

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.

Immigrants’ rights groups today sued the Biden administration over the president’s proclamation and a new rule that severely restricts asylum and puts thousands of lives at risk.
The American Civil Liberties Union, National Immigrant Justice Center, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Jenner & Block LLP, ACLU of the District of Columbia, and Texas Civil Rights Project (TCRP) filed the federal lawsuit on behalf of Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center (Las Americas) and the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services (RAICES).
President Biden issued the proclamation last week along with an accompanying interim rule issued by the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice on the same day. These executive actions will effectively shut off any access to asylum protections for the vast majority of people arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border, no matter how strong their claims. The proclamation echoes the Trump administration’s previous asylum entry ban, which immigrants’ rights advocates successfully challenged.
The lawsuit charges the ban, which allows asylum access only for people who can secure a scarce appointment to present themselves at a port of entry or satisfy a very narrow exception, is flatly inconsistent with the asylum statute that Congress enacted, which permits migrants to apply for asylum “whether or not” they enter at a port of entry. In addition to barring asylum for most migrants, the new rules also create potentially insurmountable obstacles for seeking other types of protection.
“We were left with no alternative but to sue. The administration lacks unilateral authority to override Congress and bar asylum based on how one enters the country, a point the courts made crystal clear when the Trump administration unsuccessfully tried a near-identical ban,” said Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project.
“Around the world, people are fleeing persecution and torture at higher rates than ever before. It’s shameful that the U.S. government has chosen to respond by shutting out access to asylum to those who come to our border in need. NIJC has provided legal services to thousands of people arriving via the U.S.-Mexico border over the past several years and, regardless of how they entered the country, our clients have overwhelmingly had credible asylum claims. Under U.S. law, that should be enough to give them an opportunity to present their cases. We have no doubt that this rule is turning back people who, if the government honored its legal obligations, would qualify for protection. We have no choice but to take the executive branch to court, as we have before, to defend those rights,” said NIJC Litigation Director Keren Zwick.
“The Biden administration’s latest asylum rule runs roughshod over our laws and treaty obligations, choking off a crucial lifeline for people seeking safety. It exacerbates chaos at our southern border, undermines the vital work of humanitarian and legal aid groups, and will result in wrongful deportations of refugees to countries where they face persecution and torture. But the president cannot wipe away decades of established law by executive fiat,” said Melissa Crow, director of litigation at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies.
“Nearly 60 years following the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 and more than four decades following the Refugee Act of 1980, our elected officials have reversed the very spirit of the laws that protect the human and legal rights of not only those seeking safety in the U.S. — but all of us. It remains shocking, if no longer surprising, that the same elected officials who promised to restore our commitment to humanitarian protections are more than willing to sacrifice especially Black and Brown lives for political points and personal gain. Let us be clear: We believe the order and interim final rule that the current administration unveiled this past week are unlawful. We know that checks on misuse of power are an essential function of our judicial branch, and we are using every legal tool to hold our government accountable for preserving and restoring access to asylum and refugee protections. The fight for federal protection of our human and legal rights is never born out of our nation’s capital — but instead must always come to it,” said Javier Hidalgo, legal director at RAICES.
“President Biden’s recent executive order flies in the face of our entire asylum system and has no cognizable basis to support it. By doing this, the president has managed to further penalize vulnerable individuals and families seeking protection and violated our laws. We are taking legal action to demonstrate that this flagrant disregard for human safety is illegal, unsustainable, and must be stopped. Asylum is not a loophole but rather a life-saving measure. Access to asylum is a human and legally protected right in the United States,” said Jennifer Babaie, director of advocacy and legal services of Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center in El Paso, Texas, and Ciudad Juárez, Mexico, and New Mexico.
“This executive order forces people to wait in danger while facing active threats to their safety. We have seen the failures and dangers of similar policies in the past. These policies are a direct violation of the laws of our country and do nothing to address the root causes of migration. By limiting the number of people who can claim asylum, people are forced to compete for the few appointments available each day in the CBP One App, which is riddled with glitches and is itself a barrier to seeking asylum. This executive order not only violates asylum law, but our values as a country,” said Tami Goodlette, director of the Beyond Borders Program at the Texas Civil Rights Project.
“The Biden administration’s actions effectively shut the door on countless individuals fleeing violence and persecution. Anti-asylum policies are cruel, ineffective, and unlawfully undermine the fundamental right to seek asylum in the United States,” said Arthur Spitzer, senior counsel of the ACLU of the District of Columbia.
The case was filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.
The complaint can be found online here.
The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and is our nation's guardian of liberty. The ACLU works in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(212) 549-2666One human rights lawyer said the centrist Pennsylvania governor was trying to stop Rabb because he's "anti-genocide, anti-AIPAC, pro-universal healthcare, and pro-labor."
Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro is working behind the scenes to derail progressive state representative Chris Rabb in his bid for a seat representing the state's 3rd Congressional District in the US House—reportedly putting his thumb on the scale to drag pediatric surgeon Dr. Ala Stanford, the Israel lobby’s preferred candidate, over the finish line.
Axios reported this weekend that the Democratic governor, who has sought to punish boycotts and other activism against Israel, was seeking to quietly influence the race to defeat Rabb, who has been an outspoken supporter of Palestinian rights on the campaign trail and a critic of Shapiro’s centrist stances.
Rabb has called for an arms embargo against Israel amid the genocide in Gaza and endorsed the right of return for Palestinian refugees. But he's also pressured Shapiro to end what he says is "state collaboration" with US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
While still considered an underdog in the three-way primary, which takes place on May 19, Rabb has gained steam in recent weeks with key endorsements from progressive leaders, most notably Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who has raised funds and plans to visit Philadelphia to campaign with him on Friday, days before voters head to the polls.
Shapiro has not publicly weighed in on the race and has not endorsed a candidate. But according to Axios, he and his team "privately told allies that he disapproves of Rabb and has taken steps to block his path, according to three people familiar with the discussions."
The report continued:
Shapiro has privately advised Philadelphia's building trades unions to avoid inadvertently helping Rabb, the lone progressive in the race, by attacking one of his center-left opponents, two of our sources told us.
The sources said Shapiro suggested that the building trades, which are backing another candidate, Sharif Street, avoid running negative ads against a third contender, Ala Stanford.
Street and Stanford are seen as traditional Democrats who share similar voters.
Stanford led the race with 28% of the vote, ahead of Rabb’s 23%, in a poll conducted in April by the 314 Action Fund, a super PAC backing Stanford.
However, that very PAC has proven a liability for Stanford in the stretch run of the campaign. Last month, Drop Site News revealed that 314 Action Fund had acted as a shell organization for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and had covertly received $500,000 from the lobbying group, which Democratic voters have come to overwhelmingly view as toxic.
The revelation has proven a public relations disaster for Stanford, who had said she “did not accept money from AIPAC” back in March. When confronted by voters about her views on the conflict, she has struggled to answer their questions and has faced heavy criticism for her statements that accusing Israel of "genocide," an opinion held by many leading human rights organizations and UN experts, is "hurtful" to Jewish people in the same way that using a racial slur is hurtful to Black people.
Amid other embarrassments, including her failure to explain her plan to "abolish" ICE and her rollout of what was described as a "comedically amateurish" policy platform on social media, Stanford dropped out of an April 29 debate just hours before it was set to take place, citing unspecified “misogynistic attacks and lies from both of my opponents.”
There have not been any public opinion polls on the race since Stanford's crash. But PoliticsPA.com now gives Street a 61% chance of winning, Rabb a 33% chance, and Stanford a distant 5% chance, citing prediction markets.
Axios suggested that Shapiro's primary goal is to prevent the votes from splitting between the two centrists, thereby allowing Rabb to win. But the piece suggests that Stanford is Shapiro's preferred horse.
Stanford has the backing of PA-03’s outgoing occupant, Rep. Dwight Evans (D), who is described as a close ally of Shapiro. Street is also described as having a “strained relationship” with Shapiro, who backed his rival in a 2022 struggle for leadership of the Pennsylvania Democratic Party.
Shapiro's push to blunt Rabb's momentum casts Philadelphia as yet another battleground in the broader war over the Democratic Party's identity, especially surrounding support for Israel, but also with other issues like immigration and healthcare, where leadership is out of step with voters' demands.
" Josh Shapiro is trying to derail the congressional run of Democratic PA State Rep Chris Rabb because Rabb is anti-genocide, anti-AIPAC, pro-universal healthcare, and pro-labor," said human rights lawyer Qasim Rashid.
Will Bunch, a columnist for The Philadelphia Inquirer, said the governor's effort to defeat Rabb was “one more reminder that Josh Shapiro is who we thought he was.”
“Just a question to the BBC,” said the documentary's executive producer. “Given you dropped our film, will you drop us from the BAFTAs screening later tonight?”
The makers of a documentary about Israeli attacks on healthcare workers and infrastructure in Gaza won a prestigious BAFTA award on Sunday—and they used their acceptance speech to lash out at BBC for refusing to air their work.
The film, "Gaza: Doctors Under Attack," was originally scheduled to be aired by the BBC in early 2025 before the network announced in June that it would not be releasing the documentary because it had "come to the conclusion that broadcasting this material risked creating a perception of partiality."
Shortly after, the documentary was picked up by the UK-based Channel 4 and aired in July.
UK journalist Ramita Navai, the main reporter of the documentary, criticized the BBC for declining to show the film, which she denounced as a political decision.
“Israel has killed over 47,000 children and women in Gaza so far," Navai said. "Israel has... targeted every single one of Gaza’s hospitals. It’s killed over 1,700 Palestinian doctors and healthcare workers. It has imprisoned over 400 in what the UN now calls a ‘medicide.’ These are the findings of our investigation that the BBC paid for but refuses to show. But we refuse to be silenced and censored."
🇵🇸🇬🇧 A Gaza documentary the BBC paid for and refused to air just won a Bafta.
The filmmakers used their acceptance speech to call out the BBC directly.
Presenter Ramita Navai:
"We refuse to be silenced and censored."
The BBC then edited portions of her remarks from its own… https://t.co/xLRLfdLV6W pic.twitter.com/K8pYhOzJTd
— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) May 11, 2026
Ben de Pear, the film's executive producer, also pointed the finger at the BBC as he accepted the BAFTA award for best current affairs television program.
"Just a question to the BBC,” said de Pear, according to The Hollywood Reporter. “Given you dropped our film, will you drop us from the BAFTAs screening later tonight?"
As reported by Al Jazeera, de Pear after accepting the award also praised Palestinian journalists Jaber Badwan and Osana Al Ashi, who contributed on-the-ground footage for the documentary at the risk of their own lives.
"[We] woke up every day wondering if the two journalists on the ground were still alive," de Pear told reporters backstage.
The Trump administration has conducted more than two dozen surveillance and reconnaissance flights off Cuba's coast since early February, according to CNN.
US surveillance and reconnaissance flights off the coast of Cuba have surged in recent months as President Donald Trump has issued increasingly belligerent threats to seize the island nation by force.
CNN reported Sunday that the US Navy and Air Force have conducted more than two dozen surveillance flights—mostly of them near Havana and Santiago de Cuba, the country's largest cities—since early February, after the Trump administration invaded Venezuela and kidnapped its president. The outlet noted that "similar patterns, in which ramped-up rhetoric by the Trump administration coincided with an uptick in publicly visible surveillance flights, occurred in the lead-up to US military operations in both Venezuela and Iran."
"The flights are notable not only for their proximity to the coast, which puts them well within range of gathering intelligence, but for the suddenness of their appearance—prior to February, such publicly visible flights were exceedingly rare in this area—and for their timing," CNN reported.
CNN published its story days after US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced new sanctions targeting a conglomerate operated by Cuba's military and a natural resources firm, intensifying the United States' decades-long economic war against the island nation.
"Our people already know the cruelty behind the actions of the US government and the viciousness with which it is capable of attacking us," Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel said in response to the sanctions. "They understand, just as the rest of the world does, that this is a unilateral aggression against a nation and a population whose sole ambition is to live in peace, masters of their own destiny and free from the pernicious interference of US imperialism."
In a New York Times op-ed on Monday, US Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Jonathan Jackson (D-Ill.) wrote that the Trump administration's "blockade of fuel to Cuba, on top of the longest embargo in modern US history, defies the norms of international law that provide for state sovereignty, nonintervention in domestic affairs and the right of nations to trade freely."
"It amounts to an economic assault on the basic infrastructure of Cuba, designed to inflict collective punishment on the civilian population by manufacturing a humanitarian crisis in which healthcare, running water, agriculture and transportation are no longer available," wrote Jayapal and Jackson, who visited Cuba in April and witnessed firsthand the devastating impact of US economic warfare.
"During our visit, we spoke with a wide range of Cuban citizens—political dissidents, religious leaders, entrepreneurs, and members of civil society organizations and humanitarian aid groups," the Democratic lawmakers wrote. "We also met with the families of Cuba’s political prisoners. Everywhere, there was agreement: America’s blockade must end, and a US invasion must not take place."
Trump has repeatedly threatened a military assault on Cuba in the months since his administration illegally attacked Venezuela and abducted its president.
"Cuba is next, by the way," Trump declared at a Saudi-backed investment summit in Miami in late March. "Pretend I didn't say that, please."
Citing unnamed US officials, The Associated Press reported last week that the Trump administration "is not looking at imminent military action against Havana" as the two sides continued to negotiate a diplomatic agreement.
AP added that the administration officials cautioned "that Trump could change his mind at any time and that military options are still on the table."