I have trouble responding to the Trump Wall Hoax. First because it’s almost incomprehensible that we’re even talking about a “border crisis” that has no relationship to reality (there is no “surge” or “invasion”, no increase in crime, no correlation between violence and migrants, no terrorists over the southern border, no threat to national security). Fact-checking these speeches has become a macabre shadow dance, actions that respond to illusions until the real and the projected become indistinguishable to viewers.
In spite of having overcome the barrier of silence, the coverage of gender violence repeats many vices of the past. With the exception of feminist media, reporters, directors, and editors continue to gravitate towards the more morbid, leaving out the context of the crime- gender violence and the pardon in which it is expressed.What are the ethical obligations of journalism that covers gender violence and how is it held responsible?
The families will not stop organizing even if the government begins to do what needs to be done to resolve disappearance and forced disappearance in the country. Their movement doesn’t seek only human remains: it seeks the transformation of society from below.
On Dec. 7, Mexican organizations in defense of migrants’ rights held a press conference announcing their opposition to an agreement with the Trump administration, such as “Third Safe Country” or “Remain in Mexico” being negotiated between the two governments, in an Open Letter to the Mexican government. On Dec. 20, Donald Trump announced a plan to deport asylum-seekers who entered the United States through Mexico to await decisions in their cases on Mexican soil. The government of Andrés Manuel López Obrador accepted the plan, which is essentially the “Remain in Mexico” agreement referred to in this Letter.
There’s no doubt that after the blue skies and sunshine of December 1st, there are already clouds on the horizon. But the role of an engaged citizen cannot be to simply cross your arms and watch the storm roll in while saying “I told you so”. Giving President López Obrador the benefit of the doubt is to replicate the old styles of rulers who demanded unconditional support for their actions and cloaked themselves in authoritarian power and self-praise. Seeing treachery before it happens ignores the need for facts-based judgement and closes doors.