高陵区高三高中复读效果好西安高二学校提分快,陕西应届生复读效果好,阎良区高中补习学校哪里有哪里好,高陵区高考冲刺班实力升学率,陕西高中复读靠谱的怎么办,高中复读怎么样,渭城区高考补习正规多少钱

The number of unauthorized immigrants in the US continued to decrease in 2016, a trend that started in 2007, according to a new report from Pew Research Center. Eleven years ago, there were around 12.2 million undocumented immigrants in the US (up from 3.5 million in 1990) while Pew's most recent report estimates there were around 10.7 million living here in 2016, the lowest estimate in a decade.Among the countries with the most immigrants in the US, the biggest decrease in undocumented immigrants was from Mexico. In 2007, around 6,950,000 unauthorized Mexican immigrants were living in the US. That figure was down to 5,450,000 in 2016. In 2012, specialists from Pew wrote in an opinion piece for CNN that Mexican immigration had decreased in the US due to a number of reasons including the weak US economy, heightened law enforcement on the border, Mexico's recession from 2008 to 2009, and a decline in Mexican birth rates.Jeffrey S. Passel and D'Vera Cohn of Pew wrote back then, "What caused the big immigration wave to stop? We think that many factors were at work, on both sides of the border. We cannot say how much of a role each of them played in tamping down migration to the United States and setting up the large reverse flows, but they all seem to have had an impact."In the new 2016 figures, the countries with the most unauthorized immigrants (besides Mexico) have remained steady in their numbers since 2007, with the exception of increased immigration from El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and a slight increase from the Dominican Republic.Related: How bad is it in the countries families are fleeing? This badBetween 2012 and 2017, El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala were in the top five for countries whose immigrants were most likely to be denied asylum -- between 75% and 79% of applicants were denied. On average, applying for asylum can take around six months, and even then, the decision may not be finalized.As the number of unauthorized immigrants has gotten smaller, the length of time they've spent in the US, on average, has risen. The median number of years for adult unauthorized immigrant to have been in the US was 14.8 years in 2016, up from 7.1 years in 1995. Two-thirds of undocumented immigrants in 2016 had been living in the US for more than 10 years, up from only 35% in 2005.Pew's estimates for the unauthorized immigrant population living in the US is based on data from the American Community Survey or the Current Population Survey that provides the number of foreign-born residents and the number of estimated legal immigrant population. Pew deduces its figure for undocumented immigrants using that data adjusted for omissions from the survey.The-CNN-Wire 2719

The most dangerous place for women is the home, according to a new UN study.Out of an estimated 87,000 women killed last year, some 50,000 -- or 58% -- were killed by partners or family members, according to the 2018 report on gender-related killing of women and girls by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC).More than a third of the women intentionally killed in 2017 were killed by a current or former partner, and 137 women are killed by family members every day, it said.While the majority of intentional homicide victims are male and killed by strangers, women are far more likely to die at the hands of someone they know, the study showed.UNODC Executive Director Yury Fedotov said women "continue to pay the highest price as a result of gender inequality, discrimination and negative stereotypes" and that gender-based homicide is a "lethal act on a continuum of gender-based discrimination and abuse."The study, released on the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women on November 25, looked at homicide data related to gender violence and "femicide," a term understood as a gender-based hate crime perpetrated by men.Globally, Asia was the region with the highest number of women killed by partners or family members last year, at 20,000, followed by Africa (19,000), the Americas (8,000), Europe (3,000) and Oceania (300).However, rates were higher in Africa and the Americas, meaning women faced the greatest risk of being killed by partners or family members in these regions.In Africa, these homicides accounted for 3.1 victims per 100,000 of the female population and in the Americas, the rate was 1.6 victims per 100,000 of the female population -- compared with 0.9 per 100,000 in Asia.Europe showed the lowest rate of gender-based homicide, with 0.7 victims per 100,000 of the female population.While countries have taken various steps to address violence against women and gender-related killings -- including the adoption of special units and more training in the criminal justice system -- the report said there is no sign of a fall in the number of gender-related killings of women and girls worldwide.The total number of female homicide victims appears to have increased since 2012, it said, when the number of women killed by partners or family members was estimated at 48,000 -- or 47% of all female homicide victims.The new study has called for a series of measures to combat the global problem, including coordination between police, the criminal justice system, health and social services, and involving men more in addressing the problem."In order to prevent and tackle gender-related killing of women and girls, men need to be involved in efforts to combat intimate partner violence/family-related homicide and in changing cultural norms that move away from violent masculinity and gender stereotypes," it said. 2892

The growing list of sexual harassment allegations against well-known powerful men has Congress taking steps to protect against misconduct in its own offices.Both the House and Senate have now agreed to require anti-harassment training for lawmakers and staff. That’s in addition to legislation just introduced that aims to provide more protections and resources for congressional staff members who file complaints."I think we're at a tipping point culturally in this country," said Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Calif. "I want to make sure Congress turns over a new leaf."The new effort to combat sexual abuse on Capitol Hill responds to staffers who say Congress has long been a breeding ground for misconduct.Aides have reported being sexually harassed by at least two unnamed sitting members of Congress, according to Speier, who recently revealed she was sexually assaulted in the 1970s when she was a Capitol Hill staffer.More than 1,500 former Capitol Hill staffers signed a petition this week urging the House and Senate to update decades-old sexual harassment policies they called “inadequate and in need of reform.”Speier introduced a bill Wednesday that would dramatically overhaul procedures for how sexual harassment claims are handled at the Office of Compliance, which is responsible for carrying out the unique procedures lawmakers established in 1995 to resolve sexual misconduct claims.Unlike most workplaces, employees in Congress who file harassment claims must first go through a months-long process. It includes up to 30 days of counseling, then a month of mediation where workers discuss their complaints with their employers, sometimes the same people accused of wrongdoing. Much of the system is blanketed in secrecy, with victims signing non-disclosure agreements and no reporting of which congressional offices eventually pay out settlements.The Office of Compliance won’t even say how many sexual harassment complaints it receives. The most recent numbers from the office showed only eight claims filed relating to any workplace issue last year out of 15,000 House and Senate employees. Speier said it's a sign employees are not comfortable reporting sexual misconduct."It's really no wonder staffers don't use this system," Speier said.Her bill would shorten how long employees must wait for resolution, allowing them to waive the requirement for counseling and mediation and go straight to court or to an administrative hearing at the Office of Compliance. It also would eliminate the requirement of a non-disclosure agreement up front and identify which lawmaker offices have complaints and settlements.The legislation would set up a victims’ counsel office to represent people who file claims. Right now, lawmakers have their own in-house lawyers able to represent them with staffers left to find their own advocates.Employees who file claims also would be allowed to work remotely, if requested, during the complaint process, rather than having to work in the offices where they allege wrongdoing occurred.It also would require a report every two years looking at sexual harassment on Capitol Hill.The protections would for the first time extend to interns, fellows and congressional pages.Similar legislation is being introduced in the Senate. Republican leaders who control the fate of legislation have not yet commented on Speier’s bill.House Administration Committee Chairman Gregg Harper, R-Miss., held a hearing Tuesday on sexual harassment in Congress. He called it a first step toward making sure staffers are protected from misconduct."We're talking thousands and thousands of staffers that are impacted by this, so we're going to do whatever we've got to do to make sure this doesn't happen," Harper said.On Tuesday, House Speaker Paul Ryan announced that anti-harassment and anti-discrimination training would become mandatory for all House members and staff.The Senate passed its own bill to require similar in-person training last week. 3981

The Pennsylvania Academy of the Arts, or PAFA, is the nation’s oldest art school and museum but it’s facing a new dilemma: what to do with an artist’s work when the artist is accused of sexual misconduct.                                                                                                                                                                       The artist in question is portraitist Chuck Close. He may not be a household name to you and I, but in the art community he’s huge. He’s considered a pioneer of portrait work who rose to prominence in the 1960s who made a name for himself in the way he incorporated photography within the world of painting.But this past December, four female models accused the artist of sexual harassment, claims the Close denied in an interview with the New York Times. Close, through a rep, declined our request comment.Brooke Davis Anderson, PAFA’s museum director, had a tough call to make: what to do with a high-profile exhibit, on view in one of their most prominent galleries, filled with Close’s work.“I’m very hesitant to censor artwork,” Anderson said. She and the museum executive leadership convened their art community of students, staff, and patrons to gauge the reactions to try to fiigure out ho to handle the exhibit.“We really asked everybody what they were feeling, thinking, how they were responding,” Anderson said. “How they felt we should respond as an institution, and collectively what this meant for us.”The broader discussion is not all that new. You may recall that a few years back, “The Cosby Show” was pulled from syndication following allegations made by a slew of women against its star and creator Bill Cosby. It’s since made a slow re-emergence on small cable networks.In the past year, we’ve had to ask ourselves whether we as a society are comfortable enjoying re-runs of “Louie” on FX in the wake of comedian Louis C.K.’s admitted mistreatment of women. Or what about previous seasons of “House of Cards” now that allegations regarding Kevin Spacey have come to light?Even Pablo Picasso was known to have mistreated the opposite sex.The obvious question becomes: can an artist’s work be separated completely form the artist and their personal decisions?[,We asked Melissa Joseph and Candace Jensen, both students at PAFA who took part in the museum’s forum on what to do with the Close exhibit. “That’s like the zinger question!” Jensen said, through laughter.“Many students did want the [Chuck Close] show to come down,” Joseph added. “You just want it to go away, you know? You don’t want to have to look at it anymore.”But, she says, over a few weeks’ time her views evolved.“If you think about what’s going to be most productive for this movement, what’s going to actually move things forward, your initial emotional reaction isn’t always the right one.”Jensen interjected.“Well yeah but don’t diminish emotional responses. Emotional responses are really tied up with moral responses,” Jensen said, adding that understanding the context in which art was made is key.“Being willing to value the aesthetic decisions that were made and also be critical of the maker,” Jensen said. “So it’s not a black and white.”PAFA is not the only institution having to navigate this gray area.Seattle University recently removed a Chuck Close self-portrait hanging in a campus library.The National Gallery of Art in Washington, DC indefinitely postponed its Chuck Close exhibit that was set to open in May. A museum spokesperson declined an interview but told us in an email that “all parties involved” agreed that it was “not the appropriate time” to present the installation. Anderson made the final call for PAFA: keep the Close exhibit, but with a caveat in the adjoining gallery right next door.“The site of an exhibition isn’t where you respond by censorship or changing the project. I rather felt that what we could do because of our real estate here. We had an opportunity to have a dialogue with another project.”That other project is what they’re calling a “response exhibit,” a gallery created to force a conversation that explores gender and equality in the art community.“There are no longer town halls and town squares,” Anderson said. “So what if a museum was a site where we could say we don’t agree, and lets unpack how we don’t agree. And let’s understand how we don’t agree, and maybe that advances us a little bit.”Anderson pointed out some of the highlights of the responsive exhibit, including a timeline regarding how and when the art world can become “an equitable space.”“How do we get more women in leadership positions? Women artists and collections, people of color, trans people, how do we create that balance?” 5181

The Pennsylvania Department of Health is encouraging people who were at President Donald Trump’s campaign rally at Harrisburg International Airport on Saturday to get tested if they are feeling sick.Trump announced earlier Friday that he and the first lady have tested positive for the coronavirus.The department is asking people to download the COVID Alert PA phone app if they do test positive to anonymously alert people they may have come in contact with.Thousands attended the outdoor rally, held hours after the president introduced his Supreme Court nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, from the Rose Garden at the White House. Those at the rally were required to pass through a security checkpoint and get their temperatures taken.The president had another rally in the last week, on Wednesday in Duluth, Minnesota. Three Republicans boarded Air Force One in the Twin Cities and flew with the president to the Duluth rally location. Two of them, Congressman Tom Emmer and Congressman Jim Hagedorn, told local media they are taking a COVID-19 test after possible exposure to the president or a member of his team. Other lawmakers who interacted with the president while he stopped at Twin Cities International Airport have taken steps to protect their health, according to KARE11. 1287