To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
In this world, where everything and everyone is for sale, we must sustain independent media we can trust. If you believe independent journalism is critical to protecting democracy and the common good, please support Common Dreams this Giving Tuesday! We wouldn't exist without you.
A recent memo
from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Assistant Secretary John
Morton is rooted in basic law enforcement principles, but it is already
being attacked by Administration opponents as "amnesty." The policy
applies only to a defined group of people who are in deportation
proceedings, but have already applied for and are about to obtain legal
immigration status. It directs ICE to halt their deportation
proceedings until a decision is made on the immigration application,
freeing up resources to go after others who are not about to become
legal, taxpaying residents. In company with the ICE leader's commitment
to focus on "the worst of the worst," this development shows that some
of the agency's enforcement priorities are changing for the benefit of
community safety, common sense, the American taxpayer, and family unity.
According
to Lynn Tramonte, Deputy Director of America's Voice, "This is a wise
use of law enforcement resources and a welcome injection of common sense
into ICE policies. Instead of clogging already burdened immigration
courts with people who are about to become legal residents, it allows
the government to focus on dangerous criminals and people who mean our
country harm. While there are still many more changes that need to be
made to immigration enforcement programs in the name of efficiency and
effectiveness, this is a strong step forward."
It's
important to understand that this memo covers only a small fraction of
immigrants in the U.S. illegally -- the 17,000 who are in active
deportation proceedings, have also applied for immigration status
through existing laws, like the family-based immigration system, and are
likely to have those cases approved. It won't give a benefit to anyone
who doesn't qualify for one already; it won't prevent anyone whose
application is denied from being deported in the future; it won't apply
to anyone who poses a threat to public safety; and it won't end
deportation proceedings for the majority of people who are in them.
Despite
the common sense nature of the ICE memo, a host of Republican voices in
Congress, such as Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), are clearly more
concerned about opposing anything the Obama Administration does than
about making wise use of taxpayer resources. Despite Senator Grassley's
reputation as a budget hawk, he opposes this effort to improve
government efficiency and reacted
to the news by saying, "Unfortunately, it appears this is more evidence
that the Obama administration would rather circumvent Congress and give
a free pass to illegal immigrants who have already broken our law."
According
to Tramonte, "Americans want solutions to the broken immigration system
- not 'leaders' whose only strategy on immigration is to block progress
at every turn. Does Senator Grassley truly believe that it's efficient
or intelligent to tie up law enforcement resources going after someone
who's about to become a legal resident? This ICE memo is a step
forward, in line with the wishes of the American people. The public also understands
that we cannot fully fix the broken immigration system until we pass
comprehensive immigration reform. Instead of calling every move by the
Obama Administration 'amnesty,' Senator Grassley should get working on
real and lasting immigration reform."
America's Voice -- Harnessing the power of American voices and American values to win common sense immigration reform. The mission of America's Voice is to realize the promise of workable and humane comprehensive immigration reform. Our goal is to build the public support and create the political momentum for reforms that will transform a dysfunctional immigration system that does not work into a regulatory system that does.
Israeli airstrikes killed nearly a dozen people in southern Lebanon on Monday, heightening fears that a tenuous cease-fire agreement is on the verge of collapse.
The Israeli military on Monday carried out a series of airstrikes in southern Lebanon, killing nearly a dozen people and further imperiling a fragile cease-fire agreement that Israel has been accused of violating dozens of times since the deal took effect last week.
Israel's latest strikes came after Hezbollah fired a pair of projectiles in the direction of Israeli-occupied territory known as Shebaa Farms. Israel's military, which condemned the Hezbollah attack as a violation of the cease-fire deal, said the projectiles did not cause any casualties, as they fell in open areas.
The Israeli outlet Ynetreported that Israel "acted against alleged Hezbollah violations without consulting the international committee tasked with monitoring compliance under the agreement."
CNNnoted Monday that Hezbollah's projectile fire was a response to "repeated Israeli strikes that have hit Lebanon daily since Thursday, the day after the cease-fire came into force." A United Nations peacekeeping source told the outlet that Israel has violated the cease-fire deal "about 100 times."
About the Lebanon ceasefire Biden is so proud of — CNN just reported that "Israel has violated that ceasefire about 100 times." pic.twitter.com/w172R5VrQM
— Ken Klippenstein (@kenklippenstein) December 2, 2024
In a statement, Hezbollah accused Israel of "firing on civilians" and launching "airstrikes in different parts of Lebanon, which led to the death of citizens and the injury of others, in addition to the continued violation of Lebanese airspace by hostile Israeli aircraft reaching the capital Beirut."
The cease-fire deal brokered by France and the United States includes a 60-day period during which Israel must halt "offensive military operations against Lebanese targets" and withdraw its forces from southern Lebanon. The agreement was announced after weeks of relentless Israeli bombings and ground attacks in Lebanon that killed thousands of people and displaced more than a million.
The U.S., Israel's main ally and weapons supplier, assured Israel that a cease-fire agreement would not limit its ability to attack Lebanon whenever it perceives a threat, calling into question the deal's legitimacy.
Asked about alleged violations of the cease-fire agreement, U.S. State Department spokesman Matthew Miller told reporters Monday that "the cease-fire is holding" and the Biden administration is examining potential violations in partnership with the government of France.
"Ultimately, what we don't want to see is the cease-fire break down, and we have not seen the cease-fire break down," Miller said.
But the Biden administration has reportedly told Israel privately that it is "concerned" the cease-fire deal could collapse.
"The Israelis have been playing a dangerous game in recent days," an unnamed U.S. official told Axios.
One Israeli official, according toAxios, "admitted that the current situation could lead to the collapse of the cease-fire but stressed it will depend on how Hezbollah responds" to Israel's latest round of airstrikes.
"Someone tell Trump that Israel already unleashed hell on Gaza, and hostages were not released."
In an early signal of U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's foreign policy plans for when he returns to office next month, the Republican said Monday "there will be ALL HELL TO PAY in the Middle East" if Hamas does not release hostages taken from Israel, the occupying military force in both the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Trump demanded hostages seized during the October 7 attack of last year be released or his promised retribution would follow. Nearly 45,000 Palestinians have already been killed—mostly civilian men, women, and children—since Israel launched a full-scale invasion of Gaza in the wake of the Hamas-led operation.
Of the 251 people taken captive last year, 63 are believed to be still alive in Gaza, according toThe Washington Post's tracker, which was updated last week. So far, 117 others have been freed or rescued and 71 have been confirmed killed.
After dining with Sara Netanyahu, the wife of Israel's prime minister, at the Trump International Golf Club in Florida Sunday night, the U.S. president-elect made his threat about the hostages on his Truth Social platform Monday afternoon.
"Everybody is talking about the hostages who are being held so violently, inhumanely, and against the will of the entire World, in the Middle East," Trump wrote. "But it's all talk, and no action! Please let this TRUTH serve to represent that if the hostages are not released prior to January 20, 2025, the date that I proudly assume Office as President of the United States, there will be ALL HELL TO PAY in the Middle East, and for those in charge who perpetrated these atrocities against Humanity."
"Those responsible will be hit harder than anybody has been hit in the long and storied History of the United States of America," Trump added. "RELEASE THE HOSTAGES NOW!"
Stephen Pollard, editor-at-large The Jewish Chronicle, responded that "this is the message the president of the USA should have sent on October 8, 2023."
Noting Pollard's comments, Rohan Talbot, director of advocacy and campaigns at the U.K.-based Medical Aid for Palestinians, said: "Genuinely interested to know what Stephen thinks the U.S. could have supported Israel to do in Gaza beyond what it currently has. Nukes?"
"This statement is unhinged—'there will be ALL HELL TO PAY in the Middle East,'" Talbot added.
Andreas Krieg, a senior lecturer in the School of Security Studies at King's College London, said, "Someone tell Trump that Israel already unleashed hell on Gaza, and hostages were not released."
Drop Site Newshighlighted that "Trump's statement—which follows a video released over the weekend by Hamas' armed wing featuring U.S.-Israeli captive Edan Alexander and explicitly addressing Trump—does not acknowledge that Netanyahu has repeatedly sabotaged cease-fire deals that could have freed Israeli hostages. It also appears timed to position himself to claim credit for any progress in cease-fire talks, as negotiations between Hamas and Egyptian mediators are already underway."
As the American Jewish outlet Forwardreported Monday:
The White House is attempting a final push to get... a deal done. President Joe Biden said last week that the cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon had created an opportunity to reignite stalled negotiations for a similar deal in Gaza. "We will use every day we have in office to try to generate as much progress towards that end as possible," Jake Sullivan, Biden's national security adviser, said Sunday morning on ABC's "This Week."
Given the failed efforts in the past, the families of the American hostages are hoping Trump could leverage his popularity in Israel and his relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to take immediate action during the transition period. "Trump must not wait until he is inaugurated to help reach a deal that secures the freedom for Edan, six other Americans, and the rest of the hostages," Adi and Yael Alexander, the parents of Edan, said on Saturday.
Despite an abundance of evidence showing how Israel is using U.S. weapons to slaughter civilians in Gaza and severely restricting the flow of humanitarian aid while claiming to target Hamas, Biden and Congress have refused to cut off arms to Netanyahu's government. In fact, just hours after the cease-fire between the Israeli government and Hezbollah took effect—a deal that Israel has since violated approximately 100 times—the Financial Times reported last week that "Biden has provisionally approved a $680 million weapons sale to Israel."
"These deals essentially pay industry to inflict more suffering on already climate-ravaged communities," said one local opponent of efforts to further expand gas exports in the region.
How do local communities lose out when governments invest in fossil fuel facilities instead of community needs?
That's the question at the heart of a new Sierra Club report released Monday, titled "The People Always Pay: Tax Breaks Force Gulf Communities to Subsidize the LNG Industry"—which details the extent to which the export market for liquefied natural gas, or LNG, benefits from billions of dollars in tax breaks in Louisiana and Texas—revenue that could be invested in public infrastructure, schools, and other priorities.
In the past decade, after an export ban was lifted by the Obama administration in 2015, the United States has shifted from an importer to a mass exporter of LNG, which a recent Cornell University study revealed has worse impacts than coal. Critics warn that investment in LNG causes environmental harm and hampers the transition to a green economy. Export terminal sites are concentrated along the Gulf Coast, primarily impacting impoverished coastal communities in Louisiana and Texas, according to the Sierra Club's report.
"The immense scale of tax breaks granted to billion-dollar LNG projects—millions of dollars per job—is mind-blowing. These deals essentially pay industry to inflict more suffering on already climate-ravaged communities by polluting the air and water while depriving Gulf Coast communities of vital revenue for schools, infrastructure, healthcare, emergency services, coastal restoration and protection," said James Hiatt, founder of For a Better Bayou and a resident of Calcasieu Parish in Louisiana, who is featured in the report.
The report relies on interviews with community members and takes a close look at the primary tax abatement programs that LNG export projects have benefited from, respectively.
Under two Louisiana tax break programs—the Industrial Tax Exemption Program (ITEP) and another called Quality Jobs—nine operating, proposed, or under-construction LNG export terminals have been provided $21.6 billion. In Cameron Parish, for example, home to Cheniere Energy's Sabine Pass LNG facility, the company is set to receive $4.9 billion in ITEP subsidies between 2012 and 2040, according to the report. In total, Cameron Parish residents are set to lose out on $14.9 billion in revenue from 2012-2040 due to ITEP subsidies for various LNG export terminals.
That investment in fossil fuel facilities translates to a lost $3.8 billion that could go towards schools and another $2.4 billion that could go towards health services, according to the authors of the report.
The report also details how bolstering the LNG market has adversely impacted the local economy.
For example, for Cameron Parish and nearby Calcasieu Parish, the rapid development of petrochemical facilities in the area has increased ship traffic. The Port of Cameron was once the country's largest producer of seafood, according to the report, but dredging and erosion stemming from ship traffic has made it hard for aquatic life to thrive: "While Cameron Parish had a fleet of 250 fishing vessels in 2005, nowadays, only a few dozen remain and some fishermen claim to see only 12 to 15 people working on the water every day, with others forced to supplement their income with additional jobs."
The report highlights that a grassroots organization in Louisiana found that ITEP applications from 1998 to 2017 pledged over 121,000 new jobs, but that the companies actually experienced a net loss of over 26,500 jobs.
The impact on communities is not just economic. According to the report, in Texas' Golden Triangle, a highly industrialized petrochemical corridor that includes the cities of Port Arthur, Beaumont, and Orange, residents breathe in polluting vapors that increase potential health harms.
"Among other pollutants, refineries produce benzene, a carcinogen that can result in leukemia or severe bone marrow damage. On average, an estimated one in 5,000 people in the Golden Triangle are at an incremental lifetime cancer risk, despite the EPA’s upper limit of acceptable cancer risk being one in 10,000," the report states.
Given the sizable tax exemptions in both Louisiana and Texas pledged for projects that are not yet up and running—in addition to the environmental degradation that is guaranteed with further expansion—the Sierra Club argues that making sure they are never built is "exactly what is necessary to avert the worst of the climate crisis."