

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 International Rescue Committee (IRC) responds today to the U.S. Supreme Court decision to require the U.S. Government to restart implementation of the previous Administration's disastrous and harmful 'Remain in Mexico' policy, also known as the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) while litigation continues.
The International Rescue Committee (IRC) responds today to the U.S. Supreme Court decision to require the U.S. Government to restart implementation of the previous Administration's disastrous and harmful 'Remain in Mexico' policy, also known as the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) while litigation continues.
MPP will potentially impact tens of thousands of asylum-seekers who will also be sent back to wait out their claim for months for a chance to meet with a U.S. judge, with little to no access in Mexico to U.S. legal support outside of what overstretched civil society organizations can provide. The IRC's teams in the field have seen the difficult conditions that 70,000 asylum-seekers had to endure for a chance to find safe haven.
Olga Byrne, Director of Immigration for the IRC said:
"The U.S. Supreme Court decision is the latest chapter of disastrous and harmful policies in the American asylum system. People fleeing persecution and conflict to seek safety at the U.S. border must be protected--instead this policy if implemented would worsen the growing insecurity that asylum-seekers have to endure in border towns along Mexico.
"MPP had sent 70K asylum seekers back to danger during the previous administration. This adds to recent policy decisions that block vulnerable people's right to seek protection within U.S. territory, including continuation of Title 42 and flying expelled asylum seekers away from the border. This only adds to the sense of chaos and confusion for people at the border in times when humanitarian needs are increasing, and services in Mexico are already overloaded.
"The U.S. must swiftly and, with finality, end this illegal program and close this dark chapter in American history. In replacement, it must invest in dignified welcome and reception, while addressing root drivers of migration in Latin America and working with regional governments to offer protection and alternatives for the most vulnerable people. Seeking asylum is legal. We call for the U.S. to end harmful immigration policies.
The IRC operates in Latin America across the arc of crisis, delivering protection services and humanitarian assistance to people on the move, refugees, asylum seekers, and returnees. The teams on the ground have seen living conditions in the region worsening, including in northern Central America, where in 2020 alone more than 1.4 million people were forced to leave their homes due to conflict and climate change. At the same time, as expulsions continued--like the more than 733,000 that took place between March 2020 and April 2021--people encountered ongoing violence and limited resources and services to meet their most basic needs.
Meghan Lopez, the IRC's Regional Vice President for Latin America, said:
"In times when humanitarian needs are particularly increasing, with the effects of the pandemic, multiple natural disasters, and ongoing conflict, by expelling asylum seekers, the United States is instituting a policy of sending people back to the violence and persecution that they sought refuge from in the first place.
"We call for the U.S. government to rescind harmful policies like MPP and Title 42, and to deliver instead a comprehensive response to address the humanitarian crises in Latin America. Investments and collaboration with all sectors, including INGOs are required to offer protection and alternatives for people in the most vulnerable situations, including addressing the root drivers of migration--a strategy the IRC welcomes. Additionally, asylum systems and policies must be strengthened in countries like Mexico, that under specific circumstances might be an alternative for some people."
The IRC's work along the Mexican northern border, especially with gender-based prevention and attention programs for women, girls, and LGBTQ+ people demonstrates that many cities where people are returned are not safe for asylum-seekers to wait out their claims in court. Policies like MPP have left asylum-seekers subject to significant security, health, and protection risks, often for months--exposing them to serious threats to their safety, as well as considerable challenges in accessing legal representation or even basic logistical information about how to attend their court hearings in the US. Along with lack of services, this leaves women, often with young children, at particular risk. No matter where asylum-seekers get blocked or are forced to wait along the border, they remain highly vulnerable in Mexico to the same type of exploitation, abuse and targeted violence that forced them to flee in the first place.
The IRC will work with partners to ensure MPP-impacted families and individuals are given every chance possible to be one step closer to having a fair chance at having their asylum claims heard. The IRC continues to call on the U.S. Congress to pass legislation, like the Refugee Protection Act, that would strengthen and expand protections for those in need of safe haven.
The International Rescue Committee responds to the world's worst humanitarian crises and helps people whose lives and livelihoods are shattered by conflict and disaster to survive, recover, and gain control of their future.
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war."
Pope Leo XIV used his Palm Sunday sermon to take what appears to be a shot at US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
In his sermon, excerpts of which he published on social media, the pope emphasized Christian teachings against violence while criticizing anyone who would invoke Jesus Christ to justify a war.
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war," Pope Leo said. "He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them."
The pope also encouraged followers to "raise our prayers to the Prince of Peace so that he may support people wounded by war and open concrete paths of reconciliation and peace."
While speaking at the Pentagon last week, Hegseth directly invoked Jesus when discussing the Trump administration's unprovoked and unconstitutional war with Iran.
Specifically, Hegseth offered up a prayer in which he asked God to give US soldiers "wisdom in every decision, endurance for the trial ahead, unbreakable unity, and overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy," adding that "we ask these things with bold confidence in the mighty and powerful name of Jesus Christ."
Mother Jones contributing writer Alex Nguyen described the pope's sermon as a "rebuke" of Hegseth, whom he noted "has been open about his support for a Christian crusade" in the Middle East.
Pope Leo is not the only Catholic leader speaking against using Christian faith to justify wars of aggression. Two weeks ago, Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem, said "the abuse and manipulation of God’s name to justify this and any other war is the gravest sin we can commit at this time."
“War is first and foremost political and has very material interests, like most wars," Cardinal Pizzaballa added.
"Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
President Donald Trump is reportedly preparing to launch some kind of ground assault on Iran in the coming weeks, but one prominent military strategy expert believes he's heading straight for defeat.
The Washington Post on Saturday reported that the Pentagon is preparing for "weeks" of ground operations in Iran, which for the last month has disrupted global energy markets by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz in response to aerial assaults by the US and Israel.
The Post's sources revealed that "any potential ground operation would fall short of a full-scale invasion and could instead involve raids by a mixture of Special Operations forces and conventional infantry troops" that could be used to seize Kharg Island, a key Iranian oil export hub, or to search out and destroy weapons systems that could be used by the Iranians to target ships along the strait.
Michael Eisenstadt, director of the Military and Security Studies Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told the Post that taking over Kharg Island would be a highly risky operation for American troops, even if initially successful.
“I just wouldn’t want to be in that small place with Iran’s ability to rain down drones and maybe artillery,” said Eisenstadt.
Eisenstadt's analysis was echoed by Ret. Gen. Joseph Votel, former head of US Central Command, who told ABC News that seizing and occupying Kharg Island would put US troops in a state of constant danger, warning they could be "very, very vulnerable" to drones and missiles launched from the shore.
Lawrence Freedman, professor emeritus of war studies at King's College London, believes that the president has already checkmated himself regardless of what shape any ground operation takes.
In an analysis published Sunday, Freedman declared Trump had run "out of options" for victory, as there have been no signs of the Iranian regime crumbling due to US-Israeli attacks.
Freedman wrote that Trump now "appears to inhabit an alternative reality," noting that "his utterances have become increasingly incoherent, with contradictory statements following quickly one after the other, and frankly delusional claims."
Trump's loan real option at this point, Freedman continued, would to simply declare that he had achieved an unprecedented victory and just walk away. But even in that case, wrote Freedman, "this would mean leaving behind a mess in the Gulf" with no guarantee that Iran would re-open the Strait of Hormuz.
"Success in war is judged not by damage caused but by political objectives realized," Freedman wrote in his conclusion. "Here the objective was regime change, or at least the emergence of a new compliant leader... Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
"The NY Times saves its harshest skepticism for progressives," said one critic.
The New York Times is drawing criticism for publishing articles that downplayed the significance of Saturday's No Kings protests, which initial estimates suggest was the largest protest event in US history.
In a Times article that drew particular ire, reporter Jeremy Peters questioned whether nationwide events that drew an estimated 8 million people to the streets "would be enough to influence the course of the nation’s politics."
"Can the protests harness that energy and turn it into victories in the November midterm elections?" Peters asked rhetorically. "How can they avoid a primal scream that fades into a whimper?"
Journalist and author Mark Harris called Peters' take on the protests "predictable" and said it was framed so that the protests would appear insignificant no matter how many people turned out.
"There's a long, bad journalistic tradition," noted Harris. "All conservative grass-roots political movements are fascinating heartland phenomena, all progressive grass-roots political movements are ineffectual bleating. This one is written off as powered by white female college grads—the wine-moms slur, basically."
Media critic Dan Froomkin was event blunter in his criticism of the Peters piece.
"Putting anti-woke hack Jeremy Peters on this story is an act of war by the NYT against No Kings," he wrote.
Mark Jacob, former metro editor at the Chicago Tribune, also took a hatchet to Peters' analysis.
"The NY Times saves its harshest skepticism for progressives," he wrote. "Instead of being impressed by 3,000-plus coordinated protests, NYT dismisses the value of 'hitting a number' and asks if No Kings will be 'a primal scream that fades into a whimper.' F off, NY Times. We'll defeat fascism without you."
The Media and Democracy Project slammed the Times for putting Peters' analysis of the protests on its front page while burying straight news coverage of the events on page A18.
"NYT editors CHOSE that Jeremy Peters's opinions would frame the No Kings demonstrations and pro-democracy movement to millions of NYT readers," the group commented.
Joe Adalian, west coast editor for New York Mag's Vulture, criticized a Times report on the No Kings demonstrations that quoted a "skeptic" of the protests without noting that said skeptic was the chairman of the Ole Miss College Republicans.
"Of course, the Times doesn’t ID him as such," remarked Adalian. "He's just a Concerned Youth."
Jeff Jarvis, professor emeritus at the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism, took issue with a Times piece that offered five "takeaways" from the No Kings events that somehow managed to miss their broader significance.
"I despise the five-takeaways journalistic trope the Broken Times loves so," Jarvis wrote. "It is reductionist, hubristic in its claim to summarize any complex event. This one leaves out much, like the defense of democracy against fascism."
Journalist Miranda Spencer took stock of the Times' entire coverage of the No Kings demonstrations and declared it "clueless," while noting that USA Today did a far better job of communicating their significance to readers.
Harper's Magazine contributing editor Scott Horton similarly argued that international news organizations were giving the No Kings events more substantive coverage than the Times.
"In Le Monde and dozens of serious newspapers around the world, prominent coverage of No Kings 3, which brought millions of Americans on to the streets to protest Trump," Horton observed. "In NYT, an illiterate rant from Jeremy W Peters and no meaningful coverage of the protests. Something very strange going on here."