Connect with us

Viral News

TPS news: Trump administration puts end of TPS on hold for Hondurans, Nepalis

Published

on

The Trump administration agreed on Tuesday to allow some 60,000 immigrants from Honduras and Nepal to retain their temporary legal status — pending a decision in a different case in federal court.

The administration’s attempts to end Temporary Protected Status designations for hundreds of thousands of immigrants from El Salvador, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Sudan had already been put on hold by a federal judge in October. The administration is currently appealing that ruling (a preliminary injunction) to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Immigrants with TPS from Honduras and Nepal, however, were not included in that litigation. They sued the Trump administration separately and hadn’t yet secured a court injunction in their case. But the administration is now agreeing to link the fate of Honduran and Nepali TPS recipients to the outcome of the existing TPS case.

Temporary Protected Status allows immigrants from a particular country to stay and work in the US legally when their home country has been hit with war or natural disaster. Because the designations have generally been renewed in the past, however, most of those who have TPS have been in the US for decades — only to have the Trump administration declare that their home countries have recovered from the initial disaster and that the immigrants need to leave.

At some point, it’s likely that the TPS lawsuit will make its way to the Supreme Court, where the administration will likely prevail, given the five-justice conservative majority.

House Democrats are making a legislative effort to allow TPS recipients to apply for green cards — something they can’t do now, even though they’re legal immigrants, unless they qualify through other means — as part of their Dream and Promise Act, introduced earlier Tuesday. That bill is unlikely to pass the Republican Senate or President Trump’s desk in its current form, but it reflects a willingness from Democrats to push for TPS recipients’ status to be addressed in any immigration bill.

In the meantime, TPS holders from Honduras and Nepal who were forced to make plans to leave the country or slink into the shadows after decades in the US now join the rest of the immigrants whose TPS Trump has tried to revoke. They have some hope they’ll be able to stay — but even less certainty about how long that will be.

Trump’s U-turn on TPS threatens to uproot hundreds of thousands of long-time US residents

The federal government has the power to grant Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for residents of a certain country who are in the US when that country suffers from a disaster. The legal protection allows them to stay and work in the US legally when their home country wouldn’t be safe to return to.

TPS can only be granted for six to 18 months at a time; the government is supposed to keep reviewing the conditions in a given country to see if it’s recovered enough to send people back. But before Trump, the government generally kept renewing the designations — especially for countries that weren’t in great shape generally. As a result, 250,000 Salvadorans have been living in the US on TPS since a 2001 earthquake; a few thousand Nicaraguans and Sudanese have had TPS in the US for even longer.

Under Trump, though, the administration’s taken a hard line that “temporary means temporary” — and that if a country’s current problems weren’t obviously connected to the original disaster that spurred a TPS designation, it didn’t deserve TPS anymore. Trump’s DHS has ended TPS for seven out of nine countries it’s reviewed.

To TPS holders themselves, this has been a tremendous shock creating ripples of anxiety. For activists (often also TPS holders), it’s a sign that the Trump administration is letting Trump’s aversion to immigrants from “shithole countries” (a comment that he made in a discussion about TPS holders) drive its policy-making.

Internal government documents obtained in the primary TPS lawsuit (and a similar lawsuit in Massachusetts) have certainly indicated that decisions on TPS were made from the top down. In one email exchange, top officials pushed career staffers to include more positive facts about life in Haiti, because a negative report about country conditions didn’t gel with the decision to end TPS for it.

In another, then-acting Homeland Security Secretary Elaine Duke appears to have shortened the amount of time given to Nicaraguans before losing their TPS from 18 months to 12 — after a last-minute phone call with then-White House Homeland Security Adviser Tom Bossert.

In theory, none of this matters, because the decision to end TPS for a given country isn’t subject to judicial review.

But in his October preliminary injunction, Judge Edward Chen of the Northern District of California ruled that the process by which DHS makes those decisions could be reviewed by the courts — and evaluated according to the Administrative Procedures Act, which sets out how the executive branch is supposed to make policy decisions. And he found there was good reason to think the administration violated the APA by not giving public notice that it was changing how countries were being evaluated for continued protection. So he ruled that TPS holders should stay while he looked into that claim as the lawsuit progressed.

The Trump administration has appealed Chen’s injunction to the Ninth Circuit, which is expected to hold a hearing this spring and rule this summer. It is unlikely to side with the Trump administration over one of its own judges.

But the Supreme Court has already shown more deference to the administration on immigration policy than lower courts have, with the travel ban cases, and it’s fair to say that the conservative wing of the court will find it inappropriate to dissect the process behind a decision the administration is legally supposed to make.

So the most likely outcome for this case is a Supreme Court hearing next term, with a ruling, probably in the administration’s favor, at some point in the first half of 2020.

More hope — but also more uncertainty

In that light, Tuesday’s agreement for Hondurans and Nepalis — just like the judicial ruling in the other TPS lawsuit — is just a temporary reprieve. It doesn’t force the administration to formally renew TPS, much less grant any more permanent legal status. And it doesn’t even require the administration to delay the departure timeline. In theory, if the Ninth Circuit ruled in the government’s favor, Sudanese TPS holders (who were supposed to lose their status in November 2018) could be immediately eligible for deportation.

This means that instead of being forced to choose between leaving the US and becoming unauthorized, TPS holders will have to make two kinds of plans for their lives — a Plan A for what they’ll do as they continue to be allowed to live in the US legally, and a Plan B for what will happen if that reprieve ends.

Continue Reading

Viral News

[Read] How to Research Trends: Move Beyond Trendwatching to Kickstart Innovation For Free

Published

on

By



Full E-book How to Research Trends: Move Beyond Trendwatching to Kickstart Innovation For Kindle
https://ebookunlimited.space/?book=9063694334

View at DailyMotion

Continue Reading

Viral News

Amazon 2-day shipping: Why packages sometimes arrive later

Published

on

By

In less than two decades, Amazon single-handedly transformed the way we think about online shopping. Before Prime launched in 2005, two-day shipping was virtually unheard of — now more than 100 million people use the service, and they expect the things they order online to arrive at their doorsteps in 48 hours or fewer.

There’s just one problem: Amazon, which has focused on obtaining customers at all costs for decades, seems to be looking for ways to cut down on shipping costs. In some cases, that means weaning Prime users off the near-instantaneous shipping they’ve come to expect.

From the beginning, free two-day shipping was Prime’s biggest draw. Memberships were cheap — $79 a year in 2005 and $119 today — and users had the option of paying a small fee to get their orders delivered in just one day. Today, Prime is about much more than package delivery: Users can order everything, from groceries to a house cleaner, through Amazon. But as Amazon has expanded, the promise of free two-day shipping — the main draw of Prime — has begun to come with a lot of caveats.

That’s not to say Amazon is totally changing course. In 2014, Amazon launched Prime Now, a service designed to deliver products in an hour or less, for some New York City-based users. (It expanded to other major cities in 2016.) Amazon often makes headlines for the grueling work expected of its in-house delivery fleet — or, more accurately, the network of contractors that deliver packages to Prime users across the country — a sign that it continues to take its shipping promise seriously, often at the expense of workers. But even as Amazon has doubled down on ensuring speedy delivery, it has begun looking for ways to rein in customers’ desire for instant gratification, a phenomenon it arguably helped create, in an attempt to cut costs and streamline its supply chain.

The result? Prime orders don’t necessarily arrive in two days anymore, nor are they always delivered to customers’ homes. All of this makes sense from a financial perspective, but that may not be enough to win customers over.

Prime customers pay for — and expect — quick, free shipping. They aren’t always happy about Amazon’s cost-cutting efforts.

Two-day Prime shipping isn’t necessarily a thing of the past, but it’s undeniable that Amazon delivery isn’t as seamless as it used to be.

Amazon will no longer deliver some small items, like razors or hair ties, individually. Instead, customers have to purchase $25 worth of these “add-on” items before Amazon will send the box out; the point, according to the company, is to give customers access to “low-cost items that would be cost-prohibitive to ship on their own.” Since 2011, Amazon has given users the option to have packages delivered to “lockers,” which are basically branded PO boxes, instead of to their homes or offices. Most recently, Amazon rolled out Amazon Day, a new delivery option that lets customers choose a specific day for all of their orders to arrive, is the company’s latest cost-cutting effort.

All of this makes sense from a financial perspective. Delivering packages to a single location instead of hundreds of individual homes cuts costs, and requiring customers to meet a delivery minimum for small orders helps Amazon consolidate deliveries, as does the Amazon Day program.

But the response to these new initiatives has been mixed at best.

Last December, Fast Company’s Mark Wilson wrote about how Amazon Prime is “getting worse,” claiming the company had all but abandoned its promise of two-day shipping for most products. “That little Prime logo used to mean something,” Wilson wrote. “Now it feels like a ruse that lulls shoppers into a false sense of security, until they go to checkout and see a shipping arrival date far later than anticipated.”

He continued:

“This cuts through the greatest promise of Prime. It’s not just the free, two-day shipping. It’s that it’s so reliable, you never have to think for more than a second about buying something. In this sense, Prime was constructed to be great for the consumer (so efficient) and great for businesses (mindless impulse shopping!). … It doesn’t help that we’ve seen a slow dilution of Prime itself over time, with the rise of Prime Pantry and Add-on Items. They force you to buy a minimum number of items to get the best deal, adding back the very psychic burden Prime had eliminated from the equation of online shopping in the first place.”

Wilson’s complaints about Prime suggest a bait-and-switch strategy. Amazon got 100 million people to become Prime users by guaranteeing frictionless service, but now that it’s gotten a sizable chunk of the market hooked on quick, free shipping, it’s trying to cut delivery costs by scaling back on the very thing that got customers interested in the first place. Put another way, Prime is built on the idea that shopping should be frictionless; Amazon has now introduced a degree of friction that wasn’t there before, and some customers aren’t happy about it.

https://twitter.com/esirof/status/1075426983104917504

“I can’t help but feel the frustration around how the false sense of shopping confidence is blown when Amazon simply uses the PRIME lockup as a gimmick,” one reader wrote in response to Wilson’s article. “The ‘prime’ benefit of getting your stuff when you expect it is gone, and it’s not just because of the holiday shipping crunch.

Amazon changed customer expectations regarding shipping. Now it’s changing them again.

One of Amazon’s core principles is “customer obsession,” a “vigorous” desire to “earn and keep customer trust.” (Amazon has, by the way, also been known to use customer obsession as an anti-union talking point.) Put simply, customer obsession means giving the customer what they want as cheaply and quickly as possible — e.g., within 48 hours or fewer — at the expense of profits.

Anne Goodchild, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of Washington who focuses on supply chain transportation and logistics, told me that Amazon significantly altered customer expectations and shopping patterns.

“The status quo [has been] that we take ourselves to the store, pick up the goods, and go back to our homes. That’s actually a pretty inefficient way of doing the last mile: We all individually use our cars, and that kind of commuting creates a great travel burden,” she said. “Delivery services, to some extent, have the potential to be an improvement. [They consolidate] a lot of deliveries — hopefully — into one vehicle like a UPS truck. They have strong incentives, profit incentives, to do that in an efficient and cost-effective way.”

The problem, she said, occurs when delivery becomes too quick. “As we move toward faster delivery, it gets harder to consolidate.” The promise of instant delivery means that customers can buy virtually anything they want without thinking about it; they don’t always think to consolidate their purchases into a single order, because there’s no need to. (A 2018 survey by the optimization platform Feedvisor found that 46 percent of Prime members shop online more than twice a week.) “When we’re not paying some sort of personal cost for the trip, I think it’s easy to overlook how much travel we’re adding,” she said.

Other retailers have attempted to compete by offering similarly fast shipping. “After Amazon, we have things like ShopRunner and even Target [now] saying that if you order certain items, you can get two-day shipping,” Ambulkar said. “I don’t see two-day shipping going away. I think there’s definitely more and more businesses adopting it.”

Even as other retailers lower their shipping times to keep up, Amazon appears to be tweaking its two-day shipping promise. Prime may be cheap and easy for customers, but the cost of all those deliveries adds up quickly. Amazon spent $21.7 billion on shipping costs in 2017, according to its annual report. That’s nearly twice the amount it spent on shipping in 2015.

“Amazon has pursued a growth trajectory rather than a profit one,” Goodchild added. “I think everyone would agree that their strategy has been to please customers and, in doing so, grow their market share.”

But now that it has more than 100 million Prime customers, Amazon is looking for ways to make Prime more profitable — which could end up alienating some of the customers it has made an effort to court.

Justin Smith, the founder of TJI Research, an analytics firm that focuses on Amazon, told The Goods that Amazon is looking for ways to make Prime more efficient — and cost-effective. “Lockers or other pickup points, or encouraging customers to ship items in the fewest number of boxes possible, which might mean getting it a bit later than if you had shipped items separately,” are all part of that strategy.

“I also think that because of how big they are, they are able to become smarter about predicting what items people are going to order in different regions,” Smith added, “and I believe they’ve been able to put items in warehouses closer to where they expect people to order them from in order to reduce the distance that items have to be shipped when they’re ordered. If that can be done efficiently, I think you reduce the individual shipping volume as well as decrease the delivery time, which improves the customer experience.”

It’s also better for the environment. Transportation is one of the biggest contributors to carbon dioxide emissions in the US, and medium- and heavy-duty trucks — the kinds of freight vehicles that are often filled to the brim with Prime purchases and other online orders — are responsible for nearly one-quarter of the total transportation footprint. These trucks, which used to deliver the bulk of their loads to stores and other retail hubs, are now increasingly dropping packages off to individuals. All those one-off orders add up, both financially and environmentally — but, because this type of delivery is often more convenient for the consumer, this has become the new normal.

Not everyone agrees with the premise that more efficiency will result in greater customer satisfaction. Saurabh Ambulkar, a management professor at Northeastern University, said customers who have come to expect two-day — or even same-day — delivery might not readily accept more optimized, less customer-friendly options. “The whole [promise] was that Amazon can deliver the thing to my house, so why do I need to go to the central locker to get something? Why do I need to go to the store?” he said. “If I have to step out of my house to get something, they lose that competitive advantage that they have, but they have to do some of it [in order to] ease the pressure on the supply chain.”

“In bigger cities, maybe the central locker is closer to the place you work, but in other places, I think delivering to residents is what made Amazon more competitive than other players in the market,” Ambulkar added. “If I have to go to a central locker, I can just go to the store to get that product.”

Want more stories from The Goods by Vox? Sign up for our newsletter here.

Continue Reading

Viral News

A Man From a Remote African Village Has Been Named Best Teacher and Will Get $1,000,000 for It

Published

on

By

When talking about the job of a teacher, many people refer to it as “a calling”. We all want our children to be educated by teachers who love their jobs and who make children feel inspired, interested, and motivated. There are 2 opinions when it comes to teachers: “A talented person will be successful, no matter what,” and “A talented person needs a good teacher.”

A charity foundation that was set up in 2015 by a businessman named Sunny Varkey (and Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, his patron) awards someone as “Best Teacher” every year with a Global Teacher Prize.

Bright Side was really interested in the winner of the 2019 competition because there were 10,000 applications from 179 countries, with a prize of $1,000,000.

Teachers from India, Australia, the US, Kenya, the Netherlands, Brazil, Japan, Argentina, Great Britain, and Georgia made it to the final stage of the competition.

A Kenyan science teacher and Franciscan friar named Peter Tabichi won the award. The award ceremony took place in Dubai and the name of the winner was announced by actor Hugh Jackman.

Peter Tabichi is a teacher in a small African village where the inhabitants often don’t have enough of the most necessary things. Despite this, his students are famous for their wins in international science competitions which is what ultimately attracted the foundation’s attention.

The school these students go to doesn’t look like a school that houses major victories. There is only 1 teacher for 58 students and 1 computer, and in order to make it to lessons, many kids have to cover huge distances on washed-out roads during the rainy season. Most of Tabichi’s students are kids from poor families or they’re orphans. The school is sorely lacking financial support, so Peter donates 80% of the money he makes on the development of the school — the school uniforms, textbooks, and other materials.

7 years ago, he used to teach at a private school but then decided to become a Franciscan friar and leave his job. The code he lives by requires him to have a somewhat ascetic lifestyle and help others. This is why teaching at a poor school is considered charity for Tabichi.

“This win does not belong to me: it demonstrates the achievements of young minds. I am here only thanks to my students’ achievements. A victory gives them a chance. It means that there are no borders for them.”

Tabichi explains how he uses different motivation methods with his students because the secret to success is believing in yourself. Every person can find something they like doing and feel confident. Peter teaches kids to look at things from different perspectives. This is why his projects where students can organize processes and analyze results by themselves are very popular.

The teacher doesn’t say that some of these projects are “cool” and others are “not cool”. The most important thing about them is that the students have to use their imaginations and have to look for new solutions. Tabichi says, “Creativity is extremely important, especially in difficult situations when the resources are limited.”

In this school, there are scientific and creative clubs where every student can showcase their achievements.

“Seeing my learners grow in knowledge, skills, and confidence is my greatest joy in teaching! When they become resilient, creative, and productive in the society, I get a lot of satisfaction for I act as their greatest destiny enabler and key that unlocks their potential in the most exciting manner.”

Tabichi also managed to talk about tolerance: “He created the ’Peace Club’ where there are people of 7 different nationalities and religious beliefs who all visit this school.

People are most interested in one big question: What is he going to spend his prize money on?

His answer? First and foremost, on computer science class, the development of the science lab, and new projects that can improve people’s lives. For example, Peter wants to teach his students to grow drought-tolerant crops. This project is absolutely necessary for life in Africa.

Interestingly, the agreement terms of the foundation say that the winner has certain responsibilities and the prize is not given to the winner right away.

For 10 years, the winner gets $100,000 every year and they have to stay in the profession for 5 years and be a global ambassador for The Varkey Foundation. It means that they have to visit certain events, talk to the media, and participate in training.

We’re deeply impressed by such people! Their stories are bright illustrations of what we call “the purpose of life”. What do you think about this award?

Continue Reading

Trending

%d bloggers like this: