

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.

The French parliament should reject measures in an omnibus immigration bill that appear to target Roma and weaken migrants rights, Human Rights Watch said today. The National Assembly is due to begin debating the government-sponsored bill on September 28, 2010.
The bill, whose ostensible purpose is to transpose three European Union directives, contains last-minute government amendments that would widen the grounds for expelling EU citizens to include abusing France's welfare system, profiting from begging by others, and abusive occupation of land. The timing and focus of the amendments, and statements by government ministers, strongly suggest that the measure is aimed at the Roma.
"It is shocking that the French government is pushing for measures that clearly target Roma at a time when the European Commission is threatening legal action over France's expulsion of Roma this summer," said Judith Sunderland, senior researcher on Western Europe at Human Rights Watch. "It smacks of a populist move at the expense of the most discriminated against and vulnerable people in Europe today."
The bill also provides for:
As drafted, the bill would make it possible to expel EU citizens whose stay in France constitutes "an abuse of rights," such as those who renew three-month stays for the purpose of staying in France even though they do not fulfill the requirements for long-term stay, and those who stay in France with the purpose of benefitting from the welfare system, particularly emergency housing. The measure would be applicable to EU citizens in France for less than three months.
Immigration Minister Eric Besson announced the last-minute amendments during an August 30 press conference in which Interior Minister Brice Hortefeux made a point of singling out an increase in crimes committed by Romanians in Paris over the last year and a half. Claiming the government was not stigmatizing any particular group, Hortefeux said "any citizen can see [the reality]...of women and children spending entire days begging in appalling conditions in order to take their haul to the people who are exploiting them."
Under EU freedom of movement regulations, EU citizens may stay in another EU country for up to three months without conditions. Long-term stay requires that individuals are employed, self-employed, or have sufficient means to support themselves without becoming a burden on the host country's welfare system. But the main 2004 EU directive on freedom of movement explicitly states that expulsion should not be the "automatic consequence of...recourse to the social assistance system of the host Member State."
The bill would also expand powers to expel foreigners deemed to pose a threat to public order, including those liable to prosecution for certain crimes, including drug trafficking, human trafficking, profiting from prostitution by others, exploitation of begging, certain kinds of aggravated theft, and abusive occupation of land under the terms of a 2000 law regulating sites for gens de voyage (the French community known as "travelers").
The EU law on freedom of movement allows removal of EU citizens who represent a "genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society." This high threshold has been confirmed by the European Court of Justice. In late August, a court in Lille rejected the French government's argument that living in an unauthorized settlement justified expulsion on public security grounds.
"Calling organized begging and setting up makeshift homes on public or private land serious threat to public order just plays on fear and prejudice against Roma," Sunderland said. "Parliament should scrap these provisions."
The immigration bill will be debated against the backdrop of a highly publicized campaign over the summer to dismantle informal Roma settlements and expel from France Roma from Romania and Bulgaria. According to government figures, 1,700 Romanians and Bulgarians will have been expelled between July 28 and the end of September. In keeping with a plan to dismantle 300 unauthorized camps by the end of the year, authorities had evicted Roma from at least 128 camps by the end of August. Throughout last year, only 580 citizens of all other EU countries combined were expelled, according to official statistics.
The European Commission is expected to decide soon whether France violated EU laws on freedom of movement and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. There are serious concerns that the removals, many of which the government claims were "voluntary" upon cash payments, did not respect procedural safeguards, including the requirement to assess the individual's personal circumstances, the proportionality of an expulsion order, and the ability to challenge the decision in court. The bill before Parliament does not explicitly require authorities to conduct such assessments when determining to remove an EU citizen.
More troubling provisions
The bill would also empower the government to create ad hoc "transit zones" for the purpose of legally detaining and fast-tracking the asylum claims of a group of ten or more foreigners who have entered France without passing through an established border entry. In January, a group of over 100 asylum seekers arrived in Corsica by boat. French authorities were forced to release them after judges ruled their detention unlawful. Transit zones, which already exist at border points and airports in France, are based on a legal fiction that allows the government to treat an individual as if he or she is still outside the country. Individuals detained in transit zones have fewer rights and are subject to speedy deportations.
Human Rights Watch research has documented how unaccompanied children detained in transit zones in France are held jointly with adults and deported to countries they merely traveled through or to their countries of origin without any consideration of whether their families or child protection services are able to care for them upon return.
Human Rights Watch said that the bill would make the detention of asylum seekers and fast-track examination of their claims more common and also give the authorities too much latitude to decide when those detained in a transit zone are notified of, and may begin to exercise, their rights. The EU Returns Directive allows EU countries to suspend immigration detention rules for a limited time only where an "exceptionally large number" of irregular migrants places an "unforeseen heavy burden" on authorities.
"Existing transit zones are already a disaster zone when it comes to rights, especially for unaccompanied children and asylum seekers," said Sunderland. "Creating portable zones will just make it harder for them to get the protection they need."
The only article of the draft legislation dealing with asylum procedures is designed to clarify the basis for rejecting an individual's request to enter France in order to apply for asylum. The bill does not remedy the lack of a suspensive appeal for asylum seekers on French territory whose claims are processed under the accelerated "priority procedure", despite recent recommendations from the UN Committee against Torture and the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights and several amendments proposed by both opposition parties and a deputy from Sarkozy's ruling party, the UMP. Human Rights Watch has been campaigning with Amnesty International France and ACAT France for the reform of the priority procedure.
In response to rioting in Grenoble in July which saw police officers come under gunfire, the government amended the draft legislation to allow for withdrawal of citizenship from individuals convicted of voluntary or involuntary homicide of public officials, including law enforcement officers, firefighters, and judges. French law already provides for naturalized citizens to be stripped of French citizenship if convicted of a crime against the fundamental interests of the nation or an act of terrorism. This facilitates subsequent expulsion to their country of citizenship by birth, where they may never have had or no longer have strong social or family ties.
The bill would also delay the review of immigration detention by a specialized judge from the current 48 hours to five days, limit the scope of the review, increase maximum detention pending deportation from 32 to 45 days, and allow for those expelled from France to be banned for up to five years from returning to France and any of the other 24 countries covered by the "Schengen" agreement on free movement.
National rights groups and the National Consultative Commission on Human Rights have warned that all of these provisions are likely to lead to rights violations. The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights expressed his concern that bans on return to the Schengen area could seriously affect the possibility of those in need of asylum to seek protection in Europe.
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.
"It is abundantly clear that Republicans and the Trump administration want to strangle the VA until it all gets privatized," said the advocacy group VoteVets.
Before the end of the year, the Trump administration is planning to eliminate up to 35,000 healthcare jobs at the Department of Veterans Affairs, a chronically understaffed agency that has already lost tens of thousands of employees to the White House's sweeping assault on the federal workforce.
The Washington Post reported over the weekend that the targeted positions—many of which are unfilled—include doctors, nurses, and support staff. A spokesperson for the VA, led by former Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.), described the jobs as "mostly Covid-era roles that are no longer necessary."
VA workers, veterans advocates, and a union representing hundreds of thousands of department employees disputed that characterization as the agency faces staff shortages across the country.
"We are all doing the work of others to compensate,” one VA employee told the Post. “The idea that relief isn’t coming is really, really disappointing.”
Thomas Dargon Jr., deputy general counsel of the American Federation of Government Employees, said remaining VA employees "are obviously going to be facing the brunt of any further job cuts or reorganization that results in employees having to do more work with less."
The advocacy organization VoteVets cast the job cuts as another step toward the longstanding GOP goal of privatizing the VA.
"This is outrageous," the group wrote on social media. "It is abundantly clear that Republicans and the Trump administration want to strangle the VA until it all gets privatized."
"We must expand the VA, not hollow it out."
News of the impending job cuts came months after the Trump administration moved to gut collective bargaining protections for many VA employees and as recent staffing cuts continued to hamper veterans' services nationwide.
"Wait times for new mental health appointments have increased sharply since January in my home state, Connecticut," Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said during a Senate hearing earlier this month. "For example, the most recent data shows the current wait time for a new patient mental health appointment at the Orange VA Clinic in Connecticut—an outpatient facility specializing in mental health—is 208 days."
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, said in a statement Sunday that "it is unacceptable that the US Department of Veterans Affairs plans to eliminate as many as 35,000 healthcare positions this month."
"This is especially outrageous given the reality that VA facilities in Vermont and across the country already face severe staffing challenges," said Sanders. "When someone puts their life on the line to defend this country in uniform, we in turn must provide them with the best quality healthcare available. These layoffs are unacceptable and must be reversed. We must expand the VA, not hollow it out. And I will do everything I can to make that happen."
"The 'Nobel Peace Prize' continues thanking the US for the maximum pressure against her own country," said one critic.
Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado, the winner of the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize, is taking criticism for lending support to US President Donald Trump's campaign of military aggression against her own country.
In an interview that aired on Sunday on CBS News' "Face the Nation," Machado praised Trump's policies of tightening economic sanctions and seizing oil tankers that had been docked at Venezuelan ports.
“Look, I absolutely support President Trump’s strategy, and we, the Venezuelan people, are very grateful to him and to his administration, because I believe he is a champion of freedom in this hemisphere," Machado told CBS News.
Machado elaborated that she supported Trump's actions because the Maduro government was "not a conventional dictatorship," but "a very complex criminal structure that has turned Venezuela into a safe haven of international crime and terrorist activities."
Trump's campaign against Venezuela has not only included sanctions and the seizing of an oil tanker, but a series of bombings of purported drug-trafficking vessels that many legal experts consider to be acts of murder.
Trump has also said that he would soon authorize strikes against purported drug traffickers on Venezuelan soil, even though he has received no congressional authorization to conduct such an operation against a sovereign nation.
Machado's embrace of Trump as he potentially positions the US to launch a regime-change war in Venezuela drew swift criticism from opponents of American imperialism.
SussexBylines columnist Ross McNally questioned whether someone who is going on the record to support military aggression against her own country was really the right choice to win the Nobel Peace Prize.
"The Nobel Committee's decision to give the Peace Prize to Machado is bizarre for several reasons," he explained. "Firstly, its description of Machado’s ‘tireless work promoting democratic rights’ ignores the fact that she supported the attempted coup against democratically elected President Hugo Chávez in 2002... Alongside her encouragement for Trump’s military escalation, this jars somewhat with the Committee’s description."
The Machado interview was also criticized by Venezuelan journalist Madelein Garcia, who argued in a post on X that it was ironic to see that "the 'Nobel Peace Prize' continues thanking the US for the maximum pressure against her own country."
Going Underground host Afshin Rattansi also excoriated the Nobel Committee for overlooking Machado's support of militarism when it decided to award her a prize intended for peacemakers.
"Nobel Farce Prize Winner Maria Corina Machado is not a freedom fighter, she’s a CIA asset and de facto spokeswoman for US corporations," he wrote. "Here she is smiling gleefully at the prospect of selling $1.7 trillion of infrastructure and resources should the US carry out regime change in Venezuela and install her in Miraflores, promising 'we have a massive privatisation program waiting for you.'"
"Every US representative will face a simple, up-or-down choice on the House floor this week: Will you stand up for the Constitution and vote to stop Trump’s illegal warmaking or not?"
With floor votes expected this week, top members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus are urging fellow lawmakers in the US House to back a pair of resolutions aimed at preventing President Donald Trump from launching an unauthorized war on Venezuela.
“As Trump once again threatens ‘land strikes on Venezuela,’ every US representative will face a simple, up-or-down choice on the House floor this week: Will you stand up for the Constitution and vote to stop Trump’s illegal warmaking or not?" said Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Chuy García (D-Ill.), respectively the deputy chair and the whip for the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC). "This is not a partisan issue: Three in four Americans oppose a regime-change war to overthrow the Venezuelan government, including two-thirds of Republicans."
Trump's belligerent rhetoric and recent military action in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific—including the illegal bombing of vessels and seizure of a Venezuelan oil tanker—are "driving us toward a catastrophic forever war in Venezuela," Omar and García warned, urging lawmakers to pass H.Con.Res. 61 and H.Con.Res. 64.
The first resolution, led by Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), would require Trump to "remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with any presidentially designated terrorist organization in the Western Hemisphere, unless authorized by a declaration of war or a specific congressional authorization for use of military force."
The other, introduced earlier this month by Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), is explicitly designed to prevent a direct US attack on Venezuela.
"Congress hereby directs the president to remove the use of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against Venezuela, unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization for use of military force," reads the measure, which is co-sponsored by two Republicans—Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Don Bacon (R-Neb.).
In their statement over the weekend, Omar and García said that "both Democrats and Republicans must send a strong message to the Trump administration: Only Congress can authorize offensive military force, not the president."
"Trump is deploying U.S. personnel to seize Venezuelan oil tankers in international waters. He has launched double-tap airstrikes killing capsized and defenseless individuals. Trump declared a no-fly zone on Venezuelan airspace, deployed F-18 fly-overs in the Gulf of Venezuela, and refused to rule out troop deployments, while threatening to overthrow heads of state across the region," the lawmakers said. "These are illegal hostilities that could destabilize the entire region and fuel mass migration. Congress must stop this unconstitutional military campaign by passing these War Powers Resolutions."