

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.

15 leading organisations working with migrants have today written to the Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, to express deep concern over hundreds of cases of MPs reporting their constituents to the Home Office's immigration hotline for immigration crime.
The letter, which has been signed by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, Doctors of the World and Bail for Immigration Detainees among others, describes the revelation as a "fundamental breach of trust" which leaves many migrants fearful of approaching their MP.
Home Office figures uncovered by a parliamentary question show that 723 people have been reported by MPs for immigration enforcement since the government's 'hostile environment' policy was introduced in 2012.
Despite migrants often having "nowhere to turn" for help with immigration cases following years of legal aid cuts, the advice groups say they can no longer recommend people approach their MP for support unless the MP has signed a pledge promising not to report them to the Home Office.
The 'MPs not Border Guards' pledge was launched by Migrants Organise, one of the signatories of the letter, and campaign group Global Justice Now in the summer. It has been signed by more than 100 MPs from all political parties, including shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott.
Satbir Singh, Chief Executive of Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, said:
"Everyone has the right to seek advice from their MPs in a confidential and safe environment. Parliament must clarify whether passing constituent data to immigration enforcement breaches data protection. It must also explain to the country, under what circumstances is this practice taking place? MPs should not be taking it upon themselves to act as "border guards", betraying the trust of their constituents and perpetuating a culture of hostility towards migrants. Have we not learnt anything from the scandal and tragedy of Windrush? MPs acting as border guards puts highly vulnerable people at risk, driving them further underground and into the shadows."
Akram Salhab, Campaigns and Advocacy Officer at Migrants Organise, said:
"The demand that MPs represent all their constituents equally is a basic principle of how Parliament works. Sadly, this is yet another pillar of our democracy that has been sacrificed at the altar of the Government's Hostile Environment policies. Many of our members are now afraid of approaching their MPs lest their reaching out for support be used to detain and deport them. All political parties, whether in Government or not, can end this practice today by instructing their MPs not to share their constituent's data for immigration enforcement purposes."
Notes
1. The full list of signatories to the letter is: Migrants Organise, Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, Doctors of the World, Asylum Matters, Bail for Immigration Detainees, Right 2 Work UK, Right to Remain, Project 17, Women for Refugee Women, Unity Project, Latin American Women's Rights Service, Migrants Resource Centre/Asylum Aid, Praxis Community Projects, Refuweegee
2. Under the MPs Not Border Guards pledge, MPs commit to represent and advocate for all their constituents, regardless of immigration status, in order to maintaining their constituency surgeries as a safe space for migrants. The list of MPs who have signed the pledge is available at: www.globaljustice.org.uk/pledge
Global Justice Now is a democratic social justice organisation working as part of a global movement to challenge the powerful and create a more just and equal world. We mobilise people in the UK for change, and act in solidarity with those fighting injustice, particularly in the global south.
020 7820 4900"Recriminalizing hemp will force American farms and businesses to close and disrupt the well-being of countless Americans who depend on hemp," warned one critic.
Advocates for hemp on Wednesday decried a provision of the Republican government funding law signed by President Donald Trump that tightens restrictions on the versatile plant—a move critics say will devastate a $30 billion industry.
The new restrictions set a stricter limit on the amount of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)—the psychoactive chemical in cannabis—in order to close a loophole that allowed for the sale of unregulated food and beverages containing intoxicating hemp-derived compounds.
Twenty-two Democratic senators—including advocates for legal recreational or medical marijuana—joined almost all Republicans in voting against an amendment introduced by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) to strip out the restrictions from the final bill. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas was the only other Republican to back Paul's effort.
"Our industry is being used as a pawn as leaders work to reopen the government," Jonathan Miller, general counsel for the US Hemp Roundtable, an industry group, warned ahead of the vote. "Recriminalizing hemp will force American farms and businesses to close and disrupt the well-being of countless Americans who depend on hemp."
Hemp—which is used in a wide range of products from clothing to construction materials to fuel, food, and biodegradable plastics—was legalized under the 2018 farm bill signed by President Donald Trump during his first term.
But lawmakers including Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)—who backed the 2018 legislation—argued that cannabis companies are exploiting a loophole in the farm bill to legally manufacture products with enough THC to get consumers high.
Paul, however, ripped the provision, arguing in a Thursday Courier Journal opinion piece that it "destroys the livelihood of hemp farmers."
"This could not come at a worse time for our farmers," Paul wrote. "Costs have increased while prices for crops have declined. Farm bankruptcies are rising."
"For many farmers, planting hemp offered them a lifeline," he continued. "Hemp can be used for textiles, rope, insulation, composite wood, paper, grain, and in CBD products, and growing hemp helped farmers to mitigate the loses they’ve endured during this season of hardship."
Paul noted that "the provision that was inserted into the government funding bill makes illegal any hemp product that contains more than 0.4 milligrams of THC per container."
"That would be nearly 100% of hemp products currently sold," he said. "This is so low that it takes away any of the benefit of the current products intended to manage pain or other conditions."
Charles and Linda Gill have grown hemp on their family farm in Bowdoinham, Maine since the plant was legalized in 2018.
“We are not in the business of these intoxicating hemp products on the market, which are the ones that are screwing it up for everybody,” Charles Gill told Maine Morning Star's Emma Davis on Wednesday. “They’re abusing the system.”
“All our current products would be banned,” Gill said of the new restrictions. “It would pretty much put us out of business.”
Hemp defenders vowed to contest the new law.
"The fight isn't over," Hemp Industry & Farmers of America executive director Brian Swensen said on X after the law's passage.
"In 2018, President Trump and Congress legalized hemp, delivering more jobs and opportunities to American farmers and small businesses," Swensen said, adding that the restrictions "will devastate American farmers, business owners, veterans, and seniors."
"The hemp ban will also open up dangerous black markets for hemp and allow China to take over the entire hemp market," he added, claiming "it kills over 325,000 American jobs and destroys the industry."
“The department I once served is engaging in fascist shows of force,” said Miles Taylor, who served as chief of staff for the Department of Homeland Security during the first Trump administration.
Late at night on September 30, over 300 federal agents stormed an apartment building in one of Chicago's lowest-income neighborhoods. After descending from Black Hawk helicopters, they broke down residents' doors, destroyed furniture and belongings, deployed flash-bang grenades, and dragged sleeping people—some naked—out into the cold evening. Dozens of people, including children and American citizens, were held in zip ties and detained for hours.
As part of the highly publicized raid at the South Shore complex, which was filmed and edited into a miniature action film by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), at least 37 Venezuelan residents of the apartment complex were taken into custody.
On Thursday, an investigation by ProPublica revealed that the raid, heralded by the Trump administration as a counterterrorism victory, has resulted in zero charges against the people who were detained.
In the wake of public backlash to the militarized raid’s extraordinary, indiscriminate brutality, the assistant secretary for public affairs at DHS, Tricia McLaughlin, claimed that the operation "successfully resulted in the arrest of two confirmed Tren de Aragua members,“ describing the cartel as ”a terrorist organization.“ She added that ”One of these members was a positive match on the terror screening watchlist.“
She added that others who were detained had their own rap sheets, including "domestic battery, family violence, battery against a public safety official, aggravated unlawful use of a firearm, retail theft, soliciting prostitution, possession of a controlled substance," while another "had an active warrant and was listed as armed and dangerous [with] weapons offenses."
Stephen Miller, a senior advisor to President Donald Trump and an architect of his "mass deportation" policy, said that the building was "filled with TdA terrorists" and that the raid had “saved God knows how many lives."
But ProPublica's report called many of the government’s claims into question. The government has not released the names of the 37 Venezuelans detained in the raid, but reporters identified the names of 21 of them and interviewed 12.
The report found that contrary to the government's claims of their rampant criminality, federal prosecutors have not filed criminal charges against a single person who was arrested. They have also not provided any evidence that two of the men arrested were part of the Tren de Aragua gang.
The names of the two supposed gang members have not been made public, but ProPublica managed to track down one of them—24-year-old Ludwing Jeanpier Parra Pérez—using another government press release that described him as a “confirmed member” of the terrorist cartel.
While the release also described him as a “criminal illegal alien,” the only criminal charges ever filed against him—for drug possession and driving without a license after a traffic stop last year—were dropped. No other charges against him, related to gang activity or anything else, have been filed.
"I don’t have anything to do with that,” Parra told ProPublica from the Indiana jail where he's detained along with 17 others nabbed in the raid. “I’m very worried. I don’t know why they are saying that. I came here to find a better future for me and my family.”
ProPublica said its reporters have also observed eight immigration court hearings for the detained individuals, many of whom have asked to be deported back to Venezuela. In not a single one of the hearings has a government attorney mentioned any pending criminal charges against them while arguing for their deportation, nor have they alleged that any of them have affiliations with Tren de Aragua.
Judges have instead ordered them deported or granted voluntary departure, which the outlet noted is "a sign that they are not seen as a serious threat and can apply for return to the United States."
Mark Rotert, a former federal prosecutor and defense attorney in Chicago, told ProPublica that if these detainees actually had the long criminal histories the government claimed they do, they would likely pursue charges.
“Do they really believe they have people who are members of a violent organized crime gang?" he said. "If they believe they have people who fit that criteria, I would be very surprised if they were satisfied with only deporting them.”
As far as other crimes, ProPublica found that 18 of the 21 detainees they identified had no criminal charges against them. Meanwhile, the other three, who were charged with offenses “ranging from drug possession to battery,” have all had their charges dropped.
Among those rounded up at the South Shore apartment who spoke to ProPublica were a man with a steady job at a taco restaurant who has a daughter in elementary school, and a construction worker and former Venezuelan army paratrooper who is raising four children.
The investigation's findings are in line with how the Trump administration has attempted to sell its militaristic Operation Midway Blitz and other prongs of its mass deportation crusade to the public.
While the White House has persistently claimed to be targeting “the worst of the worst” criminals, the latest immigration data shows that around 72% of current detainees have no criminal convictions. Previous data from the libertarian Cato Institute has shown that 93% of ICE book-ins were for non-criminals and nonviolent offenders.
Michael D. Baker, an immigration and criminal defense lawyer based in Chicago, described it as laughable that a "300-agent raid" was being "called a terrorist victory" even while it had "zero criminal charges."
"The Trump administration’s showcase anti-gang operation was built on spectacle, not evidence," he said.
In response to the story, Miles Taylor, who served in the DHS from 2017-19, including as its chief of staff, during the first Trump administration, lamented on social media that the department "is no longer recognizable."
"The department I once served is engaging in fascist shows of force," he said, "violating the rights of Americans—only to satiate the creepy desires of an old man who wants to seem macho."
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reportedly showed the president options for military operations, including "strikes on land."
The fact that the White House has reportedly made no "final decision" regarding whether it will launch direct strikes against Venezuela offered cold comfort, suggested one policy advocate on Thursday as it was reported that top military officials had briefed President Donald Trump on "options" for attacking the South American country after weeks of US escalation.
"They're presenting options to Trump for war in Venezuela—options that Trump has already rightly expressed reservations about, and options that just days ago they told Republican allies in Congress that they do not have legal authority to do," said Erik Sperling, executive director of Just Foreign Policy and a former adviser to US Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.). "But sure, no 'final' decision made."
As CBS News reported, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine were among the senior military officials who spoke to Trump Wednesday about potential operations that could be carried out in Venezuela "in the coming days," including "strikes on land."
The meeting came as the USS Gerald R. Ford arrived in the Latin America region, accompanied by warships. The arrival of the carrier strike force brings the number of US troops in the region to 15,000.
Since September, the White House has embarked on what it has called an "armed conflict" with drug cartels in Venezuela over the strong objections of Democrats and a small number of Republicans in Congress.
The conflict has been characterized by the administration's strikes on numerous boats in the Caribbean and the eastern Pacific, that the White House has claimed were carrying drugs and operated by cartels. The administration has not released evidence that the people on board the boats were involved in drug trafficking, and legal experts and lawmakers have condemned what they call the "extrajudicial killing" of at least 76 people.
The Associated Press reported on the identities of some of the victims last week and found that they included an out-of-work bus driver and a fisherman who was desperate to feed his family. The family of one victim from Trinidad and Tobago denied that he had been involved in drug trafficking. Two people survived the strikes and were repatriated to Ecuador and Colombia; in the case of the man from Ecuador, authorities released him after finding no evidence he had committed any crime.
Lawmakers in the US Senate have introduced two war powers resolutions to stop Trump from bombing purported drug trafficking boats and from striking Venezuela, but both have been voted down.
The measure focused on Venezuela was voted down after Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio briefed "select members of Congress" and told them the administration is not planning to strike the country and did not have a legal rationale for doing so.
Trump recently told "60 Minutes" that he doubted the US would launch a military attack on the country.
Sperling said Rubio, who has long advocated regime change in Venezuela, appeared "deflated" when speaking to reporters on Thursday and declining to "discuss any possibility of striking Venezuela or arresting [President Nicolás] Maduro."
Despite the aircraft's carrier arrival to the Caribbean, Rubio seems deflated — as he declines to discuss any possibility of striking Venezuela or arresting Maduro.
Seems likely that Trump rightly rejected proposals for a Libya-style regime change or Black Hawk Down-style raid https://t.co/phPXUNIRx8 pic.twitter.com/CgP1w9OE13
— Erik Sperling 🌍 (@ErikSperling) November 13, 2025
"Seems likely that Trump rightly rejected proposals for a Libya-style regime change or Black Hawk Down-style raid," said Sperling.
But Maduro has not been convinced by claims that the US is not planning a strike, and his government announced Wednesday that it was readying its entire military arsenal and deploying 200,000 soldiers to prepare for potential acts of war from the US.
While Trump has appeared to reject proposals to attack Venezuela thus far, he said in 2023 that if he had won the 2020 election, he would have taken the country over and seized its vast oil reserves.
"If Trump rejected Rubio's plans for regime change war in Venezuela, he made the right call," said Just Foreign Policy on social media Thursday. "Former President Barack Obama reportedly wanted to stay out of Libya, but was pressured by advisers—a decision he regretted. Trump must not make the same mistake with Rubio's Venezuela war."