US Politics

The right to seek asylum in the United States is in the balance as migrants fleeing violence and instability at home anxiously await a chance at safety – amid a major policy shift at the US’s southern border.The Title 42 public health order – which has allowed officials to quickly expel migrants without giving them access to asylum for years now – is expected to finally end on 11 May. What does this mean for the US’s historic commitment as a beacon for freedom from persecution?As government leaders brace for an anticipated uptick in migrants and asylum seekers trying to cross the border, the hardline policies they’re advancing to keep people out may spell potentially deadly consequences for some of the world’s most vulnerable.In Congress, an immigration and border security package that backs an enforcement-only approach is expected to receive a vote on the Republican-controlled House floor as soon as this week.If enacted, the proposed legislation would significantly curtail asylum, limit other humanitarian pathways, restart border wall construction, do away with safeguards for migrant kids, and otherwise rewrite the US’s laws to be far less welcoming to those in need of protection.Realistically, such draconian measures would be unlikely to move forward in the Democratic-controlled Senate, at least as drafted. But they still represent a vision of immigration policy that stands in sharp contrast to the US’s tradition of refuge, while hindering the federal government’s ability to effectively respond during national security events such as the US withdrawal from Afghanistan or Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.And meanwhile, the White House and its agencies are also exploring strategies that could chip away at the US’s humanitarian commitments , under a Democratic administration that campaigned on a promise to build “a fair and humane immigration system”.Since Joe Biden took office, he and his staff have been forced to balance those initial goals with intense and unyielding political pressure to respond to record levels of migration at the US-Mexico border. And, as lawmakers spend their time debating anti-immigrant policies instead of bipartisan immigration reform, the administration has reacted with a series of carrots and sticks that are more nuanced than the House’s proposals but still largely couched in mechanisms meant to deter would-be migrants.That trend continued last month, when the Departments of State and Homeland Security unveiled their own collective response to the anticipated increase in humanitarian migration at the US-Mexico border after the Title 42 policy is set to end.Notably, their announcement of new processing centers in Guatemala and Colombia will give migrants in the region a chance to see whether they’re good candidates for lawful immigration pathways not only to the US, but also to Canada and Spain, without ever having to pay smugglers for a dangerous trek north.But in contrast, the administration also has plans that could broadly box out migrants with legitimate claims from accessing protection.That proposal will be finalized by 11 May, Homeland security secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said Friday. As it stands now, migrants at the southern border who passed through a third country on the way to the US would generally be ineligible for asylum – with a few caveats – unless they qualify for one of three exceptions, all with limitations and exclusions that could make it nearly impossible for many of the most vulnerable asylum seekers to find refuge.The first exception is the Biden administration’s existing programs for people from Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba and Haiti to come to the US with advance permission through a process called parole. These programs allow up to 30,000 individuals each month to reach the US and have coincided with a dip in irregular crossings at the southern border. But there is a high bar – eligibility is limited to those who can obtain a passport, secure a US-based sponsor to support them financially, and afford international commercial air travel.The second exception is for those who wait on the Mexican side of the border – potentially for weeks, months, or indefinitely – for one of the finite number of daily asylum appointments to enter the US through CBP One, a phone application from the federal government that’s been deluged with complaints.The final exception covers asylum seekers who applied for and were denied protection elsewhere en route to the US. But in such places, migrants are viewed by criminal organizations as easy targets for violence and extortion. More than 13,000 migrants have already been kidnapped, raped, tortured or otherwise attacked in Mexico after they were turned back at the US’s southern border since early 2021.Such a bleak situation has generated a great deal of outcry from immigration advocates. And now, these onerous restrictions are being coupled with efforts to fast-track initial asylum screenings and deportations in border facilities where attorneys aren’t allowed to visit in person, prompting more protest and fear that migrants not only won’t be able to exercise their rights but are exposed to unnecessary danger.Polls show that Americans continue to overwhelmingly support the US as a land of refuge and welcome.Contrary to the impression left by partisan squabbles, there are solutions. Ultimately, Congress has the power to be the most effective agent, by legislating new immigration pathways and making other long-awaited reforms that many argue benefit both migrants and US citizens.For example, lawmakers could create more vehicles for migrant workers to fill chronic labor shortages. And legislators could also fund more asylum officers, immigration judges, and other essential personnel, giving overstretched border officials a reprieve while tackling immigration-related backlogs that have undermined the whole system.With potential solutions like these that privilege human life over optics or politics, the US would not have to choose between a tradition of refuge and order at the border. It could do both, protecting the American people and future Americans who are turning to the US right now for help.
Alexandra Villarreal is a policy and advocacy associate at the National Immigration Forum. More

Two Saudis who were arrested and allegedly tortured for crimes they were accused of committing as minors are facing an imminent threat of execution, in what human rights experts say is a sign of the kingdom’s violation of its own promise to end death penalty cases against child defendants.In a letter to US secretary of state Antony Blinken, a family member of one defendant, Abdullah al-Derazi, describes how Abdullah was swept off the street and disappeared for three months in August 2014 for protest crimes he is alleged to have committed when he was 17 years old.“Saudi Arabia’s government is deaf to our cries but it will listen to you,” the letter said. “You can help bring our sweet and sensitive boy home and prevent him being taken from us forever.”In their appeal, the family urged Blinken to intervene on Abdullah’s behalf, saying the young man from the Qatif region of Saudi Arabia had been rounded up by authorities and imprisoned in order to “scare people to stop them from protesting”.The other case concerns Youssef al-Manasif, who according to a new report by Reprieve – which is representing both men – was accused of crimes including attending funerals between the ages of 15 and 17 that were deemed to be “protests” by Saudi authorities. Reprieve claims Youssef was tortured and coerced into signing a false confession, was denied legal representation.Both cases are currently being reviewed by Saudi’s supreme court. If their sentences are upheld, both would be at risk of execution, which could happen imminently and without notice, Reprieve said.Saudi Arabia issued a royal decree to abolish the death penalty for children in 2020, stating unequivocally that individuals would not be sentenced to death for crimes committed when they were minors. But the kingdom has since then upheld the death penalty in a number of cases involving minor defendants.The cases have reinforced criticism not only of the Saudi government, but of US president Joe Biden, who has fallen short of imposing any restrictions or consequences on the Saudi government.In Washington, two US senators – including a key Democratic ally of the administration – have introduced a resolution that would force the White House to release a report on Saudi’s human rights violations, along with a detailed explanation of what steps the US government is taking to address the violations. The report would have to include specific information about Saudi’s conduct in the war in Yemen. If passed, the resolution would also force the administration to provide the Congress with an assessment of the necessity of continued US security assistance to the kingdom.Democratic Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut – who introduced the measure along with Republican Mike Lee – said he was disappointed that the administration had “not made good” on its promise to significantly reform the nature of its partnership with Saudi Arabia.“I think the world notices when we talk a big game on human rights but we don’t often follow through. I think that the Gulf is getting a message that it can continue with its campaign of unprecedented political repression, business as usual, with very few changes with the relationship with the United States,” Murphy told the Guardian.He added that his critique of US police towards Saudi, the UAE, and Egypt, among others, was that the government’s “asks” are too small.“I don’t think we should be satisfied by just releasing one or two Americans [prisoners] or the Egyptians releasing three or four Americans. I don’t think it suits us to be so deeply wedded to countries that are engaged in these broad dizzying campaigns of political repression.”If passed, the resolution allows Congress to recommend changes to US-Saudi cooperation, with only a 50 vote requirement to pass such changes. Asked for an example on what kind of changes could be imposed, Murphy cited the possibility of new statutory limits on military aid tied to human rights conditions.The US-Saudi relationship appeared to have reached a crossroads in October 2022, when Biden said the Saudis would face “consequences” for having sided with Russia and cut oil production over the objections of the White House just weeks before US midterm elections.But despite the threat, the administration took no action.Asked about why more had not been done to address Saudi abuses, Murphy, who is a senior member of the foreign relations committee, said: “This town is bathed in Gulf money. The sacredness of the US relationship with Saudi Arabia is baked into the DNA of Washington. You are seen as heretical if you suggest the US can get along okay in the world without a deep enduring partnership with the Saudis. I think we have to wake up that it’s not 1979 anymore.”It is not clear when the resolution will be brought for a vote but is backed by human rights experts and dissidents.Maya Foa, Reprieve’s US director, said: “Biden had not only promised to make Saudi Arabia a ‘pariah’ state, but also to hold it accountable. His fist-bump with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman symbolised the craven abandonment of those goals. Perhaps Senate action will help him to honour his promise.”The state department said in a statement to the Guardian: “We reaffirm our longstanding opposition to the use of the death penalty when imposed following trials that do not guarantee fair treatment, as punishment for actions taken as a minor, or for crimes that do not meet the ‘most serious crimes’ threshold for capital punishment, as recognized under international law.”The department also said it continued to regularly raise concerns with Saudi officials about specific cases and the need for broader legal and policy reforms. More

The White House is bracing for political fallout from a looming decision by federal prosecutors over whether to charge Joe Biden’s son Hunter with tax crimes and lying about his drug use when he bought a handgun.In a signal that the investigation is nearing completion, Hunter’s lawyers last month held a meeting with David Weiss, the top federal prosecutor in Delaware, at the justice department in Washington, the Washington Post said. A separate report by CNN noted that Hunter’s longtime lawyer Chris Clark was among those entering the department headquarters.Republicans would be sure to seize on a high-profile criminal case against Hunter, 53, in an effort to inflict political damage on the US president, who last week announced his bid for re-election in 2024.Attacks on Hunter and his alleged laptop in the 2020 campaign fizzled but the 53-year-old is taking an increasingly public role at his father’s side, appearing at a state dinner honouring the French president, Emmanuel Macron; at the Kennedy Center Honors; and on a recent trip to the Republic of Ireland.Hunter’s taxes and foreign business dealings have been under investigation by a federal grand jury in Delaware since at least 2018. His membership on the board of a Ukrainian energy company and his efforts to strike deals in China have raised questions by Republicans about whether he traded on his father’s public service.As the FBI sought to interview him in 2020, Hunter was forced to publicly acknowledge that he was under scrutiny, stating: “I take this matter very seriously but I am confident that a professional and objective review of these matters will demonstrate that I handled my affairs legally and appropriately, including with the benefit of professional tax advisors.”Then media reports last October claimed that federal agents believed they had enough evidence to criminally charge Hunter on two matters: failing to report all his income to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and making a false statement in relation to buying a gun in 2018.According to the Washington Post, Hunter filled out a federal form in which he allegedly answered “no” to the question of whether he was “an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance”. Yet the president’s son has acknowledged his long struggle with drug addiction and, in his 2021 memoir Beautiful Things, recalled spells in 2018 when he smoked crack “every 15 minutes”.If prosecutors agree that evidence is likely to lead to a conviction at trial, it would represent a political gift to Republicans whose efforts to paint the Biden family as corrupt have failed to gain much traction beyond rightwing media.Hunter’s new career as a painter previously raised ethical questions and now his legal and financial woes continue to pile up, posing political risks for his father’s re-election campaign.This week, Hunter was ordered to appear in a court in Arkansas in a paternity case involving Lunden Roberts, a woman with whom he had a child, now four years old. Citing a “substantial material change” in his income, Hunter’s lawyers have been seeking to lower child support payments from what they say are currently $20,000 a month.Republicans, now in control of the House of Representatives, have opened their own investigations into nearly every facet of Hunter’s business dealings, including examining foreign payments and other aspects of his finances. Last month, an IRS special agent requested whistleblower protection to disclose information about alleged political interference and mishandling of the tax investigation.On Friday, the Axios website reported growing disagreement between the White House and Hunter’s own team over how to handle the onslaught. Without consulting his father’s aides, the site said, Hunter hired the lawyer Abbe Lowell to take a more aggressive stance, while his team is planning to create a legal defence fund to help pay mounting bills that have reportedly put him millions of dollars in the red.Richard Painter, a former chief ethics lawyer in George W Bush’s White House, declined to comment on whether he had been approached to act as an adviser to such a fund. “I’m an attorney and I get lots of calls from people who are interested in legal issues,” he said on Friday. “I end up engaging as a lawyer only for a small fraction of those but I’m not at liberty to discuss any of those types of calls publicly under the lawyer’s ethics rules for confidentiality.”A legal defence fund could trigger further ethical problems for the White House. Anthony Coley, a former spokesman for the justice department, told Axios: “For this fund to work, it must be extraordinarily transparent and even restrictive by prohibiting foreign citizens and registered lobbyists from contributing. Without these type of guardrails, the fund will be a legitimate headache for the White House.”Biden has said he has never spoken to his son about foreign business. There are no indications that the federal investigation involves the president. The attorney general, Merrick Garland, told a congressional hearing that he would not interfere with the department’s investigation and had left the matter in the hands of Weiss, the US attorney for Delaware, who would be empowered to expand his investigation outside the state if needed.Larry Jacobs, director of the Center for the Study of Politics and Governance at the University of Minnesota, said: “If Biden’s son gets indicted, that obviously is going to lead to a long process that will most likely continue through the election and will give fodder to Republican claims about Hunter Biden being corrupt.“On the other hand, I’m sure there will be people in the Biden camp, though not Biden himself, who will point to this as evidence of the rule of law, that the change from Trump to Biden is clear. That is, he did not interfere in the justice department’s investigation. It was straight up. It’s kind of good news for America, maybe bad news for Joe Biden’s family.”Whether charges against Hunter would carry much sway with voters remains doubtful, especially if his father faces a rematch against Trump, who recently became the first former president to be indicted and has more legal headaches to come.Henry Olsen, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center thinktank in Washington, commented: “If there’s traction on the things that arguably could have affected policy during his dad’s vice-presidency, that could be troublesome. But if it’s simply troubled guy doing troubled guy things, it’s bad for Hunter and it will be touted a bit in the conservative press but I don’t think it’ll have a significant bearing on the president’s re-election.” More

Rightwing election lawyer Cleta Mitchell, a key ally of Donald Trump as he pushed bogus claims of fraud to overturn Joe Biden’s 2020 win, is facing intense fire from voting watchdogs and bipartisan criticism for urging curbs on college student voting, same day voter registration and absentee voting.The scrutiny of Mitchell, who runs the Election Integrity Network at the pro-Trump Conservative Partnership Institute to which a Trump Pac donated $1m dollars, was sparked by recent comments Mitchell made to Republican donors, and a watchdog report criticizing her advisory role with a federal election panel.Long known for advocating stricter voting rules that are often premised on unsupported allegations of sizable voting fraud, Mitchell last month promoted new voting curbs on students in a talk to a group of wealthy donors to the Republican National Committee, efforts that critics call partisan and undemocratic.Mitchell’s private RNC address to rich donors zeroed in on curbing college campus voting rules, automatic mailing of ballots to registered voters and same-day voter registration, as the Washington Post first reported.The talk by Mitchell, who has done legal work for Republican committees, members of Congress and conservative groups such as the National Rifle Association, focused on college campuses in key swing states including Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, Virginia and Wisconsin, all of which have large college campuses.In an audio of her remarks obtained by liberal journalist Lauren Windsor, Mitchell slammed college voting procedures.“What are these college campus locations? What is this young people effort that they do? They basically put the polling place next to the student dorm so they just have to roll out of bed, vote, and go back to bed.”Further in one part of her presentation cited by the Post, Mitchell charged blithely that “the Left has manipulated the electoral systems to favor one side … theirs. Our constitutional republic’s survival is at stake.”It’s unclear if the RNC will back the latest proposals made by Mitchell, who the committee has worked with previously. But an RNC spokesperson offered effusive praise of Mitchell to the Post, saying: “As the RNC continues to strengthen our Election Integrity program, we are thankful for leaders like Cleta Mitchell who do important work for the Republican ecosystem.”But voting rights watchdogs voice alarm at Mitchell’s proposals to the RNC donor crowd.“Mitchell’s comments behind closed doors give up the game,” said Danielle Lang, the lead voting rights litigator with the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center. “The current wave of additional voter restrictions is about only one thing: punishing disfavored populations of voters.”Lang added: “Sadly, we should not be surprised that Mitchell, who was central to attempts to overturn the will of the people in 2020, speaks so blithely about attacking voters she dislikes.”Similarly, Republicans and Democrats alike deplore Mitchell’s comments to the RNC contributors.“It’s absurd for Cleta Mitchell or others to suggest our path to victory is by making it harder for young people to vote,” said ex-Republican congressman Charlie Dent. “Republicans should not fear how people vote. Good candidates with good messages should resonate with voters.”Key Democrats agree.“Mitchell seems to have a very difficult time separating her partisan agenda from the responsibility we all have to uphold a basic democratic respect for the right to vote,” Democrat House member Jamie Raskin told the Guardian.Mitchell didn’t respond to a Guardian request for comment about her RNC remarks.Besides the firestorm over Mitchell’s RNC remarks, she is facing more heat related to other recent efforts she has made to restrict voting rights.Mitchell has served for over a year on a bipartisan advisory board for the federal Election Assistance Commission, a post that she’s used to promote curbs on mail in voting, voter registration and student voting, according to an April report from the watchdog group American Oversight.American Oversight’s study, which came after it obtained Mitchell emails from 2020- 2022 using the Freedom of information Act, included some exchanges where Mitchell suggested legal challenges to absentee voting rules and attacked a voting rights group while serving on the EAC advisory board.“Cleta Mitchell played a central role in former President Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election,” said American Oversight executive director Heather Sawyer “So it isn’t surprising that she has used her role as an advisor to the Election Assistance Commission to push an explicitly anti-voting agenda.”“She has disparaged voting rights organizations, called for challenging absentee voting procedures, and is urging new rules that would make voting harder for students and working people. Mitchell’s partisan and ideological commitment to restricting ballot access has no place at an agency tasked with helping states administer free and fair elections.”The fears over Mitchell’s blunt advocacy for curbing student and other voting rights, comes after her role advising Trump as he tried to overturn Biden’s win in 2020 has received legal scrutiny in Georgia. It also comes amid criticism of aggressive poll watching drives she pushed for in 2022 through her Election Integrity Network.Mitchell was subpoenaed last year, along with several other key Trump lawyers and allies including Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman, by a special grand jury in Georgia in a wide ranging criminal probe by Fulton county district attorney Fani Willis into efforts by Trump and his allies to thwart Biden’s win in the state.A major focus of that inquiry is Trump’s hour-long conference call on 2 January 2021, which Mitchell participated in, pressuring Georgia’s Republican secretary of state Brad Raffensperger to just “find” him 11,780 votes to block Biden’s win there.Trump falsely claimed that “we won by hundreds of thousands of votes” and vaguely warned Raffensperger of a “criminal offense” to which the Georgia official replied “the data you have is wrong”.The Fulton county inquiry is widely expected to lead to several indictments including quite possibly Trump, and Willis has said she will make final decisions about who will be charged this summer.Just days after the 2021 call with Raffensperger, Mitchell abruptly left her long time law firm Foley & Lardner, and soon joined the Conservative Partnership Institute as senior legal fellow, where she has led its self styled Election Integrity Network and advocated for curb voting rights.CPI has flourished financially since Mitchell and Trump’s former chief of staff Mark Meadows, CPI’s senior partner, joined in early 2021.CPI’s tax filings for 2021 showed grants and contributions of $45m up from $7.1m the prior year.In other conservative circles, Mitchell wields considerable influence as a board member of the right wing Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation and as chair of the Public Interest Legal Foundation’s board.Now though, Mitchell’s latest attacks on student voting rules are viewed by watchdog groups and some members of Congress as badly misguided, and emblematic of her partisan agenda.“We should applaud, not bemoan, equitable access to voting for students.Our young people will inherit our democracy but participate at some of the lowest rates,” Lang of the Campaign Legal Center said. “While that is improving, young people still face disproportionate burdens in voter registration and voter access.”In a similar vein, Raskin said: “Mitchell’s attacks on college student voting are directly reflective of the GOP’s increasing electoral losses among young people.”Mitchell and Republicans, he added, ought to focus on policies and candidates that “actually appeal to young voters, rather than a legislative program to stop them from voting.”. More

US supreme court justice Clarence Thomas’s ties to conservative political figures is an American embarrassment, and the question is whether that is shameful enough to the country’s highest-ranking judge to do something about it, the Senate judiciary committee’s chairperson said on Sunday.“This tangled web around justice … Thomas just gets worse and worse by the day,” Illinois’s senior Democratic senator, Dick Durbin, said on CNN’s State of the Union. “I don’t know what is going to come up next. I thought I heard it all, but disclosures about his activities just embarrass me.”Durbin, who is also the majority whip in the upper congressional chamber, added: “The question is whether it embarrasses the supreme court and … chief justice [John] Roberts, [who] has the power in his hands to change this first thing tomorrow morning.”In an interview with host Jake Tapper, the four-term senator called on Roberts to implement a supreme court code of conduct “that finally means something” and requires its nine justices to subject themselves “to at least the minimal standards that apply to all other federal judges”.“This is the Roberts court,” Durbin said. “History is going to judge him by the decision he makes on this. He has the power to make the difference.”Durbin’s remarks taking aim at Thomas and Roberts come after days of controversy surrounding the relationships between some high court justices and people with business before their bench.On Thursday, ProPublica reported that Republican mega-donor Harlan Crow paid for the great-nephew of Thomas – whom the conservative justice raised as a son – to attend a private boarding school. Crow had also provided Thomas luxury travel and resort stays. And he had bought from Thomas a home where the justice’s mother still lives.Thomas did not declare any of that before siding with the supreme court’s conservative majority in major rulings, including one last year that removed the federal right to an abortion. The Guardian has also reported that Crow had business before the supreme court during his deep friendship with Thomas.Also on Thursday, the Washington Post published an investigation which found that rightwing legal activist Leonard Leo arranged for Thomas’s wife, conservative activist Ginni Thomas, to receive tens of thousands of dollars for consulting work between 2011 and 2012. Leo made it a point for Ginni Thomas’s name to be omitted from pertinent billing paperwork, and an organization which he leads has repeatedly submitted briefs that outside groups use to share insights with supreme court justices, according to the Post.Meanwhile, last month, Politico reported that Thomas’s fellow conservative justice Neil Gorsuch pocketed up to $500,000 from a property sale shortly after joining the supreme court but did not disclose that the buyer led a law firm with business before the high court.Thomas has said he was advised that he didn’t have to declare such gifts but pledged to begin following ethics guidelines. Gorsuch has not commented.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionSome have argued that such disclosures about the relationships between supreme court justices and certain parties amount to exposed corruption. Durbin recently invited Roberts to appear in his role as supreme court chief justice before the Senate judiciary committee to address the reporting on Thomas and Gorsuch.But Roberts declined and instead simply forwarded “a statement of ethics and principles and practice to which all current members of the supreme court subscribe”.Durbin countered in a letter that the statement Roberts sent over “raises more questions than it resolves”.The senator told Tapper on Sunday that everything about the revelations around Thomas and Gorsuch as well as Roberts’s reaction “stinks”.Seemingly alluding to recent polling which showed that public confidence in the supreme court has plummeted to historic lows, Durbin said: “You shouldn’t have that sort of thing happening at the highest court in America. It just destroys the integrity of the court.” More

Seven people have been killed and 10 others were injured after a car plowed into a crowd outside a shelter serving migrants and homeless people in Brownsville, Texas, on Sunday, and investigators believe it may have been intentional, according to authorities.The car careened into the crowd of people who were sitting on the curb at a bus stop near the Ozanam Center at about 8.30am, the police department in Brownsville, which is near Texas’s border with Mexico, said. That came four days before the scheduled expiration of Title 42, the Covid-19 era policy that allows border patrol agents to swiftly expel migrants at the US’s southern border.Shelter director Victor Maldonado told the Associated Press that upon reviewing the shelter’s surveillance footage, he saw an SUV run a light and plow into the crowd of people who were at the bus stop. The majority of those who were injured or killed were Venezuelan men.“What we see in the video is that this SUV, a Range Rover, just ran the light that was about a hundred feet away and just went through the people who were sitting there in the bus stop,” Maldonado said.Police lieutenant Martin Sandoval told the news outlet Valley Central that seven victims died at the scene, and several others were rushed to nearby hospitals.Video footage posted online showed crowds of people at the scene while clothes and other personal items were strewn all over the road. Several people appeared to be tending to an individual who was lying on a grassy area.Sandoval said the driver was arrested and booked on a count of reckless driving. More charges are likely to be filed in what officers suspect may have been an intentional act, Sandoval added.“It can be three factors,” Sandoval told the Associated Press. “It could be intoxication; it could be an accident; or it could be intentional. In order for us to find out exactly what happened, we have to eliminate the other two.”He added that the driver was transported to a nearby hospital for injuries he sustained after the car rolled over and that no passengers were with him.“He’s being very uncooperative at the hospital, but he will be transported to our city jail as soon as he gets released,” said Sandoval, adding that the detained driver had given officers several different names. “Then we’ll fingerprint him and [take a] mug shot, and then we can find his true identity.”Police have also obtained a blood sample from the driver and have submitted it to be tested for possible intoxicants.The Ozanam Center is the only overnight shelter in Brownsville and manages the release of thousands of migrants from federal custody, and it offers free transportation for migrants.“In the last two months, we’ve been getting 250 to 380 a day,” Maldonado told the Associated Press, adding that even though the shelter can hold up to 250 migrants, many who arrive also leave on the same day.“Some of them were on the way to the bus station, because they were on their way to their destination,” he said.Two days earlier, the US homeland security secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas, said that immigration authorities faced “extremely challenging” circumstances along the border with Mexico days before the end of asylum restrictions implemented through Title 42 during the Covid-19 pandemic.A surge of Venezuelan migrants through south Texas, particularly in and around the border community of Brownsville, has occurred over the last two weeks for reasons that Mayorkas said were unclear.On Thursday, 4,000 of about 6,000 migrants in border patrol custody in Texas’s Rio Grande valley were Venezuelan. More

US senator Kyrsten Sinema has vowed to never join the Republican party after she changed her party affiliation from Democrat to independent late last year.In an interview aired on Sunday on CBS’s Face the Nation, the Arizona senator said that she is “absolutely” done with the country’s two-party political system.The show’s host, Margaret Brennan, asked: “Now that you’re an independent, you’ll never become a Republican?”“No,” said Sinema, who has been accused of actually being a Republican after past legislative actions that have been hostile to Democrats’ agenda. She added: “You don’t go from one broken party to another.”Sinema elaborated by saying: “Arizona is one of the states that has the highest level of independents in the country. We are a state of folks who don’t often march to the drum that is being taught to us, right. So most of us don’t fit neatly in one box or another. And I think the challenge that we have right now in our political discourse is to make it OK for folks to think on their own.”Reports emerged last month that Sinema was preparing to run for re-election in 2024 as an independent after landing her office as a Democratic candidate in 2018.Those reports came after Sinema in December switched her party affiliation from Democrat to independent. She announced the change almost immediately after Democrats and independents who caucus with them had secured a 51-49 majority in the Senate.“I have joined the growing numbers of Arizonans who reject party politics by declaring my independence from the broken partisan system in Washington,” Sinema said in a statement at the time.Despite reports about her re-election plans, Sinema herself has remained tight-lipped in that respect.“It sounds like you want a second … term,” Brennan told Sinema in the interview aired on Sunday. Sinema replied: “I’m not here to talk about elections today.”Brennan countered, “Why keep people guessing?”Sinema said: “I want to stay focused on the work that I’m doing. I hope folks who are here today can tell how much it matters to me to actually make progress, solve challenges, deliver results.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“That is why I get up and go to work every day. I don’t get up and go to work every day so that people can say, you know, is she running again or not? That’s just not my concern.”During her first term as senator, Sinema has often withheld her support for various legislative initiatives put forth by the Joe Biden White House, including voting rights protections. That drew the ire of progressives, many of her colleagues and supporters of the Democratic president.Sinema nevertheless has maintained that she has a working relationship with the White House – particularly on immigration reform legislation – despite her changed party affiliation.“I talked to the White House several times this week. I feel confident that if we are able to get a workable plan that has the support of 60-plus senators in the United States Senate, I feel confident that President Biden would support it. I feel confident,” said Sinema.Sinema’s pursuit of another Senate term as an independent could mean a competitive three-way race for her seat in Arizona. Democratic US House representative Ruben Gallego, 43, has declared as a candidate, and unsuccessful 2022 Republican gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake, 53, has said she is exploring a run. More

Texas US senator Ted Cruz’s comment Saturday that he was “praying” for families of the eight victims killed in a shooting at a shopping mall in his state has sparked outrage as many critics say the Republican should advocate for meaningful gun control rather than repeatedly invoke prayer after mass, deadly violence.Cruz and other fellow Texas Republicans have faced similar backlash for citing general emotional support, thoughts, prayers, or a combination thereof after the slayings in Allen, Texas, on Saturday.Criticism of Cruz grew several hours after the shooting when he tweeted: “Heidi and I are praying for the families of the victims of the horrific mall shooting in Allen, Texas. We pray also for the broader Collin county community that’s in shock from this tragedy.”Shannon Watts, founder of gun safety group Moms Demand Action, said on Twitter: “YOU helped arm him with guns, ammo and tactical gear. He did exactly what you knew he’d do. Spare us your prayers and talk of justice for a gunman who is … dead”.“The only accountability we can hope for is that gun extremists like you are thrown into the ash heap of history.”Star Trek actor George Takei added: “You’re worse than useless.”Another Twitter user said thoughts and prayers “are nothing but blasphemy and evil”. Yet another quipped: “Have you tried turning the prayer machine off and back on again.”Cruz has received more than $442,000 from organization which support keeping guns as accessible as possible, according to Axios and Open Secrets. He has used language referring to thought and prayers rather than restrictions on guns in reaction to other previous mass shootings in his state.After a gunman killed 19 children and two teachers at the Robb Elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, on 24 May 2022, Cruz commented: “Heidi and I are lifting up in prayer the entire … community during this devastating time and we mourn the lives that were taken by this act of evil. None of us can imagine the anguish the parents in Uvalde are going through. Our hearts go out to them.”In response to a racist shooting at an El Paso Walmart that left 23 dead in August 2019, Cruz similarly said: “Heidi & I are praying for everyone in El Paso. As events continue to unfold, please heed any warnings from local authorities and law enforcement and stay safe. #Pray4ElPaso.”Cruz’s comment on a shooting that left two dead near one of his state’s universities a couple of months later was: “Heidi and I are lifting up in prayer those who were killed and injured in last night’s shooting at an off-campus party at Texas A&M Commerce @tamuc.”Cruz has offered more than prayers in response to certain mass shootings, though, such as commentary on immigration policy. After authorities said that a Mexican national who had previously been deported shot five neighbors to death last month, Cruz tweeted: “Thank you to the brave men and women of law enforcement who worked tirelessly to apprehend this mass murdering illegal alien who killed 5 innocent people. The victims deserve justice. And this monster when convicted deserves the death penalty.”In the hours and days leading up to Saturday’s shooting in Allen, Cruz touted his support of gun rights. Early Saturday afternoon, he retweeted a Senate Republicans post stating: “Ted Cruz’s challenger said he wishes the second amendment wasn’t written. Beto 2.0?”Early on Saturday, Cruz said of declared 2024 challenger Colin Allred, a Democratic congressman: “Wow. This guy wants to represent Texas??” quoting him saying “Would it be better if [the second amendment] had not been written? Of course. But there’s no chance that we’re going to repeal” it.Cruz used googly eyes in his tweet, which referred to the constitutional right for Americans to bear arms.Republican US congressman Keith Self, whose district includes Allen, bristled on Sunday when asked about invoking spirituality after mass shootings like the one a day earlier.Citing law enforcement sources, NBC News and CNN identified the shooter as 33-year-old Mauricio Garcia. NBC News described Garcia as a neo-Nazi sympathizer.“Those are people that don’t believe in an almighty God who is absolutely in control of our lives,” Self told CNN. “I’m a Christian – I believe that he is.”Self went on to argue that the US’s lack of adequate mental health treatment was to blame for mass shootings. And then he said that the country’s focus should be on praying for the Allen victims’ families.Texas’s Republican governor, Greg Abbott, also sought to redirect the public conversation about the Allen mall shooting to mental health. Eve“People want a quick solution,” Abbott said on Fox News Sunday. “The long-term solution here is to address the mental health issue.”Abbott’s comment on mental health came after host Shannon Bream noted that a Fox News poll revealed that 80% of participants supported gun control measures, such as raising the minimum age to buy a firearm and mental health checks. Fox News’s viewers are largely Republican.Neither Cruz, Abbott nor Self immediately responded to requests for comment.Despite Texas’s history of mass shootings, Abbott in 2021 signed a law which allowed the state’s residents to legally carry guns without a license or training. Meanwhile, a federal judge last year struck down one of Texas’s few remaining gun restrictions, which barred people younger than 21 from carrying a handgun. More