

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.

Alabama's new immigrant act denies unauthorized immigrants and their families, including US citizen children, their basic rights, threatening their access to everyday necessities and equal protection of the law, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today.
The 52-page report, "No Way to Live: Alabama's Immigrant Law," documents the effect of the Beason-Hammon Alabama Taxpayer Citizen and Protection Act, commonly known as HB 56, on unauthorized immigrants and their families, as well as the larger Alabama communities in which they live. It is based in part on first-hand accounts by 57 Alabama residents, including citizens and permanent residents, who reported abuse or discrimination under the law.
One of HB 56's sponsors declared during debate that the law "attacks every aspect of an illegal alien's life." In seeking to drive unauthorized immigrants from the state, the law does not in any way acknowledge that many have lived in the state for years and have deep and extensive ties to the state through US citizen family, work, and community life.
"Many of the unauthorized immigrants we met and their families are deeply attached to the state," said Grace Meng, researcher for the US Program at Human Rights Watch and author of the report. "Their children are obviously affected, but we also met a teacher who fought back tears as she described her students' fears, a minister who lost 75 percent of his congregation, and a Latino permanent resident who was stopped by a state trooper for no reason except ethnicity."
Many unauthorized immigrants and their families have left the state, and those who remain find life increasingly difficult, Human Rights Watch found. Under the Beason-Hammon Act, unauthorized immigrants are prohibited from entering into "business transactions" with the state. An unauthorized immigrant who tries to do so is committing a Class C felony, punishable by 1 to 10 years in prison and up to $15,000 in fines. As a result, state and local agencies have declared that unauthorized immigrants cannot sign up for water and other utilities, live in the mobile homes they own, or renew licenses for their own small businesses.
Several people reported to Human Rights Watch that victims of crimes were afraid to report them to the authorities. Some who had been victims of wage theft felt they could not recover those wages because the law denies unauthorized immigrants the right to enforce contracts in Alabama's courts. They also cannot be granted bail, no matter how minor the offense.
The new law has given police and private citizens effective license to discriminate against unauthorized immigrants, as well as minority US citizens and permanent residents, Human Rights Watch found. A young man who is an unauthorized immigrant described being stopped and arrested by the police for not having a driver's license, and being told repeatedly by the officer, "You have no rights." An employee at a major store told a permanent resident that she could not fill her prescription there because she is not a US citizen. A US citizen mother reported that her native-born US citizen daughter came home crying from school one day because her classmate had told her she had to go back to Mexico.
Human Rights Watch also documented numerous ways the law harms Alabama's children. Although a provision that requires schools to check students' immigration status was temporarily blocked by a federal court, many families withdrew their children from school and fled the state. Those left behind are fearful and anxious, Human Rights Watch found. One mother said that her Alabama-born daughter no longer feels she belongs and asks, "Why are we here? They don't want us." Several parents reported making the difficult decision not to go to medical appointments for fear of being stopped while driving. One of them said she was even afraid to get on the road to take her daughter to the hospital when she had an asthma attack.
Alabama's law has also begun to affect the state's economy and its image. Farmers report a shortage of workers, businesses that rely on immigrant communities are struggling, and foreign companies are reconsidering their investments.
While every country has the authority to regulate the entry of immigrants into its territory, to deport those who have made an unauthorized entry, and to enforce its immigration laws against those no longer authorized to remain, international law requires that everyone is entitled to fundamental human rights by virtue of their humanity, Human Rights Watch said. The fact that the law infringes on the rights of children, and potentially thousands of minority citizens and legal residents, is additional reason for concern.
As the report went to press, Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange recommended that the state legislature modify or repeal some provisions of the law. He also issued guidance letters to state agencies to limit the impact of the law regarding access to utilities and housing. Some legislators have expressed support for modification or repeal, while others oppose any weakening of the law whatsoever. Litigation over the law continues in state and federal courts over the constitutionality of several provisions. Meanwhile, uncertainty about the law's implementation fuels fears among Alabama's unauthorized immigrants and their families.
A coalition of local and national immigrant rights' organizations plans to gather on December 17, 2011, at the State Capitol in Montgomery to protest the law and call for a full repeal.
Most of the unauthorized immigrants Human Rights Watch interviewed have lived in the US for at least 10 years, and many have US citizen children. These numbers are mirrored nationwide, as recent research shows nearly two-thirds of unauthorized immigrants have lived in the US at least 10 years, and nearly half are parents of minor children. What is happening in Alabama demonstrates that enforcement-only efforts targeted at unauthorized immigrants are likely also to compromise the rights of US citizens and permanent residents and to harm the communities and economies that depend on them.
"Over and over in Alabama, we heard immigrants assert their humanity and declare, 'Legal or illegal, I'm human,'" Meng said. "Alabama should recognize the humanity and fundamental rights of all the state's residents and immediately repeal the Beason-Hammon Act."
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.
"Trump's true priority, ahead of absolutely everything else, is to go down in history in big letters," said one journalist. "Remaking everything, no matter in which direction or with what consequences."
President Donald Trump said on Monday that he is considering trying to annex Venezuela and make it a US state in an imperialist effort to seize more of its oil wealth.
It's one of nearly half a dozen nations or territories Trump has threatened to use US military might to illegally conquer and add to the US during his term, including Greenland, Canada, Cuba, and Panama.
According to Fox News correspondent John Roberts, Trump said in a phone call that he was “seriously considering making Venezuela the 51st US state,” citing the Latin American nation's possession of tens of trillions of dollars worth of oil.
“They were miserable. Now they’re happy. It’s being well run,” Trump recently told Full Measure's Sharyl Attkisson. “The oil that’s coming out is enormous, the biggest in many years. And the Big Oil companies are going in with the biggest, most beautiful rigs you’ve ever seen.”
One poll from the Venezuelan firm Meganálisis in March found that while the public was initially happy to be rid of their autocratic president, Nicolás Maduro—who was abducted by US forces in January—the majority now feel that Trump's action had little to do with democracy or the well-being of the Venezuelan people and more to do with handing control of the country's nationalized oil reserves to American companies, which Trump stated as his primary objective after ousting Maduro.
Trump left Maduro's vice president, Delcy Rodríguez, in place as Venezuela's interim leader with the promise that she'd act as a pliant collaborator with the US, whom she allowed to declare control over Venezuela's oil resources "indefinitely" amid market transitions.
The environmental activist group Global Witness has estimated that over the next 10 years, as much as $150 billion in oil revenue that was expected to go to the Venezuelan treasury, which could have funded projects to develop the impoverished country, instead may flow into the coffers of foreign companies.
Trump has spoken about the idea of Venezuela becoming the 51st state before, including after the country defeated Italy in the World Baseball Classic in March, when he posted on Truth Social: “STATEHOOD, #51, ANYONE?”
Last month, during a discussion about his desire to "take" Iran's oil, Trump described his takeover of Venezuela as something akin to the resource-hungry imperial conquests of centuries past.
"I'm a businessman first," he told reporters during a press briefing. "We've taken hundreds of millions of barrels [of oil], hundreds of millions... and paid for that war many, many times over. You know the old days, 'to the winner belong the spoils.' And I said, 'Why don't we use that?' We haven't had that in this country probably in 100 years." He then went on to lament the US-led efforts to "rebuild" Germany after World War II.
While the US has lifted personal sanctions on Rodríguez and some sanctions on the Venezuelan oil and banking sectors, most of the sanctions that have contributed to the country's economic collapse remain in place. "Full unrestricted access to global capital markets has not been restored," explained Roger D. Harris from the Task Force on the Americas and the US Peace Council in Common Dreams last week.
Actually adding Venezuela as a US state would require approval from both Congress and Venezuela itself—and Trump does not appear to have the latter.
Issuing a rare rebuke of the US on Monday, Rodríguez responded that becoming the 51st state "would never have been considered" by Venezuela.
"If there is one thing we Venezuelan men and women have, it is that we love our independence process, we love our heroes and heroines of independence," the interim leader said.
Though wars of conquest are expressly forbidden under international law, it's not clear what leverage Rodríguez would have to resist if Trump attempted to make good on his goal of expanding US territory.
Argemino Barro, a Spanish political journalist and author, said the possibility that he's serious can't be dismissed.
"Yes, of course, we can dismiss it as provocation or delusion, say that it's impracticable for XYZ reasons, etc. But this kind of comment is a window into the mindset of a man who fabricates his own reality, and not only that, but imposes it on others," Barro said. "Trump wants to build the world's largest triumphal arch right in the middle of Washington, overshadowing the Lincoln Memorial; he wants his face on coins and passports; his name appears on institutions, one airport. Annexing Venezuela, in his mind, fits 100%."
"I think Trump's true priority, ahead of absolutely everything else, is to go down in history in big letters. To enter the league of Alexander the Great, Jesus Christ, and Genghis Khan," he added. "Remaking everything, no matter in which direction or with what consequences."
"It is unthinkable and irresponsible to release technologies capable of destabilizing critical systems and then worry about the fallout afterward," said one expert.
Watchdog group Public Citizen is raising alarms after tech giant Google on Monday revealed that a group of criminal hackers used artificial intelligence to detect a previously unidentified software vulnerability.
As reported by The New York Times, Google said that it had "high confidence" that the hackers used AI to discover and exploit the vulnerability.
While Google said that the attack had been thwarted, the Times noted that the company "did not say precisely when the thwarted attack happened, whom it was targeting, or which AI platform the hackers used."
While the discovery of so-called "zero-day vulnerabilities" were once a rare occurrence, the proliferation of AI models has made them much easier for hackers to detect. In fact, AI software vendor Anthropic earlier this year said that it had developed a model that was so good at exploiting these vulnerabilities that it would not be releasing it publicly.
John Hultquist, chief analyst at Google Threat Intelligence Group, said in an interview with Cyberscoop that this kind of AI-assisted attack "is probably the tip of the iceberg and it’s certainly not going to be the last" to occur.
“The game’s already begun and we expect the capability trajectory is pretty sharp,” Hultquist explained. “We do expect that this will be a much bigger problem, that there will be more devastating zero-day attacks done over this, especially as capabilities grow.”
JB Branch, AI governance and technology policy counsel at Public Citizen, said the attempted AI exploit once against showed how reckless Big Tech has been in aggressively pushing this technology out the door.
"Cybersecurity experts are sounding the alarm, yet AI companies continue racing to release increasingly powerful models with little regard for the societal consequences," Branch said. "It is unthinkable and irresponsible to release technologies capable of destabilizing critical systems and then worry about the fallout afterward."
Branch also said it was well past time for Congress to step in and slap strict guardrails on the development of AI.
"We need enforceable AI regulations that require rigorous safety testing, independent review, and meaningful oversight before these systems ever reach the public," he said. "Regulators cannot remain in a perpetual game of catch-up while Big Tech gambles with the safety and stability of modern society."
While calls for more AI regulation have grown in recent months, Silicon Valley elites are planning to spend massive sums of money in this year's midterm elections to prevent candidates who support AI regulation from winning public office.
Leading the Future—a super political action committee (PAC) backed by venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale, and other AI heavyweights—is spending at least $100 million to elect lawmakers who aim to pass legislation that would set a single set of AI regulations across the US, overriding any restrictions placed on the technology by state governments.
The White House budget proposal, said one expert, "would slash WIC’s fruit and vegetable benefit, leaving low-income pregnant women and new moms with only $13 per month to buy fruits and vegetables."
The head of the US Department of Agriculture said Monday that she is "proud" to be part of a Trump administration initiative purportedly aimed at promoting maternal health and wellbeing.
But President Donald Trump's budget proposal for the coming fiscal year would do the opposite by deeply cutting fruit and vegetable benefits for new and expecting mothers. If enacted, the White House's budget would reduce monthly fruit and vegetable aid from the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) from $52 to $13 for low-income mothers.
"Your budget proposal would slash WIC's fruit and vegetable benefit, leaving low-income pregnant women and new moms with only $13 per month to buy fruits and vegetables," Katie Bergh, a senior policy analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), wrote in response to a social media post by USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins, who said she is "proud to be part of the Trump administration’s major push delivering REAL support for expecting and new mothers."
Rollins, who has an estimated net worth of roughly $15 million, was among the top administration officials and lawmakers who took part Monday in a White House event touting "what the Trump administration has done to advance maternal health and support motherhood."
Absent from the event was any discussion of the administration's ongoing assault on food aid, which has had a direct impact on mothers across the country. NBC News on Monday reported the story of an Arizona mother of two young children who "should be exempt" from the 2025 Trump-GOP budget law's expansion of work requirements for recipients of federal nutrition assistance.
"She described being caught in a monthslong paperwork back-and-forth with state employees since February, when her benefits failed to arrive," the outlet noted. "Unable to reach anyone by phone, she finally decided to show up in person at the office in Surprise. On the morning she arrived at 7 am, her second visit that week, she had a backpack full of paperwork she was told she needed to provide to verify her income and expenses to have her benefits restored. But after waiting for four hours to speak with someone, she was told she needed more documentation."
"This administration is taking healthy foods away from children and mothers most at risk for nutritional deficiencies."
The budget proposal that Trump released in early April would strip around $1.4 billion in fruit and vegetable benefits from roughly 5.4 million parents and young children, according to a CBPP analysis. The new White House budget marks the second consecutive year the president has pushed for cuts to WIC fruit and vegetable benefits.
Congressional Republicans are attempting to enshrine the White House's proposed WIC cuts into law through the annual appropriations process, calling for $200 million in total reductions in WIC spending—with most of the cuts coming from fruit and vegetable benefits.
Georgia Machell, president and CEO of the National WIC Association, said last month that “these cuts break with the Trump administration’s support for WIC during the 2025 government shutdown and directly contradict the administration’s stated goal to ‘Make America Healthy Again.’"
"WIC is a proven public health investment during the most critical developmental stages: pregnancy, infancy, and early childhood," said Machell. "By slashing the fruit and vegetable benefits and not ensuring sufficient program funding, this administration is taking healthy foods away from children and mothers most at risk for nutritional deficiencies."
"This plan is short-sighted, hypocritical, and, if passed by Congress, will harm American families," Machell added.