

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

US Immigration and Customs Enforcement arbitrarily detains refugees
and holds them indefinitely for failing to meet paperwork requirements,
Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. People who have
already been accepted as refugees face an often confusing requirement
to apply for a green card for legal permanent resident status, after a
year in the United States.
The 40-page report, "Jailing Refugees: Arbitrary Detention of
Refugees in the US Who Fail to Adjust to Permanent Resident Status",
examines the detention of refugees for failure to file for lawful
permanent resident status, even though US immigration officials already
put them through a thorough vetting process at the time they were
recognized as refugees. Although only a small number of refugees are
jailed for this purpose, and the number appears to have decreased under
the Obama administration, the detentions continue to be selective and
arbitrary, and therefore a violation of international human rights law.
The report recommends changing US law to close the legal loophole that
allows for detaining these refugees and to give them lawful permanent
residence when the US grants them asylum or admits them to the country
under its overseas refugee resettlement program.
"For the US government to bring persecuted refugees to this country
and then turn around a year later and jail them because they didn't
file immigration forms is ironic to the point of absurdity," said Bill
Frelick, refugee policy director at Human Rights Watch. "This
mindlessly bureaucratic policy unnecessarily traumatizes refugees and
their families, not to mention wasting the government's resources."
The report is based on interviews with 17 refugees in immigration
detention in Arizona and Pennsylvania and with legal aid providers in
Arizona, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New York, and Washington, DC, all of
whom worked with refugees detained for failure to adjust their status.
Although the Department of Homeland Security informed Human Rights
Watch that the policy is under review, it declined to comment on the
findings of the report because the issue is under active litigation.
Each year, the US government sends officials overseas to interview
thousands of people displaced by persecution and conflict, classifies a
select number as refugees in need of resettlement, and brings them to
the United States. After a year in the United States, every resettled
refugee is required to apply for lawful permanent resident (LPR)
status, more familiarly known as a "green card," in a procedure known
as "adjustment."
The government does not formally notify them of the upcoming
deadline and the refugees' limited English, ignorance about the
requirement, confusion over the legal process, and lack of resources
often keeps them from filing on time.
Sebastian Nyembo (a pseudonym) was only 8 when he was resettled from
the Democratic Republic of Congo. He did not know about the
requirement. "I was eight years old," Sebastian told Human Rights
Watch. "My father passed away. When I got older I realized I needed [to
apply for a green card], but I didn't know it was mandatory."
When Human Rights Watch visited him in August 2009 at the remote
Eloy Detention Center in the Arizona desert, he had not spoken to his
two children, ages 7 and 4, since his arrival four months earlier. His
son has sickle cell anemia, which requires expensive medical care, but
Sebastian had been unable to provide for the children since his
detention. "My wife, she been going through a lot," he said. "[The]
house went for foreclosure."
Although the law is not applied uniformly, ICE interprets section
209(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act as mandating detention of
all refugees who have been in the US for 12 months who have not filed
to adjust their status, until they have filed for adjustment and their
applications have been adjudicated. In Arizona, where Human Rights
Watch conducted most of its interviews, refugees were sometimes
detained for several months in remote, desert locations, and in some
cases for longer than a year, without being formally charged with any
legal offense.
The majority of resettled refugees interviewed by Human Rights Watch
said that before their detention, they were unaware that they were
required to file for adjustment of status. Most believed that filing
for adjustment of status was optional, and were unaware of any
potential legal repercussions for failure to file after one year.
"These people are no danger to their communities, nor are they a
flight risk," Frelick said. "But detaining them separates them from
spouses and children, interrupts their education and costs them their
jobs - not to mention the new trauma for those with post-traumatic
stress disorder."
The US is a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, which states that no one shall be subject to
arbitrary arrest or detention (Article 9). This prohibition means that
a person may be deprived of liberty, even if provided for under
domestic law, only to meet a legitimate aim, and only in cases where it
is necessary and proportionate, such as when alternatives to detention
are not possible. An arrest or detention is arbitrary if not carried
out in accordance with domestic law, or if the law is itself arbitrary
or extremely broadly worded.
Failure to adjust immigration status is not a chargeable criminal or
civil offense. So unlike sentences of a specific length imposed for
criminal convictions, the length of detention for resettled refugees is
indefinite. When people are detained for this reason, they are held
until they complete their application and the application has been
fully adjudicated. This may take 4 to 6 months, and in some cases
longer than a year.
"Jailing Refugees" urges the US Congress to change the law that
currently permits ICE to detain these refugees and calls on Congress to
grant legal permanent residence to all recognized refugees in the US,
given that their cases have already been considered in depth as part of
the asylum or refugee resettlement process. In the meantime, it also
calls on ICE to stop detaining these refugees and to permit them to
file for adjustment from their own homes and communities.
The experience of being detained often without understanding why or
how to get out of detention can cause great anxiety and depression.
Sebastian Nyembo told Human Rights Watch "I'm a good person, a good
hearted person, but I'm gonna give up. I don't have no fight in me."
Some might argue that the current law should remain unchanged
because it gives US immigration authorities an opportunity to examine
refugees after one year to see if they should be removed because of
criminal behavior. "Jailing Refugees'" central recommendation that
refugees be admitted with lawful permanent resident status would still
allow US immigration authorities to put criminals into removal
proceedings. "Under existing law, US immigration authorities have ample
grounds for initiating removal proceedings against lawful permanent
residents convicted of crimes and for detaining them during those
proceedings," said Frelick.
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
"Everyone in Canada deserves to be safe and healthy," said one organization leader. "Instead, our government is putting people at risk by dismantling key climate policies without a credible plan to reduce emissions."
"You cannot abandon the map and still expect to reach your destination. Yet that's exactly what the federal government has done with its 2030 climate plan."
That's according to Charlie Hatt, climate director at Ecojustice, Canada's largest environmental law charity and one of the groups that partnered with a trio of young citizens this week to challenge Prime Minister Mark Carney's "failure" to bring the country's 2030 emissions reduction plan into compliance with a key federal law.
"Right now, its only climate plan is a plan to fail—and that's not just irresponsible, it's unlawful under the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act," said Hatt. "Neither the climate nor the law can tolerate rollbacks today in exchange for promises of action many years from now."
The act requires the federal government to set science-based climate goals, create a plan to achieve them, and report on its progress. However, Carney has recently pursued various rollbacks and boosted fossil fuel development, putting his nation's 2030 emissions reduction target out of reach—which the groups and young people argued violates the law.
"Everyone in Canada deserves to be safe and healthy," said Dr. Samantha Green, president of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment. "Instead, our government is putting people at risk by dismantling key climate policies without a credible plan to reduce emissions. Climate change is not an abstract future threat: It is a public health emergency that is already harming patients and communities across Canada. That's why CAPE is joining this lawsuit."
The fossil fuel-driven climate emergency isn't just a danger to public health. As Environmental Defence's Julia Levin noted, Canadians "are paying the price through wildfires, heat domes, rising food insecurity, and high costs of living."
"PM Carney is betraying Canadians by taking a wrecking ball to our hard-fought climate progress," Levin declared, accusing the Liberal Party leader of following in the footsteps of Big Oil-backed Republican US President Donald Trump.
"The rest of the world is rapidly adopting clean energy systems that are already more reliable, affordable, and secure than fossil fuels," she said. "Meanwhile, our prime minister is copying President Trump's playbook, ensuring that Canada will be left behind."
Carney's climate policies as prime minister—especially compared with how he talked about the crisis before rising to his current position last year—have frustrated many citizens and left "climate-anxious voters... feeling a major case of buyer's remorse, disoriented by the dissonance between who they thought they were supporting and a climate plan that is now a complete shambles," as Canadian climate writer and activist Seth Klein wrote for The Guardian last month.
Youth applicants in the new legal fight made that frustration clear on Tuesday. Montréal, Quebec-based climate organizer Shirley Barnea said that "the Carney government's gutting of climate policy is a massive insult. After presenting himself as a climate leader, our prime minister is now abdicating responsibility—to Canadians, to future generations, to the law. As long as governments continue ignoring climate science and rolling back protections for our futures, young people will continue taking them to court."
Marie Maltais, who is from Sainte-Catherine-de-la-Jacques-Cartier, Québec, and has advocated for the climate since her early teens, said that "my generation has grown up surrounded by climate disasters and broken political promises to address them. We're told to trust the government's climate commitments—but commitments mean nothing without a real plan behind them."
Sudbury, Ontario-based Sophia Mathur, an early participant in Greta Thunberg's Fridays for Future movement who recently met with Carney and urged him to keep his climate promises, added that "young people are being handed the consequences of decisions we didn't make. We are going to live with the impacts of unchecked climate change for the rest of our lives—so we're standing up for our futures, now."
The young citizens and advocacy groups are seeking a court order that would compel Carney to comply with the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, stressing that "climate change is an existential threat to all Canadians."
Trump now faces a choice: Ending the war or giving Israel what it wants.
President Donald Trump is facing a choice: Ending the war with Iran, which is tanking his popularity and the economy, or continuing his deference to Israel.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi made it clear on Tuesday that he cannot have both.
Following assertions from Israeli leaders that it would not end its occupation of Lebanon, Araghchi reiterated that the memorandum of understanding signed virtually by the US and Iran required in no uncertain terms that "war will be ending everywhere, on all fronts, including Lebanon."
"Due to the relations between war in Lebanon and the aggression of Israel on south Lebanon and the war on Iran, these two fronts—Iran and Lebanon—are quite connected to each other," he said.
“End of the war will be the end of the occupation,” he continued. “And without retreating and withdrawing from the Lebanese occupied territories, then there will not be an end to the war.”
"So any military attack from the Zionist entity against Lebanon will never be accepted," he said. "The continuation of the Israeli occupation of the Lebanese territories is a violation of the memorandum of understanding."
It was a shot across the bow from Tehran following Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s assertion the day before that Israeli forces would remain in Lebanon "for as long as necessary” regardless of any US-Iran agreement.
“We established deep security zones around the state of Israel," he said, referring to the roughly 230 square mile occupation area where Israel has forcibly expelled more than 1 million Lebanese civilians and systematically demolished dozens of villages. "I want to make it clear: We will remain in these security zones… to protect our country.”
Other ministers were even blunter. Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said flatly that “Trump’s agreement does not bind us. Israel is not subordinate to the United States. We are an independent and sovereign country.”
Defense Minister Israel Katz said the occupation would go on “without any time limit" while villages would continue to be “cleared of local residents.” He said there would be no withdrawal "despite all the existing pressures" from the US, adding that, "we are committed only to our citizens and to the security of the state of Israel."
Trump has regularly deferred to Israel's preferences and sided with Netanyahu as he's derailed previous ceasefire talks. But during a news conference at the Group of Seven summit in France on Tuesday, Trump took a noticeably different tone with his obstinate ally.
Trump: "Without me, there would be no Israel ... I've had a great relationship with Bibi, but now Bibi has to be more responsible with respect to Lebanon ... I'm not happy with the way Israel has handled themselves with Lebanon and Hezbollah." pic.twitter.com/xvLlEhYqWj
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 16, 2026
Trump criticizes Netanyahu and Israel: "Israel has been fighting Hezbollah too long and too many people are being killed. You don't need to knock down an apartment every time you're looking for somebody. I suggested to Israel to let Syria take care of Hezbollah, because too be… pic.twitter.com/NAmqoNkhpj
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 16, 2026
The president said he "didn't like" the attack Netanyahu launched against the southern suburbs of Beirut on Sunday, where Israeli forces bombed a five-story apartment building, killing three people. "I saw that attack. I saw where that bomb went," he said, describing the attack as "vicious" and "too much."
"You don't need to knock down an apartment every time you're looking for somebody," he said, making perhaps his most forceful criticism ever of Israel's rampant attacks on civilian infrastructure. He continued that "if Israel can't do the job without killing everyone else, Syria should do the job" of fighting Hezbollah.
"Without the United States, there would be no Israel," he went on. "Without me, there would be no Israel, because no other president was willing to do what I did."
Referring to Netanyahu, he said, "I've had a great relationship with Bibi, but now Bibi has to be more responsible with respect to Lebanon," adding that the ongoing invasion "throws a negative light on the big deal, and that's the deal with Iran."
Commentators noted this is hardly the first time a US president has vented their anger with Netanyahu, only for nothing to materially change.
Noting Trump's previous description of Netanyahu as a "very difficult guy" after he attempted to blow up ceasefire talks on Sunday, Kenneth Roth, the former executive director of Human Rights Watch, said, "The question is: why does Trump facilitate this obstruction by continuing to provide Israel with arms and military aid?"
Zeteo News editor Mehdi Hasan said: “Such is the madly erratic nature of Trump, that he can go from sounding like the most hawkish, pro-Israel president one day, to the most dovish, anti-Israel president the next day. Which is why listening to Trump is pointless; what matters is paying attention to what he does.”
Trump's comments served as an admission, said one observer, that "the uranium was a false justification for war."
President Donald Trump and his top advisers have spent months insisting that extracting and confiscating highly enriched uranium from Iran was the top objective of the unprovoked war he and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu began in February—but on Tuesday at the Group of Seven summit in France, he shrugged off the need to rapidly obtain the nuclear reactor component.
There is "no rush" to retrieve uranium from nuclear sites the US bombed in June 2025, Trump said, adding that taking the highly enriched uranium is something the US wants "psychologically," but not enough to prioritize extracting it right away.
One could make the argument, he said, that it wasn't worth the effort to take the material at all.
"Frankly, to go get it—we're going to go get it—but to go get it is a big deal, because they say only China and us have the equipment," said the president. "You could make the case, 'Why do you even bother?' because it's not very valuable, you know. It's probably half a million dollars worth, it's not very valuable stuff."
Trump is backing away from getting Iran's enriched material: "You could make the case, why even bother? It's not very valuable stuff." pic.twitter.com/CgNgnZCaMQ
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 16, 2026
Trump's comments came a day after he and the Iranian government announced they had reached a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to end the war. The president told The New York Times that the agreement includes a requirement that Iran will be limited to enriching uranium only to levels that "could never be used by the military."
White House officials, though, told The Washington Post that details of Iran's nuclear program will be subject to negotiations over the next two months. The question of whether talks on the nuclear program could be held separately, after a deal to end the war was reached, had been a major sticking point for the US leading up to the MOU.
Trump brushed off suggestions that the deal to end the war, in which Iran demonstrated its economic might by effectively closing the Strait of Hormuz and sending energy prices skyrocketing—obtained no guarantees on Iran's nuclear program that hadn't already been secured in 2015 in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which was brokered by the Obama administration and which limited Iran's nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. Trump exited the JCPOA during his first term.
Iran will only be able to enrich uranium “for nonmilitary purposes. Forever," said Trump on Monday.
On Fox News on Monday, former National Security Council chief of staff Alex Gray insisted the president had secured a deal that, for the first time, would stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Before the US and Israel began attacking Iran in February, the Middle Eastern country maintained that its nuclear power program was not for military purposes.
While Trump's supporters insisted the war and the MOU had made clear Trump had drawn a hard line on Iran's nuclear capacity, his comments on Tuesday were taken by foreign policy analyst Logan McMillen as an admission that "the uranium was a false justification for war."
"The real purpose was to punish Iran for the crime of being an independent economic power that refused to participate in America’s petro economy," said McMillen.
At CNN, Aaron Blake noted that Trump has spent weeks sending inconsistent messages about his demand that Iran end its nuclear program.
Late last month, the president said on social media that Iran's uranium "will be unearthed by the United States... in close coordination and conjunction with the Islamic Republic of Iran, plus the International Atomic Energy Agency, and DESTROYED.”
But in April, Trump told Reuters that US strikes last year had left Iran's uranium "so far underground, I don’t care about that."
Two weeks later, he again said that the US had "to take that nuclear dust," before telling Fox News last month that destroying the uranium was not "necessary except from a public relations standpoint."