October, 01 2021, 11:33am EDT

#WelcomeWithDignity: Court Ruling Will Endanger Families Seeking Safety; Biden Must End Title 42
Yesterday the D.C. Circuit Court granted the government's request for stay in Huisha-Huisha v. Mayorkas, allowing the Biden administration to continue expelling families and children to danger under its inhumane Title 42 policy. Two weeks ago a federal judge ruled Title 42 illegal, issuing an injunction that would have taken effect today. The Biden administration's decision to continue defending the policy in court has put that injunction on pause. The consequences for families and children seeking safety will be deadly.
WASHINGTON
Yesterday the D.C. Circuit Court granted the government's request for stay in Huisha-Huisha v. Mayorkas, allowing the Biden administration to continue expelling families and children to danger under its inhumane Title 42 policy. Two weeks ago a federal judge ruled Title 42 illegal, issuing an injunction that would have taken effect today. The Biden administration's decision to continue defending the policy in court has put that injunction on pause. The consequences for families and children seeking safety will be deadly.
Members of the #WelcomeWithDignity campaign, which include organizations serving people expelled under Title 42 and litigators in the Huisha-Huisha case, responded to the ruling:
"Once again, the Biden Administration has shown that it is more committed to defending Title 42 than upholding the human rights of asylum-seekers," said Amy Fischer, Americas Advocacy Director at Amnesty International USA. "The continued weaponization of the pandemic to expel people from our border will result in serious harm for the thousands who have been denied protection, including thousands of Haitians who have been brutalized and expelled under the policy in recent weeks. There is simply no way around it - Title 42 must end, and every day the Biden Administration fights to uphold it, they choose xenophobia and racism over protecting human rights."
"The Biden administration should have never appealed this case," said Tami Goodlette, Director of Litigation at Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services (RAICES) and co-counsel in the Huisha-Huisha case. "The lower court concluded Title 42 was illegal and should not be applied to exclude families from seeking asylum in the U.S. But rather than allow families to seek refuge in our country -- which is legal under U.S. law and international law -- the administration chose to further promulgate the Trump administration's racist and xenophobic policies by appealing the case, and then proceeding to expel thousands of Haitians from Del Rio, Texas under Title 42. The Biden administration has lost its way and needs to remember its promises from the election. Migrants deserve better. Our country deserves better."
"The Biden administration's embrace of Title 42 has exposed people seeking safety to untold violence and suffering," said Neela Chakravartula, Managing Attorney at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies and co-counsel in the Huisha-Huisha case. "The administration's decision to defend the policy in court is unconscionable, and a complete betrayal of the president's promise to restore access to asylum. Recent events have laid bare the tragic consequences of Title 42. In less than two weeks, the administration has expelled over 5,000 Haitians to a country plagued with widespread violence and insecurity - a human rights travesty, and no small operational feat. They could have used those resources to safely welcome Haitians seeking refuge. Instead, the president has adopted Trump's racist policy as his own, without regard for the families and children harmed as a result."
"All President Biden needed to do to stop applying Trump's Title 42 to families was not seek a stay or appeal, but they did," said Lindsay Toczylowski, Immigrant Defenders' Co-Founder and Executive Director. "Expelling families with kids and other asylum seekers back to the dangerous countries they have fled with no due process is now a Biden policy, one that the Biden Administration fought hard to keep."
"Abusing an obscure public health rule to shut down our asylum system is Stephen Miller's racist legacy. Every day that the Biden administration allows this policy to remain in place is a day that the government knowingly puts children and families in harm's way. What we witnessed at Del Rio last week is a stark reminder of just how violent this policy is. It's an insult to America's family values that within the past month thousands of Haitians -- including babies and toddlers -- have been expelled back to danger," said Paola Luisi, Director of Families Belong Together. "The Biden administration should live up to its promises and end Title 42 immediately. The world is watching Mr. President: we should be protecting children and families, not expelling them back to danger."
"The Biden Administration's embrace of Title 42 is so absolutely maliciously evil because they've done that political calculus that this obscure policy is just complex enough to never grip the mainstream media's and public's full attention so the government can just continue harming immigrants without being held accountable," said Jonathan Goldman, Executive Director of the Student Clinic for Immigrant Justice. "There is no excuse here. They are complicit in the harm started by Trump. The Biden Administration has not simply continued the policy, which would have been bad enough, but they've actively attempted to keep it alive."
"The Biden Administration's continued defense of Title 42 and its ongoing, devastating effects on human rights at the U.S-Mexico border, which includes over 5,400 Haitians unjustly and cruelly expelled pursuant to these policies within the last 11 days, is outrageous and unconscionable. We will not rest until these practices are eliminated and full reparations have been made to all those who have been affected by these serious human rights crimes," said Camilo Perez-Bustillo, on behalf of the leadership team of Witness at the Border.
"What we know about Title 42 after a year of witnessing its impact firsthand at the border is this: it puts vulnerable migrants in danger, it violates asylum law and it empowers criminal groups to take advantage of those who are expelled," said Dylan Corbett, Executive Director of Hope Border Institute. "Title 42 was the driving force behind the mass deportations of Haitian refugees, one of the largest mass expulsions in US history. The court's decision yesterday was a troubling denial of the reality at the border and the unnecessary suffering of the families we are putting in harm's way."
"Title 42 was a disgrace under the Trump Administration, and now, a disgrace under the Biden Administration." said Karen Tumlin, Founder and Director of Justice Action Center. "The unlawful and immoral policy has never been about protecting public health, but rather, the power to summarily expel asylum seekers back to the very danger they are fleeing. That the Biden Administration would deliberately pursue to uphold the application of Title 42 to children and families is particularly shameful, and immigrant communities and advocates will continue to call on President Biden to end this immoral and unlawful policy once and for all."
"The D.C. Circuit court's decision, which allows the Biden administration to continue to shut the door to people seeking protection and send them back to harm without due process, is beyond disappointing, it is devastating," said Luis Guerra, CLINIC's Strategic Capacity Officer. "We will continue to urge the Biden administration to take bold action at our border by creating safe and dignified pathways for those seeking protection and stop hiding behind and upholding the xenophobic policies of the prior administration. The continued use of Title 42 is shameful, unconscionable and simply inhumane; President Biden has the power and means to end it today. Continuing Title 42 is an absolute affront to our laws and our humanity."
"The Florence Project is dismayed that a court has granted the Biden administration's request to halt a court order that would have protected families seeking protection in the United States," said Chelsea Sachau, an attorney with the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project. "People we meet on the Arizona-Sonora border tell us every day that Title 42 puts them in extremely dangerous situations. Asylum seekers tell us that they want to abide by a safe, orderly asylum process. However, despite campaign promises to the contrary, the Biden administration has failed to give them one, even after nine months in office. In fact, they are fighting tooth and nail to defend this indefensible, Trump-era policy and as a result, to prolong the tremendous human suffering it causes. We can welcome asylum seekers safely and with dignity - the Biden administration is choosing not to at every single opportunity."
"The calls come daily, a young journalist in Nicaragua whose life is being threatened because of his political views, a mother and her two young children who watched her brother's murder by cartel and was told they were next, the thousands of people standing on the other side of a horrific wall seeking refuge from climate disasters, violence, and so much more, all turned away because of a public health law dug up by Stephen Miller to forward his racist agenda", said Laurie Benson, Founder of Madres e Hijos. "Every day that the Biden Administration fights to keep this policy in place is a day that they put politics before people, political agendas before humanity."
"The Biden administration's continued embrace of Title 42 expulsions defies domestic and international law, disregards experts' repeated advice on how to handle public health, and puts families and individuals in danger," said Andrew Geibel, Policy Counsel at HIAS. "Its continued use, including its use to deport over 5,000 vulnerable Haitians back to a country that cannot properly integrate them, shocks the conscience. The Biden administration should end this appeal immediately."
"The federal court of appeals ruling allowing the Biden Administration to continue migrant expulsions at the border under Title 42 is a major disappointment," said Joan Rosenhauer, Executive Director of Jesuit Refugee Service USA. "When President Biden campaigned in 2020, he promised he would repair our asylum process and rebuild it from the Trump Administration's attempts to dismantle it and prevent asylum seekers, as well as refugees and other immigrants, from entering the United States. Instead, he is continuing some of the Trump Administration's worst policies. Rather than defending and legitimizing President Trump's legacy, the Biden Administration should be putting more policies in place based on respect for international law and the United States' legacy of welcoming the stranger and providing safety for those fleeing persecution. Title 42 represents the complete opposite."
"While yesterday's decision from the court was disappointing, ultimately nothing is preventing the Biden administration from doing the right thing and choosing to end its use of Title 42 to expel families and adults seeking protection at our border," said Ursela Ojeda Senior Policy Advisor for Migrant Rights and Justice at the Women's Refugee Commission. "Title 42 is an unlawful and xenophobic Trump-era policy that weaponized public health to shut down access to protection at the border. We are outraged by the Biden administration's decision to continue such expulsions which summarily return vulnerable individuals and families to harm and perpetuate suffering and chaos at the border. We call on the administration to finally restore access to asylum, including by reopening ports of entry."
"Just days after witnessing images of the horrific abuses of Black migrants seeking safety at our borders under Title 42, it is disturbing that the Biden administration would continue to maintain and defend this callous policy harming people seeking refuge," said Avideh Moussavian, director of federal advocacy at the National Immigration Law Center. "That last night's ruling came on the same day that DHS issued new enforcement priorities that arbitrarily and unjustly label people as threats to borders security based solely on their attempt to enter the U.S. - often under the most vulnerable and desperate circumstances - speaks to this administration's deeply harmful focus on deterrence. We will continue to fight this policy and others that disproportionately impact Black and LGBTQIA+ asylum seekers and push to hold this administration accountable to its promise to build a 21st century immigration system that centers the dignity of everyone."
Amnesty International is a global movement of millions of people demanding human rights for all people - no matter who they are or where they are. We are the world's largest grassroots human rights organization.
(212) 807-8400LATEST NEWS
Khanna Hits Back as Silicon Valley Oligarchs Threaten Primary Challenge Over California Billionaires Tax
"We cannot have a nation with extreme concentration of wealth in a few places, but where... healthcare, childcare, housing, education is unaffordable," the San Francisco lawmaker said.
Dec 28, 2025
US Rep. Ro Khanna defended California's proposed tax on extreme wealth Saturday after a pair of prominent Silicon Valley venture capitalists threatened to launch a primary bid for his California House seat.
The proposal, which advocates are gathering signatures to place on the ballot in 2026, would impose a one-time 5% tax on those with net worths over $1 billion to recoup about $90 billion in Medicaid funds stripped from the state by this year’s Republican budget law. The roughly 200 billionaires affected would have five years to pay the tax.
While higher taxes on the superrich are overwhelmingly popular with Americans, the proposal has rankled many of California’s wealthiest residents, as well as California’s Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, who said earlier this month that he’s “adamantly” against the measure.
On Friday, the New York Times reported that two of the valley's biggest powerbrokers—venture capitalist and top Trump administration ally Peter Thiel and Google co-founder Larry Page—were threatening to reduce their ties to California in response to the tax proposal.
This has been a common refrain from elites faced with proposed tax increases, though data suggests they rarely follow through on their threats to bail on cities and states, even when those hikes are implemented. Meanwhile, the American Prospect has pointed out that the one-time tax would still apply to those who moved out of the Golden State.
Khanna (D-Calif.), who is both a member of the House's progressive faction and a longtime darling of the tech sector, has increasingly sparred with industry leaders in recent years over their reactionary stances on labor rights, regulation, and taxation.
In a post on X, the congressman reacted with derision at the threats of billionaire flight: "Peter Thiel is leaving California if we pass a 1% tax on billionaires for five years to pay for healthcare for the working class facing steep Medicaid cuts. I echo what [former President Franklin D. Roosevelt] said with sarcasm of economic royalists when they threatened to leave, 'I will miss them very much.'"
Casado, who donated to Khanna’s 2024 reelection campaign according to OpenSecrets, complained that “Ro has done a speed run, alienating every moderate I know who has supported him, including myself.”
"Beyond being totally out of touch with [the moderate] faction of his base, he’s devolved into an obnoxious jerk," Casado continued. "At least that makes voting him the fuck out all the more gratifying."
Casado's post received a reply from another former Khanna donor, Garry Tan, the CEO of the tech startup accelerator Y Combinator.
"Time to primary him," Tan said of Khanna.
Tan, a self-described centrist Democrat, has never run for office before. But he is notorious for his social media tirades against local progressives in San Francisco and was one of the top financial backers of the corporate-led push to oust the city's liberal former district attorney, Chesa Boudin, in 2022.
Casado replied: "Count me in. Happy to be involved at any level."
Progressive commentator Krystal Ball marveled that “Tech oligarchs are now openly conspiring against Ro Khanna because he dared to back a modest wealth tax.”
So far, neither Casado nor Tan has hinted at any concrete plans to challenge Khanna in 2026. If they did, defeating him would likely be a tall order—since his sophomore election in 2018, a primary challenger has never come within 30 points of unseating him.
But Khanna still felt the need to respond to the brooding tech royals. He noted that he has "supported a modest wealth tax since the day I ran in 2016," which prompted another angry retort from Casado, who accused the congressman of "antagonizing the people who made your district the amazing place it is" with a tax on billionaires.
Khanna hit back at his critics with a lengthy defense of not just the wealth tax, but his conception of what he calls "pro-innovation progressivism."
"My district is $18 trillion, nearly one-third of the US stock market in a 50-mile radius. We have five companies with a market cap over $1 trillion," Khanna said. "If I can stand up for a billionaire tax, this is not a hard position for 434 other [House] members or 100 senators."
"The seminal innovation in tech is done by thousands, often with public funds," Khanna continued. "Yes, we need entrepreneurs to commercialize disruptive innovation... But the idea that they would not start companies to make billions, or take advantage of an innovation cluster, if there is a 1-2% tax on their staggering wealth defies common sense and economic theory."
"We cannot have a nation with extreme concentration of wealth in a few places, but where 70% of Americans believe the American dream is dead and healthcare, childcare, housing, education is unaffordable," he concluded. "What will stifle American innovation, what will make us fall behind China, is if we see further political dysfunction and social unrest, if we fail to cultivate the talent in every American and in every city and town... So, yes, a billionaire tax is good for American innovation, which depends on a strong and thriving American democracy."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Nigerian Village Bombed by Trump Has 'No Known History' of Anti-Christian Terrorism, Locals Say
“Portraying Nigeria’s security challenges as a targeted campaign against a single religious group is a gross misrepresentation of reality,” said Nigeria's information minister.
Dec 27, 2025
When President Donald Trump launched a series of airstrikes in Nigeria on Christmas, he described it as an attack against "ISIS Terrorist Scum in Northwest Nigeria who have been targeting and viciously killing, primarily, innocent Christians."
But locals in a town that was hit during the strike say terrorism has never been a problem for them. On Friday, CNN published a report based on interviews with several residents of Jabo, which was hit by a US missile during Thursday's attack, which landed just feet away from the town's only hospital.
The rural town of Jabo is part of the Sokoto state in northwestern Nigeria, which the Trump administration and the Nigerian government said was hit during the strike.
Both sides have said militants were killed during the attack, but have not specified their identities or the number of casualties.
Kabir Adamu, a security analyst from Beacon Security and Intelligence in Abuja, told Al Jazeera that the likely targets are members of “Lakurawa,” a recently formed offshoot of ISIS.
But the Trump administration's explanation that their home is at the center of a "Christian genocide" left many residents of Jabo confused. As CNN reported:
While parts of Sokoto face challenges with banditry, kidnappings and attacks by armed groups including Lakurawa–which Nigeria classifies as a terrorist organization due to suspected affiliations with [the] Islamic State–villagers say Jabo is not known for terrorist activity and that local Christians coexist peacefully with the Muslim majority.
Bashar Isah Jabo, a lawmaker who represents the town and surrounding areas in Nigeria's parliament, described the village to CNN as “a peaceful community” that has “no known history of ISIS, Lakurawa, or any other terrorist groups operating in the area.”
While the town is predominantly Muslim, resident Suleiman Kagara, told reporters: "We see Christians as our brothers. We don’t have religious conflicts, so we weren’t expecting this."
Nigeria, Africa's most populous nation with more than 237 million people, has a long history of violence between Christians and Muslims, with each making up about half the population.
However, Nigerian officials have disputed claims by Republican leaders—including US Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas)—who have claimed that the government is “ignoring and even facilitating the mass murder of Christians.”
The senator recently claimed, without citing a source for the figures, that "since 2009, over 50,000 Christians in Nigeria have been massacred, and over 18,000 churches and 2,000 Christian schools have been destroyed" by the Islamist group Boko Haram.
Cruz is correct that many Christians have been killed by Boko Haram. But according to reports by the US-based Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project and the Council on Foreign Relations, the majority of the approximately 53,000 civilians killed by the group since 2009 have been Muslim.
Moreover, the areas where Boko Haram is most active are in northeastern Nigeria, far away from where Trump's strikes were conducted. Attacks on Christians cited in October by Cruz, meanwhile, have been in Nigeria's Middle Belt region, which is separate from violence in the north.
The Nigerian government has pushed back on what they have called an "oversimplified" narrative coming out of the White House and from figures in US media, like HBO host Bill Maher, who has echoed Cruz's overwrought claims of "Christian genocide."
“Portraying Nigeria’s security challenges as a targeted campaign against a single religious group is a gross misrepresentation of reality,” said Nigerian information minister Mohammed Idris Malagi. “While Nigeria, like many countries, has faced security challenges, including acts of terrorism perpetrated by criminals, couching the situation as a deliberate, systematic attack on Christians is inaccurate and harmful. It oversimplifies a complex, multifaceted security environment and plays into the hands of terrorists and criminals who seek to divide Nigerians along religious or ethnic lines."
Anthea Butler, a religious scholar at the University of Pennsylvania, has criticized the Trump administration's attempts to turn the complex situation in Nigeria into a "holy war."
"This theme of persecution of Christians is a very politically charged, and actually religiously charged, theme for evangelicals across the world. And when you say that Christians are being persecuted, that’s a thing," she told Democracy Now! in November. "It fits this sort of savior narrative of this American sort of ethos right now that is seeing itself going into countries for a moral war, a moral suasion, as it were, to do something to help other people."
Nigeria also notably produces more crude oil than any other country in Africa. Trump has explicitly argued that the US should carry out regime change in Venezuela for the purposes of "taking back" that nation's oil.
Butler has doubted the sincerity of Trump's concern for the nation's Christians due to his administration's denial of entry for Nigerian refugees, as well as virtually every other refugee group, with the exception of white South Africans.
She said: "I think this is sort of disingenuous to say you’re going to go in and save Christianity in Nigeria, when you have, you know, banned Nigerians from coming to this country."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Russia Launches Drone Barrage on Kyiv Ahead of Zelenskyy-Trump Meeting
The attacks came as Trump and Zelenskyy are expected to discuss critical questions in a Ukraine-Russia peace deal, including its territorial sovereignty, NATO protections, and control over its natural resources.
Dec 27, 2025
As Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy made his way to Florida for a pivotal set of talks this weekend with US President Donald Trump, Russia launched a barrage of drone and missile attacks on Kyiv early Saturday morning.
At least two people were killed in the Ukrainian capital during the 10-hour attack, with 44 more—including two children—injured. Hundreds of thousands of residents are left to brave near-freezing temperatures without heat following the attack, which cut off power supplies.
The attack came as Zelenskyy prepared to stop in Canada before meeting with Trump on Sunday to discuss a 20-point plan to end the nearly four-year war with Russia that has been the subject of weeks of negotiation between US and Ukrainian emissaries.
Zelenskyy is seeking to maintain Ukraine's territorial sovereignty without having to surrender territory—namely, the eastern Donbass region that is largely occupied by Russian forces. He also hopes that any agreement to end the war will come with a long-term security guarantee reminiscent of NATO.
On Friday, Zelenskyy told reporters that the peace deal was 90% complete. But Trump retorted that Zelenskyy "doesn't have anything until I approve it."
Trump has expressed hostility toward Zelenskyy throughout his presidency. In February, before berating him in a now-infamous Oval Office meeting, Trump insisted falsely that Ukraine, not Russia, was responsible for starting the war in 2022.
Zelenskyy's latest peace proposal was issued in response to Trump's proposal last month, which was heavily weighted in Russia's favor.
It called for Ukraine to recognize Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea and cede the entirety of the Donbass, about 2,500 square miles of territory, to Russia, including territory not yet captured. Trump's plan puts a cap of 600,000 personnel on Ukraine's military and calls for Ukraine to add a measure in its constitution banning it from ever joining NATO.
Earlier this year, Trump demanded that Ukraine give up $500 billion worth of its mineral wealth in what he said was "repayment" for US military support during the war (even though that support has only totalled about $175 billion).
In his latest proposal, Trump has pared down his demands to the creation of a "Ukraine Development Fund" that would include the "extraction of minerals and natural resources" as part of a joint US-Ukraine reconstruction effort.
While those terms appear less exploitative, the reconstruction program is expected to be financed by US loans from firms like BlackRock, which have been heavily involved in the diplomatic process.
"The infrastructure rebuilt with these loans—ports, rail lines, power grid—won’t be Ukrainian in any meaningful sense. It’ll be owned by international consortiums, operated for profit, with revenues flowing out to service the debt," wrote the Irish geopolitical commentator Deaglan O'Mulrooney on Tuesday. "In other words, Ukraine will be gutted."
Despite the criticism, Zelenskyy has signaled support in principle for the US reconstruction proposal as an alternative to direct expropriation.
The "red lines" for Zelenskyy heading into his talk with Trump are related to Ukraine's territorial integrity. He has said he will not recognize Russian control of the Donbass, or the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, the largest nuclear facility in Europe, which Russia currently controls. He has also demanded that all terms of a peace agreement come up for a referendum among the Ukrainian people, which is strongly against territorial concessions.
At the same time, however, he insisted Saturday that "Ukraine is willing to do whatever it takes to stop this war."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


