 967 to Ciudad Juarez from El Paso .\nThe policy was introduced to deal with a growing number of asylum-seeking families from Guatemala , Honduras and El Salvador arriving at the U.S. border with Mexico . Under a court order , children generally can not be detained more than 20 days , which has led to widespread releases of families almost immediately after they are stopped by authorities .\nThe January launch followed months of delicate talks between senior U.S. and Mexican officials that culminated in dual announcements after a meeting in November in Houston . Both sides characterized it as a unilateral move by the Trump administration and Mexican officials have made clear that they do not endorse the policy .\nThe three-judge appeals court panel cited Mexico 's position to reject the argument that asylum seekers were at risk .\nThe judges said the `` likelihood of harm is reduced somewhat by the Mexican government 's commitment to honor its international law obligations and to grant humanitarian status and work permits to individuals returned under the ( Migrant Protection Protocols ) . '' In fact , Mexico said Dec. 20 that it would allow foreigners to apply for a work permit , not necessarily get one .\nJudge Diarmuid O'Scannlain , who was appointed by President Ronald Regan , offered the strongest backing for the administration 's position . Judges William Fletcher , an appointee of Bill Clinton , and Paul Watford , who was named by Barack Obama , were more critical .\nThe American Civil Liberties Union , Southern Poverty Law Center and Center for Gender & Refugee Studies sued over the policy .\nOmar Jadwat , director of the ACLU 's Immigrants ' Rights Project , said remarks by two of the three judges give reason to believe that the policy will eventually be halted but also raised concern about the impact of Tuesday 's decision .\n`` Asylum seekers are being put at serious risk of harm every day that the forced return policy continues , '' he said .\nJustice and Homeland Security Department officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment late Tuesday , and neither did Mexico 's Foreign Relations Secretary officials .\nMexicans and children who travel alone are exempt from the policy .


WASHINGTON – Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney said President Trump is “ deadly serious ” about imposing tariffs on Mexico to push the country to stop the flow of migrants crossing the US southern border .\n“ He is absolutely , deadly serious , ” Mulvaney said on “ Fox News Sunday. ” “ I fully expect these tariffs to go on to at least the 5 percent level on June 10th . The president is deadly serious about fixing the situation at the southern border . ”\nTrump announced the tariffs via tweet on Thursday , saying they would gradually increase .\n“ On June 10th , the United States will impose a 5 % Tariff on all goods coming into our Country from Mexico , until such time as illegal migrants coming from Mexico , and into our country , STOP , ” Trump wrote . “ The Tariff will gradually increase until the Illegal Immigration problem is remedied at which time the Tariffs will be removed . ”\nThe White House later said that the tariffs would go to 10 percent on July 1 , 15 percent on August 1 , 20 percent on September 1 and 25 percent on October 1 .\n“ The purpose of this is not to create uncertainty . The purpose is to fix the situation on the southern border . We ’ ve tried all the ordinary things , ” Mulvaney said on “ Meet the Press , ” blaming Congressional Democrats – including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-Calif. ) – for there not being a legislative fix .\nsee also Trump announces escalating tariffs on Mexico over migrant surge President Trump said Thursday that his administration will impose tariffs ...\nActing Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan expressed that he agreed with the tactic .\n“ I think what the president said , what the White House made clear is we need a vast reduction in the numbers crossing , ” McAleenan said on CNN ’ s “ State of the Union ” Sunday .\nHe said that the Mexican government should be able to put resources toward stemming the flow of migrants , which are coming from the “ northern triangle ” countries – Guatemala , Honduras and El Salvador – south of Mexico .\n“ These crossings into Mexico are happening on a 150-mile stretch of their southern border , ” McAleenan said . “ This is a controllable area . We need them to put their authorities down there and interdict these folks before they make this route all the way to the U.S . ”


The Trump administration has reportedly found a way to force asylum seekers to wait in Mexico during the months , or longer , that it takes to apply for protection in the US , making the tens of thousands of Central Americans and others who flee northward to the US each year essentially Mexico ’ s problem to solve .\nOn Saturday , Nick Miroff and Joshua Partlow of the Washington Post reported that the Trump administration had made a deal with the incoming president of Mexico , Andrés Manuel López Obrador , to implement a “ Remain in Mexico ” policy .\nThe incoming Mexican administration released a statement Saturday night that looked like a denial of the Washington Post story — but didn ’ t actually contradict that a deal was being discussed , or even that they ’ re close to finalizing one .\nContemplated since the earliest days of the Trump administration ( one of the first executive orders the president signed instructed the Department of Homeland Security to look into the prospect ) , the policy would bar asylum seekers from entering the US until their applications were approved , or until they got deported , unless they had a “ reasonable fear ” of staying in Mexico .\nWhile the two countries are still hammering out the details , it appears that the biggest question — whether Mexico would cooperate — has now been settled .\nThe appeal to the Trump administration is clear . The administration is desperate to reduce the number of people entering the US without papers to the anomalously low levels of Donald Trump ’ s first few months in office — even if it means asylum seekers face a bevy of human rights concerns while they remain in Mexico , from criminal victimization to concerns about food and shelter .\nThe US could start implementing the new policy in the coming days or weeks , likely starting at ports of entry ( official border crossings ) in San Diego , where thousands of asylum seekers have been waiting on the other side .\nThere ’ s a lot we still don ’ t know about how this is going to work , either because it hasn ’ t actually been worked out yet or because details aren ’ t yet public . As it stands , this could be a temporary inconvenience — or lead to the US essentially creating refugee camps just across the border . Here ’ s what we do and don ’ t know .\nWhat we know about the US-Mexico asylum deal and the “ Remain in Mexico ” policy\nThe Washington Post reported that the Trump administration has negotiated a tentative deal with Andrés Manuel López Obrador , or AMLO , the incoming president of Mexico , who takes office December 1 . The Washington Post confirmed the tentative deal in an interview with Olga Sanchez Cordero , AMLO ’ s incoming interior minister .\nLopez Obrador ’ s administration-in-waiting responded to the Post story with a non-denial denial . On Saturday night , a lot of press outlets reported that the Mexicans had denied there was a deal . But the actual statement , issued by Sanchez Cordero ’ s office , didn ’ t actually deny that the incoming administration is working on a deal with the Trump administration , or even that they have agreed in principle to allow asylum seekers to stay in Mexico and are just working out the details .\nThe statement said that “ there is no agreement of any sort between the government-elect of Mexico and the government of the United States , as the next president , Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador , will take office on December 1. ” In other words , they deny that the incoming government was already making official deals behind the outgoing government ’ s back .\nAnd it said that the incoming Mexican government isn ’ t considering becoming a “ safe third country ” for asylum seekers trying to enter the US — referring to a specific kind of diplomatic agreement that is different from the plan the Post reported on .\nUnder the deal , asylum seekers would have to demonstrate a reasonable fear of remaining in Mexico to be allowed to stay in the United States . The initial screening interview for asylum seekers requires them to show a credible fear of persecution if they ’ re deported to their home countries . If they meet that standard , they ’ re allowed to stay in the US while their full application for asylum is pending ; if they don ’ t ( and they don ’ t appeal the decision ) , they ’ re deported .\nUnder the agreement , as the Post describes it , asylum seekers who meet the credible fear standard would also be asked about the prospects of staying in Mexico . If they couldn ’ t show a reasonable fear ( a higher standard than credible fear ) of staying in Mexico , they ’ d still be allowed to apply for asylum in the US , but they ’ d wait in Mexico until their case was completed .\nAs a result , in theory , the majority of Central Americans and other asylum seekers who travel through Mexico would be required to stay in Mexico while their asylum cases were pending in the United States . Right now , it can take months , or years , for an asylum seeker who ’ s not detained in a US immigration detention center to have her asylum case evaluated . It ’ s not clear whether asylum seekers waiting in Mexico would be processed on an expedited schedule , and , if so , whether that wouldn ’ t further delay processing for people waiting for asylum in the US .\nKey details of the plan are still being worked out . According to the Post article , “ Senior U.S. officials said they want more assurances on how Mexico intends to keep asylum seekers safe and to ensure they don ’ t get deported back to Central America before their asylum claims get resolved. ” Those are substantial questions , not least because the US is obligated under international law not to send an asylum seeker back to persecution — even if it is not the country doing the deporting .\nAsylum officers are already being sent to San Diego to prepare for implementing the policy . An email from a senior official at US Citizenship and Immigration Services , sent out late Wednesday , asked for volunteers who might be sent to San Diego “ as early as Friday , ” though details were scarce . The Post believes the officers are being sent to implement the new policy , as the US will need a lot of asylum officers at ports of entry to conduct the interviews that will ensure they ’ re not sending anyone back to danger in Mexico .\nWhat we don ’ t know about the US-Mexico asylum deal and the “ Remain in Mexico ” policy\nWhen the US will start implementing a “ Remain in Mexico ” policy . López Obrador takes office on December 1 , so it ’ s probable that the US-Mexico agreement will be signed no sooner than that . ( And it could take several more days or even weeks to work out remaining details . )\nBut it ’ s not totally clear that the US is going to wait to have a formal agreement . On Wednesday , the Post reported that Trump senior policy adviser and immigration guru Stephen Miller wanted to start implementing a “ Remain in Mexico ” policy immediately — even while negotiations with Mexico were ongoing . The Saturday report from the Post doesn ’ t clarify whether this possibility is still on the table .\nWhat legal authority the US will use to implement “ Remain in Mexico. ” There is a provision in US law that allows the US to force applicants for admission to remain in a “ contiguous country ” while their claims are being processed . But it ’ s not clear whether they ’ re using this provision for the “ Remain in Mexico ” plan . Because that ’ s ambiguous , there are lots of other unresolved questions , including ...\nWhether the policy will apply to people apprehended by Border Patrol after crossing into the US , or whether it will only apply for people presenting themselves legally at official ports of entry to seek asylum . The “ contiguous countries ” provision applies to both cases . But the Post ’ s reporting implies that “ Remain in Mexico ” will only apply at ports .\nOn the one hand , pushing people back to Mexico after they ’ ve crossed into the US could run afoul of the statutory US right to seek asylum . On the other hand , allowing people who cross into the US illegally to stay , while barring those who enter legally by presenting themselves at a port of entry , would make it even harder for the Trump administration to argue they ’ re trying to encourage asylum seekers to come legally . ( That ’ s the argument the White House is currently using to defend the asylum ban in federal court . )\nWhether the US will need to do anything beyond signing an agreement with Mexico to ratify the policy . In theory , if the policy requires the US to do things differently than the current regulations regarding asylum specify , they ’ ll have to rewrite those regulations . ( That ’ s something the executive branch can do without Congress , as long as it follows proper procedures and doesn ’ t contradict the law . )\nThey could propose a regulation that would take effect immediately , as they did with the asylum ban . Such a change would probably be challenged in court ( as the asylum ban was ) but might be on firmer legal ground than the asylum ban .\nHow people will be taken care of while waiting in Mexico . Migrant shelters along the border are already overcrowded , and Tijuana is currently struggling to house 5,000 asylum seekers . Thousands of them have arrived in the past week as part of the fall “ caravan , ” but others have been waiting for weeks or months to be admitted at the port of entry .\nThe Post says the US doesn ’ t appear to be offering any financial support to Mexico to feed , shelter , and care for asylum seekers while they wait . Some business owners in Tijuana have reportedly offered to give jobs to asylum seekers , but it ’ s not clear how they ’ d be able to work legally in Mexico without seeking legal status there — and getting legal status in Mexico could make it much harder for them to get asylum in the US .\nHow this will be challenged in court and if it will ultimately be found legal . It is inevitable that advocates will sue to block the “ Remain in Mexico ” policy . But because so many things about it are still unclear , it ’ s not apparent what exactly their basis for a lawsuit will be . The “ Remain in Mexico ” policy is another legally aggressive step on asylum , an area of law where Congress has pretty clearly spelled out what ’ s supposed to happen . On the other hand , the judicial branch tends to extend the executive branch a lot of deference when foreign policy is involved .\nUltimately , the prospects of the Remain in Mexico policy might not be apparent until the policy has already been put in place — and in the meantime , asylum seekers will be the subjects of a binational experiment .


The US and Canada struck a last-minute NAFTA deal Sunday night .\nHours before the midnight deadline , the two countries agreed to a framework for a renewed trilateral agreement between the United States , Mexico , and Canada . Newly dubbed the “ USMCA ” — the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement — it ’ s basically an updated version of the original North American Free Trade Agreement between the three countries .\nUS Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland — the two top negotiators on USMCA — said in a joint statement late Sunday night that , together with Mexico , they had reached a “ new , modernized trade agreement . ”\n“ USMCA will give our workers , farmers , ranchers , and businesses a high-standard trade agreement that will result in freer markets , fairer trade and robust economic growth in our region , ” the statement read . “ It will strengthen the middle class , and create good , well-paying jobs and new opportunities for the nearly half billion people who call North America home . ”\nThe breakthrough marked a reversal of a weeks-long impasse and a flurry of tough rhetoric , especially on the part of President Donald Trump and his administration . Both Trump and Lighthizer made it known last week that the US was prepared to move ahead with a bilateral deal between the US and Mexico , leaving Canada out .\nBut on Friday , the US and Mexico agreed to hold off publishing the bilateral text , in the hopes of using the weekend to hammer out an agreement between the US and Canada to update the decades-old NAFTA .\nAnd now a deal has been reached , and both sides notched victories . Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called it a “ good day for Canada . ”\nTrump , tweeting Monday morning , congratulated Canada and Mexico and called it a “ great deal for all three countries . ”\nLate last night , our deadline , we reached a wonderful new Trade Deal with Canada , to be added into the deal already reached with Mexico . The new name will be The United States Mexico Canada Agreement , or USMCA . It is a great deal for all three countries , solves the many ...... — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) October 1 , 2018\n.... deficiencies and mistakes in NAFTA , greatly opens markets to our Farmers and Manufacturers , reduces Trade Barriers to the U.S. and will bring all three Great Nations together in competition with the rest of the world . The USMCA is a historic transaction ! — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) October 1 , 2018\nSenior Trump administration officials are calling this a big win for the US , Canada , and Mexico and say the deal “ represents fulfillment of one of the president ’ s most important campaign promises . ”\nA peek at what the US and Canada agreed to during negotiations\nA few notable issues stalled the negotiations between Canada and the US over the past month — and at the outset , these appear to have been mostly resolved , giving each side a chance to declare victory .\nThe US wanted greater access to Canada ’ s dairy market , and according to senior Trump administration officials , they won “ a good deal for American farmers ” on that front . The deal also calls for the elimination of Class 7 milk pricing , a new class of dairy Canada created that US dairy farmers said decreased their ability to export to Canada .\nCanada wanted to preserve NAFTA ’ s Chapter 19 , an independent panel set up to resolve special trade disputes . Though it ’ s renumbered in the final USMCA agreement , the provision stays mostly intact .\nOttawa also wanted some protections from Section 232 tariffs — the mechanism the Trump administration used to impose steel and aluminum tariffs on countries , including Canada , which requires a national security justification . Senior Trump administration officials said accommodations would be made to protect Canada from tariffs on automobiles . Canada did not get guarantees over those over steel and aluminum tariffs , and they ’ ll be dealt with separately .\nThese , of course , are not the only components of the deal , and this new agreement incorporates the components of the bilateral agreement between the US and Mexico , including rules of origin for automobiles ( meaning a certain percentage of parts have to be manufactured in each country to avoid tariffs ) as well as new digital trade rules , intellectual property protections , and strengthened labor rules .


A defiant Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras urged Greeks on Wednesday to reject an international bailout deal , wrecking any prospect of repairing broken relations with EU partners before a referendum on Sunday that may decide Greece 's future in Europe .\nLess than 24 hours after he wrote a conciliatory letter to creditors asking for a new bailout that would accept many of their terms , Tsipras abruptly switched back into combative mode in a television address .\nGreece was being `` blackmailed , '' he said , quashing talk that he might delay the vote , call it off or urge Greeks to vote yes .\nThe remarks added to the frantic and at times surreal atmosphere of recent days in which acrimonious messages from the leftist government have alternated with late-night offers of concessions to restart negotiations .\nA day after Greece became the first advanced economy to default on debt to the IMF , long lines at cash machines provided a stark visual symbol of the pressure on Tsipras , who came to power in January vowing to end austerity and protect the poor .\n`` A 'No ' vote is a decisive step toward a better agreement that we aim to sign right after Sunday 's result , '' he said , rejecting repeated warnings from European partners that the referendum would effectively be a vote on whether Greece stays in the euro or returns to the drachma .\nEuropean Council President Donald Tusk retorted in a tweet : `` Europe wants to help Greece . But can not help anyone against their own will . Let 's wait for the results of the Greek referendum . ''\nEuro zone finance ministers held an hour-long conference call to discuss the previous night 's offer from Tsipras , but were adamant that no further discussions would be held until after the Sunday vote . The head of the currency zone ministers ' Eurogroup , Jeroen Dijsselbloem , said he saw `` little chance '' of progress after Tsipras ' latest comments .\nGlobal financial markets have reacted remarkably calmly to the widely anticipated Greek default , strengthening the hand of hardline euro zone partners who say Athens can not use the threat of contagion to weaker European sovereigns as a bargaining chip .\nIn his overnight letter to creditors , seen by Reuters , Tsipras agreed to accept most of their demands for taxes and pension cuts and asked for a new 29 billion euro ( $ 32.21 billion ) loan to cover all debt service payments in the next two years .\nHowever even if negotiations do restart after the referendum , Germany and others made clear that any talks on a new program would have to start from scratch with different conditions .\nThe exasperated tone to public comments of European leaders exhausted by the chaotic turnarounds of the past few days offered little hope of a breakthrough .\nTsipras has suggested he would step aside if Greeks vote yes in Sunday 's referendum , and many other euro zone countries have made little secret that they see no point in negotiating with him before then .\n`` This government has done nothing since it came into office , '' German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble said in a speech in the lower house of parliament in which he accused Athens of repeatedly reneging on its commitments .\n`` You ca n't in all honesty expect us to talk with them in a situation like this , '' he said .\nFrench Finance Minister Michel Sapin , among Greece 's strongest sympathizers in the euro zone , told RTL radio : `` The aim is to find an agreement before the referendum if possible ... But it 's dreadfully complicated . ''\nOn the third day of a bank closure , the costs of the capital controls were biting deeper , with long lines forming at many ATMs and limited amounts of cash being doled out to pensioners . Even with a withdrawal limit of only 60 euros a day , there were signs of banknote shortages , with bankers saying 50-euro and 20-euro notes were running low .\nKiki Rizopoulou , a 79 year-old pensioner from Lamia in central Greece had to travel to Athens to collect her pension , spending 20 euros of the 120 euros she was allowed to take out .\n`` I already have to pay back 50 euros that I owe . It 's embarrassing , '' she said .\nAn opinion poll showed opposition to the bailout in the lead but also that the gap had narrowed significantly as the bank closure and capital controls began to bite . But the hardship facing pensioners added to the pressure facing Tsipras , who has indicated he will resign if he loses the referendum .\nEurope 's top human rights watchdog criticized the haste with which the vote had been arranged but posters from the ruling Syriza party calling for a `` No '' vote started to appear in central Athens . The center-right opposition also ran television spots mocking previous comments from the government that capital controls would never be imposed .\nThe Tsipras letter contained only a single sketchy reference to labor market reform , which was one of the creditors ' key demands to make the Greek economy more competitive , and no mention at all of frozen privatizations , another bugbear .\n`` The new framework will be legislated in autumn 2015 , '' it said without saying what measures it contained . Tsipras ' leftist government wants to restore collective bargaining rights scrapped under previous bailout-driven reforms , and opposes a demand to make collective layoffs easier in the private sector .\nTsipras did agree to implement immediately a range of measures recommended by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to make it easier to do business and open up closed business sectors .\nIn the letter , he asked to keep a discount on value added tax for Greek islands , stretch out defense spending cuts and delay the phasing out of an income supplement to poorer pensioners .\nEuropean financial markets remained strikingly calm in the light of the upcoming referendum , the IMF default and heightened concerns about the risk of Athens sliding out the euro .\nThe lack of panic or contagion to other euro markets stood in marked contrast to 2011 , when the Greek crisis was perceived as a threat to the future of the single currency .\nAnd this lack of overspill has emboldened the more hawkish of Greece 's sovereign creditors , including those in Berlin , who insist Greece had been effectively ringfenced by a host of financial buffers and its fate would not undermine the integrity of the euro in the same way it did four years ago .\nFrench Finance Minister Michel Sapin , who has been Greece 's strongest sympathizer in the euro zone , told RTL radio : `` The aim is to find an agreement before the referendum if possible ... But it 's dreadfully complicated . ''\nThe ECB 's policymaking governing council was to meet in Frankfurt to decide whether to maintain , increase or curtail emergency lending that is keeping Greek banks afloat despite a wave of deposit withdrawals and the state 's default .\nGermany 's Bundesbank was leading hawks who argue that the ECB can not go on providing funds through the Greek central bank as before to lenders that are backed by an insolvent sovereign .\nOne possible move would be to increase the `` haircut '' charged on Greek government bonds presented as collateral for funds in light of the IMF default .\nA poll by the ProRata institute published in the Efimerida ton Syntakton newspaper showed 54 percent of those planning to vote would oppose the bailout against 33 percent in favor .\nHowever a breakdown of results between those polled before and after Sunday 's decision to close the banks and impose capital controls showed the gap narrowing .\nOf those polled before the announcement of the bank closures , 57 percent said they would vote `` No '' against 30 percent who would vote `` Yes . ''\nHowever among those polled after , the `` No '' camp fell to 46 percent against 37 percent for `` Yes . ''


While many Americans have used their stimulus checks to cover basic needs such as groceries , mortgage or rent , there ’ s evidence people are also spending the money on non-essentials including electronics , clothes and toys , according to major retailers .\n“ Call it relief spending , as it was heavily influenced by stimulus dollars , leading to sales increases in categories such as apparel , televisions , video games , sporting goods and toys , ” Walmart WMT , +0.06 % Chief Executive Doug McMillon said during the company ’ s earnings call Tuesday .\nTarget TGT , -1.13 % , BJ ’ s Wholesale Club Holdings Inc. BJ , -2.03 % and Best Buy Co. BBY , +4.62 % also saw increased consumer demand for discretionary goods in mid-April as the stimulus payments from the $ 2.2-trillion CARES Act flowed into Americans ’ bank accounts , the companies ’ CEOs said this week . Apple AAPL , +0.25 % saw an uptick in demand for its products “ across the board , ” CEO Tim Cook said April 30 .\nRelated : Best Buy ’ s stock rises after profit , revenue and same-store sales fall less than expected\n“ At Walmart and Target , shoppers bought more TVs , electronics , gaming equipment and apparel . Walmart also saw more demand for adult-sized bikes . ”\nAt Walmart , Target , shoppers bought more TVs , electronics , gaming equipment and apparel . Walmart also saw increased demand for adult-sized bikes .\nBJ ’ s CEO Lee Delaney told investors on Thursday that the company saw “ relatively significant growth ” in discretionary categories , including electronics and TVs .\n“ We would imagine that there is certainly an impact from stimulus checks that are impacting the business , ” Delaney said . “ But I think it ’ s right to assume there is some benefit flowing through from stimulus checks in the business . ”\n( BJ ’ s did not respond to a request for a further comment . )\nAt Best Buy , customers used their stimulus checks to buy computing and gaming equipment , Corie Barry , the company ’ s CEO , said on it Thursday earnings call .\n“ Like many other retailers , we saw sales benefit during the last three weeks of the quarter as customers undoubtedly chose to spend some of their government stimulus money on the products and services we provide , ” Barry said .\n( Best Buy did not respond to a request for a further comment . )\nThe different phases of the pandemic have shaped shoppers ’ choices . As stay-at-home orders were enacted across the country , “ parents became teachers , ” McMillon said on Walmart ’ s earnings call . “ Adult bicycles started selling out , as parents started to join the kids . An overlapping trend then started emerging related to DIY and home-related activities . ”\nConsumers also bought sewing machines and bandanas to make their own face masks , he said .\nSales took off in mid-April when many Americans began to receive their $ 1,200 stimulus checks . Within 10 days of receiving their stimulus checks , households spent around one quarter to one third of it , research shows .\nSee also : Walmart spent nearly $ 900 million on the coronavirus in Q1 and says it ’ s a ‘ reasonable assumption ’ that they ’ ll spend that much in Q2\nBefore the checks were issued on April 15 , there was “ not as much demand ” for discretionary goods at Walmart , said spokesman Randy Hargrove , adding that sales increased “ towards the end of the quarter . ”\nTarget Corp. also experienced “ a rapid increase in traffic and sales ” for discretionary goods driven by the distribution of stimulus checks , CEO Brian Cornell said on the company ’ s Wednesday earnings call . “ We certainly saw an uptick as we reported starting on April 15 , as those checks arrived across America , ” Cornell said on the company ’ s call .\n“ Before the checks were issued on April 15 , there was ‘ not as much demand ’ for discretionary goods at Walmart , said spokesman Randy Hargrove ”\nCustomers , he said , are “ still seeing the benefits of the stimulus check. ” People are shopping across all categories including apparel , which has been especially hard hit by the coronavirus-driven economic downturn .\n( Costco COST , +0.99 % declined to comment on whether it has experienced the same trend in sales related to stimulus payments . )\niPhone maker Apple also saw sales increase after stimulus payments went out , Cook said on the company ’ s April 30 earnings call . “ A part of it is due to just our new products , ” Cook said . But another part of it is also “ due to the stimulus programs taking effect in April. ” ( Apple did not respond to ███ ’ s request for a further comment . )\nUnlike Target and Walmart , which have remained open during the coronavirus outbreak and can sell apparel in-stores , “ non-esential ” clothing retailers including Gap GAP , +8.84 % , Nordstrom NRD , +2.77 % and Nike NKE , +3.49 % have been forced to close many stores across the country . As a result , retailers in the apparel industry have offered consumers online deals comparable to Cyber Monday .\nStill , many Americans have used their stimulus checks to stock up on essentials . That ’ s especially true for those who received their checks in the first wave of stimulus payments , said Stuart Sopp , CEO and founder of Current , a New York City-based mobile-banking startup .\nIn mid-April when payments were initially distributed , “ most people immediately spent on groceries , ” said Sopp . Many Current members , he said , also took cash out of ATMs to “ pay friends back and pay their bills. ” He added , “ People were struggling for basic life essentials and the stimulus payments really helped them , which I think is what it was all about . ”\nIn the next wave of payments , which occurred towards the end of April , more people used the funds “ for everyday means , ” Sopp said . That included ordering more food delivery and takeout , and gas .\nThe $ 3 trillion coronavirus aid package the House of Representatives passed last week , dubbed the HEROS Act , calls for a second round of stimulus checks . President Donald Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell indicated that they are in no rush to sign the relief package to law . Trump has shown support for a second round of stimulus checks .\nIf people do end up receiving a second stimulus check , Sopp predicts most will use the money for the same purposes .\nBest Buy ’ s Barry said Thursday that “ the impact of current to potential future government stimulus actions ” is something the company will keep an eye on “ for the remainder of the year . ”


Tony ( last name not included for fear of reprisal on the job ) has worked at Bank of America for 11 years as a customer service associate . He takes phone calls from customers whose needs range from a simple change of address to a family crisis that leaves the caller unable to pay their bills , and he tries to help them solve their problems . And Tony and his coworkers are organizing .\nBank of America has had more complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau than any other American financial institution , according to a July report from Mother Jones magazine . And according to Tony , many of those complaints could be fixed with better training for workers , who instead feel squeezed , wanting to provide good service to the customers they talk to daily and on the other hand scapegoated when something goes wrong . Tired of the inadequate training they receive , tired of watching associates get fired for mistakes they did n't know were mistakes , tired of feeling like they 're hurting customers rather than helping them , a group of around 40 workers got together to try to make , in Tony 's words , a positive change .\n“ We started the group because we were tired of seeing good people walked out , ” Tony says . “ It 's tough when you 've got to work in an environment where they tap you on the shoulder , say 'Can you come to a meeting ? ' and as you walk away , another manager walks up to your desk with a box and starts packing your stuff . If you look over your shoulder , you see them packing your stuff as you walk away . And we all sit there in shock saying 'What did they do ? ' ”\nHe continues , “ When we 're not trained properly it 's hurting the customer , it 's hurting us . What 's sad is that , when we 're not trained properly our mistakes tend to favor the bank , when we 're trained properly we do n't favor the bank . Some people feel that the bank would rather us not be trained because the money they make off of that is in their favor . ”\nFor example , he says , associates received just a brief training on doing balance transfers in the computer system that they use to manage customers ' accounts . For a while , he was n't aware that at the end of the call , a disclosure statement would pop up that was to be read to the customer , a legal statement of how the interest would accrue and what the fee would be for the transfer . Instead , he says , they were told that they should never end a call until the customer is finished , so if the customer ended the call , the next call would come in without the disclosure ever appearing . One of his coworkers , he says , was fired when the quality control department , which listens to two recorded calls from each worker each month to make sure they 're doing their jobs correctly , caught her not reading the disclosure . “ This disclosure where the customer can say ' I do n't want a 4 % fee , ' this favors the bank when we do n't read it to them , ” he says . “ You 've already got the balance transfer , we ca n't do anything about the fee . ”\nAnother person , he says , was fired for taking a hold off of a deposited check at the request of a manager . The managers , he notes , get the same training on the system as the associates , but often have even less time to pay attention to them .\nTony worries that the computer-based trainings they do receive are inadequate . Instead of a class where they might be able to ask questions , he says , they get computer-based trainings that they are often pushed to rush through in less time than the training says it will take . Additionally , he says , “ The first thing it does is tell you 'here 's what the training is about , acknowledge you 've taken it and you know the subject matter . ' To get into the course to learn about the subject matter you have to click a button that says we know about the subject matter . After you take the course , if you do n't understand it , they go 'Well you learned about it , you clicked that button . ' There 's no way to take the course unless you acknowledge it . We feel that 's their way of saying it 's on you now . It 's not the bank , you acknowledged you know it , so you do it wrong , that 's your fault . ”\nThe training they do get , he says , is often about how to “ deepen the relationship , ” with the customer . “ Deepening the relationship is a nice word for selling you something , ” he says . Instead of upgrading a customer 's credit card , for instance , they are pushed to open a new card , one which might have a higher interest rate than their existing card . According to Chi Chi Wu , a staff attorney at the National Consumer Law Center , this process could violate the Truth in Lending Act , which prohibits “ unsolicited issuance ” of a credit card .\n“ Deepening the relationship ” means something different , perhaps , to Tony than it does to the bank higher-ups . He says , “ I once sat in a training was about selling more credit cards , how to 'deepen that relationship , ' using what the customer says as a tool to sell them this new credit card . One of the associates in the meeting says , 'This woman 's overdrawn , she 's told me she 's unemployed , I ca n't sell her a credit card , she ca n't afford to pay any of her bills now , that 's going to hurt her . ' The manager said 'How do you know she does n't need the credit card to buy milk or formula ? This could be just right at the right time . Sell her the credit card , it is n't our responsibility if she ca n't pay it . ' ”\n“ That 's the kind of thinking that sunk this economy , ” Tony adds .\nWith the help of the Committee for Better Banks , a labor-community coalition that includes Alliance for a Greater New York ( ALIGN ) , Make the Road New York , New York Communities for Change ( NYCC ) and the Communications Workers of America union ( CWA ) , Tony 's group started a petition on Coworker.org this June . The petition calls for “ independent , federally-guided training be implemented immediately , for employees and managers alike . ”\nTony and his coworkers are not the first Bank of America employees to worry that they are being pushed to do wrong by their customers . As David Dayen reported for ███ in June of 2013 , former employees testified that they were denied training on mortgage procedures under federal programs , given bonuses for putting accounts into foreclosure , and pressed to lie to customers . Tony says , “ Maybe they 're like us , maybe certain things were left out because it favored the bank . As long as managers and site leaders are making their quotas , making their numbers , maybe that 's all they care about . ”\n“ I look at Bank of America and like I said I 've worked there for years , I see them , they 're selling things off left and right , they 're selling branches in Michigan , they 're selling branches in Maine , we 're shrinking the bank , ” Tony continues . “ I wonder if they 're shrinking the bank to pay the bills and to make the bank look good ? Because it 's all about profit and money and we have to return to the shareholders . Do I think shareholders really care if the customers get burnt ? No , I really do n't . They 're more concerned with the return on their stock . Maybe if banks listened to their employees and listened to their customers , it would be much better world . ”\nThey began organizing with the idea of getting better at their jobs , being better able to serve their customers , and Tony says that though it 's slow , they are seeing some results . No one has acknowledged their petition , though he says he 's overhead remarks from higher-ups about their organizing , but after the workers took their yearly “ associate engagement survey , ” the Human Resources department sent someone to look into their complaints and one site leader was removed . This survey was given after about forty people had been let go for things that Tony says they 'd never have done if they were trained properly .\nOnce the workers began standing together to try to solve their problems , Tony says , there have been fewer firings and somewhat better communication , though information about practices still too often comes from other associates who have been reprimanded for doing something wrong and who share that information .\nTony hopes that if workers and customers stand up for each other , they can change the banking industry. “ Our customers are all our families , our friends , our communities , this country is in a dire situation because so many systems , of which banking is one , are failing them , because banking has become more about greed , ” he says . “ This is all of us together trying to make a better situation and until we all come together this is n't going to change . ”


The storm clouds of the next global financial crisis are gathering despite the world financial system being unprepared for another downturn , the deputy head of the International Monetary Fund has warned .\nDavid Lipton , the first deputy managing director of the IMF , said that “ crisis prevention is incomplete ” more than a decade on from the last meltdown in the global banking system .\n“ As we have put it , ‘ fix the roof while the sun shines ’ . But , like many of you , I see storm clouds building and fear the work on crisis prevention is incomplete . ”\nLipton said individual nation states alone would lack the firepower to combat the next recession , while calling on governments to work together to tackle the issues that could spark another crash .\n“ We ought to be concerned about the potency of monetary policy , ” he said of the ability of the US Federal Reserve and other central banks to cut interest rates to boost the economy in the event of another downturn , while also warning that high levels of borrowing by governments constrained their scope for cutting taxes and raising spending .\nLipton said the IMF went into the last crash under-resourced before it was handed a war chest worth $ 1tn ( £790bn ) from governments around the world , while adding that it was important that national leaders had agreed to complete a review of the fund ’ s financial firepower next year .\n“ One lesson from that crisis was the IMF went into it under-resourced ; we should try to avoid that next time . ”\nSpeaking to an audience at Bloomberg in London , Christine Lagarde ’ s deputy called on China to take urgent steps to open up its economy to global competition .\nSign up to the daily Business Today email or follow Guardian Business on Twitter at @ BusinessDesk\nAgainst a backdrop of Donald Trump engaging in a bitter trade dispute with Beijing , he said China needed to lower trade barriers , while also impose tougher rules to protect intellectual property – a key complaint of the US president .\nLipton suggested that Chinese trade policies that were once considered acceptable when it joined the World Trade Organization in 2001 as a $ 1tn economy may now be inappropriate as it had become a $ 16tn international superpower .\nHowever , he did warn that the US should not take an overly heavy-handed approach to reform , adding : “ China has many reforms that it could carry out that would be in its own interest and in the interest of countries around the globe . But China feels they can ’ t take those steps , as they put it , with a gun to their head , in the midst of trade tensions . ”\nThe warning from the IMF marked the latest intervention from the Washington-based fund as the outlook for the global economy deteriorates , with particular flashpoints being the US-China trade dispute and central banks raising interest rates .\nGlobal growth is forecast to slow as a result of the trade war , while financial markets have also been rattled in recent weeks . Last week , the FTSE 100 recorded its worst day since the Brexit vote , prompted by fears over the dispute , wiping more than £56bn off the value of the UK ’ s leading companies .\nAfter almost a decade of low interest rates , the total value of global debt , both public and private , has risen by 60 % to hit a record high of $ 182tn , so if central banks raise borrowing costs that would create difficulties for businesses and governments .\nLipton warned that sustained trade conflict between the US and China would be likely to trigger “ far-reaching and long-lasting consequences ” for the global economy , with a risk that Trump ’ s rhetoric could encourage China to shift its economy away from the rest of the world .\n“ Trade barriers if they are sustained could lead to a fragmentation of the global economy . ”\n“ If this [ trade dispute ] leads to stalemate , China may decide to reorientate its economy not to trade with the US . To accept sustained trade barriers … could lead to a slowdown [ for the global economy ] , ” he said .