17 July 21
If You Stay With RSN, Get Ready to Help
We are glad you are here. We cannot maintain service without funding. The July fundraiser is crashing and burning due to indifference.
Help, we need it now.
Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News
If you would prefer to send a check:
Reader Supported News
PO Box 2043 / Citrus Heights, CA 95611
Follow us on facebook and twitter!
16 July 21
Live on the homepage now!
Reader Supported News
he books about No. 45 are coming out and one says he was deranged and another says that his own people feared for the country, neither of which I doubt for a minute, but I’m not up for reliving those years for the same reason I don’t plan to spend January in Norway: been there, done it, life is short, no need for reruns.
The January in Norway is a story my wife tells so much better than I can. I was sick with the flu in a hotel room in the town of Tromsø above the Arctic Circle; she was the one who went dogsledding and ice fishing in the arctic twilight in a cold rain and the sun never shone and the food was gruesome and everyone worked hard to be upbeat and detached from reality, and now when she recites the miseries of that week, people laugh like crazy, whereas I was in bed, mostly sleeping. The trip was my brilliant idea and I missed out on it and her telling of the story is brilliant, epic but brisk.
We have no plans to return to Tromsø. It has served its usefulness as an example of how unfounded enthusiasm combined with loose cash can lead to a dark place.
I experienced vast self-confidence in my twenties, which may have been a necessity for an aspiring writer. I hung out with other young writers, hoping to absorb talent by proximity, same as you’d catch the flu. We met at the Mixers bar near campus and I drank Scotch because that seemed like the right liquor for the writer I wanted to be. And I smoked unfiltered Luckies. What we knew about writers was that they were prodigious drinkers. Eight or ten of us crammed into a big booth and drank while disparaging any and all successful living writers from Bellow, Updike, and Roth on down. The combination of alcohol and disdain boosted our confidence. I imagine there are bands of writers doing the very same thing today. I don’t want to join them, any more than I long for Tromsø in January or want to read a book about Mr. Yesterday.
What I long for is to go back to last Sunday when I had planned to read to my daughter a long passage I wrote about her birth and childhood and how she developed into a big personality, loving, jokey, reading other people’s feelings, keen about details, but events intervened, and then Monday was furiously busy, moving her into a new apartment in a distant city, and then suddenly it was time to go and we hugged and she burst into tears and so did I. I’m not a weepy person. There have been many farewell moments when I should’ve wept and did not. What moved me was the depth of her love for her mother and me, the emptiness of the apartment, the strangeness of the city. “You’ll be fine,” her mother said. My daughter hugged me and wiped her nose on my black T-shirt, which amused her and so she did it again. I said, “Is it snot? No, it’s not.” She laughed. I walked to the door and on the way I passed gas and she laughed harder and then resumed weeping. I went out the door, tears running down my cheeks.
We drove away in grievous silence, my wife at the wheel. I searched the map on my phone for a Dairy Queen, thinking that I deserved a Butterfinger Blizzard but there were none nearby. Since Monday we’ve gotten reassuring texts from her that she’s doing well but I’m still miserable. This is an experience I share with millions of other parents. Who ever realized that simple concupiscence could lead to so many interesting stories and such deep feeling? I think of her on a swing, swinging as high as she could, laughing in the moment of weightlessness on the upswing. I think of her tonsillectomy where I gently, over her protests, placed the gas mask on her and held it until she sagged and closed her eyes, and afterward, seeing me in the hall, she stuck out her tongue. I think of how hard she laughed on the raft ride when a wave sloshed me and it looked like I’d wet my pants. I miss her. She’s entitled to independence, we being mortal and all, but I cherish the moment, our arms around each other, weeping. Did I say I miss her? I do.
Senate Budget Chairman Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent at left, and Progressive Caucus Chairwoman Pramila Jayapal, at right, a Washington state Democratic congresswoman. (photo: Getty)
enate Budget Chairman Bernie Sanders and Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal both wanted the top line for Democrats’ sweeping spending plan to be higher, in fact nearly double the $3.5 trillion framework that was announced Tuesday.
The pair had been working behind the scenes and around the clock to ensure progressive priorities were included in the proposal.
“We just spoke this morning. We talked the other night. We talked several days ago,” Jayapal, a Democratic congresswoman from Washington state, said Wednesday. “We’re in very close coordination,” she added.
Even though the framework that has been announced falls short of what progressives wanted, it still sets the stage for Democrats to pass monumental overhauls like expanding the child tax credit, broadening medical benefits and introducing new climate change proposals, making them willing to work within the framework given instead of viewing the deal as a nonstarter. But that doesn’t mean progressives will stop pushing for more.
Jayapal called the framework “important movement forward,” acknowledging that the deal includes all five priorities progressives pushed to be included and key tax increases.
But, to Jayapal, this deal is just a “down payment.”
“I don’t want people to think that if we do this package we are done,” she said.
As Democrats continue to dig into the details of what is in the Senate budget resolution proposal, Jayapal said Wednesday her support for a package with a smaller price tag than she initially had hoped depended on how cuts were made.
“There are different ways to get a lower number. And if the lower number is because some programs are not for the full 10 years, but they are still universal benefits and they’re for long enough that Americans get to see what they are getting … that is one thing, versus just cutting something completely.”
Jayapal also said she is advocating for the budget resolution to be done first in the House, rather than in tandem with the bipartisan infrastructure deal as is currently the plan, so progressives “can shape a little bit more what this looks like.”
“Our caucus’ support is not guaranteed until we see how our priorities fit into the framework,” she added.
Just last month, Jayapal told reporters, “it would take $6-10 trillion dollars for this package to really do what we need to do” making clear that the message from progressives was “let’s go big, let’s go bold.”
Sanders, a Vermont independent who caucuses with the Democrats and who was key to getting this deal over the finish line, was also pushing for the budget resolution to be in the $6 trillion range as recently as Monday, but after the deal was announced late Tuesday night, quickly re-framed the final agreement as “a big deal.”
“This is the most consequential program in the modern history of this country,” Sanders said Wednesday. “It’ll impact millions of working-class people. I’m very proud of what we have.”
Progressive Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, who has been pushing hard for the reconciliation package to include wide ranging climate change measures described the deal as a “good start.”
“We’re facing several interlocking crises – especially a climate crisis. This package is a good start on attacking that, and we’ve got to keep working hard to get meaningful climate action in the final deal. It’s not the overall topline number I wanted, but it’s a great first step,” Markey said in a statement provided to CNN on Wednesday.
But, Sanders and Jayapal both telling their colleagues on a call on Monday that $3.5 trillion would not be enough to cover all of the legislative priorities they wanted to fit into the package has left some progressives frustrated with where the framework landed.
“This is a capitulation by progressives,” a progressive lawmaker familiar with the call told CNN on Tuesday, reacting to the agreed-upon number.
“Many in the Squad and Squad-adjacent will vote no,” the lawmaker added, referencing members of the Democratic Party’s progressive wing and making clear that it will be a rocky road of negotiations ahead.
Another source familiar with the Monday call said it was not about whether progressives would support the top-line number, or withhold their votes, but rather the reality of what would have to be cut from the priority list if the final number ended up being around $3.5 trillion.
This wouldn’t be the first time progressives signal their potential withholding of votes in a budget resolution process, even if only to ultimately join the rest of their party in support of the deal.
In March, when Congress was in the process of building out a Covid relief package, progressives threatened to withhold their votes if the final package did not include a provision to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. But, when minimum wage was stripped out of the final version of the bill, progressives got in line behind their party and did not obstruct President Joe Biden’s first legislative victory.
Democratic leadership is now faced with the task of keeping all factions of the party satisfied in order to get both the budget resolution over the finish line without letting the bipartisan infrastructure package fall apart.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer acknowledged the twists and turns to come as Democratic leaders try to wrangle their caucus with sprawling points of view behind this deal.
“We know the road ahead is going to be long,” Schumer said Wednesday. “There are bumps along the way. This is only the first step in a long road we will have to travel and must travel, but we are going to get this done.”
Nina Turner introduces Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders at a rally in Center City, Philadelphia, July 15, 2019. (photo: Jana Shea/Getty)
he largest donor to the super PAC backing centrist Democratic candidate Shontel Brown in Ohio’s 11th Congressional District special election is an oil and gas executive who belongs to a billionaire family. Activists worry the donations could compromise Brown’s support for progressive climate policy.
Stacy Schusterman, heir and chair of Samson Energy, a fossil fuel company that owns at least 11 oil and gas wells in Wyoming, donated $1.55 million to Democratic Majority for Israel in 2019 and 2020, a super PAC that has in turn spent over $660,000 on ads supporting Brown and attacking her Democratic primary opponent Nina Turner, according to an Intercept review of federal campaign finance records. Schusterman is the super PAC’s largest individual donor.
Schusterman’s fortune comes from a much larger oil and gas business. Her father, Charles Schusterman, founded Samson Investment in 1971 in Tulsa, and the family owned it for 40 years until they sold it to the private equity megafirm Kohlberg Kravis Roberts for $7.2 billion in 2011, earning the family a huge windfall. Charles died in 2000; his wife (and Stacy’s mother) Lynn is worth $3.4 billion.
After the sale, Stacy Schusterman started the much smaller Samson Energy from her father’s fortune, investing in oil wells in Louisiana, Texas, and Wyoming. The wells Samson Energy has drilled in Wyoming have been a source of controversy as they are very close to residential areas in Cheyenne, the state’s largest city. Wayne Lax, vice president of the Cheyenne Area Landowner’s Coalition, told Wyoming Public Media in December 2019, “At some point, common sense needs to take over and large, dangerous industrial developments just weren’t meant to go into this densely populated a residential area.”
She’s also been an avid supporter of DMFI super PAC. The super PAC, which formally endorsed Brown in February, has spent millions going after other progressive candidates in previous elections. The group spent $1.4 million attacking Sen. Bernie Sanders in the 2020 presidential primary and an additional $1.5 million during that election cycle to support moderate Democrat Rep. Eliot Engel and attack his progressive challenger Jamaal Bowman. (Bowman went on to win that election.) Schusterman donated $250,000 to DMFI as the group was aggressively spending against Bowman, and $1 million in December 2019 — right before they launched aggressive attack ads against Sanders; her donations were not publicly available until after the primary. Schusterman donated an additional $300,000 to DMFI on December 18, 2020.
While Democratic Majority for Israel describes itself as working to “maintain and strengthen support for Israel among Democratic leaders including presidential and congressional candidates,” much of the group’s ad spending has not focused on a candidate’s support for Israel and has instead launched various attacks on candidates perceived to be more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause.
Evan Weber, a spokesperson for the youth-driven climate organization Sunrise Movement, which has endorsed Turner, panned DMFI’s role in the primary. “DMFI has shown time and time again that it’s nothing more than a front group for corporate, big-moneyed interests who will go to any lengths to stop progressives, especially progressive women of color, from having more power in our society,” Weber said. “Nina Turner is a backer of the Green New Deal and a signer of the No Fossil Fuel Money pledge. Shontel Brown is getting backed by a super PAC loaded up with dirty oil & gas money. The choice for voters in Ohio’s 11th district couldn’t be more clear.”
Craig Holman, an ethics lobbyist at progressive watchdog Public Citizen, said the outside spending by DMFI was upending the race. “Nina Turner had been enjoying a comfortable lead for Congress in this Ohio district, reflecting her constituents’ support for progressive policies such as Medicare for All and the Green New Deal,” Holman said. “But that lead has been fading as the Democratic Majority for Israel super PAC has raised huge amounts of special interest money from outside the district and is spending much of that money late in the election cycle targeting Turner.”
Oil and gas executives like Schusterman can use their funding as a way to build relationships with members of Congress, Holman said, adding that candidates “know where that money is coming from and they know how it’s being used to promote them. And it’s pretty hard to turn your back on that.”
Schusterman’s involvement in the congressional race through DMFI has left some skeptical that Brown will in fact advocate for a Green New Deal once in Congress. The Green New Deal finances a transformation of infrastructure in the U.S. that would significantly reduce fossil fuel consumption, impacting the profits of oil and gas companies like Schusterman’s Samson Energy.
While Brown, a member of the Cuyahoga County Council, has said she supports the “principles” of a Green New Deal, she has not signed on to the popular “No Fossil Fuel Money” pledge that was signed by Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Kamala Harris in the 2020 presidential primaries. Turner, a former Ohio state senator, has supported the Green New Deal and signed the pledge. Turner has been endorsed by a number of notable progressives, including Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Brown did tell the Wall Street Journal in March that she would vote for the Green New Deal if it came up for a vote, but appears to not have made environmental issues a central focus of her campaign, except for an environmental justice forum she participated in in April.
Some of Brown’s notable backers have deep ties to fossil fuel interests. Brown’s most prominent supporter, House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, received $228,000 from electrical utility interests in 2019 and 2020, and $62,500 from oil and gas interests, according to OpenSecrets. (Electrical utilities are still very fossil fuel-heavy, with about 80 percent of U.S. electricity coming from fossil fuel sources.) Another one of Brown’s endorsers, newly minted Louisiana Rep. Troy Carter, was removed from the No Fossil Fuel pledge website after he repeatedly accepted campaign contributions from fossil fuel interests. Hillary Clinton, who has also endorsed Brown, helped lead the push for shale gas while she was secretary of state, according to Mother Jones. Rep. Marc Veasey of Texas, another Brown endorser, was the fifth highest recipient of oil and gas money among congressional Democrats in 2019-2020.
The Congressional Black Caucus PAC, which endorsed Brown on July 7, has on its board Michael Williams and Al Wynn, who have worked as lobbyists for the petroleum and coal industries, respectively.
Brown’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment. Schusterman, for her part, did not say what her position was on the Green New Deal, but said through a spokesperson that she supported President Joe Biden’s climate agenda and had made “investments” in “clean tech” and “efforts to protect the environment.” The spokesperson said, “Stacy’s support for DMFI, and the candidates it endorses, is based on her commitment to a strong U.S.-Israel relationship and the shared values and interests of these two democratic allies.” The spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment on Schusterman’s oil wells near residential areas in Wyoming.
A spokesperson for Democratic Majority for Israel said they strongly support the Paris climate accord and Biden’s climate efforts. They declined to say whether the group supports the Green New Deal.
Then-California Democratic Party Chairman John Burton speaks during the dedication of the John L. Burton California Democratic Party Headquarters in Sacramento, California. (photo: Rich Pedroncelli/AP)
Federal authorities allege the two were "specific, detailed and serious" in a plan to carry out an attack on the Democratic headquarters.
wo men have been indicted by a federal grand jury on multiple charges in connection with an alleged plot to attack the Democratic Party headquarters building in Sacramento after last year's presidential election.
Ian Benjamin Rogers, 45, of Napa, and Jarrod Copeland, 37, of Vallejo, face charges that include conspiracy to destroy a building used in interstate commerce with fire or explosives, possession of machine guns and obstruction of justice.
Federal authorities allege the men were "specific, detailed and serious" in a plan to carry out an attack on the John L. Burton Democratic Headquarters. The Department of Justice said the two began planning to attack Democratic targets with incendiary devices after the election and sought support from a militia group in hopes their actions would start a movement.
"Do you think something is wrong with me how I'm excited to attack the Democrats?" Rogers asked Copeland, who later told police he didn't take any of the talk seriously and that he was listening to Rogers "blow off steam," according to the government's detention memo.
But the government alleged Copeland, who was arrested Wednesday, encouraged Rogers and continued to refer to violent attacks in January.
Rogers was charged that month with possessing five pipe bombs. According to the criminal complaint, investigators also found materials at his business that could be used to make explosive devices, including black powder, pipes, end caps and manuals, such as "The Anarchist Cookbook," the "U.S. Army Improvised Munitions Handbook" and "Homemade C-4: A Recipe for Survival."
Nearly 50 guns were reportedly seized from Rogers’ home and business along with thousands of rounds of ammunition. Officers and agents also reported discovering a sticker on Rogers' vehicle window that is commonly used by "Three-Percenters,” people who ascribe to extreme anti-government, pro-gun beliefs, the complaint said.
The Justice Department said that if convicted, the defendants face a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison, a three-year term of supervised release and a $250,000 fine for the conspiracy charge. Rogers also faces a maximum of 10 years in prison for the weapons charge and Copeland faces a maximum of 20 years in prison for a destruction of evidence charge.
It wasn’t known Thursday evening if the men have attorneys who could speak on their behalf.
Rusty Hicks, chair of the California Democratic Party, called the accusations “extremely disturbing.”
“We are relieved to know the plot was unsuccessful, the individuals believed to be responsible are in custody, and our staff and volunteers are safe and sound,” Hicks said in a statement. “Yet, it points to a broader issue of violent extremism that is far too common in today’s political discourse.”
Residents of D.C. rally for statehood near the Capitol in Washington on March 22, 2021. (photo: Drew Angerer/Getty)
What the violent Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol has to do with D.C. statehood.
Almost 90 percent of them say they want D.C. to become the 51st state, and momentum has never been higher among Congressional Democrats to make that happen. But unified opposition among Republicans, who argue D.C. statehood is really just a power grab in the Senate, means their efforts appear doomed for the foreseeable future.
The upshot is that a population bigger than either Wyoming or Vermont effectively doesn’t get a vote in Congress, because they live in a place that was specially established as a federal district over 200 years ago. And what’s more, members of Congress from other states can get together to override local D.C. politicians’ plans.
This week, VICE News’ video series, The Couch Report, breaks down what D.C.’s lack of statehood means for the people who live there, from drug policy to Capitol riot on January 6th, 2021.
Guatemalan men walk from a deportation flight after being sent back from the U.S. on May 30, 2019. (photo: John Moore/Getty)
“I felt like I was losing my strength."
hen Elena, a 30-year-old Honduran woman, arrived at the US border in December 2019, she was relieved. She had embarked on the long, perilous journey with her daughter after they had begun receiving threatening text messages from the men who’d killed her husband.
BuzzFeed News reviewed texts that say they’re from members of Mara, more commonly known as MS-13, a deadly gang with roots in the US that has forced thousands of Central Americans to flee their homes. The senders threatened to dump Elena and her daughter’s chopped-up bodies in bags.
“No matter how much you want to run away you will always fall and you will see that the Mara is in control,” one text message said.
Elena came to the US border for protection from that life, but she didn’t realize that she would be thrust into the Trump administration’s latest attempt to deter immigrants from El Salvador and Honduras from seeking asylum. To do so, former president Trump convinced Guatemala to take in asylum-seekers like Elena and her daughter. It’s there, US officials informed her, that she would need to find the protection she sought.
The relief she’d felt moments before suddenly turned to dread. Elena asked to use a pseudonym to protect her identity should she be sent back to Honduras.
"I wanted to cry; I didn't know what to do with my daughter," Elena told BuzzFeed News. "Guatemala is also an insecure country, and I didn't believe I could protect my daughter there."
In her effort to come to the US, Elena had become one of hundreds of immigrants forced into an unprecedented plan that was often overshadowed by other restrictions implemented by the Trump administration. The "safe third country" plan was rushed into effect in November 2019 and led to hundreds of immigrants being sent to Guatemala, a country also racked by poverty, violence, and instability and whose own citizens made up a sizable portion of those apprehended at the US–Mexico border.
A Senate Committee on Foreign Relations report in January also found that “not one of the 945 asylum seekers transferred from the United States to Guatemala has been granted asylum.”
But in recent weeks, the Biden administration has taken steps to help some of those affected by the deal with Guatemala, known as an Asylum Cooperative Agreement. In May, US officials agreed to allow six plaintiffs, including Elena, who sued over the safe third country plan to return to the US and seek asylum protections. But immigrant advocates believe more should be done for the hundreds of other immigrants sent to Guatemala. Biden administration officials have previously discussed allowing others sent to Guatemala under the policy a chance to apply for refugee status.
“The administration has thus far facilitated the return of just a few of the 945 people deported under the ACA program. It must now ensure that mechanisms are in place to permit the rest of this small number of wrongfully-deported asylum seekers to return to the United States and pursue their claims for asylum here,” a letter sent by immigrant advocacy groups to the Department of Homeland Security stated on Friday.
A DHS spokesperson the agency "has received and is reviewing the letter.”
Asylum-seekers who spoke to BuzzFeed News said being transferred to Guatemala was the same as being sent back to the countries they had fled due to its own struggling asylum system and violent instability.
Elena's husband was killed in 2013 by gang members who operate with near impunity in Honduras. Nothing came of the police investigation into his death. And then, a year later, the tortured body of Elena's sister-in-law was found. Again, police said they found nothing.
In the following years, Elena said she lived in peace in the capital city of San Pedro Sula, but in 2019, she started to receive text messages threatening to kill her daughter because she was related to her husband. To this day, she doesn’t know why.
"They told me I had to leave, that they had pardoned me for a long time but not anymore," Elena said. "I didn't see any other option other than to try to seek safety and protection for my daughter."
After being sent to Guatemala, Elena returned to Honduras, but knew she couldn't go to San Pedro Sula. She moved to the outskirts of the city and continued to move around for more than a year, staying in even smaller towns where she had family but always filled with fear and distress.
Despite changing her phone number, Elena continued to receive threats. At one point she asked police if they could offer some type of protection, but was told they didn't have the ability to investigate.
"I felt defeated,” Elena said. “The only thing I could do was cry because I felt so impotent not being able to find a safe place for my daughter."
In February, Elena considered trying her luck at crossing the US–Mexico border again because the threatening messages were becoming more frequent. Around the same time, her attorneys, who had filed the federal case against the Trump administration's safe third country program, called her to let her know that they might be able to bring her back to the US.
For about two months, the attorneys stayed in touch with Elena about negotiations with the Biden administration and in April told her to prepare for her return to the US.
"I was filled with happiness," Elena said. "I only asked God at that moment to make my departure date come quickly because I didn't want to keep moving from one place to another with my daughter. I felt like I was losing my strength."
On May 4, Elena landed in Miami to stay with a family friend and has been waiting to one day make her asylum case in front of a US immigration judge.
"I'm happy because being here I know my daughter is safe and I can breathe more easily," she said.
Back in 2019, the Trump administration hailed the safe third country program as an opportunity for asylum-seekers to pursue protection closer to their home countries, and, therefore, as then–acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf said, “eliminating the need to make the dangerous journey north and lining the pockets of transnational criminal organizations.”
But in the final days before launching the controversial plan, Department of Homeland Security officials were still scrambling to figure out critical details, including how those seeking asylum would obtain shelter, food, and access to orientation services, according to government briefing materials obtained by BuzzFeed News. And internally at US Citizenship and Immigration Services, asylum officers were concerned about their own involvement and whether Guatemala had the infrastructure to adequately protect people.
Even the US government's own training materials for officers detailed the perils people face in Guatemala, including gangs, violence, and killings with “high levels of impunity.”
Keren Zwick, director of litigation at the National Immigrant Justice Center, which was one of the organizations that represented the six asylum-seekers returning to the US, said immigrants seeking protection were being sent to a country that couldn’t offer them protection.
“This is an atrocious policy,” Zwick told BuzzFeed News. “The significance of the Trump-era’s assault on asylum seekers, the Asylum Cooperative Agreement and all the others combined, will take generations to even begin to right. Those affected may never see the harm done to them undone.”
Zwick said that even though the six asylum-seekers were allowed into the US, attorneys will keep their cases active because the rule and guidance that allowed the safe third country program to be implemented haven’t been rescinded and advocates want to maintain the right to litigate any future use of them.
“As long as the ACA’s regulatory infrastructure exists, we’re in danger of something like this happening again,” Zwick said.
Pablo, another asylum-seeker who was sent to Guatemala and was also part of the lawsuit, decided to try his fate in Mexico instead of going back to his home in El Salvador. Pablo, who requested to use a pseudonym for fear of threats if he is ever sent back home, said he left El Salvador after he was told that if he didn’t sleep with one of the local gang’s leaders, things would end badly for him.
But after making it to the US border, Pablo was sent to Guatemala, where an official advised him to instead seek protection in Mexico.
Pablo then made his way to Jalisco, Mexico, where his boyfriend worked as a waiter. But things took a turn for the worse in December when he contracted COVID-19. And since he was undocumented, Pablo wasn’t able to tap Mexico’s public benefits, when his employer refused to pay him while he was away from work, that would've paid him a portion of his regular earnings.
Someone also attempted to rob him one night while he was at a bus stop. Thankfully, he said, he was only struck in the head with the butt of a knife, but it was just another reminder of how precarious his situation was.
Finally, in early 2021, Pablo's attorneys told him they were receiving positive responses from the Biden administration and he might be able to return to the US. On May 4, Pablo flew to Las Vegas to live with his aunt.
Leaving the airport, the 25-year-old immediately felt calm and relaxed for the first time in years. He also didn't feel judged for being gay.
"People like me come to this country to be happy and free from prejudice,” Pablo said. “I never felt that in Mexico or my country."
Leaving his partner behind in Mexico has been difficult because of the refuge he provided Pablo during some of his darkest moments. For now, neither can visit each other, but they hope to eventually reunite in the US.
Pablo also hopes to one day finish his architecture degree after winning his asylum case. When you're a kid you have big dreams, Pablo said, but they're impossible to attain in countries like El Salvador and Guatemala unless you have money to pay for school and, more importantly, can afford to live in an area where your life isn’t constantly at risk.
"Being here, you can achieve so many great things," he said.
The Sedco 709 offshore oil drilling rig in Davis Straight, between southwest Greenland and Baffin Island. (photo: Bettmann Archive/Getty)
Although no oil has been located off the coast of Greenland, officials there believe undiscovered but potentially extensive oil reserves could help the autonomous Danish territory gain financial independence from the Scandinavian nation. Greenland gets an annual subsidy of about $540 million from Denmark.
As global warming continues to cause ice to retreat around the island, oil and mineral reserves could emerge, and the resulting revenue could decrease Greenland's dependence on the subsidy. However, Greenland's left-leaning government said it "wants to take co-responsibility for combating the global climate crisis."
"The future does not lie in oil. The future belongs to renewable energy, and in that respect we have much more to gain," the government said.
The decision to suspend oil exploration was made on June 24 but made public Thursday.
The U.S. Geological Survey estimates there could be 17.5 billion undiscovered barrels of oil and 148 trillion cubic feet of natural gas off Greenland, although the island's remote location and harsh weather have limited exploration.
The current government, led by the Inuit Ataqatigiit party since April's parliamentary election, immediately began to deliver on election promises and stopped plans for uranium mining in southern Greenland.
Greenland still has four active hydrocarbon exploration licenses, which it is obliged to maintain as long as the licensees are actively exploring. They are held by two small companies.
The government's decision to stop oil exploration was welcomed by environmental group Greenpeace, which called the decision "fantastic."
"And my understanding is that the licenses that are left have very limited potential," Mads Flarup Christensen, Greenpeace Nordic's general secretary, told weekly Danish tech-magazine Ingenioeren.
Denmark decides foreign, defense and security policy, and supports Greenland with the annual grant that accounts for about two-thirds of the Arctic island's economy.
Follow us on facebook and twitter!
PO Box 2043 / Citrus Heights, CA 95611
