Mediaboss Marketing

Immigration officials have been accused of using coercive tactics to gain access to peoples homes and businesses without search warrants.

Campaigners claim that rather than convince a judge of the need to perform a search, uniformed immigration officers often simply demand to be let into the premises they are targeting.

While the law allows them to enter if the occupant gives informed consent, critics have said many of the people targeted are unlikely to know they have the right to refuse without risking getting into trouble.

We have been extremely concerned with the number of cases in which immigration enforcement officers have failed to obtain fully informed consent, the Migrants Rights Network (MRN) told the Guardian.

Mahlea Babjak, the groups London project manager, said many people were not being given information regarding all the risks and alternatives to being questioned during an immigration raid, adding: Every business owner and employee has the right to feel safe in their workplace.

The practice was highlighted in evidence given in a case against two anti-raids activists accused of obstructing immigration officers. The district judge, Julia Newton, sitting at Highbury Corner magistrates court, dismissed the charges last Friday.

Raj Chada, of the law firm Hodge Jones and Allen, who represented the two activists, said many people visited by immigration officers were not in a position to give genuinely informed consent. What the hell are they going to say? The occupier often does not know they can say no. They call it informed consent, I call it coercive consent.

The MRN said people from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds were among the principal targets of immigration raids against small businesses, which it said amounted to discrimination.

It said: These operations are rarely focused on intelligence and are consistently beyond a warrants scope. We urge the Home Office to stop conducting immigration raids in the community, as they are extremely harmful to a businesss local reputation and financial earnings, and damaging to employees mental wellbeing.

Activists from the Anti-Raids Network, which regularly documents enforcement activities, have also accused the authorities of pursuing them for political reasons after the case against two of their number was dismissed.

Babjak said: We are extremely concerned with the Home Offices recent targeting of activists, as we believe the Home Office must be held to account for its actions that undermine domestic and international law and the rights of all migrants.

Holly Lynch, the shadow immigration minister, said: This government repeatedly fails to respect the law and legal protections for people, while deliberately undermining the role of lawyers on immigration matters. These are serious issues and its vital that the law is adhered to at all times. Failure to do that puts at risk the possibility of sound and fair judgments being made.

A Home Office spokeswoman said: Immigration officers have a range of powers to tackle illegal working, which is a key driver of illegal migration and exploitative working conditions, including modern slavery. She denied officers were bypassing the need for a warrant if they ask for informed consent and stressed that the law allowed them to question people on that basis.

Continued here:
UK immigration officials accused of using coercive tactics to access homes - The Guardian

We should start thinking now about a new question in immigration policy: to wit, should legal status be a factor when the COVID-19 vaccine or vaccines are distributed?

Clearly, it will take at least months to manufacture and distribute, one arm at a time, the new vaccine or vaccines, so we must set priorities, preferably at the national level.

Clearly, medical personnel, from MDs down to hospital janitors, should be first in line, along with law enforcement people and first responders. Maybe the military is next.

High priority should be given to people with the virus (if that makes medical sense.)

Another high priority should be given, and probably will, to those who are elderly, particularly elderly with pre-existing conditions that make them more vulnerable than others. (This 80+ writer fits into that category.)

After that the priority rankings picture gets a little fuzzier. Should some high-incidence areas of the country get priority before low-incidence areas? Maybe.

And what do we do with the variables of ethnicity which mix with those of migration status?

Should we give priority to citizens, then green card holders, then aliens in legal nonimmigrant status, and only after all these categories are taken care of, illegal aliens? While some may disagree with me, I think not.

My sense is that priority should be given to those most in danger, not those with the most money (which is what usually happens), or to the people with the best civil status, i.e., citizens first.

The people most in danger of contracting COVID-19, as we know from multiple sources,are people of color, people with low incomes, and people who cannot work (as I can) from home.

People with the most likelihood of getting the virus are also, I would assume from my non-medical perch, the people who are most likely to spread it. It is to the interest of all of us that the illegal alien farm worker gets the vaccine before the healthy, 30-year-old Ivy League grad (like my granddaughter). He is more likely to be a spreader than she is.

So I think we should, for once, ignore the migration status variable. I think this makes the most sense for society as a whole and it also carries wonderful by-productit is easy.

Once we have put the vaccines into the entire U.S. population I think it should be mandatory and enforced with violators going to prison we can then start vaccinating overseas populations likely to come to the U.S. illegally, such as from the nations to the south of us.

Excerpt from:
Should Legal Status Be a Factor When the Vaccine is Distributed? - Immigration Blog

MIAMI Unable to vote because of her immigration status, Maria Elena Hernandez, a Nicaraguan janitorial worker with temporary protected status (TPS), found other ways to engage with the 2020 election.

Along with fellow members of her union, a local chapter of Service Employees International, Hernandez spent the days leading up to Nov. 3 knocking on doors across Miami-Dade and talking to voters about Joe Biden, whom she considers to be more "in favor of workers and immigrants" than President Donald Trump. For years, Hernandez has also encouraged immigrant co-workers eligible for citizenship to complete the naturalization process, so that they can "defend our rights" with their vote.

On election night, as preliminary results suggested a possible path to the president's reelection, Hernandez's mind briefly went to the worst-case scenario, given the Trump administration's commitment to ending the TPS program she depends on.

"I was a nervous wreck that night," she said. "I could see myself getting deported back to my country."

For Hernandez, and for many other non-voting Latino immigrants in South Florida who have felt targeted by Trump's restrictionist immigration agenda, the election's final results proved bittersweet.

While Biden ended up posting resounding Electoral College and popular vote victories nationwide, Trump won the state of Florida, buoyed in part by a groundswell of Hispanic support. In Miami-Dade, a growing coalition of Cuban and non-Cuban Latino voters alike helped lift the president to the best margins a Republican candidate has scored in the state's most populous county in 16 years.

Trump won nearly 55% of the vote across the county's majority Hispanic districts. That's forcing immigrants like Hernandez to reconcile their relief over Biden's win with a dose of exasperation with their own community.

"It's frustrating, seeing so many Latinos backing (Trump) and voting for him," Hernandez said. "I keep asking myself, 'Why do they vote for someone who is anti-immigrant? Someone who is racist? Someone who doesn't like us? Why don't they look at the harm he has caused?' It's just a very frustrating situation."

Although she is a U.S. citizen, Mariana Martinez counts many undocumented immigrants and TPS holders among the ranks of her Salvadoran family members. Trump's popularity with Miami-Dade's Latinos isn't something she was shocked by: in the lead-up to the election, she saw more Trump signs popping up in Cutler Bay, where she lives, and in Homestead, where her work as an immigrant rights advocate with the American Friends Service Committee often takes her. But lack of surprise doesn't mean lack of disappointment.

"I guess it's like, 'What happened?' I'm honestly still trying to figure out what went down. But it's really disheartening, how a lot of people voted against their communities, because I can name a couple of folks whose families are also mixed-status, and they still voted for Trump," she said.

"It's a big disconnect. In Miami-Dade, everybody knows someone who is undocumented. (So) why would you vote for someone that's not trying to give members of your community status? ... Do they just not care?"'

In conversations with the Miami Herald, many South Florida immigrants and immigrant rights advocates stressed that Biden was not their preferred choice for president at the onset of the 2020 race, given his role as vice president in an administration that deported record numbers of people.

But all those interviewed saw Biden as a bigger ally to the immigrant community than Trump.

In his four years as president, Trump has managed to reshape virtually every aspect of the immigration system, both legal and illegal. This is despite a spate of litigation that sought to block the implementation of many of his policies.

He largely sealed off the country from asylum-seekers and refugees (including from Cuba and Venezuela), vastly expanded immigrant detention and made all undocumented immigrants fair game for deportation. This is in contrast to President Barack Obama who, in the latter part of his tenure, directed ICE to restrict enforcement to unauthorized immigrants who had committed crimes.

Trump also leveraged the COVID-19 pandemic to turn down tens of thousands of visas, and sought to create a wealth test for immigrants seeking permanent residency. Under Trump's watch in 2018, the U.S. government sparked international condemnation when a "zero tolerance" policy led to the separation of thousands of families at the southern border.

"I had been having a rough time emotionally these past few months," Maria Angelica Ramirez said. "If Trump had been reelected, I was pretty sure I was going to end up facing deportation once again."

A 33-year-old Colombian immigrant, Ramirez moved to Miami at 14. She is one of the more than 600,000 beneficiaries of the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, which has since 2012 allowed undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children to apply for a temporary status that shields them from deportation and allows them to work.

The Trump administration first sought to terminate DACA in 2017. Though the Supreme Court blocked that policy change earlier this year in concordance with previous rulings by federal judges the government has refused to accept new applications into the DACA program.

Biden, on the other hand, has pledged to fully restore DACA, dismantle the rest of Trump's restrictionist immigration agenda, and even work with Congress to provide "a roadmap to citizenship" for the country's nearly 11 million undocumented immigrants, among other measures.

"We have seen a pattern during this (Trump) administration of attacking as much as they possibly could," said Romina Montenegro, a DACA recipient who moved from her native Argentina to Miami when she was 2. "Meanwhile, Biden is looking for solutions. He is looking for a way to make sure everyone is protected."

Stark differences in Biden and Trump's immigration platforms has made the swell of Latino support for the president in South Florida difficult to process.

"It leaves a bad taste in your mouth," said Montenegro. "It feels a bit like betrayal."

Trump's significant improvement in the 2020 election in Miami-Dade a county where more than 50% of residents are foreign-born is partly due to the fact that, despite the president's well-documented anti-immigrant track record, immigration was simply not a top-of-mind issue for voters at the ballot box, according to local pollsters.

In the lead-up to the election, "when you (asked) Latinos in Florida what are the issues that concern them the most, immigration (was) generally not in the top three," said Eduardo Gamarra, who directs the Latino Public Opinion Forum at Florida International University.

Both Gamarra and Fernand Amandi, a partner of the Miami-based polling firm Bendixen & Amandi International, stressed that events like the pandemic and the pandemic's impact on jobs and the economy far eclipsed immigration concerns in the minds of many within the South Florida Latino electorate.

"The emphasis is not on immigration the way it was four years ago," Amandi said.

That dynamic, which allowed Trump to expand his Latino support, is partly the president's own doing: In the closing rallies of his reelection campaign, immigration received relatively little attention, a far cry from the "build the wall" rhetoric that powered his 2016 run.

In Miami, some non-voting immigrants say that indifference towards immigration matters is something they've run up against, and have been frustrated by, even among close friends and family members.

"It's really sad. It really hurts me ... I don't even want to ask my family who they voted for because I don't want to hear it, I couldn't take it," said Ramirez, the DACA recipient from Colombia. "But there is a family member who was saying, 'Yeah, I'm voting for Trump.' And I was like, 'Wait, are you sure? That's your vote? For someone who wants to send me home?' And that person was like, 'Yeah.'

"It's a moral issue," Ramirez added. "We have become unable to translate politicians' actions into our everyday lives, and how a decision up there in the Capitol or in the White House affects the person who is in front of me. People have become desensitized."

Biden-supporting, non-voting immigrants have other theories to explain why so many of their neighbors supported the president. They range from the much-talked-about impact of the Trump campaign's relentless anti-socialism rhetoric to a perceived lack of investment from Democrats in Latino voter outreach, especially compared to the GOP's robust ground game and infrastructure for reaching voters even outside of election season.

"The message that Biden is a socialist was really effective," Hernandez said. "I don't understand why people closed their eyes and let themselves be fooled. It's frustrating."

(EDITORS: STORY CAN END HERE)

(EDITORS: BEGIN OPTIONAL TRIM)

During her canvassing rounds, Hernandez and her fellow union members tried to counter the socialism label, and told voters that Biden's platform would help people, not set the U.S. on the path of countries like Cuba, Venezuela or Nicaragua.

"I told people to vote based off what's happening in this country, that we can't keep on basing ourselves off of our countries," said Clara Vargas, a janitorial worker and Cuban immigrant who also knocked on doors for Biden through 32BJ SEIU. "We need to consider what's happening here, and vote for people who are trying to actually make things better here, from the pandemic to immigration and health care."

Both Vargas and Hernandez said they never felt like they got the backup they needed in their canvassing efforts from Democrats.

"The (anti-socialism) propaganda was everywhere and the Democratic Party did nothing to set the record straight," Hernandez said. "The support was lacking. It was really lacking. They need to put in the work ahead of time and help educate voters. ... They didn't run a good campaign in Florida" in 2020.

Absent more consistent outreach from the Democratic camp and considering the scorched-earth Spanish-language misinformation campaign that demonized Trump's political opponents some think that supporting Trump became a cultural signifier.

"It's definitely that thing of trying to assimilate to white America," said Martinez. "Here in Miami, everyone aspires to be something we are not."

Ramirez agrees.

"I think it's that classicism of, 'You know, we are better. We are Americans. The other people who are coming in now are not.'"

When she woke up to the news of Biden's win after working an overnight shift on Nov. 7, Hernandez said she started to cry.

"I'm usually not much of a crier," she said. "I just felt this tremendous relief at that moment. I felt happy."

(END OPTIONAL TRIM)

Hernandez thinks that Biden will be able to win back some of the Latino support Democrats lost in Florida in 2020 if he governs with immigrant communities in mind. She is confident that he will do so in part because of the person he'll have by his side: Kamala Harris, whose father emigrated from Jamaica and whose mother came from India.

"As a woman, I think it's inspiring that she will be vice president. Plus she is the daughter of immigrants. I'm confident they will keep their promises," she said. "Otherwise it will be very difficult for them to regain our trust."

(c)2020 Miami Herald

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC

PHOTO (for help with images, contact 312-222-4194):

Read the original post:
'Do they just not care?' Miami immigrants troubled by surge of Latino support for Trump - The Bakersfield Californian

A text message from a friend popped on Devani Gonzlezs phone when Joe Biden was named president-elect on the Saturday after Election Day. How do you feel?

The days that passed between the last ballots cast and the announcement of Bidens win were grueling. But so were the last four years. She took a moment before writing back. I dont know. I just feel like, relief. I feel very emotional. I feel hope.

For many like Gonzlez, a 24-year-old Houston paralegal, the election ousting President Donald Trump meant the end of years of worry, threats of deportation and being the target of abuse. A core base of Trumps supporters stood by his immigration policies, which brought increased enforcement, and his vitriol, which made life more difficult for both immigrants and people in the country illegally. He also tightened legal channels into the country and made immigration processes more arduous and expensive for foreign-born people.

Weve been attacked over and over and over and over again, said Gonzlez, who now hopes to achieve a permanent legal status under a Biden presidency.

Gonzlez is among the so-called Dreamers, those brought into the country illegally when they were children, their hopes threatened under the Trump Administration.

Our hope is that even if we dont have somebody to help us 100%, at least we wont have somebody thatll continue to hurt us 100%, said Csar Espinosa, leader of FIEL Houston, one of the largest immigrant advocacy organizations in the city.

The election drew a record number of ballots, including more than 73 million people who voted for Trump, many of whom supported his focus on immigration. In national surveys, most Trump supporters say they view illegal immigration as a significant problem. They support in high numbers stronger law enforcement and tougher border security.

Todd Bensman, a Texas-based Senior National Security Fellow for the Center for Immigration Studies, said Trump was justifiably targeting programs that should not be protecting immigrants in the country illegally from deportatation.

Allowing them to continue, Bensman said, serves as another fantastic incentive for mass migration.

One of the programs is the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, that protects dreamers from deportation and provides work permits. Conservatives have long challenged the constitutional legality of DACA, created under executive order by former President Barack Obama.

Trump tried to eliminate the program, but the U.S. Supreme Court rejected that effort. Nonetheless, he closed the door to new applicants around 500,000 newly eligible young immigrants and imposed new restrictions. Beneficiaries are now forced to apply for renewal every year instead of every two.

The U.S. is home to about 644,000 DACA recipients, with about 106,000 in Texas, according to March statistics with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the most recent available. The Houston metro area has 32,450 dreamers.

If there had been another Trump term, Gonzlez said, she believes the program would again be in jeopardy.

Us dreamers, we have been waiting for a very long time for a permanent solution to our situation, said Gonzlez, who has been a DACA holder for eight years. It gets very frustrating, very emotionally draining to be pinning your life on a two-year basis, let alone one.

Recipients of Temporary Protected Status, a program created under President George H.W. Bush, are also hopeful for the next four years. The Department of Homeland Security terminated this humanitarian program for almost all of its beneficiaries. Like DACA, TPS provides work permits to people who cannot return to designated countries where violent conflicts, natural disasters or extraordinary conditions exist.

Were getting tons of calls from people who feel relieved, seeing the light with Biden victory, said Iris Canizales, TPS community organizer with the Central American Resource Center in Houston. She explained that callers are hopeful that Biden will restore their status, which for many expires in January.

The majority of around 300,000 TPS holders nationwide are from El Salvador and Honduras, and roughly 17,000 and 6,000 live in Houston, respectively. The rest of the impacted are from Haiti, Nicaragua, Nepal and Sudan.

To Bensman, TPS was a door that needed to be closed. Youll have an earthquake 20 years ago, and all the Salvadorans are still here taking shelter from that earthquake, he countered. Where do you draw the lines?

While seeking to end those programs, Trump began new, controversial measures including the systematic separation of children from their parents at the border. Although it ended, about 600 kids, some under the age of 5, continue to be under the supervision of federal as authorities cannot find their parents.

The so-called Remain in Mexico program restricts requirements for asylum seekers in the U.S. and forces non-Mexican applicants to stay in that country to wait for their hearings. Trump has also banned visas for a dozen mostly Muslim-majority countries from Africa and Asia and increased deportations of non-criminal immigrants in the country illegally, many of whom parents of American children.

Sarah Pierce, a U.S. immigration policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute, a non-partisan think tank in New York that tracks international migrations, said President Trump is the first modern president to view both illegal and legal immigration as a net negative for the United States.

Her agency has been cataloguing more than 400 policy changes introduced by Trump, many by executive orders, that significantly reshaped the system, including legal migration.

Bidens immigration plan promises to roll back most of Trumps policies during his first 100 days in office. After that, advocates, like Espinosa, as well as policy experts recognize that any significant policy change including finding permanent solutions for DACA and TPS holders will not materialize soon.

They will be more challenging and for a longer term, said Kelsey Norman, director of the Rice Universitys Baker Institute Womens Rights, Human Rights & Refugees Program. Biden would need support from both chambers to pass legislation, an unlikely possibility if the Senate retains its Republican majority.

For impacted immigrants and their families, the nuts and bolts of immigration changes to come are an afterthought compared to surviving four years of Trump.

We cannot see the future. But (Biden) is definitely a relief, said Gonzlez. It feels like leaving behind years of abuse; years of attack that weve been having to put up with.

olivia.tallet@chron.com

Twitter: @oliviaptallet

Continue reading here:
For Texas immigrants, the switch from Trump to Biden is 'like leaving years of abuse' - Houston Chronicle

In the first TV ads of the runoff campaign that could help decide the balance of the Senate, Republican Sen. David Perdue warned his opponent would radically change America, while Democratic challenger Jon Ossoff accused his opponent of downplaying the coronavirus.

The ad from Perdue makes the misleading claims that Ossoff would defund police and provide voting rights for illegal immigrants. Ossoff has repeatedly said he does not support defunding police. And while he supports providing a pathway to citizenship to some 11 million immigrants currently in the country illegally, he does not support voting rights for noncitizens.

Ossoffs ad offers similar side-by-side comments from Perdue and President Donald Trump that the ad contends show Perdue ignored the medical experts, downplayed the crisis and left us unprepared.

Well leave it to readers to decide for themselves if Perdues comments did that, but some of the comments highlighted in the ad came early in the year at a time when medical experts were making similar comments. And Perdue made other comments warning about the seriousness of the virus and reinforcing Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations to reduce the spread of the virus.

Thefirst TV ad of the runoff from the Perdue campaign begins with a clip of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer celebrating after Joe Biden was projected the winner of the presidential race, telling a crowd in New York, Now we take Georgia, then we change America.

If Democrats were to flip the two Senate seats in Georgias January runoff elections Perdue vs. Ossoff and Republican Sen. Kelly Loeffler vs. Democrat Raphael Warnock Democrats would control both houses of Congress and the presidency.

You heard him, the ads narrator says. Chuck Schumer is trying to use Georgia to take the Senate majority and radically change America. The Schumer, Pelosi, Ossoff change? Defund police. Voting rights for illegal immigrants. Washington, D.C. as the 51st state.

Thats a distortion of Ossoffs positions. Ossoff has repeatedly said he does not support defunding police.

For example, in a Sirius XM radio interview on Sept. 11, Ossoff said, I oppose defunding the police and I think frankly, its a counterproductive and foolish way of characterizing what I think for some folks is a desire to reform police.

In an interview on WSB radio on June 11, Ossoff reiterated, No, the answer is not to defund police. The answer is to reform police. And the answer is to demilitarize police. Far too many local police departments are heavily equipped with armored vehicles and military equipment, and when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

The Perdue campaign points to comments Ossoff made in a radio interview in June: You have to have national standards for the use of force, and yeah, youve got to be able to hold individual officers and entire departments accountable, and there also has to be funding for those departments on the line. (Starting at the 19:39 mark.)

The Ossoff campaign says that Ossoff was talking about supplemental police funding, and that Ossoffs position is similar to that of Biden, who in June told CBS News, No, I dont support defunding the police. I support conditioning federal aid to police, based on whether or not they meet certain basic standards of decency and honorableness. And, in fact, are able to demonstrate they can protect the community and everybody in the community.

As we have written, there is no agreed upon definition for the term defund the police. Some police critics, who believe there is systemic racism in law enforcement, really do want to abolish police forces and replace them with other forms of community safety entities. Others advocate shifting some money and functions away from police departments to social service agencies.

Ossoff told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in August that he agrees with Bidens position of tying federal funds for law enforcement agencies to meeting certain standards, including whether they can demonstrate they can protect the community.

The ad also distorts Ossoffs position when it says he supports voting rights for illegal immigrants. Ossoffs campaign told us he does not, and the Perdue campaign didnt provide any evidence that he does.

The Perdue campaign points to Bidens support for providing a roadmap to citizenship for nearly 11 million undocumented immigrants currently in the U.S., including the so-called Dreamers who arrived in the U.S. illegally as children. A bipartisan immigration bill that sought to do the same thing passed the Senate in 2013 with the support of 14 Republicans, including Sens. Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio, who co-sponsored the bill. Ossoffs policy similarly calls for creating a path to legal status for undocumented immigrants who are already here and otherwise follow the law.

But thats different from allowing voting rights for illegal immigrants. As we have written, it would likely take more than a dozen years under such legislation for immigrants to gain full citizenship, and voting rights. But they would then be citizens, not illegal immigrants. Ossoffs campaign says he opposes voting rights for noncitizens.

The ad is correct that Ossoff supports statehood for Washington, D.C., but its not clear that statehood for D.C. could be accomplished even with a simple majority in the Senate. Under Senate rules, legislation can be blocked if it fails to receive the 60 votes necessary to end debate and move to a vote.

Any effort to get DC statehood would be filibustered, Norm Ornstein, a congressional expert at the American Enterprise Institute, told us via email. So the answer is that it would first require a change in the rules of the Senate to reform or end the filibuster, which is not going to happen with only 50 Democrats at least not for some time. It could happen, if [Senate Majority Leader Mitch] McConnells Republicans used the filibuster to block everything including COVID relief, infrastructure, and every other Biden initiative. But not for quite a while, and no sure thing at all.

The latest ad from the Ossoff campaign mirrors one it has been running since the summer, accusing Perdue of downplaying the coronavirus crisis. The runoff ad, called Echo, is updated to pair similar quotes from Perdue and Trump to make the case that Perdue ignored the medical experts, downplayed the crisis and left us unprepared.

Well just focus on the quotes attributed to Perdue. The quotes are accurate; however, they are misleadingly juxtaposed with a chart showing the rising COVID-19 death count. Some of Perdues comments were made early in the pandemic, long before the corresponding number of deaths reached the levels shown in the ad.

The first two quotes come from an interview Perdue did with The Valleys Morning News podcast a Georgia program on March 11. The bolded parts of the interview are included in the ad.

Perdue, March 11: Its a balance between being precautionary and overreacting. And I think we have to realize that the risk of this virus in the United States right now still remains low. And the mortality rate is still being determined. The normal mortality rate of the normal flu is well under 1%. This so far is over 1%, but you know, so far, very, very few people have been exposed to it in the United States. [] So I think were doing what we should do right now. I dont want to see America panic and overreact. But I do think its good for us to be precautionary and just take care of ourselves relative to whether we think were getting sick or have been exposed or anything like that.

Perdue went on to say that the authorities are not taking this lightly. Were presuming the worst and preparing for the worst. But at the same time, were hopeful this thing will burn itself out before we see a dramatic increase in the numbers here.

The Perdue campaign also noted that in this interview, Perdue reiterated CDC guidance: If youre elderly or have a respiratory illness, be discretionary and stay away from large crowds. Use hand sanitizers, wash your hands frequently, try to stay away from people who are sick. And if you are sick, stay home. And if it feels like its getting serious, call a doctor, dont go run to the emergency room right away but call a physician and get advice.

To put these comments in the context of the moment, the day before the interview, there were about 1,500 COVID-19 cases in the U.S., with about 37 deaths, according to the COVID Tracking Project. At that time, the New York Times reported 17 cases in Georgia, and no deaths.

In comments on Feb. 29, less than two weeks before Perdues interview, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said in an interview on NBCs Today show that the risk from COVID-19 is still low, and he said there was no need for people to change their daily routines at this moment. But he warned that could change if you start to see community spread. Fauci said the virus could develop into a major outbreak or it could be something thats reasonably well controlled.

On March 9, just two days before Perdues comments, Fauci was still talking about the coronavirus as an evolving thing and that holding campaign rallies in a place where there is no community spread, I think the judgment to have it might be a good judgment.

Things changed quickly though in the days after Perdue made those comments on March 11. The day of that interview, the World Health Organization declared the global outbreak a pandemic, and two days later, Trump announced a national emergency.

The ad then highlights a comment Perdue made at a Chamber of Commerce meeting on May 14: Weve had ordinary flu seasons with more deaths. Perdue rightly noted that there were about 80,000 deaths from COVID-19 at that time, and there were an estimated 61,000 influenza deaths in the 2017-2018 flu season (though the average over the last decade has been fewer than 40,000 per year). But even at the time it was a flawed comparison and, of course, COVID-19-related deaths continued to mount through the summer and fall (and now stand at more than 247,000). We have repeatedly fact-checked the president for making faulty comparisons between the flu and COVID-19, which has proven to be much more deadly (as medical experts repeatedly warned).

The ad then uses a quote from Perdue at a different Chamber of Commerce meeting on April 28: The numbers projected were supposed to be much worse. Perdue credited Trumps actions for keeping those numbers down.

As we have written numeroustimesin the past when Trump claimed to have averted some 2 million deaths, a forecast of 2.2 million deaths in the U.S. is based on a model from Imperial College London in March that predicted U.S. deaths if no mitigation measures were taken and no individual behavior changes occurred. The figure, therefore, was not intended to be an estimate of likely deaths.

And as we have written, research does support the idea that lockdowns which were instituted by states, not Trump saved lives earlier this year, although its hard to say how many.

Finally, the ad uses a clip from Perdue being interviewed on CNBC on June 16 in which he was asked about the reopening plan in Georgia. Its going very well, Perdue said.

Fauci and other medical experts were critical in May of Georgia and some other Republican-led states for opening too early. At the time, Perdue told Politico that he had recently eaten in restaurants twice in Georgia and, Weve got to get this economy open again. Were on the back side of the cycle. However, new cases spiked in Georgia in July and August.

Readers can make what they will of Perdues comments and decide for themselves if he downplayed the virus.

The Perdue campaign points to other comments and statements Perdue made around the same time that suggest he took the pandemic seriously and took measures to help protect the public.

For example, on March 2 after the first two cases of the coronavirus were reported in Georgia, Perdue and Loeffler issued a press release stating, in part, Were closely monitoring the cases of coronavirus in Georgia and urge everyone to take extra precautions. Governor Kemp and the Trump Administration are working with us to ensure we keep Georgians healthy and safe. It is of utmost importance that Georgia has the resources necessary to respond accordingly.

And on March 23, Perdue released a public service announcement via video, which began: First of all, I know this virus is causing a lot of concern, and rightfully so. Let me assure you of this: the worlds best public health officials are right here in Georgia at the CDC. Theyre working around the clock to help contain this virus and to develop a vaccine.

Perdue, March 23: The Presidents early travel restrictions gave us time to prepare for the virus, and were continuing to take action to safeguard public health. Were doing this by cutting red tape, partnering with the private sector to expand testing availability, and ensuring state and local officials have the resources they need. Were also working on ways to help families and businesses that might be impacted financially.

Finally, please remember to follow the advice of public health officials: stay home if you are sick; wash your hands frequently with soap and water; keep a safe distance from others. If you are experiencing symptoms, call your health care provider right away. You dont necessarily need to go there, just call them and give them your symptoms.

The Perdue campaign also pointed to a number of COVID-19-related actions Perdue has taken, including helping small businesses access the Paycheck Protection Program and helping to locate personal protective equipment for front-line workers.

The Perdue campaign also touted measures in the CARES Act, a nearly $2 trillion stimulus package to bolster the economy in response to the coronavirus pandemic. It included direct payments to Americans, loans for small businesses, support for hospitals and more. The bill passed unanimously in the Senate. Perdue, of course, voted for it, although he opposed two of its major provisions: the direct payment of $1,200 checks to qualifying individuals and the $600-per-week in additional unemployment payments.

One one front, Perdue has been out ahead of, and clearer than, the president: encouraging the public to wear masks.

Trump has waffled on his support for mask-wearing from the start saying on April 3, the day the CDC issued recommendations for public mask-wearing, that he would not personally be wearing a mask. In an interview in early May, Perdue said that in Senate meetings the week before, We all wore masks. We actually had a meeting before then (and) we had masks. And we have hand sanitizers, signs everywhere about washing hands and maintaining social distance. I think its very important that America sees that, that we are functioning, and that this is an essential part of life, that we work together.

In an interview on Fox News on June 30, Perdue said, I absolutely support wearing masks. We wear them here in the Senate. Weve been back here for five weeks. We follow the protocols that the military and our essential workers have been following. We wash our hands, we use masks, and if we follow that, I believe the infection rate can be managed.

And on July 9, Perdue tweeted a picture of himself wearing a mask and imploring the public to wear a mask, wash your hands, practice social distancing.

That was 11 days before Trump did the same thing.

In Ossoffs ad, a chart shows the rising COVID-19 death count, while Trump and Perdue comment about the virus. But the chart is misleading. For example, when Perdue said the risk of this virus still remains low, the chart shows the number of deaths increasing from about 15,000 to 83,000. But, as we said, that comment was made when there were about 1,500 cases and about 37 deaths nationwide (and just 17 cases and no deaths in Georgia). Similarly, the graphic shows the death count rising from about 180,000 to about 210,000 when Perdue said the numbers projected were supposed to be much worse when, in fact, there were 54,761 deaths at the time of his remarks on April 28.

That puts Perdues comments in a worse light. Still, Perdues comments comparing COVID-19 to the flu, praising Georgias early reopening plan and crediting Trump for keeping the death count below projections are all flawed. But again, well let readers determine for themselves if those comments prove Perdue ignored the medical experts and downplayed the crisis.

Editors note: FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. Please consider a donation. Credit card donations may be made throughour Donate page. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, 202 S. 36th St., Philadelphia, PA 19104.

This fact check is available at IFCNs 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Clickherefor more.

Read the original post:
Opening Ads in the Perdue-Ossoff Runoff - FactCheck.org