"Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom" Takes Gigantic Bite Out Of Global Box Office In 3D With 53% Of Estimated $711M+ Worldwide Gross Coming From 3D Ticket Sales

"Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom" (Still from trailer)

Approximately 53% of all global ticket sales for Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom has come from the 3D format, with a significant portion of the business driven by the world largest 3D company RealD. 

A staggering $380 million has been generated by total 3D ticket sales and 28% of all 3D transactions have been purchased for RealD equipped theaters resulting in $105 million in RealD ticket sales.

Director J.A. Bayona and star Chris Pratt have both enthusiastically endorsed and supported the way the film was executed and enhanced in 3D.

"This is the kind of epic summer adventure film that is meant to be seen and experienced in RealD 3D and it is clear that moviegoers worldwide want to see these juggernauts with their 3D glasses on," said Travis Reid, President of Worldwide Cinema and Chief Operating Officer for RealD. "Universal, Amblin and especially the stars and filmmakers did a fantastic job promoting this film and communicating that the 3D was an exceptional experience and that always makes a difference, especially with a film like this."

"With the worldwide success of recent films like Avengers: Infinity War, which crossed $800 million in 3D grosses worldwide and earlier this year Ready Player One, audiences have shown that 3D is still an important entertainment upgrade and preference on the right tentpole titles when they go to the theater," said Reid. "Universal has been a great supporter of 3D on the Jurassic Park franchise and we could not be more thrilled for the huge rewards they are reaping all around the world."

"Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom" - Poster (Via RealD)

About Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom: 

It's been three years since theme park and luxury resort Jurassic World was destroyed by dinosaurs out of containment.  

Isla Nublar now sits abandoned by humans while the surviving dinosaurs fend for themselves in the jungles.

When the island's dormant volcano begins roaring to life, Owen (Chris Pratt) and Claire (Bryce Dallas Howard) mount a campaign to rescue the remaining dinosaurs from this extinction-level event.  

Owen is driven to find Blue, his lead raptor who's still missing in the wild, and Claire has grown a respect for these creatures she now makes her mission.  

Arriving on the unstable island as lava begins raining down, their expedition uncovers a conspiracy that could return our entire planet to a perilous order not seen since prehistoric times.

With all of the wonder, adventure and thrills synonymous with one of the most popular and successful series in cinema history, this all-new motion-picture event sees the return of favorite characters and dinosaurs—along with new breeds more awe-inspiring and terrifying than ever before.  

"Welcome to Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom."

Stars Pratt and Howard return alongside executive producers Steven Spielberg and Colin Trevorrow for Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom.  

They are joined by co-stars James Cromwell, Ted Levine, Justice Smith, Geraldine Chaplin, Daniella Pineda, Toby Jones, Rafe Spall and Isabella Sermon, while BD Wong and Jeff Goldblum reprise their roles.

Directed by J.A. Bayona (The Impossible), the epic action-adventure is written by Jurassic World's director, Colin Trevorrow, and its co-writer, Derek Connolly.  

Producers Frank Marshall and Pat Crowley once again partner with Spielberg and Trevorrow in leading the filmmakers for this stunning installment.  

Belén Atienza joins the team as a producer. 

"Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom" (Via RealD)

SOURCE: RealD

Jurassic World 2 - Trailer:

⏩ To watch more trailers, clips, etc... visit the JurassicWorldMovie website

Jurassic World Related Stories:

• Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom Where New Dinosaurs Emerge But Who Are The Real Monsters?
• Next Edition of Moviebill Allows Fans To Bring Jurassic World Dinosaurs Home With Them
• Jurassic World: Can We Really Resurrect A Dinosaur?
• From Universal Pictures Home Entertainment: Jurassic Park 25th Anniversary Collection
• World Premiere of Jurassic World in Concert

The Dreadful History Of Children In Concentration Camps

Child survivors of Auschwitz are seen in this 1945 photograph. (Creative Commons)

Children and family have been central to the institution of the concentration camp from its beginnings 120 years ago. Wikipedia has now added the notorious American border detention centres to its list of concentration camps, and the #FamiliesBelongTogether Twitter hashtag has brought up frequent comparisons.

The merits of the comparison between detention centres and concentration camps have been debated elsewhere, but can we learn anything from this dreadful history of children behind barbed wire, even as the Trump administration finally moved to end the practice?

The British constructed camps during the 1899-1902 South African War in order to divide families. They hoped that Boer men who were fighting British forces would give up once they discovered that their wives and children were held in camps.

A deceased young girl is seen at a concentration camp where the British housed Boer women and children during the Second Anglo-Boer War of 1899-1902. (Creative Commons)

Similar to the Trump administration’s apparent hope that the breakup of families would deter unwanted migration, the British sought to deter Boer fighters. British parliamentarians critical of the policy labelled these “concentration camps,” alluding to the Spanish policy of the “reconcentration” of civilians during the Spanish-American War (1898).

Conditions in the British-run camps were horrific, particularly for children, with mortality rates upwards of 25 per cent. An epidemic of measles accounted for roughly 40 per cent of childhood deaths in these camps, and other diseases such as typhus and dysentery were also devastating.

Families broken up in former Soviet Union
The Soviet Union’s system of camps that reached their peak during Joseph Stalin’s rule from the 1930s to the 1950s also reveals the destruction of families. While mass arrests broke up the family, and children of “enemies of the people” were separated from their parents, there were also many children in the Gulag itself.

Prison camps developed an infrastructure that, on the surface, supported pregnancy and childbirth. There were maternity wards in some camp clinics, as well as nurseries, and pregnant women and nursing mothers officially received increased rations.

In practice, the system was regularly a nightmare. Children born in the camps were separated from their mothers, who only managed to see them at set times for nursing.

Hava Volovich, whose own daughter died in the camps, remembers that hundreds of camp children died each year, meaning that there were “plenty of empty beds in the infants’ shelter even though the birth rate in the camps was relatively high.”

At the age of two, many of the surviving children were sent either to orphanages or to relatives — a forced redistribution of children away from their parents, who, as Gulag prisoners, were at best stigmatized, and at worst seen as a major threat to Soviet society.

The Gulag also held camps for young offenders, where teenagers worked as forced labourers and faced horrific living conditions.

Nazis crushed families
Nazi policy included both large-scale deportations and large-scale importations of population groups, with major implications for families.

The Nazis removed citizenship from German Jews then, during the Second World War, sent most Jews, from Germany and elsewhere, to camps outside the borders of pre-war Germany. Yet, as the war progressed, Germany brought in huge numbers of forced labourers from all over Europe (U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ claim that German-run camps were designed to keep Jews in, rather than out, is unfounded).

Nazi family policy was a pivotal part of the concentration camp. Once the death camps were operational, the Nazis crushed the family unit among undesirable populations, focusing on Jews.

The selection process at Auschwitz could result in the temporary survival of one or both parents, if they were physically fit (or just lucky), but children were usually sent directly to their deaths.

The late Elie Wiesel is seen in this 2012 photograph. (AP Photo/Bebeto Matthews)

Jewish writer Elie Wiesel lost his mother and sister right away, and only survived selection because he lied about his age, claiming he was 18 and not 15, his actual age.

The unimaginable cruelty of many practices —the smashing of babies’ heads against walls, the medical experimentation, particularly on twins —reveals an extreme dehumanization.

Even at the show camp of Terezin, which included a family camp, only 150 of the roughly 15,000 children sent there survived.

High mortality rates
What do these historical cases have in common? All involved the separation, either immediate or eventual, of children from one or both parents, and all involved horrific conditions and extremely high mortality rates for the children.

In all cases, the dehumanization of the unwanted population was a key starting point. As historian Aidan Forth writes of the South African case, Gen. Herbert Kitchener referred to the Boers as “savages with only a thin white veneer,” and British officials often described the Afrikaners as “dirty, careless, [and lazy.]”

Former Gulag prisoners frequently reported that guards and officials referred to them as animals or as “scum.” As one former prisoner wrote, quoting a camp boss: “A person? … There aren’t any here! Here are enemies of the people, traitors of the motherland, bandits, crooks. The dregs of humanity, scum, riff raff, that’s who is here!”

The dehumanization of the Nazi camps is well known, as Nazi propaganda frequently likened the Jews to vermin or to an infectious disease, making Trump’s tweet about asylum seekers particularly chilling:

Democrats are the problem. They don’t care about crime and want illegal immigrants, no matter how bad they may be, to pour into and infest our Country, like MS-13. They can’t win on their terrible policies, so they view them as potential voters!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 19, 2018

Another commonality can be found in the experiences of the victims.

In all cases, children separated from parents could not have known if they would ever see their parents again, or under what circumstances. The children of the camps had to rely, for the most part, on other children, for any support or security. Often, the separation was permanent.

These comparisons only take us so far, however. Some commentators have looked not at European powers, but to a long North American history — including slavery and residential schools — of separating non-white children from their parents.

Children at a residential school in Fort Resolution, Northwest Territories, are seen in this undated photo. (National Archives of Canada)

If there is any optimism to be found in the historical examples of children in concentration camps, perhaps the history of public reactions can provide some hope.

In South Africa, reports by Emily Hobhouse and then the Fawcett Commission, particularly on starving children, galvanized public pressure to force the British government to improve conditions at the camps.

Outcry helped end practice
In contrast, in Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia, there could be neither public nor parliamentary discussion of inhumane internment conditions.

Bu today, some U.S. reporters and lawmakers have visited the American detention centres, and non-governmental organizations such as Amnesty International and even the Methodist Church, as well as many elected officials, maligned the policy.

The public discussion, and the public outcry against the separation of children from their parents that eventually caused U.S. President Donald Trump to cave and end the policy, perhaps makes the American case more similar to that of South Africa than either the Nazi or Soviet camps.

This similarity, however, depends on the actions now of the Trump administration, which for several weeks before its reversal included denial, deflecting blame and even justification.

But with reports of children being torn away from their mothers’ arms while breastfeeding, the more notorious concentration camps of the 20th century must serve as a stark reminder that the act of dehumanization is a slippery slope towards violence and further atrocities.

About Today's Contributor:
Wilson T. Bell, Assistant Professor of History and Politics, Thompson Rivers University

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

Related Stories:

• Preventing Crimes Against Humanity in The US
• Trump And Sessions Can End Immigrant Family Separations Without Congress' Help
• Life Among the Anishinabek of Northern Ontario

More Donald Trump Related Stories:

Click here for more Donald Trump related stories...

US: 1968 Civil Rights Movement Comes To Ben & Jerry's Vermont Factory

Smithsonian curator Dr. Aaron Bryant gives a personal tour of the exhibit to Ben & Jerry’s co-founder Jerry Greenfield. 

Ben & Jerry's factory in Waterbury, VT is marking the 50th anniversary of the 1968 Poor People's Campaign with a special display from the Smithsonian's National Museum of African American History and Culture. 

⏩ The ice cream factory is Vermont's largest, single tourist attraction, receiving almost 400,000 people a year.

Dr. Bernard LaFayette and his wife, Kate, stroll through a new exhibit on the 1968 Poor People’s Campaign installed at Ben & Jerry’s factory in Waterbury, VT.

On Friday, June 22, Ben & Jerry's Co-Founder Jerry Greenfield dropped the curtain on a new display depicting Dr. King's 1968 Poor People's Campaign against racism, poverty, and militarism. 

"These issues are as pressing today as they were 50 years ago," said Ben & Jerry's CEO Jostein Solheim. "We're hoping these images will inspire people to join the Poor People's Campaign for racial and economic justice."

Dr. Bernard LaFayette, Chairman of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, was on hand to share his perspective as a long-time civil rights leader and organizer. Dr. LaFayette worked closely with Dr. King and was with him just hours before his assassination.

Dr. Aaron Bryant, curator at the National Museum of African American History and Culture in Washington, DC, gave an overview of the exhibit's significance. "This display explores Dr. King's final and most ambitious campaign to end poverty in America. It serves as an inspiration to the modern effort for economic justice and fairness, and reminds us how much more work needs to be done."

⏩ The exhibit will be on display through December 31, 2018.

Ben & Jerry’s CEO Jostein Solheim welcomes Co-Founder Jerry Greenfield at the opening of an exhibit on the 1968 Poor People’s Campaign at the company’s Vermont ice cream factory.

About Ben & Jerry's:

As an aspiring social justice company, Ben & Jerry's believes in a greater calling than simply making a profit for selling its goods. 

Ben & Jerry's incorporates its vision of Linked Prosperity into its business practices in a number of ways including a focus on values-led sourcing. In 2015 the company completed its transition to using entirely non-GMO (genetically modified organisms) ingredients by source as well as to fully source Fairtrade-certified ingredients wherever possible, which benefits farmers in developing countries. 

Ben & Jerry's, a Vermont corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of Unilever, operates its business on a three-part Mission Statement emphasizing product quality, economic reward and a commitment to the community. 

Ben & Jerry's became a certified B Corp (Benefit Corporation) in 2012. The Ben & Jerry's Foundation's employee-led grant programs totaled $2.7MM in 2017 to support grassroots organizing for social and environmental justice around the country.

Dr. Bernard LaFayette shared his perspective as a long-time civil rights activist at the opening of an exhibit on the 1968 Poor People’s Campaign at Ben & Jerry’s Vermont factory.

About the National Museum of African American History and Culture:

The National Museum of African American History and Culture has welcomed almost 4 million visitors since opening Sept. 24, 2016, on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. 

Occupying a prominent location next to the Washington Monument, the nearly 400,000-square-foot museum is the nation's largest and most comprehensive cultural destination devoted exclusively to exploring, documenting and showcasing the African American story and its impact on American and world history. 

⏩ For more information about the museum, visit nmaahc.si.edu,

Saige Barton, 11, visits the Ben & Jerry’s factory in Waterbury, VT with his family from Ohio.

SOURCE: Ben & Jerry's

Martin Luther King Related Stories:

• BraveNewFilms.org Commemorates MLK's Speech Anniversary With ''I Have A Dream’ Belongs To Us, Too’ Re-release 
• Frist Center Presents "We Shall Overcome: Civil Rights and the Nashville Press, 1957-1968"

Martin Luther King Related Video:

Preventing Crimes Against Humanity in The US

Immigrant rights advocates speak against Trump’s policies in New Mexico. (AP Photo/Russell Contreras, File)

There are those who say that comparing President Donald Trump’s rhetoric to that of Adolf Hitler is alarmist, unfair and counterproductive.

And yet, there has been no dearth of such comparisons nearly one and a half years into his term.

Many commentators have also drawn parallels between the conduct and language of Trump supporters and Holocaust-era Nazis. Recent news of ICE agents separating immigrant families and housing children in cages have generated further comparisons by world leaders, as well as Holocaust survivors and scholars. Trump’s use of the word “infest” to refer to immigrants coming to the U.S. is particularly striking. Nazis referred to infestations of Jewish vermin, and Rwandan Hutu’s labeled Tutsi as cockroaches.

In August 2017, in the wake of the Charlottesville violence, the president used a familiar rhetorical strategy for signaling support to violent groups. He referenced violence on “both sides,” implying moral equivalence between protesters calling for the removal of Confederate statues and those asserting white supremacy. His comments gave white supremacists and neo-Nazis the implied approval of the president of the United States.

Many of these groups explicitly seek to eliminate from the U.S. African-Americans, Jews, immigrants and other groups, and are willing to do so through violence. As co-directors of Binghamton University’s Institute for Genocide and Mass Atrocity Prevention, we emphasize the importance of recognizing and responding to early warning signs of potential genocide and other atrocity crimes. Usually, government officials, scholars and nongovernmental organizations look for these signals in other parts of the world – Syria, Sudan or Burma.

But what about the U.S.? President Trump’s executive order halting family separations provides Congress an opportunity to act. How the legislators respond will be an important indicator of where the U.S. is headed.

Is it possible in the US? 

The term “genocide” invokes images of gas chambers the Nazis used to exterminate Jews during World War II, the Khmer Rouge killing fields of Cambodia and thousands of Tutsi bodies in the Kagera River in Rwanda. On that scale and in that manner, genocide is highly unlikely in the United States.

But genocidal violence can happen in the U.S. It has happened. Organized policies passed by elected U.S. lawmakers have targeted both Native Americans and African-Americans. Public policies defined these groups as not fully human and not protected by basic laws. Current policies treat immigrants the same way.

The threat of genocide is present wherever a country’s political leadership tolerates or even encourages acts with an intent to destroy a racial, ethnic, national or religious group, whether in whole or in part. While genocide is unlikely in the United States, atrocities which amount to mass violations of human rights and crimes against humanity are evident. The U.N. defines crimes against humanity as any “deliberate act, typically as part of a systematic campaign, that causes human suffering or death on a large scale.” Unlike genocide, it does not need to include the actual destruction or intent to destroy a group.

According to Holocaust survivors, the current visual and audio accounts of children separated from their parents in border detention facilities reminds them of practices of the Nazis in ghettos and concentration and extermination camps.

The Holocaust took the international community by surprise. In hindsight, there were many signs. In fact, scholars have learned a great deal about the danger signals for the risk of large-scale violence against vulnerable groups.

In 1996, the founder and first president of the U.S.-based advocacy group Genocide Watch, Gregory H. Stanton, introduced a model that identified eight stages – later increased to 10 – that societies frequently pass through on the way to genocidal violence and other mass atrocities. Stanton’s model has its critics. Like any such model, it can’t be applied in all cases and can’t predict the future. But it has been influential in our understanding of the sources of mass violence in Rwanda, Burma, Syria and other nations.

The 10 stages of genocide 

The early stages of Stanton’s model include “classification” and “symbolization.” These are processes in which groups of people are saddled with labels or imagined characteristics that encourage active discrimination. These stages emphasize “us-versus-them” thinking, and define a group as “the other.”



As Stanton makes clear, these processes are universally human. They do not necessarily result in a progression toward mass violence. But they prepare the ground for the next stages: active “discrimination,” “dehumanization,” “organization” and “polarization.” These middle stages may be warning signs of an increasing risk of large-scale violence.

Where are we now? 

Trump’s political rhetoric helped propel him into office by playing on the fears and resentments of the electorate. He has used derogatory labels for certain religious and ethnic groups, hinted at dark conspiracies, winked at violence and appealed to nativist and nationalist sentiments. He has promoted discriminatory policies including travel restrictions and gender-based exclusions.

Classification, symbolization, discrimination and dehumanization of Muslims, Mexicans, African-Americans, immigrants, the media and even the political opposition may be leading to polarization, stage six of Stanton’s model.

Stanton writes that polarization further drives wedges between social groups through extremism. Hate groups find an opening to send messages that further dehumanize and demonize targeted groups. Political moderates are edged out of the political arena, and extremist groups attempt to move from the former political fringes into mainstream politics.

Do Trump’s implied claims of a moral equivalence between neo-Nazis and counterprotesters in Charlottesville move us closer to the stage of polarization?

Does housing children in cages at border detention facilities in the name of deterrence represent a deepening dehumanization?

Certainly, there are reasons for deep concern. Moral equivalence – the claim that when both “sides” in a conflict use similar tactics, then one “side” must be as morally good or bad as the other – is what logicians call an informal fallacy. Philosophers take their red pens to student essays that commit it. But when a president is called on to address his nation in times of political turmoil, the claim of moral equivalence is a lot more than an undergraduate mistake.

Similarly, when warehousing children in cages and tent cities is justified as a policy of deterrence, this is more than an academic policy debate. We suggest this is a deliberate effort to dehumanize and polarize, and an invitation to what may come next.

While the U.S. may not be on the path to genocide in the sense of mass killings, it clearly is engaging in other crimes against humanity – deliberately and systematically causing human suffering on a large scale and violating fundamental human rights.

Responding and preventing 

Polarization is a warning of the increased risk of violence, not a guarantee. Stanton’s model also argues that every stage offers opportunities for prevention. Extremist groups can have their financial assets frozen. Hate crimes and hate atrocities can be more consistently investigated and prosecuted. Moderate politicians, human rights activists, representatives of threatened groups and members of the independent media can be provided increased security.

Encouraging responses have come from the international community, the electorate, business leaders and government officials. German Chancellor Angela Merkel condemned the racist and far-right violence displayed in Charlottesville, and U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May harshly criticized Trump’s use of moral equivalence. More recently, Pope Francis and the governments of various countries have spoken out about U.S. family separation practices.

The recent withdrawal of the U.S. from the U.N. Human Rights Council suggests that international pressure may not be effective. Domestic actors may have more luck.

Individuals and groups are following the recommendations presented in the Southern Poverty Law Center’s guide to combating hate in supporting victims, speaking up, pressuring leaders and staying engaged. Business leaders have also expressed their discontent with Trump’s polarizing statements and actions. The American Academy of Pediatrics has gone so far as to label the immigrant family separations a form of mass child abuse.

Local governments are struggling to maintain their status as sanctuary cities or cities of resistance. These cities try to provide refuge for immigrants despite ICE raids and arrests. The general public and politicians of both parties and at all levels are speaking out about the separations, and it appears they may be heard.

In our assessment, these actions represent essential forms of resistance to the movement toward escalating atrocities. The executive order issued by President Trump this week provides the elected representatives in Congress with an important opportunity. Will they be complicit in or act to prevent further atrocities?

It also provides the general public an opportunity to strongly assert a commitment to human rights. How Congress responds will be a clear indicator of whether our democratic checks and balances are functioning to stop atrocities from escalating, or whether we are continuing down a dangerous path.

About Today's Contributors:
Nadia Rubaii, Co-Director, Institute for Genocide and Mass Atrocity Prevention, and Associate Professor of Public Administration, Binghamton University, State University of New York and Max Pensky, Co-Director, Institute for Genocide and Mass Atrocity Prevention, Professor, Department of Philosophy, Binghamton University, State University of New York

This article was originally published on The Conversation. 

Five Mutants We Want To See Appear in The Gifted

The Gifted. (© 2017 Fox & its related entities. All Rights Reserved.)

The TV series, which premiered in October 2017, is connected to the X-Men film series but takes place in an alternate universe where the X-Men have all disappeared and humans fear, distrust, and even hate mutants. 

The show focuses on the Strucker family -- Reed Strucker (Stephen Moyer), a district attorney and mutant prosecutor, his wife Caitlin (Amy Acker), and their kids Andy (Percy Hynes White) and Lauren (Natalie Alyn Lind).

Viewers follow the Struckers as they go on the run when they discover that their children are actually mutants and have been targeted by the very government that their father works for. 

Running from the government, however, proves to be a gargantuan challenge because Sentinel services agent named Turner (Coby Bell) always seems to be a few steps behind them. 

⏩ The Struckers then have no choice but to seek help from the Mutant Underground for protection.

The show's first season which is on FOX+ proved to be a hit with Marvel and X-Men fans, receiving positive feedback and praise from critics as well. Reviewers lauded the show for tackling timely topics and straying away from overused superhero tropes. 

Fans are also excited about the mutants that star the series such as Blink, Polaris, Thunderbird, and the Strucker siblings -- mutants who otherwise have had minimal or even no exposure in the Marvel film or television universe.

The Gifted - Poster

Because the show explores lesser-known mutants, here are a few more super humans whose appearance we feel would be great in The Gifted:

1. Callisto

If the challenge on hand is going underground in order to escape from humans, the Morlocks would rise to that challenge the best. So who's better to help out the Strucker family than the leader of the Morlocks? Callisto ­­-­ a mutant with super strength, speed, and amplified senses. 

While Callisto has made an appearance on screen in X-Men: The Last Stand, a bigger role that is more aligned with the comics may await her should she be written into The Gifted.

2. Forge

As an often overlooked and underestimated mutant, Forge has the ability to be extremely brilliant at technology and inventing things. His resourcefulness and smartness are exactly what could help propel an underground resistance team and bolster their chances at winning the fight. 

From armor to weapons to traps, Forge could prove to be an extremely important part of the team.

3. Kid Omega

This mischievous psychic is known for being a troublemaker and for being incredibly powerful. His irreverent punk lifestyle and attitude makes him an interesting fit for resisting against humans. 

While his appearance could also mean trouble for the Mutant Underground, it will be an undeniably interesting mix.

4. Boom-boom

On the note of being mischievous and roguish, Boom-boom (also known as Time Bomb, Boomer, or Meltdown) is a great fit. With an outcast backstory, Boom-boom has the ability to create small orbs of mental energy that explode destructively. 

Her rebellious attitude together with her powers can create a great ally for the Mutant Underground.

5. Rachel Summers

Being the daughter of Jean Grey and Scott Summers, Rachel doesn't have much room to appear in other X-Men related media because it may mean a warped storyline. 

But due to the alternate-timeline nature of The Gifted where we don't see or know what happens to Jean or Scott, it could mean an opportunity for the show to include this powerful telepath and explore her as a character.

SOURCE: FOX+

Related Videos:

Trump And Sessions Can End Immigrant Family Separations Without Congress' Help

Children at an immigrant family separation protest in Phoenix. (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin)

A recent poll shows that two-thirds of Americans oppose the Trump administration’s policy of separating immigrant families apprehended along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Amid a firestorm of criticism, President Donald Trump has blamed Democrats and inaction in Congress for the family separation policy.

Only Congress can provide the comprehensive immigration reform that would address the fundamental problems plaguing the American immigration system, including the statuses of undocumented immigrants already living in the U.S.

However, current immigration laws give the executive branch considerable discretion in deciding which immigrants to detain and release from custody.

Trump has at his disposal a variety of alternatives – other than separating families – that would promote his stated goal of deterring migration from Central America. Those alternatives could avoid violating international human rights norms.

Immigrant detention by past administrationsMany presidents have used the detention of migrants as a tool to enforce immigration law. At the same time, the courts have rejected heavy-handed attempts to deter migration that infringe on the rights of noncitizens.

For example, in Orantes-Hernandez v. Thornburgh, a court of appeals in 1990 found mass immigrant detention and various related policies by the Reagan and first Bush administrations to be unlawful. The policies included detaining immigrants in remote locations where it was difficult for them to retain legal counsel. Together, they formed a concerted effort to deter Central Americans from pursuing asylum claims.

Similarly, in 2014, the Obama administration’s mass detention of Central Americans brought many – and many successful – lawsuits. In Flores v. Lynch in 2016, the court of appeals found that a settlement agreement in a lawsuit required the release of detained children.

Under Trump’s administration, the policy of separating families in order to detain adults has struck a nerve and generated an unprecedented political outcry. Several lawsuits have been filed seeking to end the policy of family separation, including one filed by the American Civil Liberties Union in federal court in San Diego.

The courts have played major roles in moderating the Trump administration’s immigration policies. For example, they’ve issued rulings to block Trump’s “Muslim” or “travel ban” and his attempt to cut federal funding to “sanctuary” cities that refuse to fully cooperate with federal immigration enforcement efforts.

Although it ultimately may take a court ruling to stop family separations, it doesn’t have to be this way. President Trump has many other policy options available to him that he can implement without any Congressional action.

Detention without separation 

In 2014, the Obama administration faced a large number of Central American migrants crossing the border without inspection. Reports at that time suggest it was a much larger influx than what Trump is facing today.

With increasing numbers of families being apprehended by immigration agents at the border, the Obama administration began using what’s called “family detention.” Entire families were detained together in one facility.

Family detention centers operated in Pennsylvania, Texas and, for a time, New Mexico. Although critics argued that family detention was also inhumane, it certainly did not generate the same level of outrage at Trump’s policy of family separation.

Bonds for immigrants 

Currently, migrants apprehended at the border are placed in detention; migrant families are separated. Detention under the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” policy is mandatory, without the possibility of being released on bond.

Prior to this policy, when someone was detained by U.S. immigration authorities, they were allowed a hearing and the opportunity to post a bond for release. Rather than remaining detained, they were released into the community until a hearing was scheduled to evaluate their asylum or other claim.

This is the norm for anyone held in detention in the United States. In fact, the Supreme Court has held that this is a constitutional requirement.

President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions have both denigrated the ordinary approach to posting bonds when it comes to dealing with noncitizens who cross the border without documentation, even if they have a bona fide claim to asylum. Trump signed a memo to end the release of immigrants into the community in April.

Some critics argue that those who are released fail to appear in court when the time comes. However, data show that the vast majority of families who are apprehended and bond out of custody subsequently appear at their removal hearings.

The Trump administration could allow bond hearings for immigrant families and release them if they are not a flight risk or danger to the community. Children could be bonded out with their families and families would remain together. Devices like ankle bracelets could be used to help ensure court appearances.

Previous administrations have responded to similar situations at the U.S.-Mexico border, but none have resorted to the separation of families as a device to deter migration from Central America. The president has said that Congress should fix it. But the president has the power to do that himself.

About Today's Contributor: 
Kevin Johnson, Dean and Professor of Public Interest Law and Chicana/o Studies, University of California, Davis

This article was originally published on The Conversation. 

Bonus Picture: 
(Via Trumpton Facebook Page)

"This is America..."