Rahul and Priyanka Gandhi Oppose Supreme Court Order on Stray Dogs

Rahul and Priyanka Gandhi criticize the Supreme Court’s order to remove stray dogs from Delhi-NCR, advocating for humane solutions that prioritize animal welfare alongside public safety.

New Delhi: Rahul Gandhi, the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, Congress MP from Wayanad, have expressed strong opposition to the Supreme Court’s recent order mandating the removal of all stray dogs from the Delhi-NCR region. They described the ruling as a regressive step away from decades of humane and science-based policies, emphasizing that such blanket removals are both cruel and shortsighted.

In a post on X, Rahul Gandhi stated, “The Supreme Court’s directive to remove all stray dogs from Delhi-NCR is a step back from decades of humane, science-backed policy.” He further argued that these “voiceless souls are not ‘problems’ to be erased,” advocating instead for solutions that include shelters, sterilization, vaccination, and community care to ensure public safety without resorting to cruelty.

“Blanket removals are cruel, shortsighted, and strip us of compassion. We can ensure public safety and animal welfare go hand in hand,” he added, highlighting the need for a more compassionate approach to managing stray dogs.

Priyanka Gandhi, who serves as Congress General Secretary, echoed her brother’s sentiments, voicing her concerns about the implications of the Supreme Court’s order. In her own post on X, she remarked, “The moving of all the city’s stray dogs to shelters within a matter of weeks is going to result in horrendously inhumane treatment of them. Enough shelters do not even exist to take them on.”

She pointed out that animals in urban environments are often subjected to mistreatment and brutality, emphasizing the need for a more humane solution. “Surely there is a better way to manage the situation, and a humane way can be found in which these innocent animals are looked after and kept safe as well,” she said.

Priyanka Gandhi also expressed her affection for dogs, stating, “Dogs are the most beautiful, gentle creatures; they do not deserve this kind of cruelty.”

The Congress leaders’ remarks followed the Supreme Court’s order issued on Monday, which directed that all stray dogs in the Delhi-NCR area be picked up within eight weeks and housed in dog shelters. The Court, which was addressing a suo motu case concerning dog bites in the national capital, specified that no stray canines would be allowed to return to the streets after being collected.

In a stern warning, the Supreme Court stated, “If any person or organization comes in the way of picking up of stray dogs, action will be taken.” This directive has raised significant concerns among animal welfare advocates and the public, prompting calls for more humane alternatives to address the issue of stray dogs in urban areas.

The ongoing debate highlights the need for a balanced approach that considers both public safety and the welfare of animals, as advocates urge for policies that prioritize humane treatment over removal.

Source: Original article

Israel’s Netanyahu Considers Allowing Palestinians to Leave Gaza During Truce Efforts

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has proposed allowing Palestinians to exit the Gaza Strip as the military gears up for an expanded offensive in the region.

On Tuesday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reiterated his stance on permitting Palestinians to leave the Gaza Strip. This announcement comes as the Israeli military is poised to launch a more extensive offensive in the territory.

The situation in Gaza has been increasingly tense, with ongoing military operations and humanitarian concerns. Netanyahu’s comments reflect a strategic consideration as Israel navigates the complexities of the conflict and its implications for civilian safety.

As the military prepares for its next steps, the proposal to allow Palestinians to exit the area raises questions about the humanitarian impact and the broader geopolitical ramifications. The potential for a temporary truce or safe passage for civilians is a critical aspect of discussions surrounding the conflict.

Netanyahu’s administration has faced pressure both domestically and internationally regarding its approach to the situation in Gaza. Allowing civilians to leave could be seen as a measure to alleviate humanitarian concerns, but it also poses challenges related to security and the ongoing military objectives.

The Israeli government has been under scrutiny for its handling of the conflict, with calls for a more comprehensive strategy that addresses both security needs and humanitarian considerations. The proposal to allow Palestinians to exit Gaza may be part of a broader effort to navigate these complex issues.

As developments unfold, the international community is closely monitoring the situation, with hopes for a resolution that prioritizes the safety and well-being of civilians caught in the conflict.

According to NDTV, Netanyahu’s remarks signal a significant moment in the ongoing discourse surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Source: Original article

US Comments on India-Pakistan Tensions Following Army Chief’s Nuclear Threat

Washington has reaffirmed its commitment to maintaining strong ties with both India and Pakistan following recent nuclear threats made by Pakistan Army Chief Asim Munir during his visit to the United States.

In the wake of Pakistan Army Chief Asim Munir’s recent visit to the United States, Washington has reiterated that its relationship with both India and Pakistan “remains unchanged.” The U.S. State Department emphasized its commitment to both nations, despite the heightened tensions stemming from Munir’s alarming remarks.

During his second visit to the U.S. in just two months, Munir made headlines by threatening to initiate a nuclear conflict against India, claiming he could take down “half the world.” This marked a significant moment, as it was the first time nuclear threats were publicly articulated from U.S. soil directed at a third country.

At a State Department briefing, spokesperson Tammy Bruce highlighted the U.S. involvement in mediating tensions between India and Pakistan during previous military conflicts. She referred to President Donald Trump’s administration’s efforts as a “very proud” achievement, noting their role in preventing a potential catastrophe.

“We had an experience with Pakistan and India, when there was a conflict, that could have developed into something quite horrible,” Bruce stated. She detailed the immediate actions taken by top U.S. officials, including Vice President JD Vance, President Trump, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, to address the situation and foster dialogue between the two nations.

Bruce elaborated on the nature of the diplomatic efforts, saying, “We described the nature of the phone calls and the work we did to stop the attacks, bringing the parties together to create something enduring.” She expressed pride in the U.S. leadership’s role in averting disaster during those tense moments.

When questioned about the implications of Munir’s recent meeting with Trump on U.S. military assistance and arms sales to Pakistan, Bruce assured that the U.S. relationship with both countries remains strong. “The diplomats are committed to both nations,” she affirmed, dismissing concerns that U.S. support for Pakistan would come at the expense of its relationship with India.

Bruce also addressed the ongoing U.S.-Pakistan counter-terrorism dialogue, which was recently established in Islamabad. She noted that during the latest rounds of talks, both nations reaffirmed their shared commitment to combat terrorism in all its forms. “The United States and Pakistan discussed ways to enhance cooperation to counter terrorist threats,” she said.

In her closing remarks, Bruce emphasized the importance of U.S. engagement with both India and Pakistan, stating, “For the region and for the world, the U.S. working with both those nations is good news and will promote a future that’s beneficial.”

Munir’s visit to the U.S. follows a private luncheon with Trump in June and included a series of high-level meetings with U.S. political and military leaders. The timing of his trip and the nature of his comments have raised concerns about the stability of the region and the potential for escalating tensions.

As the situation unfolds, the U.S. continues to navigate its complex relationships with both India and Pakistan, aiming to maintain peace and stability in South Asia.

Source: Original article

Ex-Pentagon Official Compares Pakistan’s Asim Munir to Osama Bin Laden

Former Pentagon official Michael Rubin criticized Pakistan’s army chief Asim Munir for his nuclear threats, likening him to Osama bin Laden and calling for significant diplomatic repercussions.

Former Pentagon official Michael Rubin has sharply criticized Pakistan’s army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, over his recent nuclear rhetoric, describing Islamabad’s behavior as that of “a rogue state.” Rubin’s comments come in light of Munir’s alarming statements, which he claims echo the sentiments of extremist groups like the Islamic State.

The controversy erupted following Munir’s assertion that if Pakistan “goes down, it would take half the world down with it.” These remarks were reportedly made during a meeting in Tampa, Florida, attended by U.S. military officials, raising concerns about the implications of such threats.

In response to Munir’s comments, India has formally condemned the threat of nuclear war. The Indian Foreign Ministry issued a statement highlighting that nuclear saber-rattling has become a common tactic for Pakistan and expressed regret that such statements were made on the soil of a friendly third country.

Rubin emphasized the gravity of the situation, stating, “Pakistan’s threats on American soil are completely unacceptable.” He articulated his concerns in an interview with the news agency ANI, where he compared Munir to Osama bin Laden, saying, “Asim Munir is Osama bin Laden in a suit.” This stark comparison underscores the seriousness with which Rubin views Munir’s rhetoric.

According to Rubin, the nuclear threats posed by Pakistan could potentially provide cover for terrorist factions to “go rogue” with nuclear weapons. He argued that Pakistan represents a unique challenge that transcends traditional diplomatic disputes, asserting that the ideological motivations behind terrorism are often overlooked by American policymakers.

“Americans look at terrorism through the lens of grievance,” Rubin explained. “They don’t understand the ideological underpinnings of many terrorists.” His remarks suggest a need for a deeper understanding of the complexities surrounding terrorism and its motivations.

Rubin further questioned whether Pakistan is capable of fulfilling its responsibilities as a sovereign state, given Munir’s provocative rhetoric. He stated, “The Field Marshal’s rhetoric is reminiscent of what we’ve heard from the Islamic State,” indicating a troubling parallel between Munir’s statements and those of extremist organizations.

In light of these concerns, Rubin proposed that the international community should contemplate a “managed decline” for Pakistan, which could involve recognizing breakaway regions such as Balochistan. He even suggested the possibility of future military intervention to secure Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, stating, “It’s coming near time when, in a future administration, other SEAL teams should enter Pakistan to secure its nuclear weapons because the alternative is simply too great to bear.”

Rubin’s stance on Pakistan’s status in the international arena is equally critical. He argued that there is no justification for the United States to continue viewing Pakistan as a major non-NATO ally. “Pakistan should be the first major non-NATO ally to be listed as a state sponsor of terrorism,” he asserted, advocating for a reevaluation of Pakistan’s role within U.S. Central Command.

In a call for severe diplomatic action, Rubin stated, “Asim Munir should be persona non grata in the USA and never get an American visa, along with any Pakistani official, until Pakistan explains itself and apologizes.” His comments reflect a growing frustration with Pakistan’s nuclear posturing and its implications for global security.

As the situation unfolds, the international community will be watching closely to see how Pakistan responds to these criticisms and whether it will take steps to address the concerns raised by Rubin and others.

Source: Original article

Washington Navigates Complexities of Munir’s Anti-India Nuclear Posturing

Washington faces a diplomatic dilemma after Pakistan’s army chief, General Asim Munir, made nuclear threats against India during a visit to the U.S. military.

Washington finds itself in a precarious position following remarks made by Pakistan’s army chief, General Asim Munir, during his recent visit to the United States. While attending various military ceremonies as an honored guest, Munir’s anti-India rhetoric, described by Indian officials as “nuclear sabre-rattling,” has left American defense and diplomatic agencies in a state of uncertainty regarding how to respond.

During his visit, Munir participated in the retirement ceremony for General Michael E. Kurilla, the outgoing chief of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), and the change-of-command ceremony for Admiral Brad Cooper. He also met with senior military leaders, including General Dan Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. However, it was a private dinner in Tampa that reportedly raised eyebrows, where Munir allegedly warned that if Pakistan were cornered, it would be prepared to “take half the world down with it.” This statement was interpreted as a thinly veiled threat directed at India.

In the days following these remarks, inquiries were made to several U.S. agencies, including the Department of Defense, the Pentagon, the State Department, and CENTCOM, seeking their stance on Munir’s comments made while on U.S. soil. Questions focused on whether such public threats of nuclear destruction towards another sovereign nation were acceptable conduct for a senior military official visiting the United States. Each agency opted for silence or provided a terse “no comment.” Even the State Department, which typically emphasizes responsible nuclear stewardship, refrained from addressing Munir’s statements.

Analysts suggest that Munir’s comments have placed Washington in a diplomatic bind. Publicly defending his remarks could be perceived as tacit approval of nuclear threats against India, a key strategic partner. Conversely, a public rebuke could alienate Pakistan’s powerful military, which the U.S. still relies on for counterterrorism cooperation, regional intelligence, and maintaining its presence in Afghanistan.

This situation highlights a significant miscalculation by the Trump administration and some of its senior advisors, who underestimated the political instincts of Pakistan’s military. They appeared to believe that ceremonial invitations and military honors would temper aggressive rhetoric. Instead, Munir’s actions have demonstrated a willingness to leverage American soil to amplify anti-India nuclear messaging.

As the situation unfolds, Washington must navigate these complex diplomatic waters carefully, balancing its relationships with both Pakistan and India while addressing the implications of Munir’s statements.

Source: Original article

Peace Should Not Be Imposed on Ukraine, Say UK and Canada

British and Canadian leaders emphasize that any peace in Ukraine should be developed in collaboration with Kyiv, not imposed from outside.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney have reached a consensus regarding the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. They assert that any peace agreement must be constructed in partnership with Kyiv rather than being imposed upon it.

This statement was made public by a spokesperson from Downing Street on Monday, highlighting the importance of Ukrainian agency in the peace process.

The leaders’ remarks come ahead of anticipated discussions between the United States and Russia, where the future of Ukraine is expected to be a significant topic of conversation.

Starmer and Carney’s position reflects a broader commitment to ensuring that Ukraine’s sovereignty and interests are prioritized in any negotiations aimed at resolving the conflict.

As the situation in Ukraine continues to evolve, the emphasis on collaborative peace-building efforts underscores the necessity of involving the Ukrainian government and its people in shaping their future.

This approach aims to foster a more sustainable and legitimate resolution to the ongoing crisis, rather than one that may disregard the needs and aspirations of those directly affected by the war.

The dialogue between the UK and Canada signals a unified stance among Western allies regarding the handling of the Ukraine situation, reinforcing the message that peace must be a product of mutual agreement and respect for Ukraine’s autonomy.

As international discussions progress, the focus remains on finding a pathway that honors the voices of Ukrainians while addressing the geopolitical complexities of the region.

According to NDTV, the emphasis on a collaborative peace process is crucial as the world watches the developments in Ukraine closely.

Source: Original article

Three Killed in Texas Shooting; Suspect Taken into Custody

Three people were killed in a shooting at a Target store parking lot in Austin, Texas, on Monday, prompting a police pursuit that ended with the suspect’s arrest.

A tragic shooting incident occurred on Monday in the parking lot of a Target store in Austin, Texas, resulting in the deaths of at least three individuals. The gunman opened fire in the busy area, creating chaos and panic among shoppers and bystanders.

Following the shooting, the suspect fled the scene, stealing two vehicles during his getaway. This prompted a swift response from law enforcement, who pursued the suspect across the city.

The pursuit concluded when police were able to apprehend the suspect using a Taser, bringing an end to the dangerous situation. Authorities are currently investigating the circumstances surrounding the shooting and the motivations behind the attack.

This incident has raised concerns about public safety and gun violence in the community, as residents grapple with the aftermath of the tragic event.

According to NDTV, the investigation is ongoing, and more details are expected to emerge as law enforcement continues to gather evidence and interview witnesses.

Source: Original article

Kishtwar Encounter: Two Hizbul Militants, Including Commander, Trapped in Forest

An intense gunfight in Kishtwar, Jammu and Kashmir, has led to the entrapment of two Hizbul Mujahideen militants, including a top commander, in a forest cave.

JAMMU: A fierce gunfight erupted in Kishtwar district of Jammu and Kashmir on Sunday as security forces initiated a search operation in the hilly Dool area, following specific intelligence reports regarding the presence of militants.

As the search parties advanced, the militants, believed to be two in number, opened fire, prompting an immediate exchange of gunfire. Sources indicate that the militants are Riyaz and Mudasir, members of the banned Hizbul Mujahideen outfit. They are reportedly holed up in a cave deep within the forest, which has been fortified and strategically positioned to evade aerial detection.

The local police have announced a reward of ₹30 lakh for information leading to the capture or elimination of Riyaz, Mudasir, and Jahangir Saroori, who is noted as the longest-surviving terrorist associated with Hizbul Mujahideen and a key figure in sustaining militancy in the Chenab Valley.

The Army’s White Knight Corps confirmed the encounter via a post on X, stating that alert troops conducting an intelligence-based operation established contact with the terrorists in the early hours, leading to the ongoing exchange of fire.

Kishtwar has been a hotspot for militancy for several years, serving as a strategic transit and hideout area for terrorists operating between the Kashmir Valley, Doda, and parts of Jammu. The region’s dense forests, rugged terrain, and remote villages have allowed small groups of militants to evade capture and continue their operations despite numerous counter-insurgency efforts.

Security officials assert that neutralizing the Hizbul module based in Kishtwar would deliver a significant blow to the militant networks in the Chenab Valley, which have relied on this area for recruitment, logistics, and shelter.

As of the latest reports, the operation is still ongoing, with additional forces deployed to prevent any escape from the cordoned-off zone.

Source: Original article

Two J&K Police Sub-Inspectors Killed in Srinagar Road Accident

Two Jammu and Kashmir Police Sub-Inspectors were killed and another injured in a road accident in Srinagar, prompting an investigation into the incident.

Srinagar: In a tragic incident, two Sub-Inspectors from the Jammu and Kashmir Police lost their lives, while another officer sustained injuries in a late-night road accident in the Nowgam area of Srinagar.

The accident occurred during the night of August 10 and 11, when a speeding KIA vehicle, with registration number JK21H-1919, lost control and crashed into a road divider at the Tengen Bypass near Nowgam.

Three Sub-Inspectors were traveling in the vehicle at the time of the accident. They were immediately rushed to a nearby hospital for treatment. Unfortunately, two of the officers were pronounced dead on arrival, while the third officer is currently receiving medical care.

The deceased have been identified as Sachin Verma, a Sub-Inspector with the 23 Battalion of the Indian Reserve Police (IRP) currently posted at Pantha Chowk, and Shubham Sait, a Sub-Inspector with the 21 Battalion IRP, stationed at Awantipora. The injured officer has been identified as Mastan Singh, also from the 23 Battalion IRP.

Authorities have taken cognizance of the incident, and an investigation is underway to determine the exact cause of the accident.

Source: Original article

Tibet’s Ongoing Struggle for Justice Amid China’s Firm Control

Despite decades of international appeals for Tibetan rights, China’s firm grip on the region persists, with ongoing restrictions on culture, religion, and freedoms.

Since the Dalai Lama’s flight from Tibet in 1959 following an uprising against Chinese rule, the United Nations has expressed deep concern for the human rights and freedoms of the Tibetan people. Through Resolution 1353 (XIV), the UN called for the protection of these rights, marking the beginning of a long-standing dialogue on the issue.

In the early 1960s, the UN adopted two additional resolutions that served as moral rebukes to Beijing’s actions, affirming Tibet’s right to self-determination. Over the decades, the international community has urged China to ease its stringent control over Tibet and cease its campaign to assimilate Tibetans into a Han-dominated culture, which threatens their unique cultural and religious identities.

From Washington to Brussels, numerous statements of concern have been issued, with high commissioners seeking access to the region and coalitions of nations forming to censure Beijing. However, China has remained resolute in its refusal to change its approach, framing its continued occupation of Tibet as a matter of sovereignty and national unity. According to Beijing, Tibet has been “an inseparable part of China since antiquity” and is now a model of economic progress.

Criticism, even from the Tibetan people whom China claims to have uplifted, is dismissed as politically motivated interference. This stance has persisted through various global eras, from the Cold War to China’s emergence as a global power.

Nearly seven decades after the uprising, the situation in Tibet remains dire. Reports indicate ongoing restrictions on religion and language, mass detentions, and a lack of access for independent observers.

The language of international appeals has evolved over the years, yet the core message has remained consistent. Following violent protests in Lhasa in the late 1980s, the U.S. Congress recognized Tibet as an “occupied country” and praised the Dalai Lama’s proposals for a negotiated settlement. The European Parliament echoed this sentiment with its own declarations, some explicitly endorsing his peace plans.

In 1991, the UN Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities broke a 26-year silence by adopting a resolution on Tibet, calling for an end to policies that threaten the Tibetan people’s cultural and religious identity. Human rights rapporteurs have pressed Beijing for access and accountability, raising concerns about religious freedom and torture.

The message gained further momentum in 2012 when Navi Pillay, then the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, warned that “social stability in Tibet will never be achieved through heavy security measures and suppression of human rights.” In 2020, a coalition of 39 countries, including Britain, Japan, and nearly all European Union members, called for “immediate and unfettered access” to Tibet for independent observers, marking one of the strongest joint statements in years.

Despite these moments of unity, tangible change on the ground has remained elusive. Beijing has allowed the appeals to accumulate without facing real accountability for its actions. In fact, China’s position has only become more entrenched. Since the 2008 uprising, the Communist Party has implemented policies of near-total control over religious institutions, intensified “patriotic education” campaigns in monasteries, and established extensive surveillance systems across the Tibetan plateau.

Political dissent is met with severe punishment. Advocates for cultural rights, such as Tashi Wangchuk, have faced years of imprisonment on charges of “inciting separatism,” a broad term that conflates peaceful expression with a threat to the state. The boy recognized by the Dalai Lama as the Panchen Lama has been missing since 1995, despite repeated UN requests for proof of his well-being.

China’s response to UN criticism has been consistently dismissive. The government rejects all allegations of abuse, accuses the UN of bias, and mobilizes a bloc of supportive states to counter any resolutions or debates. Requests for visits to Tibet by high commissioners or special rapporteurs are often met with the same refrain: not now, not convenient. No UN human rights chief has been permitted in since 1998, and no special rapporteur has visited since 2005.

The UN’s record on Tibet has been characterized by a lack of decisive action. No Tibet-specific resolution has been passed in the General Assembly since 1965. The former UN Commission on Human Rights failed to adopt a resolution on Tibet, with Chinese diplomats repeatedly blocking action through procedural tactics. The Human Rights Council, which replaced the commission in 2006, has similarly struggled, with China rejecting most recommendations outright.

China’s status as a permanent member of the Security Council, along with its economic influence over developing countries and a growing bloc of allies, has shielded it from meaningful censure. This has resulted in a pattern of rhetorical condemnation without enforcement, allowing Beijing to absorb international concern without facing consequences.

The trajectory of Tibet’s treatment at the UN illustrates the limitations of moral persuasion in the absence of political will. While strong words have been plentiful in resolutions and statements, what has been lacking is the mechanism and unity to translate those words into actions that China cannot easily ignore.

If the international community is serious about addressing human rights abuses in Tibet, it must move beyond symbolic gestures. This could involve establishing a dedicated UN mechanism to monitor China’s treatment of Tibetans, linking access to economic or diplomatic benefits, or at the very least, insisting on regular, unmonitored visits by human rights experts. Without such measures, every statement of concern risks becoming just another entry in a long, ineffective record.

Source: Original article

Security Forces Conduct Major Anti-Terror Operation in Reasi Village

Security forces have initiated a significant anti-terror operation in Godhar Khalsa village, Reasi district, following a shopkeeper’s report of suspicious individuals in the area.

Jammu – Security forces have launched a comprehensive anti-terror operation in Godhar Khalsa village, located in Reasi district, after a local shopkeeper reported a late-night encounter with suspected individuals in a nearby forest.

The incident occurred around 1:55 a.m. when the shopkeeper was returning home after closing his store. He recounted that the suspects approached him, took some pears he was carrying, and instructed him to leave without causing him any harm. “Their presence was suspicious, and I immediately informed the police,” he stated.

In response to the shopkeeper’s report, the Jammu and Kashmir Police, in collaboration with other security agencies, cordoned off the village at first light. They launched an intensive search operation aimed at identifying and neutralizing any potential terrorist presence in the area.

Godhar Khalsa is situated along the Jammu–Poonch Highway and is not far from the Line of Control (LoC)-facing Sunderbani sector, a route historically used for infiltration.

Following the recent Operation Sindoor, which targeted multiple terrorist launch pads and airbases in Pakistan, security forces have increased surveillance across Jammu and Kashmir. They are conducting aggressive search-and-destroy missions in suspected militant hideouts in Rajouri, Poonch, Reasi, and other vulnerable areas.

A senior police officer emphasized the clarity of their mission: “No movement corridor will be left unchecked. If terrorists are in the area, they will be traced and neutralized.”

The operation in Godhar Khalsa is ongoing, with additional reinforcements deployed and all exit routes sealed to prevent any potential escape of suspects.

Source: Original article

Texas Democrats Leave State to Block GOP Redistricting Maps

Texas House Democrats have left the state in a strategic move to block Republicans from passing new House maps that would favor the GOP with additional seats in future elections.

On Sunday, a group of Texas House Democrats departed the state, a calculated effort to prevent Republicans from advancing redistricting plans that would potentially allow the GOP to secure five more seats ahead of the 2026 elections.

By leaving, the Democrats are denying the Republican majority a quorum— the minimum number of lawmakers needed to conduct official legislative business. This maneuver echoes a similar tactic employed by Texas Democrats during mid-cycle redistricting attempts by the GOP in 2003. This time, many of the Democratic legislators have traveled to states led by their party, including Illinois, New York, and Massachusetts.

“We’re not here to have fun. We’re not here because this is easy, and we did not make a decision to come here today lightly,” Texas House Democratic Caucus Chair Gene Wu stated at a press conference in Illinois, where he was joined by members of his delegation and Governor J.B. Pritzker.

The strategy has garnered national support. The Democratic National Committee (DNC) expressed its backing, with Chair Ken Martin asserting in a statement, “We will fight alongside them to stop this anti-democratic assault.” He further promised a collective effort against the GOP’s House majority once this particular fight is concluded.

This strategic move to break quorum is a clear indication of the lengths to which the party is willing to go to oppose the current redistricting proposal before the close of the 30-day special session. The proposed new House lines, having advanced through the Texas House Select Committee on Congressional Redistricting, are pending a vote before the full Texas House.

The Democrats face limited options given the Republican majority in both chambers and the governor’s mansion. This tactic of breaking quorum comes with potential repercussions for the more than 50 lawmakers who have left the state— each could face a $500 daily penalty and possibly arrest.

Texas House Speaker Dustin Burrows announced on X (formerly Twitter) that the House will convene without their missing members, declaring that “all options will be on the table” if a quorum is not present. In another post on X, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton called for the arrest of the Democrats, stating, “Democrats in the Texas House who try and run away like cowards should be found, arrested, and brought back to the Capitol immediately.”

Meanwhile, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker assured protection for the Texas Democrats who sought refuge in his state, underscoring their adherence to legal norms and their correct moral stance in this matter.

The backdrop to these dramatic developments is a broader, national context of redistricting strategies. Texas Republicans are redrawing their House map amidst a shifting political landscape as former President Trump eyes new opportunities ahead of potentially challenging elections for the GOP. Typically, redistricting occurs once every ten years following the U.S. Census; however, mid-decade alterations can occur, generally as a result of legal disputes over existing maps.

The proposed redistricting in Texas, which affects areas such as Dallas-Fort Worth, Austin, Houston, and the Rio Grande Valley, has triggered similar contemplations in other states. For instance, California’s Governor Gavin Newsom is considering revising his state’s maps, possibly via a ballot measure or through legislative means. Blue states like New York, Illinois, and New Jersey have also shown openness to revisiting their boundaries, while GOP-led states such as Florida may follow suit before 2026.

This heightened focus on redistricting amid upcoming elections has injected additional complexity and uncertainty into an already intense electoral cycle. It raises numerous uncertainties about candidate districts and may influence primary dates and filing deadlines.

According to The Hill, these strategic moves underscore the continuing and contentious political battle surrounding district lines nationwide.

Source: Original article

Zelenskyy Signs Controversial Bill, Sparking Protests in Ukraine

Thousands protested in Ukraine against President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s decision to sign a new law that weakens key anti-corruption agencies, as critics warn it could undermine Ukraine’s EU aspirations and international aid.

KYIV, Ukraine — Thousands took to the streets in Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities on Tuesday, calling for President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to reject a new law that critics argue undermines the country’s anti-corruption infrastructure. This significant public gathering serves as the first major protest against the government in over three years of conflict.

The Ukrainian parliament has approved legislation imposing tighter controls over two major anti-corruption bodies—specifically the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO). Critics warn that this move could severely limit the agencies’ independence, granting President Zelenskyy’s administration increased influence over criminal investigations. Late Tuesday, the president signed the legislation into law, according to a statement on the parliament’s website.

Efforts to combat deep-rooted corruption are central to Ukraine’s ambitions to join the European Union and secure billions in Western aid. The law’s enactment has sparked public indignation, with some Ukrainians considering it a more severe moral setback than the recurring missile and drone attacks from Russia.

Under the new law, the prosecutor general will acquire expanded authority over inquiries managed by NABU and SAPO. “In effect, if this bill becomes law, the head of SAPO will become a nominal figure, while NABU will lose its independence and turn into a subdivision of the prosecutor general’s office,” the agencies stated in a joint announcement on Telegram.

Marta Kos, the EU’s Enlargement Commissioner, expressed her concerns on X, formerly known as Twitter, referring to the legislative vote as “a serious step back.” She emphasized, “Independent bodies like NABU & SAPO are essential for Ukraine’s EU path. Rule of Law remains in the very center of EU accession negotiations.”

Though protests have occurred throughout the ongoing war, they predominantly focused on issues such as recovering prisoners of war or missing individuals. Yet, protests remain a deeply embedded method of public opposition in Ukraine, where two prior revolutions successfully galvanized the public.

Ihor Lachenkov, an activist and blogger with over 1.5 million followers, rallied supporters through social media channels, urging participation in the protest. “Corruption is a problem in any country, and it must always be fought,” he declared. Lachenkov argued, “Ukraine has far fewer resources than Russia in this war. If we misuse them, or worse, allow them to end up in the pockets of thieves, our chances of victory diminish. All our resources must go toward the fight.”

The Ukrainian branch of Transparency International condemned the parliament’s decision, describing it as an impediment to one of Ukraine’s most key reforms since its 2014 Revolution of Dignity. The organization further warned that this development could erode trust with global partners and called on Zelenskyy to veto the law, cautioning that his signature would make him complicit with the Rada in “dismantling Ukraine’s anti-corruption infrastructure.”

Protesters brandished signs inscribed with messages like “Veto the law,” “Protect the anti-corruption system, protect Ukraine’s future,” and simply “We are against it.”

The war-ravaged protestors expressed palpable anger and frustration, with some asserting that Ukraine’s leadership prioritizes personal loyalty over the anti-corruption battle. “Those who swore to protect the laws and the Constitution have instead chosen to shield their inner circle, even at the expense of Ukrainian democracy,” stated veteran Oleh Symoroz, who spoke from a wheelchair after losing both legs in 2022.

Symoroz added, “Instead of setting an example of zero tolerance for corruption, the president is using his power to take control of criminal cases involving his allies.”

Meanwhile, on Monday, Ukraine’s domestic security agency detained two NABU officials on suspicions of Russian affiliations and conducted searches on other agency employees concerning separate allegations.

Zelenskyy’s office has not issued a comment on the matter thus far. Notably, last week, the president initiated a reshuffle of his wartime Cabinet, a move seen by many as an effort to concentrate power within his inner circle.

Source: Original article

Italy Seeks Solutions for Falling Birth Rates

The Italian town of Fregona, like many others, is grappling with a declining birthrate and migration, threatening its future and prompting local leaders to seek creative solutions to keep essential services like schools open.

Walking through the narrow main street of Fregona, located at the foot of Italy’s picturesque mountains, Mayor Giacomo de Luca points out businesses with closed shutters and faded signs. Among them are two supermarkets, a barbershop, and several restaurants. This once bustling town is experiencing a rapid decline in population, with many Italians opting for the opportunities offered by bigger cities or even abroad.

The decline in residents has now put the local primary school at risk. The mayor explains that the new Year One class cannot proceed due to having only four children enrolled, falling short of the minimum requirement of ten students needed for funding. “The drop in births and in the population has been very, very sharp,” De Luca says.

In recent years, Fregona’s population has decreased by nearly 20%, accentuating the issue. By June of this year, the town had welcomed only four new births, and many of the 2,700 remaining residents are elderly. The demographic shift is evident in the local market, where older residents shop and socialize.

For Mayor De Luca, the potential closure of the school reception class would be a turning point. He worries that if children leave to attend school elsewhere, they might not come back. In response, he’s been visiting neighboring areas, including a pizza factory, to persuade families to enroll their children in Fregona’s school. The town council even offers incentives such as free minibus transportation and extended school hours until 6 p.m.

“I’m worried. Little by little, if things keep going like this, the village will die,” De Luca expresses his concern.

Fregona’s situation reflects a broader demographic crisis across Italy. Over the past ten years, the nation’s population has decreased by almost 1.9 million, with birthrates on a consecutive 16-year decline. Italian women now average 1.18 children, the lowest recorded level, which is below the EU average of 1.38 and far beneath the 2.1 replacement rate.

Despite attempts by Giorgia Meloni’s right-wing government to promote family-friendly policies, the downward trend in birthrates continues unabated. Valentina Dottor, a resident of Fregona, highlights the caution many have when considering parenthood. Valentina receives a monthly allowance of about €200 for her 10-month-old daughter but feels it’s inadequate compared to the high cost of childcare.

Such financial constraints are a significant deterrent to having more children. “It’s difficult—because of work, schools, the money,” she adds. “There is some help, but it’s not enough to have babies. It won’t solve the problem.”

Recognizing these challenges, some companies in the Veneto region have implemented self-help schemes. One notable example is Irinox, a blast chiller manufacturer. In collaboration with seven other firms, they established a discounted and convenient on-site creche.

Melania Sandrin, a finance executive at Irinox, praises the proximity of the creche for providing peace of mind and preventing career disruptions. “Without the creche, I would have struggled to come back to work,” she admits.

CEO Katia da Ros argues for more comprehensive changes, suggesting services like free kindergartens would substantially impact addressing Italy’s population challenges. Meanwhile, increased immigration remains a contentious topic for Italy’s government, even as foreign workers become more integral to companies like Irinox.

Despite efforts like increased immigration, the closure of a primary school in nearby Treviso shows the stark reality. Pascoli Primary recently closed due to insufficient student enrollment, leaving families searching for alternatives. Eleanora Franceschi, whose 8-year-old daughter attended the school, emphasizes that the issue extends beyond the birthrate, pointing out inadequate school hours for working parents as a contributing factor.

Eleanora and others argue for better support services and practical aids, such as free summer camps, to align government goals for population growth with real-world support mechanisms for families.

“How can we have more babies in this situation?” Eleanora questions, encapsulating the frustrations of many Italian parents who contend that mere financial incentives aren’t enough.

As Italy faces an anticipated population drop of five million over the next 25 years, the pressure is mounting for comprehensive action to align economic policies with family support initiatives, a sentiment echoed by many in the affected communities.

According to BBC News.

Source: Original article

Nearly 600 Killed in Southern Syria Violence, Monitoring Group Reports

Recent sectarian violence in southern Syria has resulted in the deaths of 594 people, amid ongoing tensions between the Druze religious minority and government forces.

The UK-based Syrian Observatory of Human Rights (SOHR) reports a significant rise in violence in Suweida province, primarily affecting the Druze community since last Sunday. The monitoring group documented the deaths of 594 people over the course of this conflict.

Among the dead are 300 members of the Druze minority, which includes 146 fighters and 154 civilians. Out of the civilian death toll, 83 individuals were reported to have been summarily executed by government forces, the SOHR stated on Thursday evening.

The measure of violence extended to government personnel and Bedouin fighters as well. A reported 257 government forces and 18 Bedouin fighters lost their lives, while three Bedouin civilians were allegedly killed by Druze fighters, according to the same monitoring group.

This spike in conflict was triggered by a disagreement between the Bedouin and Druze communities. In a separate wave of violence, 15 government members were killed in Israeli airstrikes, which Israel justified as necessary to protect the Druze and push government forces out of Suweida.

Although the specifics of the SOHR’s figures couldn’t be independently verified, other security sources estimate the toll at around 300. Meanwhile, the Syrian Network for Human Rights accounts for at least 169 civilian deaths during this period.

By Thursday, most of Suweida had experienced a tense calm after the withdrawal of government forces from this Druze-majority area. Residents reported extensive damage and looting, with some uncovering bodies in local streets.

Islamist-led government forces in Syria entered Suweida on Monday, supposedly to restore order amidst ongoing Druze-Bedouin clashes. However, their presence escalated the fighting and deepened divisions within Syria’s Druze community—which stems from Shia Islam but maintains its own distinct beliefs and identity.

As the Syrian government declared a ceasefire on Wednesday and initiated its withdrawal, a prominent Druze figure, Sheikh Hikmat al-Hajri, dismissed it, urging continued resistance until “our province is liberated from gangs,” referring to the government forces.

Sheikh Hajri, whose followers actively resist against the government, has fostered relations with Israel. In contrast, other parts of Suweida’s Druze community collaborate more closely with Syria’s new Islamist-led government. There is also a significant Druze population in Israel and the Golan Heights, adding a regional element to the conflict.

On Thursday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu articulated Israel’s intention to assert its interests in Syria using force. While defending their actions as protection for the Druze community, Netanyahu affirmed a broader strategy to prevent Syrian military movements in the country’s southern regions, particularly near Damascus.

Netanyahu emphasized this policy would persist, with efforts to ensure no Syrian army presence south of Damascus or harm to the Druze population. The recent Israeli airstrikes notably caused extensive damage to the Syrian Ministry of Defense in Damascus and targeted areas near the presidential palace, marking a substantial escalation in Israeli operations against Syria since the Syrian regime’s collapse under Bashar al-Assad last December.

In a televised address, Syria’s interim president Ahmed al-Sharaa rebuked Israel’s strikes, calling them an effort to destabilize Syria. He asserted, “We find ourselves in the heart of a battle to protect the unity of our land, the dignity of our people and the resilience of our nation. The Israeli entity, which has consistently targeted our stability and sown discord since the fall of the former regime, now seeks once again to turn our sacred land into a theater of endless chaos.”

Addressing Syria’s Druze, al-Sharaa pledged a strong commitment to their rights and freedoms, opposing internal or external attempts at creating division.

US Outlines Steps to Address Syria Violence After Israeli Strikes

Israel launched strikes on Syria’s defense ministry in Damascus and military targets in southern regions as sectarian violence flared in Suweida, signaling an intensifying situation involving Druze militias and Bedouin tribes.

Israel’s military action against Syrian government targets extended into a third day on Wednesday, amid escalating sectarian violence in Suweida, a predominantly Druze province. This comes after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu expressed support for Druze communities, saying Israel is “working to save our Druze brothers.”

The intensifying conflict has resulted in more than 350 deaths since violent clashes erupted in the region between Druze militias and Bedouin tribes on Sunday. The fighting prompted the Syrian military to begin withdrawing its forces from Suweida late Wednesday, following talks mediated by the United States aimed at de-escalating the conflict.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced on social media platform X that specific steps had been agreed upon to end the violence, an assertion supported by the Syrian state news agency Sana, which confirmed the troop withdrawal as part of an agreement with local religious leaders.

Despite the purported ceasefire efforts, Israel has not commented on these developments. Instead, earlier strikes beginning Monday targeted Syrian security forces and their weapons, deployed to Suweida following the ousting of President Bashar al-Assad by Sunni Islamist rebels in December.

Sectarian tensions have intensified over the past eight months, aggravated by an incident in May that saw clashes between Druze, government forces, and allied militants result in numerous fatalities. The Druze minority, an offshoot of Shia Islam, harbors suspicions toward Interim Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa, fueling their fear over repeated outbreaks of violence.

Israel’s latest involvement appears to be driven by its commitment to protecting the Druze population, which has historical ties to Israel and the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. Following crossed-border incursions by Druze individuals on Wednesday, Israeli troops resorted to tear gas to dissuade further crossings. Netanyahu called on Israeli citizens among them to return home and allow the military to address the situation.

Israel’s intensified air campaign aimed to compel a swift Syrian military withdrawal from Suweida. Defence Minister Israel Katz indicated on X that military warnings in Damascus had concluded, pledging continued operations against forces attacking the Druze until their complete withdrawal is achieved. Reports also noted the destruction of armoured vehicles and military infrastructure in southern Syria.

Syria’s foreign ministry condemned the Israeli strikes, which it claimed targeted civilian facilities and government institutions in Damascus and Suweida, accusing Israel of inciting chaos and violating international laws. These reports were corroborated by the UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, highlighting severe humanitarian conditions in Suweida, including shortages of essential supplies and destruction of medical facilities.

Eyewitness accounts described widespread panic and violence, with hospitals overwhelmed by hundreds of casualties. Local testimonies to the BBC relayed harrowing accounts of sniper attacks and residential looting, contributing to the escalating death toll.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported that sectarian hostilities between Bedouin tribes and Druze militias allegedly began over an abduction incident last Friday. The violence swiftly engulfed Suweida, spreading to surrounding areas as Druze fighters seized a Bedouin-occupied neighborhood, leading to intensified tribal clashes.

Intervention by Syrian government forces, criticized for their conduct, appears to have exacerbated tensions within these communities. Reports accuse them of destructive activities and the humiliation of local leaders, further escalating an already volatile situation.

The broader geopolitical context includes Israel’s longstanding position on President Sharaa’s government and affiliated groups like Hayat Tahrir al-Sham. Despite past military interventions in Syria targeting such entities, the current situation underscores the complex and evolving dynamics in the region.

Source: Original article

Human Rights Group Petitions Against Minority Harassment in Bangladesh

The Human Rights Congress for Bangladesh Minorities has filed a Public Interest Litigation with the High Court, claiming pervasive misuse of legal processes to target and disenfranchise religious minorities in Bangladesh.

The Human Rights Congress for Bangladesh Minorities (HRCBM) has initiated a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the High Court of Bangladesh, asserting that the legal system is being exploited to harass and dispossess Hindus and other religious minorities in the country.

In a statement issued on Monday, HRCBM described the PIL filed at the High Court Division of the Bangladesh Supreme Court as not merely a legal maneuver but a profound appeal for justice. The group highlighted a backdrop where over 3.9 million criminal cases languish unresolved, with frequent misuse of prosecutorial powers.

A pointed example cited by HRCBM is the case of Chinmoy Krishna Brahmachari, a respected monk and social reformer. He remains detained on charges of sedition unlawfully initiated by a private individual—an action permissible only by the state under Section 196 of the Bangladeshi Code of Criminal Procedure.

Despite widespread agreement on the baselessness of these charges and rising public outcry, Brahmachari, also known as Chinmoy Prabhu, remains incarcerated. His bail application has been pending in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for several months while he has been implicated in additional alleged cases, including false murder accusations.

The organization questioned whether his sole offense was speaking truth to power and advocating for the marginalized communities in Bangladesh. According to HRCBM, his ongoing legal troubles exemplify the broader state inaction and adoption of a legal system that fails in its mission to deliver justice.

The HRCBM’s thorough investigation covered 15 criminal cases filed between October 31 and December 19, 2024. These cases reportedly implicated 5,701 individuals, many charged without specific allegations, listed under vague First Information Reports (FIRs). The organization stated that such broad accusations, especially against unnamed suspects, are often used by police and local actors to unjustly target minority community members, with this tendency notably prevalent in Chittagong and other urban centers.

The group argued that these actions not only contravene constitutional rights but further isolate already marginalized populations. The HRCBM stressed that religious minorities in Bangladesh have historically endured cycles of violence, displacement, and legal persecution. The current misuse of criminal charges, they contend, represents a novel form of systemic oppression—silent yet extensive in its impact.

Through its PIL, the HRCBM is urging the judiciary to cease arbitrary applications of FIRs, enforce initial inquiries in susceptible cases, take disciplinary measures against officers engaged in malicious prosecutions, and establish a judicial inquiry or commission to scrutinize and document the misuse of criminal charges against minorities, according to IANS.

Source: Original article

Times Square Ad Targets Mamdani for Ramawamy Campaign

A Times Square billboard has stirred controversy by urging New Yorkers to flee Zohran Mamdani’s “socialist tyranny” for the conservative policies of Ohio gubernatorial candidate Vivek Ramaswamy.

A new advertisement in New York City’s Times Square is sparking political debate, urging residents to consider escaping what it describes as Zohran Mamdani’s “socialist tyranny” and relocating to Ohio. The billboard, which debuted on July 14, has attracted attention for its bold messaging in one of the city’s most prominent tourist locations.

The controversial ad was funded by “Vivek Super PAC — Victors, not Victims,” a group backing Vivek Ramaswamy’s campaign for governor of Ohio. Ramaswamy, a biotech entrepreneur and political newcomer, is being positioned as a conservative alternative to Mamdani, a 33-year-old Democratic Socialist who recently won the Democratic primary for mayor of New York City.

According to the New York Post, the $50,000 billboard campaign paints Mamdani as a “radical socialist” and presents a stark choice between Ramaswamy’s conservative vision and Mamdani’s progressive policies. Both Indian-origin politicians are emerging as influential figures in their respective party lines.

Vivek Ramaswamy gained recognition during the 2024 presidential primaries and made history by achieving the largest first-quarter fundraising total for any gubernatorial candidate in Ohio, raising $9.7 million without including any personal contributions.

Meanwhile, Zohran Mamdani, currently a state assemblymember, has built his mayoral campaign on grassroots support, focusing on tenant advocacy and proposing systemic reforms in policing and housing. His campaign has garnered endorsements from several prominent Democratic politicians, including Senator Bernie Sanders and Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal, as he aims to become the first Muslim and South Asian mayor of New York City.

Source: Original article

Pope Leo XIV Proposes Vatican for Ukraine Peace Talks

Pope Leo XIV has offered to host peace talks at the Vatican following a meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy amid ongoing conflict in Ukraine.

VATICAN CITY — Amidst intensifying conflict in Ukraine, Pope Leo XIV met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Wednesday at the pope’s summer residence in Castel Gandolfo, located south of Rome. The encounter focused on peacemaking efforts for the war-torn nation.

The Vatican released a statement following the meeting, noting the pope’s expression of sorrow for the victims and his continued prayers and support for the Ukrainian people. The statement emphasized the pope’s encouragement for endeavors aimed at the release of prisoners and the pursuit of shared solutions. It highlighted the “cordial” nature of the 30-minute conversation, stressing the urgent need for a just and lasting peace and underscoring dialogue as the preferred path to ending the conflict.

The meeting occurred during a significant escalation of hostilities. On May 25, Russia launched its largest drone and missile assault since the conflict began in February 2022. These attacks persisted into Wednesday, with Russia deploying over 700 drones targeting strategic locations in Ukraine. Meanwhile, U.S. mediation efforts have faltered, as no agreement has materialized to end the war.

Pope Leo reiterated his openness to hosting Russian and Ukrainian representatives at the Vatican to broker peace. Zelenskyy, while addressing Vatican journalists upon leaving Villa Barberini, expressed his country’s desire to conclude the war and their reliance on the Vatican and Pope Leo for a high-level meeting place conducive to peace negotiations.

Initially, Pope Leo XIV extended the offer to mediate peace talks shortly after his first meeting with Zelenskyy at the Vatican following the pope’s inauguration on May 18. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has supported this proposition and engaged in discussions with the Ukrainian leader.

However, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov disparaged the potential Vatican meeting as “vulgar,” arguing that it was inappropriate for a Catholic institution to host discussions between two predominantly Orthodox nations. Lavrov voiced his objections during a conference in Moscow on May 23.

President Zelenskyy expressed gratitude to the Vatican for its assistance in repatriating Ukrainian prisoners and children displaced by the war. In this mission, the pope appointed Cardinal Matteo Zuppi, head of the Italian bishops and an experienced negotiator, to lead the church’s efforts to reunite families and facilitate prisoner exchanges.

Before ascending to the papacy, Leo XIV had condemned the conflict in 2022 as a “true imperialist invasion,” accusing Russia of pursuing territorial conquest for power. He urged global leaders to more explicitly denounce the human rights violations occurring in Ukraine. Since becoming pope, Leo XIV has maintained a more diplomatic tone in his sermons and public appearances, persistently urging leaders to work toward a fair and enduring peace.

Source: Original article

Justice Department to Focus on Revoking Naturalized Citizenship

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is intensifying efforts to revoke the citizenship of naturalized Americans who have committed crimes, aligning with the Trump administration’s broader immigration policies.

The recent initiative by the DOJ emphasizes denaturalization, focusing on individuals involved in activities categorized under “war crimes,” “extrajudicial killings,” “human rights abuses,” and those posing ongoing threats, including terrorism. The directive is part of a memo, urging the DOJ’s Civil Division to prioritize these cases to the full extent permitted by law and supported by evidence.

This development marks a significant escalation in the Trump administration’s immigration agenda, which seeks to target not just undocumented immigrants but also lawful permanent residents and naturalized citizens.

Naturalization is the process by which U.S. citizenship is granted to a lawful permanent resident, following criteria set by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). According to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), there were 24.5 million naturalized citizens in the U.S. in 2022, accounting for 53% of the immigrant population, based on data analyzed by the Migration Policy Institute.

The path to naturalization is rigorous, requiring individuals to be lawful permanent residents for a minimum of five years—exceptions are made for spouses of U.S. citizens and U.S. military members—and to possess proficiency in English as well as an understanding of U.S. history and government.

The shift towards increased denaturalization began under the Obama administration, as noted by Cassandra Burke Robertson, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University. The rise was due in part to improved digital tools for identifying cases of naturalization fraud. The trend has accelerated under the Trump administration, which has been actively pursuing denaturalization at unprecedented levels.

Statistics from the DOJ indicate at least 305 denaturalization cases were filed between 1990 and 2017, with the number surging during Trump’s first term. From January 2017 to August 2018, USCIS reviewed approximately 2,500 cases for possible denaturalization, referring over 110 cases to the DOJ for prosecution.

The recent memo from Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate includes denaturalization among the top five priorities for the DOJ’s Civil Division. Denaturalization is pursued in instances where individuals have allegedly obtained citizenship fraudulently by concealment of material facts or willful misrepresentation.

Concerns over the constitutional aspects of these efforts have been voiced, with Robertson arguing that civil litigation to strip citizenship may violate due process under the 14th Amendment. The DOJ’s approach allows for the potential use of denaturalization as a tool against free speech, targeting individuals and institutions for allegations ranging from antisemitism to criticism of U.S. foreign policy.

The DOJ has already denaturalized individuals in cases involving serious criminal convictions. One case involved the revocation of citizenship from a person convicted of collecting and distributing child sexual abuse material.

This DOJ initiative reflects a broader strategy by the Trump administration to leverage immigration policy as a means to address national security and public safety concerns, often amidst debate over the balance between enforcement and civil liberties.

Source: Original article

U.S. State Department Report Suggests Potential Israeli Violations in Gaza Conflict: Review Sparks Debate on Policy Shifts

A recent assessment from the U.S. State Department suggests that Israel may have breached international humanitarian law during its military actions in Gaza, though the report refrains from making definitive judgments about Israeli conduct in its conflict with Hamas.

The Biden administration initiated this review of Israel and six other nations receiving U.S. arms. While facing criticism domestically and internationally, this evaluation does not mandate any specific responses.

The report reflects a growing level of scrutiny towards Israel within the administration, coupled with frustration over its handling of the conflict. Despite this, President Biden maintains his support for Israel’s efforts to combat Hamas in Gaza.

The investigation focused on two main inquiries: whether Israel misused U.S. weapons in violation of international law and whether it hindered humanitarian aid.

Regarding the former, the report stated, “It is reasonable to assess that [U.S.] defense articles … have been used by Israeli security forces since October 7 in instances inconsistent with its [International Humanitarian Law] obligations or with established best practices for mitigating civilian harm.” Although numerous instances of civilian casualties in Israeli airstrikes raised serious concerns, conclusive evidence was lacking.

Palestinian health officials claim that over 34,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children, have died in Gaza, while Israel asserts it has killed more than 13,000 Hamas fighters.

On the matter of humanitarian aid, the report initially criticized Israel for impeding aid efforts, but acknowledged subsequent cooperation. However, recent disruptions at the Rafah border crossing have severely impacted aid delivery.

The Biden administration’s decision to withhold a shipment of over 3,000 large bombs to Israel indicates a shift in approach, though it is unlikely to significantly affect Israeli operations in Gaza.

While the U.S. supports Israel’s goal of defeating Hamas in Rafah, it opposes a full-scale assault due to concerns about civilian casualties. The lack of a credible plan to protect civilians in Rafah is a point of contention.

A national security memorandum issued in February mandated the report, prompted by congressional Democrats’ concerns about potential violations of international law.

Although the report does not legally obligate the U.S. to cease arms transfers, it may influence future policy decisions. However, analysts doubt significant changes will occur, noting President Biden’s reluctance to alter his stance on Rafah.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has reiterated his resistance to external pressure, including from the White House, highlighting potential challenges in U.S.-Israel relations.

The report raises questions about how President Biden will manage his relationship with Netanyahu, particularly regarding Gaza. Despite threats of policy adjustments, little substantive change has materialized, leaving uncertainty about the administration’s red lines.

-+=