Connect with us

Business

Health care providers and debt collectors are biting from people’s paychecks to cover old medical bills

Published

on


Stacey Knoll thought the court summons she received was a scam. She didn’t remember getting any medical bills from Montrose Regional Health, a nonprofit hospital, after a 2020 emergency room visit.

So she was shocked when, three years after the trip to the hospital, her employer received court orders requiring it to start funneling a chunk of her paychecks to a debt collector for an unpaid $881 medical bill — which had grown to $1,155.26 from interest and court fees.

The timing was terrible. After leaving a bad marriage and staying in a shelter, she had just gotten full custody of her three children, steady housing in Montrose, Colorado, and a job at a gas station.

“And that’s when I got that garnishment from the court,” she said. “It was really scary. I’d never been on my own or raised kids on my own.”

KFF Health News reviewed 1,200 Colorado cases in which judges, over a two-year period from Feb. 1, 2022, through Feb. 1, 2024, gave permission to garnish wages over unpaid bills. At least 30% of the cases stemmed from medical care — even when patients’ bills should have been covered by Medicaid, the public insurance program for those with low incomes or disabilities. That 30% is likely an underestimate since medical debt is often hidden behind other types of debt, such as from credit cards or payday loans. But even that minimum would translate to roughly 14,000 cases a year in Colorado in which courts approved taking people’s wages because of unpaid medical bills.

Among the other findings:

  • Patients were pursued for medical bills ranging from under $30 to over $30,000, with most of the bills amounting to less than $2,400. As the cases rolled through the legal system, accumulating interest and court fees, the amount that patients owed often grew by 25%. In one case, it snowballed by more than 400%.
  • Cases trailed people for up to 14 years after they received medical care, with debt collectors reviving their cases even as they moved from job to job.
  • Medical providers of all stripes are behind these bills — big health care chains, small rural hospitals, physician groups, public ambulance services, and more. In several cases, hospitals won permission to take the pay of their own employees who had unpaid bills from treatment at the facilities.

Colorado has company. It is one of 45 states that allow wage garnishment for unpaid medical bills. Only Delaware, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Texas have banned wage garnishment for medical debt.

As KFF Health News has reported, medical debt is devastating for millions of people across the country. And now the problem is likely to grow more pressing nationwide. Millions of Americans are expected to lose health insurance in the coming years due to Medicaid changes in President Donald Trump’s tax and spending law and if Congress allows some Affordable Care Act subsidies to expire. That means health crises for the newly uninsured could lead them, too, into a spiral of medical debt.

And the hurt will linger: Large unpaid medical bills are staying on credit reports in most states after a July decision from a federal judge reversed a new rule aimed at protecting consumers.

“If you can’t maintain your health, how are you going to work to pay back a debt?” said Adam Fox, deputy director of the Colorado Consumer Health Initiative, a nonprofit aimed at lowering health costs. “And if you fundamentally can’t pay the bill, wage garnishment isn’t going to help you do that. It’s going to put you in more financial distress.”

Flying blind on medical debt

When someone fails to pay a bill, the creditor that provided the service — whether for a garage door repair, a car loan, or medical care — can take the debtor to court. Creditors can also pass the debt to a debt collector or debt buyer, who can do the same.

“At any given point, about 1% of working adults are being garnished for some reason,” said Anthony DeFusco, an economist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, who studied paycheck data from ADP, a payroll processor that distributes paychecks to about a fifth of private sector U.S. workers. “That’s a big chunk of the population.”

But specific research into the practice of garnishing wages over medical debt is scant. Studies in North Carolina, Virginia, and New York have found that nonprofit hospitals commonly garnish wages from indebted patients, with some studies finding those patients tend to work in low-wage occupations.

Marty Makary, who led research on medical debt wage garnishment in Virginia at Johns Hopkins University before joining Trump’s cabinet as Food and Drug Administration commissioner, has called the practice “aggressive.” He co-authored a study that found 36% of Virginia hospitals, mostly nonprofit and mostly in urban areas, were using garnishment to collect unpaid debts in 2017, affecting thousands of patients.

The Colorado findings from KFF Health News show that hospitals are far from the only medical providers going after patients’ paychecks, though.

Researchers and advocates say that, in addition to a dearth of court case data, another phenomenon tends to obscure how often this happens. “People find debt shameful,” said Lester Bird, a senior manager at the Pew Charitable Trusts who specializes in courts. “A lot of this exists in the shadows.”

Without data on how often this tactic is employed, lawmakers are flying blind — even as a 2024 Associated Press-NORC poll showed about 4 in 5 U.S. adults believe it’s important for the federal government to provide medical debt relief.

‘Blood from a turnip’

Colorado was among the first of 15 states to scratch medical debt from credit reports. Debt buyers in the state aren’t allowed to foreclose on a patient’s home. If qualified patients opt to pay in monthly installments, those payments shouldn’t exceed 6% of their household income — and the remaining debt gets wiped after about three years of paying.

But if they don’t agree to a payment plan, Coloradans can have up to 20% of their disposable earnings garnished. The National Consumer Law Center gave the state a “D” grade for state protections of family finances.

Consumer advocates said they aren’t sure how well even those Colorado requirements are being followed. And people wrote letters to the courts saying wage garnishment would exacerbate their already dire financial situations.

“I have begun to fall behind on my electricity, my gas, my water my credit cards,” wrote a man in western Colorado in a letter to a judge that KFF Health News obtained in the court filings. Court records show he was working in construction and at a rent-to-own store, with about $8,000 in medical debt. He wrote to the judge that he was paying close to $1,000 a month. “The way things are going now I will lose everything.”

The people being sued in KFF Health News’ Colorado review worked in a wide array of jobs. They worked in school districts, ranching, mining, construction, local government, even health care. Several worked at stores such as Walmart and Family Dollar, or at gas stations, restaurants, or grocery stores.

“You’re really kicking people when they’re down,” said Lois Lupica, a former attorney working with the Denver-based Community Economic Defense Project and the Debt Collection Lab at Princeton. “They’re basically suing the you-can’t-get-blood-from-a-turnip population.”

In 2022, court records show, Valley View health system based in Glenwood Springs was allowed to garnish the wages of one of its patients over a $400 medical bill. The patient was working at a local organization that the health system supported as part of the community benefits it provides to keep its tax-exempt status. Nonprofit hospitals like Valley View are required to provide community benefits, which can also include charity care that covers patients’ bills.

Stacey Gavrell, the health system’s chief community relations officer, said it offers options such as interest-free payment plans and care at reduced or no cost to families with incomes up to 500% of the federal poverty level.

“As our rural region’s largest healthcare provider, it is imperative to the health and well-being of our community that Valley View remains a financially viable organization,” she said. “Most of our patients work with us to develop a payment plan or pursue financial assistance.”

The collection agency that took the employee to court, A-1 Collection Agency, advertises itself on its website as empathetic: “We understand times are tough and money is tight.”

Pilar Mank, who oversees operations at A-1’s parent company, Healthcare Management, said it accepts payment plans as small as $50 a month and that most of the hospitals it works with allow it to offer a discount if patients pay all at once.

“Suing a patient is the absolute last resort,” she said. “We try everything we can to work with the patient.”

Hospitals sometimes also garnish wages from their own employees for care they provided them. In one case, a hospital employee worked her way up from housekeeper to registrar to quality analyst. She even participated in public events representing her employer and appeared on the hospital’s website as a featured employee — while the court issued writs of garnishment until her $10,000 in medical bills from the hospital was paid off.

“Hospital care costs money to deliver,” said Colorado Hospital Association spokesperson Julie Lonborg about hospitals’ garnishing their own employees’ wages. “In some ways, I think it’s funny to be asked the question. I would understand if someone said, ‘Why aren’t you garnishing their wages?’”

Studies show that hospital debt collection efforts through wage garnishment bring in only about 0.2% of hospital revenues, said April Kuehnhoff, a senior attorney with the National Consumer Law Center, which advocates for people with low incomes.

“We also know that there are states that don’t allow this at all,” she said. “Hospitals are continuing to provide medical care to consumers.”

Smooth sailing for collectors — but not for patients

Health care providers appeared as the plaintiffs in only 2% of the medical debt cases. Instead, cases were filed almost entirely by third-party debt collectors and buyers, with BC Services and Professional Finance Company behind more than half of the cases, followed by A-1 Collection Agency and Wakefield & Associates.

Debt buyers make money by buying debt from providers who’ve given up on getting paid then collecting what they can of the money owed, plus interest. Debt collectors get paid a percentage of what they recover. Some companies do a bit of both.

BC Services declined to comment, and Wakefield & Associates did not respond to questions.

Charlie Shoop, president of Professional Finance Company, said his company initiates wage garnishment on less than 1% of all accounts placed with it for collection.

Health care providers in Colorado can no longer hide behind debt collectors’ names when they sue people, according to a 2024 state law prompted by a 9News-Colorado Sun investigation in partnership with a Colorado News Collaborative-KFF Health News reporting project.

In many states, the path for filing a case against a debtor and garnishing their wages is relatively smooth — especially if the debtor doesn’t appear in court.

“It’s unbelievably easy,” said Dan Vedra, a lawyer in Colorado who often represents consumers in debt cases. “If you have a word processor and a spreadsheet, you can mass-produce thousands of lawsuits in a matter of hours or minutes.”

Within KFF Health News’ sample, nearly all the medical debt cases were default judgments, meaning the patient did not defend themselves in court or in writing. Missing a court date can happen for a variety of reasons, such as not receiving the notice in the mail, assuming it was a scam, knowingly ignoring it, or not having the time to take off from work.

Vedra and other debt law experts said a high rate of default judgments indicates a system that favors the pursuers over the pursued — and increases the chances someone will be harmed by an erroneous bill.

But in New Hampshire, creditors now have to keep going to court for each paycheck they want to garnish, because the state allows creditors to garnish only wages that have already been earned, said Maanasa Kona, an associate research professor at the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University.

“It might not look like much on paper,” she said. “It’s just not worth it if they have to keep going back to court.”

Wrongly pursued for bills

The nation’s medical billing setup is already prone to errors due to its complexity, according to Barak Richman, a law professor at George Washington University and a senior scholar at Stanford Medicine who has studied medical debt collection practices in several states. “Bills are not only noncomprehensible, but often wrong,” Richman said.

Indeed, Colorado’s Health Care Policy & Financing Department, which runs Medicaid in the state, said it sent out nearly 11,000 letters in the past fiscal year to health providers and collectors that erroneously went after patients on Medicaid. Bills for Medicaid recipients are supposed to be sent to Medicaid, not the patients, who typically pay a nominal amount, if anything, for their care.

Shoop said his industry has pushed Colorado, without success, for access to a database that would allow them to confirm if patients had Medicaid coverage.

Colorado’s Medicaid program declined to comment.

Patricia DeHerrera in Rifle, Colorado, had to prove that she and her children had Medicaid when they received care at Grand River Health — but only after A-1 contacted her employer at the time, the gas station chain Kum & Go, with court-approved paperwork to take a portion of her paychecks.

She contacted the state, which sent letters to the hospital and the collector notifying them they were engaging in “illegal billing action” and telling the collector to stop. The companies did.

Theresa Wagenman, controller for Grand River Health, said if a patient can present a letter from a Medicaid caseworker saying they’re eligible, then their bills get removed from the collections pipeline. Wagenman also said patients get at least eight letters in the mail and several phone calls before Grand River gives the go-ahead for the collector to send them to court.

DeHerrera’s main advice to others in this situation: “Know your rights. Otherwise, they’re going to take advantage of you.”

Yet fighting back isn’t easy.

Nicole Silva, who lives in the 900-person town of Sanford in south-central Colorado, said she and her family were all on Medicaid when her daughter was in a car crash. Still, court records show, her wages were garnished for a $2,181.60 ambulance ride, which grew to more than $3,000 from court fees and interest.

She tried to prove the bill was wrong, contacting her county’s social services office, but Silva said it wasn’t helpful and she wasn’t able to reach the right person at a state office. The state Medicaid program confirmed to KFF Health News that her daughter was covered at the time of the wreck.

Fighting the bill felt like too much for Silva and her husband to handle while parenting a growing number of kids, one of them severely disabled, and working — she as a preschool teacher and he as a rancher.

Not receiving the roughly $500 a month that she said came out of her pay was enough to affect their ability to pay other bills. “It was deciding to buy groceries or pay the electric bill,” Silva said.

When their electricity got shut off, she said, they had to scramble to borrow money from colleagues and friends to get it turned back on — with an extra fee.

She said the saga makes her hesitant to call an ambulance in the future.

Fox, of the Colorado Consumer Health Initiative, said consumers often think they cannot do anything to stop their wages from being garnished, but they can contest it in court, for example by pointing out they should have qualified for discounted — or charity — care if the hospital that provided the treatment is a nonprofit.

DeFusco, the economist, believes filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy is an underused option for debtors. It halts garnishment in its tracks, though not always permanently, and it comes with other consequences. But he understands it’s a Catch-22: It’s a complex process and typically necessitates hiring a lawyer.

“To get rid of your debt, you need money,” he said. “And the whole reason you’re in this situation is because you don’t have money.”

KFF Health News intern Henry Larweh, data editor Holly K. Hacker, Mountain States editor Matt Volz, and web editor Lydia Zuraw contributed to this report.

Methodology

We wanted to know how often Coloradans get their wages garnished due to medical debt. Courts don’t compile this information, and researchers and advocates haven’t tracked it systematically.

So we created our own database. We requested a list of all civil cases across the state in which judges gave permission for a person’s earnings to be garnished — known as writs of garnishment in court lingo — from Feb. 1, 2022, through Feb. 1, 2024. The Colorado Supreme Court Library provided a list from all courts except for Denver County Court, which provided its own records. The combined list comprised nearly 90,000 unique court cases. We split up the cases by county population — small (fewer than 10,000 people), medium (10,000 to 100,000 people), and large (more than 100,000 people) — then generated a random sample of 400 cases from each group to ensure we evaluated medical debt across counties of all sizes.

To identify medical debt cases, we looked at the original creditors named in court records, primarily the complaints or affidavits of indebtedness. Often, this information was available through a state website. When it wasn’t available online, we asked county courthouses to send us supporting documents. We counted dentists as medical providers. We excluded 14 cases in which the debt wasn’t exclusively medical.

We looked only at cases in which courts approved money to be garnished from someone’s paycheck, as opposed to from other sources such as their bank accounts. We did not review garnishment cases involving child support, taxes, or federal student loans.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

AI labs like Meta, Deepseek, and Xai earned worst grades possible on an existential safety index

Published

on



A recent report card from an AI safety watchdog isn’t one that tech companies will want to stick on the fridge.

The Future of Life Institute’s latest AI safety index found that major AI labs fell short on most measures of AI responsibility, with few letter grades rising above a C. The org graded eight companies across categories like safety frameworks, risk assessment, and current harms.

Perhaps most glaring was the “existential safety” line, where companies scored Ds and Fs across the board. While many of these companies are explicitly chasing superintelligence, they lack a plan for safely managing it, according to Max Tegmark, MIT professor and president of the Future of Life Institute.

“Reviewers found this kind of jarring,” Tegmark told us.

The reviewers in question were a panel of AI academics and governance experts who examined publicly available material as well as survey responses submitted by five of the eight companies.

Anthropic, OpenAI, and GoogleDeepMind took the top three spots with an overall grade of C+ or C. Then came, in order, Elon Musk’s Xai, Z.ai, Meta, DeepSeek, and Alibaba, all of which got Ds or a D-.

Tegmark blames a lack of regulation that has meant the cutthroat competition of the AI race trumps safety precautions. California recently passed the first law that requires frontier AI companies to disclose safety information around catastrophic risks, and New York is currently within spitting distance as well. Hopes for federal legislation are dim, however.

“Companies have an incentive, even if they have the best intentions, to always rush out new products before the competitor does, as opposed to necessarily putting in a lot of time to make it safe,” Tegmark said.

In lieu of government-mandated standards, Tegmark said the industry has begun to take the group’s regularly released safety indexes more seriously; four of the five American companies now respond to its survey (Meta is the only holdout.) And companies have made some improvements over time, Tegmark said, mentioning Google’s transparency around its whistleblower policy as an example.

But real-life harms reported around issues like teen suicides that chatbots allegedly encouraged, inappropriate interactions with minors, and major cyberattacks have also raised the stakes of the discussion, he said.

“[They] have really made a lot of people realize that this isn’t the future we’re talking about—it’s now,” Tegmark said.

The Future of Life Institute recently enlisted public figures as diverse as Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, former Trump aide Steve Bannon, Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak, and rapper Will.i.am to sign a statement opposing work that could lead to superintelligence.

Tegmark said he would like to see something like “an FDA for AI where companies first have to convince experts that their models are safe before they can sell them.

“The AI industry is quite unique in that it’s the only industry in the US making powerful technology that’s less regulated than sandwiches—basically not regulated at all,” Tegmark said. “If someone says, ‘I want to open a new sandwich shop near Times Square,’ before you can sell the first sandwich, you need a health inspector to check your kitchen and make sure it’s not full of rats…If you instead say, ‘Oh no, I’m not going to sell any sandwiches. I’m just going to release superintelligence.’ OK! No need for any inspectors, no need to get any approvals for anything.”

“So the solution to this is very obvious,” Tegmark added. “You just stop this corporate welfare of giving AI companies exemptions that no other companies get.”

This report was originally published by Tech Brew.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Hollywood writers say Warner takeover ‘must be blocked’

Published

on



Hollywood writers, producers, directors and theater owners voiced skepticism over Netflix Inc.’s proposed $82.7 billion takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery Inc.’s studio and streaming businesses, saying it threatens to undermine their interests.

The Writers Guild of America, which announced in October it would oppose any sale of Warner Bros., reiterated that view on Friday, saying the purchase by Netflix “must be blocked.”

“The world’s largest streaming company swallowing one of its biggest competitors is what antitrust laws were designed to prevent,” the guild said in an emailed statement. “The outcome would eliminate jobs, push down wages, worsen conditions for all entertainment workers, raise prices for consumers, and reduce the volume and diversity of content for all viewers.”

The worries raised by the movie and TV industry’s biggest trade groups come against the backdrop of falling movie and TV production, slack ticket sales and steep job cuts in Hollywood. Another legacy studio, Paramount, was sold earlier this year.

Warner Bros. accounts for about a fourth of North American ticket sales — roughly $2 billion — and is being acquired by a company that has long shunned theatrical releases for its feature films. As part of the deal, Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos has promised Warner Bros. will continue to release moves in theaters.

“The proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. by Netflix poses an unprecedented threat to the global exhibition business,” Michael O’Leary, chief executive officer of the theatrical trade group Cinema United, said in en emailed statement Friday. “The negative impact of this acquisition will impact theaters from the biggest circuits to one-screen independents.”

The buyout of Warner Bros. by Netflix “would be a disaster,” James Cameron, the director of some of Hollywood’s highest-grossing films in history including Titanic and Avatar, said in late November on The Town, an industry-focused podcast. “Sorry Ted, but jeez. Sarandos has gone on record saying theatrical films are dead.”

On a conference call with investors Friday, Sarandos said that his company’s resistance to releasing films in cinemas was mostly tied to “the long exclusive windows, which we don’t really think are that consumer friendly.”

The company said Friday it would “maintain Warner Bros.’ current operations and build on its strengths, including theatrical releases for films.”

On the call, Sarandos reiterated that view, saying that, “right now, you should count on everything that is planned on going to the theater through Warner Bros. will continue to go to the theaters through Warner Bros.” 

Competition from online outfits like YouTube and Netflix has forced a reckoning in Hollywood, opening the door for takeovers like the Warner Bros. deal announced Friday. Media giants including Comcast Corp., parent of NBCUniversal, are unloading cable-TV networks like MS Now and USA, and steering resources into streaming. 

In an emailed note to Warner Bros. employees on Friday, Chief Executive Officer David Zaslav said the board’s decision to sell the company “reflects the realities of an industry undergoing generational change in how stories are financed, produced, distributed, and discovered.”

The Producers Guild of America said Friday its members are “rightfully concerned about Netflix’s intended acquisition of one of our industry’s most storied and meaningful studios,” while a spokesperson for the Directors Guild of America raised concerns about future pay at Warner Bros.

“We will be meeting with Netflix to outline our concerns and better understand their vision for the future of the company,” the Directors Guild said.

In September, the DGA appointed director Christopher Nolan as its president. Nolan has previously criticized Netflix’s model of releasing films exclusively online, or simultaneously in a small number of cinemas, and has said he won’t make movies for the company.

The Screen Actors Guild said Friday that the transaction “raises many serious questions about its impact on the future of the entertainment industry, and especially the human creative talent whose livelihoods and careers depend on it.”

Oscar winner Jane Fonda spoke out on Thursday before the deal was announced. 

“Consolidation at this scale would be catastrophic for an industry built on free expression, for the creative workers who power it, and for consumers who depend on a free, independent media ecosystem to understand the world,” the star of the Netflix series Grace and Frankie wrote on the Ankler industry news website.

Netflix and Warner Bros. obviously don’t see it that way. In his statement to employees, Zaslav said “the proposed combination of Warner Bros. and Netflix reflects complementary strengths, more choice and value for consumers, a stronger entertainment industry, increased opportunity for creative talent, and long-term value creation for shareholders.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

4 times in 7 seconds: Trump calls Somali immigrants ‘garbage’

Published

on



He said it four times in seven seconds: Somali immigrants in the United States are “garbage.”

It was no mistake. In fact, President Donald Trump’s rhetorical attacks on immigrants have been building since he said Mexico was sending “rapists” across the border during his presidential campaign announcement a decade ago. He’s also echoed rhetoric once used by Adolf Hitler and called the 54 nations of Africa “s—-hole countries.” But with one flourish closing a two-hour Cabinet meeting Tuesday, Trump amped up his anti-immigrant rhetoric even further and ditched any claim that his administration was only seeking to remove people in the U.S. illegally.

“We don’t want ‘em in our country,” Trump said five times of the nation’s 260,000 people of Somali descent. “Let ’em go back to where they came from and fix it.” The assembled Cabinet members cheered and applauded. Vice President JD Vance could be seen pumping a fist. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, sitting to the president’s immediate left, told Trump on-camera, “Well said.”

The two-minute finale offered a riveting display in a nation that prides itself as being founded and enriched by immigrants, alongside an ugly history of enslaving millions of them and limiting who can come in. Trump’s U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids and deportations have reignited an age-old debate — and widened the nation’s divisions — over who can be an American, with Trump telling tens of thousands of American citizens, among others, that he doesn’t want them by virtue of their family origin.

“What he has done is brought this type of language more into the everyday conversation, more into the main,” said Carl Bon Tempo, a State University of New York at Albany history professor. “He’s, in a way, legitimated this type of language that, for many Americans for a long time, was seen as outside the bounds.”

A question that cuts to the core of American identity

Some Americans have long felt that people from certain parts of the world can never really blend in. That outsider-averse sentiment has manifested during difficult periods, such as anti-Chinese fear-mongering in the late 19th century and the imprisonment of some 120,000 Japanese Americans during World War II.

Trump, reelected with more than 77 million votes last year, has launched a whole-of-government drive to limit immigration. His order to end birthright citizenship — declaring that children born to parents who are in the United States illegally or temporarily are not American citizens despite the 14th Amendment — is being considered by the Supreme Court. He has largely frozen the country’s asylum system and drastically reduced the number of refugees it is allowed to admit. And his administration this week halted immigration applications for migrants from 19 travel-ban nations.

Immigration remains a signature issue for Trump, and he has slightly higher marks on it than on his overall job approval. According to a November AP-NORC poll, roughly 4 in 10 adults — 42% — approved of how the president is handling the issue, down from about half who approved in March. And Trump has pushed his agenda with near-daily crackdowns. On Wednesday, federal agents launched an immigration sweep in New Orleans,

There are some clues that Trump uses stronger anti-immigration rhetoric than many members of his own party. A study of 200,000 speeches in Congress and 5,000 presidential communications related to immigration between 1880 and 2020 found that the “most influential” words on the subject were terms like “enforce,” “terrorism” and “policy” from 1973 through Trump’s first presidential term.

The authors wrote in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that Trump is “the first president in modern American history to express sentiment toward immigration that is more negative than the average member of his own party.” And that was before he called thousands of Somalis in the U.S. “garbage.”

The U.S. president, embattled over other developments during the Cabinet meeting and discussions between Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. envoys, opted for harsh talk in his jam-packed closing.

Somali Americans, he said, “come from hell” and “contribute nothing.” They do “nothing but bitch” and “their country stinks.” Then Trump turned to a familiar target. Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., an outspoken and frequent Trump critic, “is garbage,” he said. “Her friends are garbage.”

His remarks on Somalia drew shock and condemnation from Minneapolis to Mogadishu.

“My view of the U.S. and living there has changed dramatically. I never thought a president, especially in his second term, would speak so harshly,” Ibrahim Hassan Hajji, a resident of Somalia’s capital city, told The Associated Press. “Because of this, I have no plans to travel to the U.S.”

Omar called Trump’s “obsession” with her and Somali-Americans “creepy and unhealthy.”

“We are not, and I am not, someone to be intimidated,” she said, “and we are not gonna be scapegoated.”

Trump’s influence on these issues is potent

But from the highest pulpit in the world’s biggest economy, Trump has had an undeniable influence on how people regard immigrants.

“Trump specializes in pushing the boundaries of what others have done before,” said César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández, a civil rights law professor at Ohio State University. “He is far from the first politician to embrace race-baiting xenophobia. But as president of the United States, he has more impact than most.” Domestically, Trump has “remarkable loyalty” among Republicans, he added. “Internationally, he embodies an aspiration for like-minded politicians and intellectuals.”

In Britain, attitudes toward migrants have hardened in the decade since Brexit, a vote driven in part by hostility toward immigrants from Eastern Europe. Nigel Farage, leader of the hard-right Reform U.K. party, has called unauthorized migration an “invasion” and warned of looming civil disorder.

France’s Marine Le Pen and her father built their political empire on anti-immigrant language decades before Trump entered politics. But the National Rally party has softened its rhetoric to win broader support. Le Pen often casts the issue as an administrative or policy matter.

In fact, what Trump said about people from Somalia would likely be illegal in France if uttered by anyone other than a head of state, because public insults based on a group’s national origin, ethnicity, race or religion are illegal under the country’s hate speech laws. But French law grants heads of state immunity.

One lawyer expressed concerns that Trump’s words will encourage other heads of state to use similar hate speech targeting people as groups.

“Comments saying that a population stinks — coming from a foreign head of state, a top world military and economic power — that’s never happened before,” said Paris lawyer Arié Alimi, who has worked on hate speech cases. “So here we are really crossing a very, very, very important threshold in terms of expressing racist … comments.”

But the “America first” president said he isn’t worried about others think of his increasingly polarizing rhetoric on immigration.

“I hear somebody say, ‘Oh, that’s not politically correct,’” Trump said, winding up his summation Tuesday. “I don’t care. I don’t want them.”

___

Contributing to this report are Associated Press writers Will Weissert and Linley Sanders in Washington, John Leicester in Paris, Jill Lawless in London, Evelyne Musambi in Nairobi, Kenya, and Omar Faruk in Mogadishu.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.