Biden administration

Subterms

    More stories

    • 188 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Five days out, Arab Americans are split on Harris v Trump: vote ‘strategically’ or ‘morally’?

      by

      It’s a Saturday afternoon at Al Madina Halal market and restaurant in Norcross, Georgia, and the line is four people deep for shawarma sandwiches or leg of lamb with saffron rice and two sides.A television on the wall by a group of tables has Al Jazeera correspondents reporting from several countries on a split screen about Israel’s attack on Iranian military targets the day before.Mohammad Hejja is drinking yogurt, surveying the bustle in the store he bought in 2012. There are shoppers and employees from Sudan, Ethiopia, Iran, Pakistan, Morocco and other countries – a clear sign of what makes surrounding Gwinnett county, with nearly a million residents, the most diverse in the south-east.Hejja has Jordanian and US citizenship, but his family is Palestinian. Soldiers of the nascent nation of Israel drove his grandparents out of Palestine in the 1948 Nakba – the Palestinian catastrophe caused by Israel’s creation.Asked about how he expects his community to vote when Americans head to the polls next week, he says: “Everybody is confused about this election.” His No 1 concern is to “stop the war”, referring to Israel’s ongoing bombardment of Gaza and recent attacks on Lebanon.The issue is top of mind for Arab American voters nationwide. Some polls suggest Arab Americans could abandon the Democrats in droves over the Biden administration’s support for Israel; elsewhere, advocates and community leaders are urgently organizing to prevent a Donald Trump victory, warning about impacts in the Middle East and on domestic issues such as immigration if the GOP candidate is re-elected.Less than a week from 5 November, one thing is certain: “You cannot assess Arabs as a coherent voting bloc,” says Kareem Rifai, a Syrian-American graduate student at Georgetown’s Walsh School of Foreign Service. Rifai, who co-founded the University of Michigan Students for Biden chapter in 2020, calls himself a “foreign policy voter”, and is sticking with the Democratic candidate this cycle due to the party’s “strong stance on Russia”.Rifai weighed in on the Arab American vote on X recently, saying he was “pulling out my Arab Muslim from Metro-Detroit card” to let non-Arabs know that people hailing from across the Arab world have differing takes on the upcoming election.“Pro-Hezbollah socially conservative Arab community leaders … are not representative of Arab Americans in the same way that secular liberal Arabs or Christian anti-Hezbollah Arabs, etc, etc, are not representative of all Arab Americans,” Rifai wrote.At the same time, before this year, Arab Americans were clearer in their preference for Democrats – at this time in 2020, Joe Biden led Trump by 24 points, and exit polls showed that more than 85% of Arab American voters backed Democrats in 2004 and 2008.Today, Arab American voters seem more willing to look past Trump’s ban on travel from certain Muslim-majority countries – and his vow to reimpose a ban if re-elected – as well as his staunch support for Israel.Michigan, Rifai’s home state, is home to an estimated 392,000-plus Arab Americans – one of 12 states in which 75% of the nation’s estimated 3.7 million Arab Americans live.But as if to underscore its swing state status, dueling endorsements of Donald Trump and Kamala Harris have come from Michigan in the last week alone. Over the weekend, a Yemeni-American organization upheld Trump as capable of “restoring stability in the Middle East”. The following day, a group assembled at the American Arab Chamber of Commerce in Dearborn, Michigan, to back Harris, calling her “the first to call for a ceasefire and also to call for Palestinian self-determination”. (The statement also noted that “Arab Americans are not a single-issue people, we care about the environment, an existential issue for families and children, workers, rights and a fair wage, civil rights, women’s rights and so much more.”)Also in the last week, dozens of “Palestinian, Arab, Muslim and Progressive” leaders in Arizona issued a statement backing Harris, underlining that support for an arms embargo on Israel and a ceasefire in Gaza has mainly come from Democrats. “In our view, it is crystal clear that allowing the fascist Donald Trump to become President again would be the worst possible outcome for the Palestinian people. A Trump win would be an extreme danger to Muslims in our country, all immigrants, and the American pro-Palestine movement,” the statement says.Arizona is home to an estimated 77,000 Arab Americans, according to the Arab American Institute.Meanwhile, back in swing state Georgia – with its estimated 58,000 Arab Americans – the staterepresentative Ruwa Romman spoke about her choice to vote for Kamala Harris.Romman is the first Muslim woman elected to the Georgia statehouse and the first Palestinian to hold public office in the state’s history. Speaking with fellow Muslims and Arabs about this election “feels like talking about politics at a funeral”, she wrote in a recent article for Rolling Stone.She believes that organizing for a ceasefire in Gaza and an arms embargo would be easier under a Harris administration. “I don’t know how advocating for Palestine would survive under Trump,” she said, adding that many of her constituents – including immigrants – would suffer if he were re-elected.Over at Al Madina, owner Hejja was arriving at a different conclusion. His wife has aunts in Gaza; she had not been able to reach them in three weeks. “The minimum thing we can do is pray five times a day,” he said.As for the election, he said: “If the president of the United States wants to stop the war, he can – with one phone call to Israel. He has the power.” Hejja believes “if Trump wins, Netanyahu will stop the war … [Trump] said he wants peace, and I believe him.”About 12 miles south-west, at Emory University – site of some of the harshest police responses to pro-Palestinian protests early this year – the Syrian-American senior Ibrahim had already sent an absentee ballot to his home state of Kentucky, marked for the Green party’s Jill Stein. “I see it as an ethical decision,” he said of his first time voting for president.“Voting for an administration that is supporting genocide crosses an ethical red line,” he added, referring to Harris.Fellow student Michael Krayyem, whose father is Palestinian, said he would “probably be voting down-ballot” on 5 November, but not for president. “I can’t support Kamala Harris because of what her administration has done to my people,” he said.Romman says she feels this dilemma facing fellow Arab Americans deeply. At the same time, she says: “Ultimately, in this election, I view voting as a strategic choice, and no longer a moral one.” More

    • 213 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump wants you to believe that the US economy is doing terribly. It’s untrue | Steven Greenhouse

      by

      If Donald Trump wins next week’s election, it would be the first time in US history that a candidate wins based on such a huge lie – his falsehood that we have “the worst economy ever”. The former president’s big lie has distorted the views of millions of Americans, wrongly convincing many that the US economy is in bad shape.There’s no denying that many Americans are struggling economically and that inflation was painfully high back in 2022, but inflation is far lower now, and most economists agree that our economy is strong. The unemployment rate is low, inflation is way down, economic growth is solid, and job growth has been remarkably strong. Indeed, the country has added nearly 18m jobs – a record – under the Biden-Harris administration. Not only that, median household income has climbed to $80,610, higher than it was in Trump’s last year in office.“In the 35 years I’ve been an economist, I’ve rarely seen an economy performing as well as it is,” Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Analytics, said recently. “I’d give it an A+.” But the US public, still upset about the surge in inflation several years ago, sees things very differently: 62% say the economy is in bad shape, while just 38% say it’s in good shape, according to an October AP-NORC poll.The public holds this negative view even though there’s been very good news for blue-collar workers: the US has added more than 700,000 factory jobs under the Biden-Harris administration, far more than during Trump’s presidency, indeed more than under any president since the 1970s. There’s also been good news for small businesses – a record 19m new business applications have been filed under Biden. There’s also good news for the wealthy – the stock market has climbed to record levels, which is Wall Street’s way of saying the economy is in excellent shape. Let’s not forget that Trump warned that if Biden was elected president, the stock market would crash. Wrong again, Donald. Under Biden, the Dow Jones Industrial Average is 36% higher than when Trump left office, and the S&P 500 is 53% higher.Trump’s repeated claim that today’s economy is the worst ever shows either an appalling ignorance of history or an appalling contempt for the truth. The truth is that the economy was in far worse shape during Trump’s last year in office, when the unemployment rate soared to 14.8% during the pandemic, compared with 4.1% now. Moreover, there were many other times when the economy was in worse shape – it was worse during the 2008 recession under George W Bush, far worse during the 1980-81 and 1974-75 recessions, and catastrophically worse during the Great Depression of the 1930s. When Trump tells his Maga crowds that today’s economy is the worst ever, he’s taking everyone for an idiot.The US economy has grown the fastest among major industrial nations since the pandemic began. Our economy has grown twice as fast as Canada’s, three times as fast as France’s and Japan’s, and four times as fast as Britain’s. Under Biden, the average unemployment rate has been lower than under any president since Lyndon Johnson.If Harris loses to Trump, historians and economists will long debate why she lost while Ronald Reagan was re-elected in a landslide in 1984 even though unemployment was far higher back then (7.2% versus 4.1% today), inflation was higher (4% versus 2.4% today), and the Federal Reserve’s interest rates were far higher (10% versus 5% today). One thing working for Reagan was that GDP growth was strong in 1984.Don’t get me wrong, today’s economy has serious problems. Millions of Americans are struggling, but it’s wrong to blame Biden and Harris for that. I’ve been writing about America’s workers and economy for more than 40 years – from Reagan to Clinton to Trump to Biden – and under every president, millions of American have struggled economically. Trump makes believe that far more Americans are struggling now than ever before, but that’s just not true. Take this important statistic: 11.1% of Americans currently fall below the poverty line. That’s essentially the same percentage as under Trump and is only slightly above its lowest point in half a century.Many Americans say the economy is in poor shape mainly because of their lingering dismay about the high inflation from mid-2021 to mid-2023. But they may not know that wages have risen faster than inflation over the past two years and that real wages are higher than before the pandemic. Trump blames Biden and Harris for causing inflation, but they weren’t the cause. The two main causes were the pandemic’s closing factories and disrupting supply chains worldwide and Russia’s war against Ukraine, which increased energy and food prices. Americans complain that gas prices are higher, but that’s Vladimir Putin’s and Opec’s fault, not Biden’s or Harris’s. US oil production has hit record levels.Housing affordability remains a big problem. Not only have housing prices soared, but high interest rates – which are finally coming down – have made it far too difficult for many Americans to buy a house. Again, the housing squeeze is not Biden’s or Harris’s fault; it was caused by a huge slowdown in housing production that began during the 2008 recession.It’s unfortunate that Trump’s dishonesty and deceit too often make us focus on his lies rather on something far more important: the future, and what a second Trump term would mean for the country. Many economists warn of disaster if Trump wins. They warn that his plan to impose tariffs or taxes on all imported goods will send inflation soaring and ignite a dangerous trade war that could cause a recession and throw millions out of work. Economists also warn that Trump’s plans, including his plan to slash taxes on the wealthy and corporations, not only will increase the federal debt by a colossal $7.8tn, but could bankrupt the social security system and lead to a 33% across-the-board cut in social security benefits.No wonder 23 Nobel Prize-winning economists signed a recent letter calling Trump’s economic agenda “counterproductive” and warning that it “will lead to higher prices, larger deficits, and greater inequality”.In contrast to Trump, Kamala Harris has specific plans to improve the economy and help Americans cope with high prices. She has pledged to build 3m new housing units to help bring down housing prices. She also plans to give $25,000 in down payment assistance to first-time homebuyers. To help with the high cost of raising a family, she has called for creating a $3,600 tax credit per child and $6,000 for newborns. Recognizing how expensive caregiving needs can be, she wants to create a trailblazing Medicare at Home program to help pay for care for ageing parents.Nobel-winning economists said Harris’s economic agenda is “vastly superior” to Trump’s and “will improve our nation’s” employment opportunities, health, investment and fairness.American voters have a clear choice. They can choose Harris’s agenda, which promises a stronger, fairer economy, or Trump’s agenda, which will bring a worse, less stable economy with higher prices and less fairness.Unlike Trump, I’ll be honest and won’t claim that his economic agenda will bring the worst economy ever, even though his agenda looks plenty dangerous.

      Steven Greenhouse is a journalist and author, focusing on labour and the workplace More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump uses North Carolina visit to reiterate hurricane relief conspiracies

      by

      Donald Trump on Monday used a trip to a hurricane-ravaged part of North Carolina to double down on false claims about the federal government’s recovery effort and promote baseless conspiracy theories about immigration.Trump claimed the Biden administration had not done enough work for recovery and aid in North Carolina, saying instead the federal government spent its resources on “illegal migrants”, three weeks after a hurricane devasted the state.Trump and some other Republicans have earned widespread condemnation for boosting false claims around the recovery effort in the state. They have ranged from claims that the US government can influence the weather to theories that crucial aid was being withheld, prompting some government officials to warn of threats to federal emergency workers.But Trump did not hold back in his attacks. After surveying damage in western North Carolina, Trump gave a press conference in the city of Asheville, saying that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (Fema) had been gutted by the Biden administration and was doing a “poor” job in helping residents of the state affected by the hurricane.“The power of nature, nothing you can do about it. But you got to get a little bit better crew in to do a better job than has been done by the White House, because it’s not good, not good,” the Republican presidential candidate said.Hurricane Helene, which struck the US eastern coast on 27 September has led to the deaths of 95 people in North Carolina and widespread damage. Nearly 5,000 roads remained closed as of Sunday, with more than 8,000 people approved to receive individual assistance from Fema.During his press conference, Trump encouraged voters in North Carolina to get out and vote, despite the destruction in the state.He also pointed to the Biden administration, saying the White House has limited Fema’s recovery efforts, deciding to instead spend money on “illegal migrants”, implying it may have been done to possibly influence the 2024 elections.“They were not supposed to be spending the money on taking in illegal migrants, maybe so they could vote in the election, because that’s a lot of people are saying that’s why they’re doing it – I don’t know, I hope that’s not why they’re doing it,” Trump said.Fema is under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which also oversees the major federal immigration agencies: Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.“They’ve spent it on illegal migrants,” Trump said, in reference to federal government money. “Many of them are murderers, many of them are drug dealers, many of them come out of mental institutions and insane asylums, and many of them are terrorists.”Immigration has been a major campaign issue for both political parties. As Republicans accuse Democrats of being “soft” on immigration enforcement policies, the Democratic party has shifted to the right, pushing for tougher immigration policies. This year, the Biden administration put in place significant changes to asylum policy, restricting access to asylum at the US ports of entry.

      Don’t miss important US election coverage. Get our free app and sign up for election alerts
      Trump, in similar fashion to his 2016 presidential campaign, has continued to demonize immigrants and asylum seekers, claiming they are bringing more crime to the USand placing Americans at risk and using racist language and imagery.Last month, the Trump-Vance campaign circulated false rumors that Haitian immigrants were eating pets in Ohio. The campaign also promoted false and sensational rumors that a Venezuelan gang had taken over an apartment complex in Colorado.“They spent money to bring these people into our country, and they don’t have the money to take care of the people from North Carolina and other states,” Trump said on Monday about the Biden administration.Trump also said that, if he is elected, he would help reconstruction efforts in North Carolina by slashing “every bureaucratic barrier” and would recruit businesses to operate in the state “through the proper use of taxation incentives and tariffs – one of the most beautiful words that nobody understands, or very few people understand”. More

    • 188 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Fox News’s interview of Kamala Harris was grievance theater, not political journalism | Margaret Sullivan

      by

      Bret Baier started off his Wednesday evening interview with Kamala Harris with a barrage of combative questions about immigration, designed less to elicit substantive answers than to prove what a tough guy the Fox host could be.His aggressive approach was understandable, in a way, since Baier had been under pressure for days from the Donald Trump faithful; they were convinced he was going to go easy on the Democratic nominee for president, and maybe even allow her campaign to edit the interview or see the questions in advance.So, Baier came out guns blazing, barely allowing the vice-president to finish a sentence before jumping in with objections and arguments.After 10 minutes of playing immigration “gotcha”, Baier pivoted to the obvious next subject, airing a video clip in which Harris expressed support for transgender people in prisons.Immigrant hatred. Transphobia. And later, Joe Biden’s age. Baier was running through the Fox News greatest hits playlist.This was grievance theater, not political journalism.But Harris got in her licks. She had her moments.Chiming in afterwards in what some saw as corporate damage control, Baier’s colleagues on Fox News gushed their approval. Martha MacCallum termed Baier’s performance “masterful”, while Dana Perino analyzed the interview as “super good”.I can’t imagine that too many viewers agreed. If they came to it expecting to learn more about Harris’s policies or get a true sense of her character, they would have been disappointed. That wasn’t the gameplan, and it wasn’t the result.But Harris accomplished something anyway.Merely by sitting down with a Fox host, she made a few statements.First, that she is unafraid and is willing to speak to all voters. It’s hard to imagine Donald Trump, these days, submitting to an interview with, say, Rachel Maddow of MSNBC; just this week, he turned away from a CNBC interview, and earlier canceled a CBS News 60 Minutes agreement.Second, Harris did manage to introduce a few snippets of reality to dedicated Fox viewers who probably haven’t been exposed to some of the most troubling criticisms of Trump.“That he’s unfit to serve. That he’s unstable. That’s he’s dangerous,” was how she characterized what millions of Americans are feeling. “And that people are exhausted.”She even was able to mention, at some length, the harsh view of the former commander-in-chief from Mark Milley, who served in two top military roles – including chair of the joint chiefs of staff – during the Trump administration.Milley has called Trump “fascist to the core” and has said that no one has ever been as dangerous to the United States.So maybe this was what one leading expert on Fox News, Brian Stelter, called the Harris campaign’s “Google strategy”. On CNN, Stelter speculated that viewers might hear these comments and go searching online for more, thus piercing the information bubble they’ve been living in.No doubt, the vast majority of regular Fox viewers have their minds made up – they’re sticking with Trump. No matter his mental decline. No matter his felony convictions. No matter the threats he makes or the threats he poses.But there may be a small percentage of the millions who tuned in who – despite all the noise and interruptions – managed to hear a reasonable, intelligent and stable alternative to Trump. Maybe some of them live in the key swing state of Pennsylvania, where the interview was recorded, or in Wisconsin or Michigan.In this coin flip of an election, even that tiny adjustment might make all the difference.

      Margaret Sullivan is a Guardian US columnist writing on media, politics and culture More

    • 188 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      US warns Israel of potential halt to arms transfers if Gaza aid is not distributed

      by

      The Biden administration has warned Israel that it faces possible punishment, including the potential stopping of US weapons transfers, if it does not take immediate action to let more humanitarian aid into Gaza.A letter written jointly by Antony Blinken, the US secretary of state, and Lloyd Austin, the defence secretary, exhorts Benjamin Netanyahu’s government to ease humanitarian suffering in the territory by lifting restrictions on the entry of assistance within 30 days or face unspecified policy “implications”.The four-page missive, dated 13 October, was sent to Yoav Gallant, the Israeli defence minister, and Ron Dermer, the strategic affairs minister, and came to light after being posted on social media by Barak Ravid, an Israeli journalist who works for Axios, after apparently being leaked.Its authenticity was confirmed by a state department spokesperson, Matthew Miller, at a news briefing on Tuesday.Humanitarian groups have made repeated calls for increased deliveries of food and medicine to Gaza, but aid shipments to the embattled territory are currently at their lowest level in months, the UN said last week.Miller said the US side had intended the letter to be a private diplomatic communication and said its timing was not influenced by next month’s presidential election, which features a knife-edge contest in the battleground state of Michigan, where many Arab American voters have voiced anger over the White House’s support for Israel’s conduct of the war.Democrat strategists harbour fears that discontent over Gaza could result in Kamala Harris, the vice-president and party nominee, losing the state to Donald Trump in the 5 November poll.The letter complains of delays to US-funded aid at crossing points into Gaza and says the flow of assistance into the war-devastated territory has dropped by more than 50% since Israel promised last March to allow more deliveries.“We are particularly concerned that recent actions by the Israeli government … are contributing to an accelerated deterioration in the conditions in Gaza,” it says.White House national security spokesman John Kirby said that the letter was not intended as a threat, but “was simply meant to reiterate the sense of urgency we feel and the seriousness with which we feel it, about the need for an increase, a dramatic increase in humanitarian assistance”.After an uptick in assistance following communications between the US and Israel in March and April, aid volumes entering the strip in September fell to their lowest level, Blinken and Austin wrote, since last October, when Israel launched a massive military offensive in retaliation for an attack by Hamas that killed about 1,200 Israelis, and led to more than 250 being taken hostage.“To reverse the downward humanitarian trajectory and consistent with its assurances to us, Israel must, starting now and within 30 days, act” on a series of specific steps, including letting in at least 350 aid trucks daily and instituting humanitarian pauses to Israeli military activity.The letter adds: “Failure to demonstrate a sustained commitment to implementing and maintaining these measure may have implications for US policy under NSM-20 and relevant US law.”NSM-20 refers to a memorandum issued by the White House national security council, which allows for “appropriate next steps” if a country receiving US military aid is deemed by the state department or the Pentagon not to be meeting prior assurances of allowing the delivery of humanitarian assistance.“Such remediation could include actions from refreshing the assurances to suspending any further transfers of defense articles or, as appropriate, defense services,” the memorandum states.Congressional Republicans have called on the White House to revoke NSM-20 calling it “redundant” and dismissing it as aimed at “placat[ing] critics of security assistance to our vital ally Israel”.Other relevant legislation that could be invoked include section 620I of the Foreign Assistance Act and the Leahy Act, which preclude the US government from providing military assistance or selling arms to countries that restrict humanitarian aid or violate human rights.Miller, the state department spokesperson, declined to go into specific when asked what consequences Israel might face for refusing to meet American demands for greater aid access.He said that a previous letter Blinken had written in April had increased humanitarian aid flows. An Israeli official confirmed that the latest letter had been received but did not discuss the details, the Associated Press reported.Miller also said that Blinken had seen footages showing at least one Palestinian burned alive after an Israeli strike set tents ablaze outside a Gaza hospital.“We all saw that video, and all know that it’s horrifying to see people burned to death. We have made clear our serious concerns about the matter directly with the government of Israel.”The US has made repeated exhortations to allow increased aid into the enclave, but Netanyahu has frequently ignored such entreaties to moderate its conduct of the war in Gaza.Last week, UN spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric said that the three hospitals still operating in northern Gaza face “dire shortages” of fuel, medicine and blood, while food supplies are dwindling.Israeli authorities facilitated just one of 54 UN attempts to get aid to north Gaza this month, Dujarric said. Eighty-five percent of the requests were denied, with the rest impeded or canceled for logistical or security reasons.Israel insists that much of the aid has dual-use capacity that could help Hamas fighters and also says it has been subject to looting.More than 42,000 Palestinians have been killed and the majority of buildings in Gaza destroyed or badly damaged in Israel’s yearlong offensive with the stated aim of rooting out Hamas.The Pentagon described the letter as “private correspondence” and declined to discuss it in detail. More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      US judge clears legal hurdle for Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan

      by

      A federal judge has dealt a setback to a legal challenge by seven Republican-led states to the latest student debt forgiveness plan from Joe Biden’s administration, removing Georgia from the case and moving it to Missouri.J Randal Hall, a US district judge based in Augusta, Georgia, took the action on Wednesday, one day before a temporary restraining order he issued on 5 September blocking the administration from proceeding with the plan – a USDepartment of Education regulation that is still not finalized – was set to expire.Hall ruled that Georgia, which along with Missouri had led the lawsuit, failed to show it would be harmed by the administration’s plan to forgive $73bn in student loan debt held by millions of Americans.The judge removed Georgia from the case for lack of legal standing despite the state’s claim of potential tax revenue losses, and transferred the litigation to federal court in Missouri.“There is no indication that the rule is being implemented to attack the states or their income taxes, so any loss of … tax revenue is incidental and insufficient to create standing for Georgia,” Hall wrote.The judge had previously ruled that Missouri did have standing to sue because that state operates a non-profit student loan servicer that stands to directly lose millions of dollars in funding under the debt forgiveness plan.The administration proposed the regulation in April after previous plans were blocked by the courts. Biden as a candidate in 2020 pledged to bring debt relief to millions of Americans who turned to federal student loans to fund their costly higher education. The draft regulation, according to court papers, would allow the government to provide full or partial debt relief to an estimated 27.6 million borrowers.The states challenging the policy on Thursday asked a federal judge in Missouri to rule by Friday on whether to continue blocking the proposal. The case was assigned to the US district judge Matthew Schelp, an appointee of Donald Trump.A Department of Education spokesperson in a statement expressed appreciation for the judge’s “acknowledgement that this case has no legal basis to be brought in Georgia”, and said the lawsuit reflected an effort by Republican state officials “to prevent millions of their own constituents from getting breathing room on their student loans.“We will continue our lawful efforts to deliver relief to more Americans, including by vigorously defending these proposals in court,” the spokesperson added.The offices of the attorneys general of Georgia and Missouri did not respond to requests for comment.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionUnder the draft regulation, debt relief would be granted to: people who owe more than they first borrowed due to the interest that has accrued; those who have been paying off loans for at least 20 or 25 years, depending on the circumstances; and borrowers who were eligible for forgiveness under prior programs but never applied.The fact that the rule has not yet been finalized was cited by the US justice department in arguing there was no final agency action for the judge to review in the first place. The states argued that the administration was laying the groundwork to immediately cancel loans once the rule became final before anyone could sue to stop it.The White House has called the current student loan system broken and has said debt relief is necessary to ensure that borrowers are not financially burdened by their decision to seek higher education.Republicans counter that the Democratic president’s student loan forgiveness approach amounts to an overreach of authority and an unfair benefit to college-educated borrowers while others receive no such relief. More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden administration doubles down on asylum restrictions at southern border

      by

      The Biden administration said on Monday it was making asylum restrictions at the southern border even tougher, as it is increasingly eager to show voters uneasy over immigration that it is taking a hard stance on border security.The new rules, which toughen restrictions announced in June, bar people from being granted asylum when US officials deem that the southern border is overwhelmed.Under the previous rules, the US could restrict asylum access when the number of people trying to enter the country between the official border crossings hits 2,500 a day. The daily numbers had to average below 1,500 a day for a week in order for the restrictions to be lifted.The version rolled out on Monday says the daily numbers will have to be below 1,500 for nearly a month before the restrictions can be lifted. And the administration is now counting all children toward that number, whereas previously only migrant children from Mexico were counted.These changes, which go into effect on Tuesday, will make it much more difficult to lift the restrictions and allow people entering the country between the official border crossings eventually to apply for asylum in the US.But the restrictions implemented in June have never been lifted because the numbers of border encounters have never gotten low enough for long enough, raising the question of why the administration felt the need to make them even tougher now. The seven-day average has gotten down to about 1,800 migrant encounters a day, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said.A senior administration official said on Monday that the longer timeline was necessary to make sure that drops in immigration are sustained and not due to a one-time event. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to brief reporters about the tighter restrictions before they were made public.Immigration advocates already had harshly criticized the restrictions announced in June, saying the administration was slashing away at vital protections for people fleeing persecution. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU and other groups are challenging the restrictions in court, saying that they differs little from a similar move by the Trump administration that was blocked by the courts. They argue that by law people who cross the border with a credible fear of persecution or harm deserve due process.The ACLU posted on the social media platform X on Monday: “The asylum law Congress enacted recognizes that people fleeing danger should not be forced to wait and try to secure an appointment to seek asylum. This restrictive rule is not just immoral but illegal.”The administration has touted its asylum restrictions, saying they have led to serious drops in the number of people coming to the southern border. The DHS said on Monday that since the changes were announced in June, the daily number of people encountered by border patrol between the legal border crossings had fallen over 50%.In a statement announcing the new rules, the DHS called on Congress to do more to solve immigration problems.Border security and immigration are a key weakness for the Biden administration and Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee.The Republican presidential nominee, Donald Trump, and others from his party have hammered away at the high numbers of people who have come to the southern border under the Biden administration, saying the White House and the vice-president have not done enough to restrict migration and secure the border.Harris visited a border region of Arizona on Friday, her first visit as the Democratic nominee. She walked alongside the tall metal fence separating the US from Mexico and called for a tightening of asylum rules while pushing for a better way to welcome immigrants legally.“I reject the false choice that suggests we must choose either between securing our border and creating a system that is orderly, safe and humane,” Harris said. “We can and we must do both.”The restrictions do allow some exceptions. Victims of a severe form of trafficking, for example, would still be allowed to apply for asylum.The administration also allows people using its CBP One appointment system to apply for asylum, but those people must schedule an appointment on the app to come to an official border crossing point.The administration has tried to encourage people to use that app instead of crossing the border illegally.But demand far exceeds the 1,450 appointments available daily, and the administration has not indicated that it will increase the number of appointments. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      US looks unable to talk Netanyahu out of planned invasion of Lebanon

      by

      The Biden administration is losing influence over whether Benjamin Netanyahu launches a ground invasion into southern Lebanon or not.For more than a year, Joe Biden and his senior advisers have managed to forestall an Israeli ground incursion into Lebanon in fear of a larger war that could envelop the entire Middle East.In the days after the 7 October attack, Biden phoned Netanyahu to talk him out of a massive retaliation against Hezbollah, which had begun firing guided rockets against Israeli positions following the Hamas raid.In April this year, Biden also told Netanyahu that the US would not support Israel in an offensive war against Iran after Tehran launched dozens of loitering munitions, cruise missiles and drones toward Israel.But on Monday, US outlets reported that Netanyahu’s administration had told White House officials they were planning a limited ground incursion into Lebanon, essentially escalating a conflict with Hezbollah and its backer Iran to a level that Biden and his team have tried desperately to avoid.The Washington Post reported that Israel was planning a limited campaign – smaller than its 2006 war against Hezbollah – that nonetheless would mark a drastic escalation with Hezbollah and Iran. The New York Times suggested US officials believed they had talked Israel out of a full invasion of Lebanon, but that smaller incursions into southern Lebanon would continue.But Yoav Gallant, the Israeli defence minister, has briefed a meeting of local council heads in northern Israel on Monday, according to the Times of Israel. “The next stage in the war against Hezbollah will begin soon … We will do this. And as I said here a month ago [that] we will shift the center of gravity [to the north], this is what I say now: we will change the situation and return the residents home.”Earlier that day, he had told Israel Defense Forces soldiers that to return some 60,000 Israelis to their homes in the country’s north, we “will use all the means that may be required – your forces, other forces, from the air, from the sea, and on land”.The plan to attack comes at a unique moment – with war hawks dominating domestic Israeli politics at the same time as a lame duck Biden administration appears increasingly unable or unwilling to intervene in the conflict. And, according to analysts, Netanyahu believes he has a limited window around the US elections to attack Iranian proxies across the region.With just a month left until the US presidential elections, the Biden administration has launched a tepid effort at a ceasefire that Netanyahu appears to have chosen to ignore – or simply to wait out until US elections that could bring in a Trump administration that would do even less to restrain him than the current one has.“Netanyahu made a calculation, and the calculation was that there was no way that the Democrats between now and November 5th [election day] could do anything that would criticise, let alone restrain him from that,” said Aaron David Miller, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who focuses on US foreign policy and the Middle East.“You saw [vice-president Kamala] Harris’s statement, you saw the White House statement, you saw the Democrat and Republican consensus on the killing of Nasrallah and what the Israelis have done there,” he said. “And since Iran is involved in this, unlike in Gaza, the toxicity of animus against Iran in this town is so intense that the Republican party, which is now the ‘Israel can do no wrong’ party, is just winging for the administration.”Until recently, prominent US officials have thought they still had a chance to conclude a ceasefire and prevent the war from escalating further. Last week, US and French officials along with dozens of other countries called for a ceasefire in Lebanon. US officials briefed on the matter said they believed the “time was right” and that Israel would sign up.A western official last week told the Guardian that the Israeli threat to invade northern Lebanon was probably “psyops” largely designed to force Hezbollah and Iran to the negotiating table.But, at the same time, the official said, the situation in the region was extremely volatile, and could be upset by as little as a single drone strike against a sensitive target.One day later, a massive airstrike launched by the Israeli air force killed the Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, upending security calculations in the region and potentially emboldening Israeli officials to believe they could fundamentally change the security dynamics in the region.“I understand, and happen to be very understanding of the administration position, because I spent almost 30 years inside knowing full the constraints of how to get anything done in this region, which is very hard,” Miller said. “But the notion that a US-French proposal for a three-week ceasefire in the middle of all this could work, I mean, it was, it was simply not well thought out.” More