Elections

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares152 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s Use of Immigration Law Appears to Conflict With Limits Imposed by Congress

      by

      A crackdown targeting foreign students protesting Israel’s treatment of Palestinians conflicts with free-speech protections that lawmakers added in 1990.The Trump administration is asserting that it has broad power under a 1952 law to kick out foreign students who participated in pro-Palestinian protests. That statute says the secretary of state can deem noncitizens deportable for foreign policy reasons, and the secretary, Marco Rubio, made clear recently that he had already used it to cancel hundreds of student visas.“It might be more than 300 at this point,” Mr. Rubio said last week. “We do it every day. Every time I find one of these lunatics, I take away their visa.”But that expansive conception of power appears to conflict with a key limit Congress added nearly four decades after the law passed. Lawmakers explained that the modification, which is recorded elsewhere in federal statute books, means the law may be used “only in unusual circumstances” and “sparingly” if the problem stems from foreigners’ exercise of free speech.Lawmakers also gave two examples of when deporting someone under the 1952 law over speech would still be legitimate. Both scenarios, laid out in a report explaining the 1990 bill that enacted the restriction, were highly exceptional.The first was if a particular foreigner’s mere presence in the United States would somehow violate a treaty. The other was if it “could result in imminent harm to the lives or property” of Americans abroad, like when allowing the former shah of Iran to come to the United States in 1979 led to a riot at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and a hostage crisis.The additional guardrails raise questions over what rights foreign students are entitled to and underscore the Trump administration’s far-ranging interpretation of its authority in aggressively moving to deport those who have protested Israel’s war in Gaza. The executive branch has broad discretion to deny visas to applicants while they are abroad. But once noncitizens are on American soil, they are protected by the Constitution, which includes the rights to free speech and due process.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 63 Shares174 Views

      in Elections

      Read the Alabama Judge’s Ruling

      by

      Case 2:23-cv-00450-MHT-KFP
      Document 84 Filed 03/31/25
      Page 7 of 131
      to make the decisions that are best for themselves and
      their families. [It] also seek[s] to communicate
      funding recipients, volunteers, employees,
      to
      supporters,
      other abortion advocacy groups, and the general public
      the belief that all people deserve access to the
      resources necessary to make the decisions that are right
      for them.” Id. ¶ 11. To further its mission, the Fund
      distributes free diapers, school supplies,
      tests, contraception, hygiene products,
      pregnancy
      emergency
      contraception, sex-education materials, and referrals
      for a wide range of reproductive-healthcare providers.
      Before Dobbs and the Attorney General’s threats,
      Yellowhammer Fund also operated an abortion fund, which
      provided financial assistance and logistical support,
      including help coordinating food, lodging, childcare, and
      travel logistics to people in Alabama seeking abortions.
      At that time, between 15 and 20 percent of the abortions
      7 More

    • 88 Shares137 Views

      in Elections

      Israel’s Military Says It Struck Beirut’s Suburbs

      by

      The attack was the second in less than a week, raising fears that a cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah could unravel.The Israeli military said early Tuesday that it had conducted a strike on the southern outskirts of Beirut, the second attack near Lebanon’s capital in less than a week.Israel and Hezbollah agreed to a cease-fire in November, raising hopes that Lebanon’s deadliest war in decades could be over. But the recent strikes have prompted fears that the truce could unravel.The Israeli military said the latest strike, in the Dahiya area in Beirut’s southern suburbs, had targeted a Hezbollah operative who had directed and assisted Hamas in planning a “significant and imminent” attack against Israel.Israel acted to eliminate the operative because he posed an “immediate threat,” the military said on social media. It added that the Dahiya area was a key stronghold for Hezbollah, a Lebanese militant group and political party backed by Iran.Hezbollah made no immediate comment on the strikes on its semiofficial page on Telegram, a social media platform.On Friday, the Israeli military launched airstrikes in the same area, and ordered residents in a densely populated neighborhood to evacuate. The attack was hours after rockets were fired at northern Israel from Lebanese territory.Hezbollah denied any involvement in that attack on Israel and said it remained committed to the cease-fire. The Israeli military said it had targeted a site that stored Hezbollah’s drones.Also on Friday, at least three people were killed in separate Israeli airstrikes in southern Lebanon, according to Lebanon’s Health Ministry, which does not distinguish between civilians and combatants.Hezbollah began firing rockets and drones at Israeli positions, in solidarity with its Palestinian ally, after Hamas led an attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, igniting the war in Gaza. The fighting escalated into full-scale war between Israel and Hezbollah, with an Israeli ground invasion of Lebanon. More

    • 100 Shares91 Views

      in Elections

      Hegseth Mandates Uniform Fitness Standards for Combat Roles

      by

      The Pentagon this week ordered the elimination of lower physical fitness standards for women in combat units, a move that is likely to hinder the recruitment and retention of women in particularly dangerous military jobs.An order by Pete Hegseth, the defense secretary, dated Sunday and announced on Monday, mandated that all physical fitness requirements for combat arms positions — units likely to see significant fighting in wartime — be “sex-neutral,” which is likely to significantly reduce the number of women who meet the requirements. The order directs military leadership to implement the new fitness standards by the end of October.The U.S. military has fiercely debated the issue of how to fairly grade women’s physical fitness in testing to determine their placement into physically demanding combat jobs and their advancement in leadership roles.After years of internal deliberation over new annual fitness tests, the Army eased the grading standards for women and older service members in 2022. A study by the RAND research corporation published that year found that women and older troops were failing the new test at significantly higher rates than men and younger troops.Other branches of the military have also had different fitness test standards for men and women. For example, the Marines have a strength test for all recruits: Men must complete three pull-ups or 34 push-ups in under two minutes. Women must complete one pull-up or 15 push-ups in the same time frame.Those gender-specific standards will remain for some military jobs, Mr. Hegseth said in a statement accompanying the order. But he argued that women should not be allowed in combat units if they could not meet the same fitness standards as men.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares100 Views

      in Elections

      South Korea’s President Will Learn His Fate on Friday

      by

      The Constitutional Court will announce on Friday whether Yoon Suk Yeol, who was impeached in December for declaring martial law, will be permanently removed from office or restored to power.Yoon Suk Yeol, the president of South Korea, who was impeached in December over his failed attempt to impose martial law, will learn on Friday whether he will be formally removed from office or returned to power, the nation’s top court said on Tuesday.Suspense was building in South Korea as the country waited for the Constitutional Court to rule on Mr. Yoon’s fate. Mr. Yoon has been suspended from office since the National Assembly impeached him on Dec. 14. In South Korea, the Constitutional Court decides whether an impeached official is removed permanently from office or reinstated.Removing Mr. Yoon would require the votes of six or more of the court’s eight justices; otherwise, he will return to office.​ The court’s decision, which cannot be appealed, is a critical moment in the political upheaval​ that Mr. Yoon unleashed when he declared martial law on Dec. 3.If ​the court removes him, Mr. Yoon will become the second president in South Korean history to leave office through impeachment. (President Park Geun-hye was the first, in 2017.) The country will quickly shift gears toward a new election; a successor must be chosen within 60 days.If he is reinstated, South Korea’s political crisis is likely to deepen. Mr. Yoon’s attempt to impose martial law angered millions of South Koreans. Even if reinstated, he will resume his presidential duties with his ability to govern considerably weakened.Mr. Yoon was detained on Jan. 15 on insurrection charges, also connected to his ill-fated imposition of martial law. The suspense surrounding his future intensified after a Seoul court unexpectedly released him from jail on March 8, saying that his detention was procedurally flawed.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 88 Shares165 Views

      in Elections

      NYT Crossword Answers for April 1, 2025

      by

      Sande Milton makes his Crossword solo debut in The New York Times.Jump to: Today’s Theme | Tricky CluesTUESDAY PUZZLE — Let me guess: You’re staring at the scribbles in today’s crossword, wondering how someone could have started it before you did. I sympathize. Then again, it is April Fools’ Day — and I have a feeling that Sande Milton, who constructed the puzzle, is celebrating the occasion.Those penciled-in letters aren’t entirely trustworthy. In fact, some of them are plain wrong. But I encourage you to think of these less as mistakes than as points of departure. They add to the satisfaction you’ll feel when Mr. Milton’s brilliant joke finally lands.Today’s ThemeAs I mentioned above, only some of the filled-in squares are correct. [“___ Misérables”] (22A) is LES, just as the existing letters suggest. But [Declare openly] (17A) can’t be “aver,” because that would leave us with a Nobel Prize winner named “Teni” Morrison. (It’s Toni.) There’s also a problem with 44-Down: If [___ power] solved to “horse,” as is written in the grid, then to [See red] (54A) would be to “get M.S.D.,” which sounds more like an off-brand psychedelic.Our suspicions of sabotage are confirmed at 49-Across: There’s a [Person who may have ruined your puzzle experience]. In order to identify the vandal, though, we’ll need answers to 18-, 29- and 61-Across. These clues are “partners,” so to speak, because each one relies on another’s solution. In general, the best way to break into such clue sets is to use crossing entries to figure out one answer, and then use that solution to crack the other clues.As far as which one to begin with, your mileage may vary. I found 18A — [Publication where this puzzle might be found] — easiest to fill in using my crossings: IN-FLIGHT MAGAZINE. This gave away 29A: [Where the 18-Across is commonly found] is a SEAT BACK POCKET. Finally, we’re on the same plane (yuk, yuk) as the puzzle.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 175 Shares183 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Administration Tied Migrants to Gang Based Largely on Clothes or Tattoos, Papers Show

      by

      The Trump administration has granted itself the authority to summarily deport Venezuelan migrants accused of being members of a violent street gang on the basis of little more than whether they have tattoos or have worn clothing associated with the criminal organization, new court papers show.The papers suggest that the administration has set a low bar for seeking the removal of migrants whom officials have described as belonging to the street gang, Tren de Aragua. This month, the White House ordered the deportation of more than 100 people suspected of being members of the gang under a powerful wartime statute, the Alien Enemies Act, and have denied them any due process to challenge the allegations against them.In the court papers, submitted over the weekend, lawyers for the Venezuelan migrants produced a government document, titled “Alien Enemy Validation Guide,” that laid out a series of criteria administration officials are required to meet to designate the men as members of Tren de Aragua.The document established a scoring system for deciding whether the migrants were in fact members of the gang, which is often referred to as TdA, asserting that eight points were required for any individual to be identified as a member.According to the document, any migrant who admitted to being a member of the gang was assigned 10 points, meaning that they were automatically deemed to belong to the group and were subject to immediate deportation under the Alien Enemies Act.But the document also asserts that officials can assign four points to a migrant simply for having “tattoos denoting membership/loyalty to TDA” and another four points if law enforcement agents decide that the person in question “displays insignia, logos, notations, drawings, or dress known to indicate allegiance to TDA.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares137 Views

      in Elections

      Democrats Sue Trump Over Executive Order on Elections

      by

      Nearly every arm of the Democratic Party united in filing a lawsuit against the Trump administration on Monday night, arguing that a recent executive order signed by the president seeking to require documentary proof of citizenship and other voting reforms is unconstitutional.The 70-page lawsuit, filed in Federal District Court in Washington, D.C., accuses the president of vastly overstepping his authority to “upturn the electoral playing field in his favor and against his political rivals.” It lists President Trump and multiple members of his administration as defendants.“Although the order extensively reflects the president’s personal grievances, conspiratorial beliefs and election denialism, nowhere does it (nor could it) identify any legal authority he possesses to impose such sweeping changes upon how Americans vote,” the lawsuit says. “The reason why is clear: The president possesses no such authority.”The lawsuit repeatedly argues that the Constitution gives the president no explicit authority to regulate elections, noting that the Elections Clause of the Constitution “is at the core of this action.” That clause says that states set the “times, places and manner” of elections, leaving them to decide the rules, oversee voting and try to prevent fraud. Congress may also pass federal voting laws.As Democrats debate how best to challenge the Trump administration’s rapid expansion of executive power, the lawsuit represents one of the first moments where seemingly every arm of the party is pushing back with one voice.Such unity is further evidence that Democrats still view the issue of democracy as core to their political brand, as well as a key issue that can help them claw back support with voters as they aim to build a new coalition ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. In February, Democrats sued the Trump administration over attempts to control the Federal Election Commission. Weeks earlier, the D.N.C. joined a lawsuit over new voting laws in Georgia.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More