SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
undocumented immigrants
SCOTUS’ Ruling Spares Birthright Citizenship For Now, But the Battle Is Far From Over
While birthright citizenship survived today, this ruling exposes how fragile its guarantee has become. This fight is far from over—Republicans will try again, and next time they might succeed.
Jun 30, 2026
On June 30, the Supreme Court struck down President Trump’s executive order limiting birthright citizenship.
This is the obviously correct decision. The 14th Amendment is abundantly clear: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
The Trump administration’s argument that undocumented immigrants and their children are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was baseless from the start. Not only did it lack any foundation in the Constitution or statutory law, but the meaning of that phrase was never in dispute. Those “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” include everyone born in the US except the children of foreign diplomats, enemy invaders during a hostile occupation, and those born in unincorporated territories of American Samoa (they are considered “noncitizen nationals”).
After several disastrous Supreme Court rulings on Temporary Protected Status (TPS), asylum entries, transgender athletes, campaign finance restrictions, and presidential firing power, it may be tempting to see this decision on birthright as a glimmer of hope. Unfortunately, there are reasons to be concerned.
The Supreme Court is effectively one vote away from fundamentally changing who is entitled to US citizenship and what it means to be an American.
While six justices found Trump’s executive order to be unlawful, only five justices—John Roberts, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Amy Coney Barrett—believe that it violates the Constitution.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh argues that it only violates federal law. He writes: “In my view, the Executive Order does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. But the Order does contravene a federal statute, 8 U.S.C. §1401(a). Congress could—consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment—amend §1401(a) or otherwise enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country. But Congress has not yet done so.”
In his dissenting opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch argues that the 14th Amendment clearly does not extend to children of temporary visitors. Yet, he “harbor doubts” whether the same is true for children of undocumented immigrants “who have long chosen to make this Nation their permanent home.”
The issue of a “permanent home” (or “domicile”) was a core component of Trump’s anti-birthright argument. The Trump administration argued that to be “completely subject” to the “jurisdiction” of the US means one must owe “direct and immediate allegiance” and receive “protection” from it. The children of US citizens, permanent residents, and formerly enslaved persons meet this standard because they “have a permanent domicile.” By contrast, the children of undocumented immigrants “do not owe primary allegiance to the United States by virtue of domicile, for illegal aliens lack the legal capacity to establish domicile here.”
Before the Supreme Court, Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that the Trump administration’s “point [is] that allegiance is what the word jurisdiction means.” He further contended that, “For aliens, lawful domicile is the status that creates the requisite allegiance and the text of the [Citizenship] Clause presupposes domicile.”
Notably, Gorsuch does not explicitly reject this argument. What’s more, he, along with Justice Clarence Thomas, believes that the Citizenship Clause does not immediately extend to everyone born on US soil. It requires, as the Trump administration argues, possessing a “permanent domicile.”
Justice Samuel Alito likewise concurs with the Trump administration’s argument but emphasizes the allegiance component. In his view, “the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on only those children who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country.” Being born in the US is not enough.
Where this leaves us is at a far more precarious crossroads. Only five justices believe that the plain text of the 14th Amendment automatically guarantees citizenship to everyone born in the US.
Kavanaugh believes that Congress could limit birthright citizenship themselves. A constitutional amendment would not be needed.
The same is arguably true for Gorsuch, Thomas, and Alito. If Congress were to pass legislation that codifies Trump’s Executive Order and formally defines “domicile” status in a way that excludes undocumented immigrants and temporary visitors, then those four justices would likely uphold it.
Ultimately, the problem is that this decision does not settle the issue once and for all. What we needed was a clear 7-2 decision (Thomas and Alito were always going to dissent). One that acknowledged what the Constitution plainly says and what it obviously grants—namely, that if you are born here, you are from here. Nothing else matters; not “domicile” or “allegiance.”
As things stand, however, the Supreme Court is effectively one vote away from fundamentally changing who is entitled to US citizenship and what it means to be an American. While birthright citizenship survived today, this ruling exposes how fragile its guarantee has become. This fight is far from over—Republicans will try again, and next time they might succeed.
We cannot let this happen. Now more than ever we need a left-wing wall in Congress to stop Trump’s assault on our rights, protect birthright citizenship, and defend the Constitution.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Total BS': DHS Gives Trump's Deportations Credit for Decline in Violent Crime That Began Years Ago
"Violent crime has been dropping nationwide for three years. Now Trump comes in and claims that magically that's all his doing."
May 11, 2026
The US Department of Homeland Security is trying to give President Donald Trump's "mass deportation" crusade credit for a decline in violent crime, even though the trend began well before he took office.
Linking to a report from Axios detailing the decline in violent crime across US cities over the past year, the department’s account on X wrote that "under the leadership" of Trump and Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin, "violent crime is PLUNGING in cities across the country.”
"By removing criminal illegal aliens from our nation, we’re making our communities SAFE again," it continued.
The report draws on quarterly data from 67 major US law enforcement agencies, collected by the Major Cities Chiefs Association, which is often cited as a source for previewing crime trends before the annual FBI reports are released in the fall.
The first-quarter data show significant declines in crime rates from the first quarter in March 2025 that "show up across every major region, suggesting a systemic, nationwide trend," according to Axios.
- Homicides dropped 17.7%.
- Robberies fell 20.4%.
- Rapes declined 7.2%.
- Aggravated assaults decreased 4.8%.
However, as the report acknowledges, this drop in crime is not a new phenomenon, but the continuation of "a nationwide decline that began after the pandemic-era crime spike... with drops beginning in the second half of the [Joe] Biden presidency and continuing under Trump."
According to FBI data, homicides fell by 22.7% from January-June 2023 to January-June 2024, while robbery decreased 13.6%, rape decreased 17.7%, and aggravated assault decreased 8.1%.
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, called it "total BS" for DHS to give Trump credit for this past year's drops.
"Violent crime has been dropping nationwide for three years," he said. "Now Trump comes in and claims that magically that's all his doing."
Crediting Mullin in particular is especially odd, considering that he had held the role of secretary of homeland security for just over a week when the yearlong data collection period ended on March 31.
But at any rate, there's little reason to believe that immigration enforcement bears much responsibility for the continued crime decline.
A study of incarceration data by the libertarian Cato Institute published in March found that between 2010 and 2024, the incarceration rate for undocumented immigrants was 44% lower than that of native-born US citizens, while that for legal immigrants was 75% lower.
Notably, the data includes undocumented people detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for immigration-related offenses, meaning that the rate of violent crimes committed by undocumented immigrants is likely even lower relative to citizens.
And while the Trump administration has claimed to target "the worst of the worst" immigrants for deportation by ICE, The Guardian found that 77% of those who entered deportation proceedings for the first time in 2025 had no criminal convictions.
Nearly half of those who did had only been convicted of traffic or immigration-related offenses. Just 9% had been convicted of assault, while only 1% were for sexual assault, and just 0.5% were for homicide.
Reichlin-Melnick said: "There is no evidence at all that deportations have reduced crime rates. None. Zero."
In fact, it's possible that the Trump administration's aggressive ramp-up of deportations has made it harder to fight violent crime.
In September, amid Trump's military occupations and surges of immigration agents into cities like Chicago, Cato received records showing that more than 25,000 federal officers—including more than 2,800 with the FBI, 2,100 with the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), and 1,700 with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) had been diverted to assist with immigration enforcement. This amounts to more than 1 in 5 FBI agents, nearly half of DEA agents, and over two-thirds of ATF agents.
The Marshall Project wrote about how this shift in priorities was taking shape:
In May, the FBI ordered its agents to scale back investigations of white-collar crime and focus on immigration instead. In Baltimore, FBI agents on the city’s domestic terrorism squad were investigating online child predators when they were ordered to work full-time on immigration enforcement, MSNBC reported. About 10 agents were reportedly reassigned from building cases against what the FBI described as a “nihilistic violent extremist” group in order to help the Department of Homeland Security arrest immigrants.
“It’s a good time to be an American-born criminal,” Jason Houser, formerly ICE’s chief of staff under Biden, told The Marshall Project at the time. “When the FBI, DEA, ATF are all doing checkpoints in [Chicago’s] Little Italy tomorrow, the human trafficking, the sex trafficking, the Jeffrey Epsteins, the fentanyl traffickers—they don’t quit.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Dreamers, Birthright, and Belonging: What Does It Mean To Be An American?
You could have been born here, gone to school here, worked here, served in this country’s military, followed the laws, learned the language and history, and yet still not be American enough to belong.
Dec 14, 2025
On December 4, Senators Dick Durbin and Lisa Murkowski reintroduced the bipartisan Dream Act to Congress—24 years after it was first introduced. If passed, it would create a pathway for citizenship for people who were brought to the US as children and meet certain requirements.
The Dream Act, whether now or in 2001, is a commonsense measure. Even if one believes that undocumented immigrants have committed a crime, their children are innocent. To meet the eligibility requirements, they must have proficiency in English; be knowledgeable of US history; not have committed any serious crimes; and have either served in the military, worked, or gained an education. These are not the “illegal alien gang members” that President Donald Trump insists must be deported.
Trump himself acknowledges this. In a 2024 interview with Kristen Welker, he said, “In many cases, they become successful. They have great jobs. In some cases, they have small businesses, some cases they might have large businesses. And we’re going to have to do something with them.” When Welker asked him to clarify whether he wants “them to be able to stay,” he replied, “I do.”
Unfortunately, that doesn't matter. The Dream Act will fail again. Trump’s Department of Homeland Security has already tried to strip 525,000 DACA recipients of their benefits this year. DHS Assistant Press Secretary Tricia McLaughlin has even urged recipients to self-deport, noting that they “are not automatically protected from deportations.”
What it means to be an American is not something Trump gets to decide.
In fact, Trump is one Supreme Court decision away from creating a new class of Dreamer.
On December 5, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Trump’s challenge to birthright citizenship. His executive order would deny citizenship to children born in the US of undocumented immigrants or those on temporary visas.
Those children, despite being born here, will effectively become neo-Dreamers. Another group of people whom the US government would be failing to recognize and protect. The major difference between Dreamers and these neo-Dreamers would be the basis of their belonging—the reason why, despite everything, they are Americans.
The Dreamers are American by virtue of having lived and built a life here. Their identity, values, and communities are tied to the US. As Marie Gonzalez-Deel explains, “No matter what, I will always consider the United States of America my home. I love this country. Only in America would a person like me have the opportunity to tell my story to people like you. Many may argue that because I have a Costa Rican birth certificate, I am Costa Rican and should be sent back to that country. If I am sent back there, sure I'd be with my Mom and Dad, but I'd be torn away from loved ones that are my family here, and from everything I have known since I was a child.” The Dreamers are American by action and deed.
For the neo-Dreamers, the justification would rest largely on the legality and constitutionality of their birthright claim. The neo-Dreamers would be American by right.
The Dreamers and neo-Dreamers represent two different ways of conceptualizing what it means to be an American. Yet, for the Trump administration, neither is sufficient. You could have been born here, gone to school here, worked here, served in this country’s military, followed the laws, learned the language and history, and yet still not be an American. But then, who is?
Trump claims that he’s “America First.” But who exactly is he putting first? Whether it's defunding the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, letting Obamacare subsidies expire, limiting states’ ability to regulate artificial intelligence, conducting military-style raids in American cities, rolling back Environmental Protection Agency air quality protections, recommending controversial vaccine schedules, imposing tariffs that raise prices for everyone, eliminating the SAVE student loan repayment plan, or dismantling the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, his policies overwhelmingly harm US citizens and immigrants alike.
In Trump’s America, only the Trump family and the ultra wealthy benefit. So perhaps instead of focusing on him, we should start thinking about what we, as Americans, think about who we are and what we represent. I’ll start: To me, Americans have contributed to the US and allowed the US to shape their lives and sense of self. By contributing, I don’t simply mean in the economic sense. Cultural and interpersonal contributions are just as if not more significant. We are more than laborers. The value we add to our communities cannot be reduced to GDP or market value.
By shaping their lives and sense of self, I don’t simply mean assimilation or acculturation. Being with others is always a two-way street. Each of us enriches the lives of others, and our lives are enriched in turn. We grow together.
A community, at its core, is a collective achievement. Citizens and immigrants, in many diverse ways, work together to maintain and nourish that achievement. We build together. Whatever problems we face, we solve them together. And yes, sometimes, we stumble and lose our way together. Progress is not a straight line. But we must never lose sight of who we are and what we represent.
What it means to be an American is not something Trump gets to decide. It’s our country, we decide.
Keep ReadingShow Less
We Must Protect Birthright Citizenship From Trump’s Xenophobic, Eugenic Ideology
If the Supreme Court rules in his favor, it could pave the way for any president (or wannabe-monarch) to redefine citizenship at their discretion.
Dec 09, 2025
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a lawsuit regarding the constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s executive order to restrict the right to birthright citizenship. If the Supreme Court rules in Trump’s favor, then children born in the US would be denied citizenship if their parents are undocumented or residing in the country under temporary legal status.
Let’s not mince words here: Trump’s executive order is cruel and xenophobic. Children born of undocumented immigrants or visa holders have committed no crimes. They are not responsible for the circumstances of their birth. There is also no legitimate legal basis. The 14th Amendment is clear: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
None of these facts matter to Trump. His administration would readily tear families apart and see children born into a second-class status simply because their births were not to his liking.
This is only the beginning of the cruelty that his birthright ban would unleash. If the Supreme Court rules in his favor, it would pave the way for any president (or wannabe monarch) to redefine citizenship at their discretion. After all, if simply being born in the US is not enough to guarantee citizenship, then what is? Where do we draw the line?
Trump cannot be allowed to define who is a citizen.
Well, if you’re Trump, then it’s the color line. For the Trump administration, not all babies are created equal. Restricting birthright citizenship is their way of preventing “hundreds of thousands of unqualified people” from acquiring the “privilege of American citizenship.” It is about dissuading the wrong kinds of people from having the wrong kinds of babies.
Sound far-fetched? Well, consider this: Trump, the self-proclaimed “fertilization president” (gross!), has sought to expand access to in vitro fertilization (IVF). As Trump puts it, we want “beautiful babies in this country, we want you to have your beautiful, beautiful, perfect baby. We want those babies, and we need them.”
Mehmet Oz, the administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, champions the future of “Trump babies.” Vice President JD Vance literally says he wants “more babies in the United States of America.” The Trump White House insists that they need “growing numbers of strong, traditional families that raise healthy children.”
But, if that’s true, then what is the purpose of Trump’s executive order? If they want more babies to be born in this country, then why push to deny babies their legitimate birthright? It’s because Trump is pro-baby so long as it’s the right kind of baby.
Beautiful, healthy, strong and perfect—those are the babies Trump wants. And those are the babies that, in his view, migrants do not have.
Trump has explicitly said that migrants have “bad genes” that cause them to commit crimes. That they are “not humans, they’re animals.” He has said that migrants from South America, Africa, and Asia are “poisoning the blood of our country”—a view that parallels Hitler’s own rhetoric about “blood poisoning” and race mixing. He calls Somalis “garbage” and says that “I don’t want them in our country, I’ll be honest with you… their country is no good for a reason.” He believes this about migrants, and he believes it extends to their children. This pseudoscientific eugenic drivel is at the core of his executive order.
That is the real danger of Trump’s birthright ban. As it stands, birthright citizenship provides a clear-cut metric. Aside from two niche exceptions, if you were born here, you are from here. There’s no loophole to exploit. There’s no definition to reevaluate and abuse. There’s no place for prejudice, discrimination, or bigoted understandings of what it means to be an American. There’s no ambiguity regarding who belongs. The simplicity of birthright is precisely its strength.
It’s also precisely why the Trump administration wants to undo it. Birthright citizenship is a strong barrier against the administration’s most fascist impulses to recreate “the meaning and value of American citizenship.” As he said on the campaign trail, “If I win, the American people will be the rulers of this country again. The United States is now an occupied country.” His current administration similarly claims that Europe faces “civilizational erasure” if it does not restrict migration and preserve its “Western identity.”
If Trump’s mission is, as he explicitly says, to liberate the US and protect Western values threatened by migration, then he won’t stop with the children of undocumented immigrants. Trump cannot be allowed to define who is a citizen. For the good of the nation and for future generations, we cannot let him succeed.
Keep ReadingShow Less
California Leaders Push Back on 'Masked Abductions' by ICE, CBP
"Men dressed in tactical gear, operating unmarked vehicles without displaying credentials or agency affiliation, have infiltrated our neighborhoods," said Huntington Park Mayor Arturo Flores.
Jun 23, 2025
As U.S. President Donald Trump's "mass deportation" crusade continues, a mayor in Los Angeles County is calling on his city's police department to intervene, citing what he described as increasingly lawless conduct by federal immigration officers.
Arturo Flores, the mayor of Huntington Park, issued a statement on Saturday condemning what he called "masked abductions" by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which has spent the past month raiding workplaces, farms, and homes as part of the Trump administration's efforts to ramp up the deportation campaign.
"These are not lawful arrests. These are abductions," said Flores. "For more than a week, we have witnessed families being torn apart, children left without parents, and residents vanishing without explanation. Men dressed in tactical gear, operating unmarked vehicles without displaying credentials or agency affiliation, have infiltrated our neighborhoods in direct violation of our community’s values, civil rights, and the basic principles of due process."
Flores formally ordered the Huntington Park Police Department "to begin verifying the identities and authority of any individuals conducting such operations within city limits" and to enforce vehicle codes requiring cars to have visible license plates and agency markings.
On June 12, Huntington Park was turned into a national spectacle when it was targeted for a high-profile raid attended by Kristi Noem, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. The DHS chief arrived with a squadron of masked, armed federal agents at a home DHS claimed was occupied by a dangerous criminal. But when they stormed the home with rifles, the only people inside were a pregnant mother and her four kids—all U.S. citizens.
The family was not arrested, but Flores said he has since received several reports of masked and unidentified federal officers snatching people off the streets in broad daylight.
"These actions have sparked rumors of unauthorized vigilantes or bounty hunters operating under the guise of federal enforcement, have triggered widespread fear and confusion throughout the community," he said.
Mayors across the country have issued strong condemnations to ICE's actions in their communities, while some have said they'd refuse to cooperate with federal immigration raids. However, Flores is one of very few who have gone a step further, urging local officers to intervene in situations where federal officers violate the rights of those they detain.
"This is not immigration enforcement. This is state-sanctioned intimidation," said Flores.
That sense of intimidation is spreading through communities across the Los Angeles area. As The Guardian reported on Saturday, the crackdown has left some of Los Angeles' Latino neighborhoods resembling "ghost towns" where people are afraid to leave their homes for fear of being snatched off the street next.
The sight of masked, unidentified officers in plain clothes abducting people without identifying themselves or giving any explanation for their arrests has become an increasingly common sight all across the United States as the Trump administration has turbocharged its efforts to round up undocumented immigrants, the majority of whom have no criminal records.
Though there is no federal statute requiring federal officers to identify themselves, past leaders of these agencies told CNN that masking has historically been reserved for highly sensitive work, like undercover operations.
"The way that they're carrying on without any visible identification—even that they're law enforcement, much less what agency they're with—it really is pretty unprecedented to see at this scale, and I think it’s very dangerous," said Scott Shuchart, a senior ICE official during the Biden administration.
Many videos have circulated of officers violating detainees' rights in flagrant ways while under the cover of anonymity.
On Saturday, multiple masked Customs and Border Protection officers were filmed brutally beating 48-year-old Narciso Barranco, the father of three U.S. Marines, in an IHOP parking lot in Santa Ana.
(Video: KTLA5, via @santaanaproblems on Instagram)
Video has spread across social media of officers forcing Barranco to the ground, striking him in the head at least six times, and kneeling on his neck, pushing his face onto the concrete before dragging the man, frightened and bloody, into an unmarked white van. According to Barranco's sons, he is undocumented, but has no criminal record.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) has called for the incident to be investigated.
"This is horrific, unacceptable violence by ICE—an increasingly rogue agency with zero respect for the law," she said.
In response to the attack on Barranco and others like it, two Bay Area legislators, state Sens. Scott Wiener (D-11) and Jesse Arreguín (D-7), introduced a bill on Monday that would require law enforcement at all levels, including federal, to identify themselves and bar them from wearing masks.
"People covering their faces, impersonating police officers—it erodes trust in law enforcement and it undermines community safety," Arreguín said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
How Donald Trump’s Legal Framework Mirrors the Historical Architectures of Genocide
The structural conditions that have historically preceded ethnic cleansing are now observable in the administration’s deportation efforts.
May 16, 2025
I have taught AP U.S. history for years, as well as Government and World History courses. I have written an original curriculum for Honors Economics. I coached successful Public Forum and Policy debate teams for five years. In addition to my professional experience, I am a close reader of both historical scholarship and current events. The conclusions that follow are drawn from a systematic comparison of this year’s immigration and due process developments with established patterns in the historical record.
The federal government is executing a coordinated legal and administrative campaign aimed at the identification, arrest, and removal of millions of undocumented immigrants. These efforts rely on expanded authority for military and federal agencies, the criminalization of municipal noncooperation, and the systematic dismantling of legal protections previously afforded to vulnerable populations. Though presented as standard immigration enforcement, the structure and language of these measures reflect a state-directed attempt to displace a racially and ethnically defined group. The legal apparatus includes provisions for indefinite detention, the arrest of elected officials, and the use of private contractors to operate beyond traditional channels of accountability.
These policies are not theoretical. They are codified in executive orders, agency directives, and prosecutorial actions. The stated goal exceeds the undocumented population, and enforcement does not rely on individualized findings of legal status. It is categorical. The administration describes its targets as “invaders” and “vermin” and frames sanctuary jurisdictions as criminal conspiracies. These terms do not function as rhetoric. They define policy. Laws criminalizing refusal to comply with deportation efforts are designed to eliminate legal and institutional resistance.
The most effective deterrent to escalation remains noncompliance at every level of implementation.
What follows is a chronology of recent actions taken or proposed during the second Trump administration, aligned with legal precedents from early Nazi Germany. These are not metaphors. Each section pairs language from contemporary United States policy with that of the 1930s German state, using identical structure and phrasing where historically appropriate. The purpose is to allow for clear legal comparison of governance models used to execute racialized mass removal.
In January 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14159 titled “Protecting the American People Against Invasion.” The order suspended habeas corpus protections for undocumented immigrants, expanded federal authority over sanctuary jurisdictions, and authorized indefinite detention and mass deputization of local police under 287(g) agreements.
On February 28, 1933, Adolf Hitler enacted the Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State. The decree suspended habeas corpus, granted the central government power over state authorities, and permitted indefinite detention and mass deputization of local police to suppress declared enemies of the state.
In April 2025, the Trump administration began removing civil servants based on prior involvement in diversity or civil rights programs. A directive issued April 2 targeted officials for dismissal or reassignment solely for ideological nonconformity.
On April 7, 1933, Hitler’s regime enacted the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service. This measure removed Jews and political opponents from public office based on ancestry or beliefs and mandated reassignment or termination for ideological deviation.
In May 2025, the Department of Justice ordered the identification of state and local officials who refused to assist with federal immigration enforcement. These officials were targeted for prosecution under statutes related to obstruction and harboring.
In March 1933, the Nazi regime began detaining opposition party members and regional officials who resisted centralized directives. Local leaders were prosecuted or removed for obstructing enforcement of national laws.
In February 2025, the Trump administration revoked federal support for PBS and NPR and initiated reviews of media funding for ideological violations. The stated aim was to eliminate sources of disinformation and enforce loyalty to national priorities.
In March 1933, the Nazi government enacted the Editors Law, revoked press credentials from noncompliant outlets, and placed all broadcast content under state control. The purpose was to remove disloyal voices and ensure total ideological conformity.
In May 2025, a Wisconsin judge was arrested for allegedly aiding an undocumented immigrant. Federal officials warned that similar acts of judicial noncooperation could be prosecuted as subversion.
In July 1933, the Nazi regime dismissed judges deemed politically unreliable and established special courts. Judges who issued rulings contrary to regime policy were disciplined or removed.
In April 2025, Trump officials proposed turning military bases into detention centers for families without legal review. These facilities would be operated by private contractors under emergency protocols.
In June 1933, Nazi authorities converted military and industrial sites into concentration camps. The camps detained prisoners without court oversight and were run by SS forces under emergency powers.
In May 2025, the Department of Homeland Security announced it was considering the arrest of Democratic members of Congress who protested at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility. They were accused of obstructing federal officers and interfering with detention protocols.
In March 1933, the Nazi regime arrested parliamentary members and accused them of obstructing national authority. Resistance to regime policy was criminalized as a threat to public order.
Trump has constantly proposed legislation to end birthright citizenship for children of undocumented parents. His proposals aim to redefine legal membership in the national community.
In 1935, the Nazi regime enacted the Reich Citizenship Law. The law stripped Jews of citizenship and redefined the legal criteria for national belonging.
The current phase of the Trump administration’s immigration policy reflects an early stage rather than a peak of repression. The legal and operational structure for targeted mass removal is being assembled through executive orders, bureaucratic purges, and prosecutorial test cases that redefine the limits of federal authority.
The scale of proposed removals exceeds historical precedent but has not yet reached full execution. Institutional resistance is inconsistent but has not been eliminated. Local and state officials retain procedural leverage if they choose to apply it. The most effective deterrent to escalation remains noncompliance at every level of implementation.
The policy direction is explicit. Continued repression is not a possibility but a stated intention. The presence of Latino Americans in federal agencies and military institutions has not prevented policy targeting based on national origin or perceived foreignness. Participation does not provide exemption from removal. The structural conditions that have historically preceded ethnic cleansing are now observable. The determining factor will be whether enough people act before enforcement becomes normalized.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Voters Back Legal Status for Undocumented Immigrants: Why Aren’t the Dems Pushing it?
A majority of voters are compassionate toward immigrants and understand that having 11 million people living and working without legal protections is not good for them or for working people in general.
May 15, 2025
In a recently conducted YouGov survey, designed by the Center for Working Class Politics and the Labor Institute, 63% of 2024 voters in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin said they supported “granting legal status to all illegal immigrants who have held jobs and paid taxes for at least three years and have not been convicted of a felony.”
Supporters surprisingly included 36% of those who voted for U.S. President Donald Trump last year.
That wording was taken directly from the American National Election Studies survey (ANES) of 28,311 respondents between 1996 and 2020. In my book, Wall Street’s War on Workers, I used the ANES survey to zero in on white working-class voters’ opinions across the country. The results were startling:
In 2016, only 32% supported granting legal status to undocumented (“illegal”) residents. By 2020, support had jumped to 62%.
We expected that voters of all shades and persuasions may have turned against immigrants after Trump highlighted the issue in his three campaigns, focusing attention (with the often-relentless help of Fox News) on a number of horrific but rare violent crimes apparently committed by the undocumented. He threatened the mass deportation of undocumented residents in 2016 and 2020 and then began a campaign of highly visible deportations after winning the presidency in 2024. But as the chart below shows voters in key swing states, all of which voted for Trump, still supported legalization, as of April 2025. (3,000 voters were surveyed.)
Here are the results broken down by the 2024 presidential vote in the same four states.
By party identification:
By ideology:
By class:
And by ethnicity:
The survey also shows that support for legalization is highest among younger voters: 76% of those 30 years of age and younger support legalization.
But isn’t immigration the big right-wing issue?
There is a big difference between controlling immigration at the border and criminalizing hard-working undocumented residents. You can be for secure borders and restrained immigration while also supporting legalization of the 11 million undocumented workers now living in the shadows.
Our analysis shows that a majority of voters are compassionate toward immigrants and understand that having 11 million people living and working without legal protections is not good for them or for working people in general.
Undocumented workers find it very difficult to exercise their rights. They can be forced to work for lower wages in poor conditions and have no easy recourse to complain about it without fear of being reported by their employers to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Those we surveyed clearly understand that this places downward pressure on wages in many occupational categories, hurting American workers as well as immigrants.
Arguing that undocumented workers do jobs that U.S. citizens no longer want to do completely misunderstands the labor market. If wages are pushed up, instead of down, good-paying jobs would be filled both by U.S. citizens as well as legalized immigrants.
So why aren’t the Democrats on it?
Honestly, I’m not entirely sure. But I suspect that the Democrats have drifted so far away from the working class that they don’t understand that legalization of undocumented workers is a working-class issue. I don’t know who does their polling, but I would bet they are not asking the kind of questions we are asking. They have long ago stopped trying to understand the needs and interests of working people.
For whatever reasons, the Democrats are letting Trump stomp all over undocumented workers. Yes, there is concern about specific immigrants who have been illegally detained and deported. Yes, there is mumbling about providing citizenship for Dreamers—those born here with undocumented parents. But there is radio silence about hard-working undocumented workers receiving legal status. This is a fight the Dems are choosing to avoid.
Trump’s weaponization of the immigration issue might have Democratic politicians on the defensive, but there might be another reason they’re choosing not to engage. The group that most wants immigrants to stay in the shadows are those who profit from low-wage labor.
There is a vast ecosystem of sub-contractors and temp agencies that supply undocumented workers for warehouse operations like Amazon’s and food-processing plants, like those of JBS and Tyson. Tens of billions of dollars in extra profits are made off the backs of these workers, few of whom have any way to exercise normal employee rights, much less fight to unionize. They can and are being exploited.
The employers who have their hooks into these undocumented workers also have their hooks into both political parties. They are not keen on uplifting their lowest-paid employees or having those who receive their political donations fighting for their rights.
The travesty of the two political parties not fighting the rights of these working people, even with strong polling supporting such a fight, is just one more reason why we need a new political entity, one that focuses on the needs and interests of all working people.
The billionaires have two parties: We need one of our own!
Keep ReadingShow Less
Beware the Trump-Musk Regime Weaponizing Social Security!
There is no Democratic Social Security and Republican Social Security. There is only one Social Security system that we all pay into and we all benefit from.
May 02, 2025
For nearly 90 years, the Social Security Administration has stood above the fray of partisan politics. The agency focused on its mission to deliver hard-earned benefits to every American, regardless of whom they voted for. Official communications channels, such as press releases, never endorsed or criticized a politician.
Indeed, the one time a president tried to politicize Social Security, he was forced to back down. Before benefits were automatically indexed to offset the rise in inflation, Congress would vote for increases that the president signed into law. Those benefits were accompanied by simple straightforward notices, stating that Congress had passed, and the president had signed into law, the enclosed increase.
Just prior to the 1972 election, President Richard Nixon explored the idea of substituting an insert with his signature and photo, hoping to imply that he alone was responsible for the increase (that, ironically, he in fact had opposed). The Social Security Commissioner threatened to publicly resign, and Nixon backed down.
Not only is the Trump-Musk regime lying to you, they are using your money to do it.
President Donald Trump and Elon Musk are throwing that long-standing tradition of neutrality in the trash. The Social Security Administration (SSA) announced that it would be posting its official announcements on Elon Musk’s for-profit social media platform, alongside the platform’s paid advertisements. Consistent with that declaration, SSA’s official account posted a thread to Musk’s platform, X, that began “Former President Joe Biden is lying to Americans.”
This thread was filled with misleading information and used offensive, politically charged language, including “illegal aliens.” Contrary to the thread’s implications, undocumented immigrants do not and cannot receive Social Security. In fact, SSA has determined that undocumented workers have been subsidizing the rest of us to the tune of $25 billion a year, since many of them contribute (under fake Social Security numbers) but never receive a penny of their earned benefits.
This is a wildly inappropriate use of SSA’s resources. Like the rest of SSA, the agency’s official communications are paid for by the American people’s Social Security contributions. Normally, SSA is very efficient, spending less than a penny of every dollar contributed on administrative expenses. But now, some of that money is being wasted and misused on politics. Not only is the Trump-Musk regime lying to you, they are using your money to do it.
Unfortunately, this is just one of many ways the Trump-Musk regime is weaponizing Social Security. After the governor of Maine publicly challenged Trump, Social Security canceled two contracts with her state.
The contracts, which the federal government has with every state, are extremely efficient and important. One of them allows parents to register their newborns for Social Security cards at the hospital, instead of dragging their babies to overcrowded field offices. The other quickly transmits when anyone in the state has died, so benefits can be immediately terminated.
To punish the governor of Maine, the Trump administration decided to punish the parents of newborns. After massive public outrage, the Trump administration was forced to reinstate the contracts.
Trump and Musk could declare people dead because they are political enemies, or members of a disfavored group. They could extort people by threatening to declare them dead.
Leaked emails leave no doubt that the Trump-handpicked acting head of SSA, Leland Dudek, terminated the contracts as political revenge. An SSA employee told Dudek that terminating the contracts “would result in improper payments and potential for identity theft.” Dudek replied, “Please cancel the contracts. While our improper payments will go up, and fraudsters may compromise identities, no money will go from the public trust to a petulant child,” by whom he meant Maine Gov. Janet Mills.
Most chillingly of all, the Trump-Musk regime is illegally falsifying government data by adding people to Social Security’s death master file—despite knowing that they are still alive. Their initial targets are thousands of legal migrants, who have Social Security numbers so that they can work in the U.S.
When Social Security wrongly declares a living person dead, it ruins their life. Financial institutions, health insurance companies, and many other entities rely on Social Security’s data, and they react quickly when someone is declared dead. Imagine, in one keystroke from “Big Balls” or another Musk henchman, losing your income, your health insurance, access to your bank account, your credit cards, your home, and more. This is financial murder.
Legal migrants are the first victims, but if the Trump-Musk regime gets away with this, they will not be the last. Trump and Musk could declare people dead because they are political enemies, or members of a disfavored group. They could extort people by threatening to declare them dead.
All of this is particularly outrageous because Social Security is a nonpartisan program. Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike all value their Social Security benefits and want to see them expanded, not cut. There is no Democratic Social Security and Republican Social Security.
The American people’s message for Trump and Musk is simple: There is only one Social Security system that we all pay into and we all benefit from. Hands off.
Keep ReadingShow Less
IRS Collaboration With ICE Threatens Its Core Mission
Using the IRS and its resources for immigration enforcement violates privacy laws and undermines public trust in the agency, impacting its ability to collect revenue.
Apr 13, 2025
Attempts by the Department of Homeland Security to secure private information from the Internal Revenue Service on people who file taxes with an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number is a violation of federal privacy laws that protect taxpayers. It is also a change that could seriously damage public trust in the IRS, which could jeopardize billions of dollars in tax payments by hardworking immigrant families.
The recent memorandum of understanding between the IRS and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)—which led to the resignation of the Acting IRS Commissioner—establishes procedures for requesting taxpayer information under IRC section 6103(i)(2) for criminal investigations. But that section is clear: Taxpayer information is confidential unless Congress specifically authorizes disclosure. No such authorization exists for routine immigration enforcement.
Using the IRS and its resources for immigration enforcement is a departure from the agency’s core mission, which is to administer tax laws. What’s more, federal privacy law unambiguously protects all taxpayer information, meaning tax returns and taxpayer information must remain confidential except under very specific circumstances that do not include immigration enforcement. This weaponization should worry all filers, because if this can be done without congressional authorization then it can be done to other groups as well.
Every 10-percentage point drop in the income tax compliance rate of undocumented immigrants would lower federal tax revenue by $8.6 billion per year, and state and local tax collections by $900 million per year.
Besides the privacy implications, there are other important considerations when we look at how this will affect immigrant families.
We know that undocumented immigrants pay taxes. Recent Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy research finds that undocumented immigrants paid $96.7 billion in taxes in 2022, with more than a third of that amount ($37.3 billion) going to states and localities.
Deporting immigrants on a large scale would cause most of those revenues to vanish from public coffers. Both income and sales tax revenues would be reduced as these individuals would no longer be in the U.S. earning taxable incomes and making taxable purchases.
We predict a $7.9 billion reduction in annual revenue for every 1 million undocumented people who exit the country, with $2.5 billion of that coming out of state and local budgets.
But these figures almost certainly understate the true revenue cost of deportations. They don’t account for losses to business outputs and workforce declines in sectors like construction and agriculture. They don’t consider the effects these efforts will have on documented immigrants who may be erroneously swept up in this. And they don’t try to measure how deportations may lead immigrant families to retreat from public view, constrained to less formal, off-the-books employment at jobs less likely to withhold income tax from paychecks.
Our analysis suggests that every 10-percentage point drop in the income tax compliance rate of undocumented immigrants would lower federal tax revenue by $8.6 billion per year, and state and local tax collections by $900 million per year.
Keep ReadingShow Less
When Fascism Comes to America
The list of common characteristics in the study of 20th-century fascist dictators and their regimes includes 14 categories in all, and Trump and his MAGA disciples have already exhibited characteristics in most of these categories.
Apr 03, 2025
There's a relatively obscure quotation, sometimes attributed to the 20th-century American author Sinclair Lewis, that reads, "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."
Although no one’s actually sure that Sinclair Lewis ever wrote or said this, his 1935 novel, It Can't Happen Here, centers around a flag-hugging, Bible-thumping politician named Berzelius (”Buzz”) Windrip. Despite having no particular leadership skills other than the ability to mesmerize large audiences by appealing to their baser instincts (and to bully those people who aren’t so easily mesmerized), Windrip is elected President of the United States. Shortly after Windrip takes office, through a flurry of executive orders, appointments of unqualified cronies to key governmental positions, and then a declaration of martial law, Windrip quickly makes the transition from a democratically elected president to a brutal, fascist dictator. The novel’s title, It Can’t Happen Here, refers to the mindset of key characters in the novel who fail to recognize Windrip’s fascist agenda before it’s too late.
The question now is whether the people of the United States have the necessary critical thinking skills, moral compass, and political courage to reverse the rise of fascism in our country before further harm is done.
Written almost a century ago during the rise of fascism in Europe prior to World War II, It Can’t Happen Here is disturbingly prescient today. Buzz Windrip’s personal traits, his rhetoric, and the path through which he initially becomes the democratically elected U.S. president, and soon afterward, the country’s first full-fledged fascist dictator, bear an uncanny resemblance to the personality traits and rhetoric of Donald Trump and the path through which he has come thus far to be the 47th President of the United States, and through which he appears to be on course to become our country’s first full-fledged…. But no! It can’t happen here! Or can it?
Trump’s uncanny resemblance to the fictional dictator in Sinclair Lewis’s 1935 novel is disconcerting. The far more important concern, though, is the degree to which Trump resembles real-life fascist dictators, past and present. A study of notorious 20th- century fascist dictators, including Hitler and Mussolini, concluded that they and their regimes all had several characteristics in common. (The current regimes of Vladimir Putin in Russia, Xi Jinping in China, and Kim Jong Un in North Korea also share these characteristics.)
Fascist Dictators Encourage and Condone Violence Against Their Political Enemies
After losing the 2020 presidential election, Trump urged a large crowd of supporters on the morning of January 6, 2021 to march to the Capitol and “fight like hell.” After the violent assault on the Capitol had been going on for more than three hours, when Trump finally posted a video message urging the rioters to go home, he told them, “We love you, you’re very special.” On his first day back in office in 2025, he granted clemency to the more than 1,500 rioters who were charged with crimes related to the attack on the Capitol, including rioters convicted of assaulting police officers and rioters with past convictions for other violent crimes, including sexual assault.
Fascist Dictators Blur the Distinction Between Private Business Interests and the Public Good and Put Wealthy Business Leaders in High Governmental Positions
At the beginning of his second term, Trump appointed Elon Musk, reportedly the world’s richest man and the CEO of companies that have received tens of billions of dollars in federal funding, to head the ad hoc “Department of Government Efficiency,” with the power to summarily fire vast numbers of federal employees without cause and to potentially steer federal funding away from other companies and toward his own.
Fascist Dictators Promote Bold-Faced Lies and Other Propaganda
Some of Trump’s most notorious lies include his claims that he won the 2020 presidential election; that the January 6, 2021 insurrectionist attack on the Capitol was a “day of love;” and that the Ukrainians themselves, not the Russian invaders, are responsible for starting the war in Ukraine. The Washington Post catalogued more than 30,000 other demonstrably false or misleading statements that Trump made during his first term as president. Currently, a special team within the Trump administration is spewing out pro-Trump propaganda at a prodigious rate on social media, including a portrait of Trump wearing a golden crown with the caption, “Long Live the King,” via Elon Musk’s “X” platform.
Fascist Dictators Promote the Myth That Their Citizens Are Being Threatened by Scapegoats
Trump’s favorite scapegoats are undocumented immigrants whom he frequently refers to as “criminals,” “gang members,” and “killers,”and who he claims are stealing jobs and benefits from U.S. citizens. In fact, undocumented immigrants do the work that most U.S. citizens are unwilling to do; they pay far more in federal taxes than they receive in federal benefits; and, unlike Trump himself, they are convicted of committing serious crimes at a lower rate than the U.S. population as a whole.
Fascist Dictators Put Grossly Unqualified Sycophants in Key Governmental Positions
The many grossly unqualified sycophants who Trump has nominated or appointed to key government positions in his second administration include Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, a favorite Fox News interviewee who has himself been accused of alcohol abuse, sexual misconduct, and mismanagement of nonprofit financial funds, and who has spoken in defense of U.S. soldiers charged with war crimes; Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. who seeds doubt concerning vaccine effectiveness and promotes other medical quackery; and FBI Director Kash Patel who endorses the “deep state” theory and who has previously described jailed January 6 insurrectionists as “political prisoners.”
Fascist Dictators Exhibit Flagrant Sexism
Trump boasted in a 2005 video recording about not only groping women and kissing them without their consent, but about an incident involving a married woman in which, in his own words, “I moved on her like a bitch.” He added, “I failed, I admit it, I did try and “f—k her.” Trump called Hillary Clinton a “nasty woman” during their final 2016 presidential debate; he has repeatedly referred to Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) as “Pocahontas;” and he entertained a joke during a 2024 campaign rally implying that past Vice President Kamala Harris once worked as a prostitute.
The list of common characteristics in the study of 20th-century fascist dictators and their regimes includes 14 categories in all, and Trump and his MAGA disciples have already exhibited characteristics in most of these categories. One common characteristic not mentioned in the study is the fact that all the 20th-century fascist dictators met ignominious ends—but not before they had caused enormous damage, including the deaths of millions of innocent people.
Questions about what fascism might look like when it comes to the United States of America and whether it can or cannot happen here are no longer merely hypothetical. Fascism has come to the USA. It is happening here. The question now is whether the people of the United States have the necessary critical thinking skills, moral compass, and political courage to reverse the rise of fascism in our country before further harm is done, or will we be like the characters in Sinclair Lewis’ 1935 novel; the people in Hitler’s Germany and Mussolini’s Italy; and the people in current day Russia, China, and North Korea and allow our system of government to devolve into a full-fledged fascist dictatorship.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More Stories
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy