More stories

  • in

    The Meaning of Germany’s Election

    We examine the role of immigration in the outcome.Germany yesterday became the latest country where voters rejected a left-leaning government largely because of their unhappiness over immigration and the economy.Germany’s next chancellor is likely to be Friedrich Merz, a former corporate lawyer who has promised to crack down on migration, cut taxes and regulation and adopt a hawkish policy toward Russia. Merz leads a center-right alliance that finished first in yesterday’s election, with 29 percent of the vote. A far-right party, Alternative for Germany, that promises even tougher immigration policies — but is friendly toward Russia — finished second, with 21 percent of the vote.The center-left Social Democrats, who led the government for the past four years, tumbled to third place, with 16 percent of the vote. It was their worst showing in a national election since at least 1890.Merz now faces the challenge of putting together a coalition that includes more than half of the seats in the German Parliament. Like other mainstream politicians, he has vowed to exclude the far right from his coalition because of its extremism, including its embrace of slogans and symbols with Nazi overtones. You can read more about the coalition scenarios here. You can also read more about Merz.Two big issuesThe campaign was dominated by two issues that have also shaped recent politics in the United States and many other parts of Europe: immigration and the economy.In Germany, the share of the population born in another country has reached nearly 20 percent, up from 12.5 percent in 2015. The increases have brought rapid change to communities. And although many recent immigrants have fared well in school and in the job market, many others have not.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

  • in

    In Memory of Our Decency: ‘That Was U.S.A.I.D.’

    More from our inbox:The 14th Amendment and Birthright CitizenshipOpposing Trump’s Transgender PoliciesReady to March Again Ashraf Shazly/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesTo the Editor:Re “Chaos and Confusion Reign as U.S. Cuts Off Aid to Millions Globally” (news article, Feb. 12):It can take an obituary to get to know someone — though often too late.Most Americans hadn’t known much about the United States Agency for International Development. Some may have seen its “helping hand” logo when a famine was in the news and U.S.A.I.D.-supplied bags of wheat, marked with the logo, appeared briefly on our screens. But that was it.It has taken the callous dismantling of U.S.A.I.D., the mindless amputation of America’s helping hand, for people to get to know the agency and the value of foreign aid. Many are learning for the first time about the good work done during its nearly 64 years.I was in Washington during the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. I thought then, and still think, that the only way to prevent another such catastrophic event and protect the long-term security and prosperity of our beloved homeland is for America to be an exemplary global citizen, for us to maintain mutually respectful relationships with as many countries as possible, and for us to win hearts and minds with our decency and generosity. That was U.S.A.I.D.Perhaps the public’s post-mortem appreciation of U.S.A.I.D. will lead to a resurrection of America’s helping hand. Let us hope and pray.Gary NewtonGeorgetown, MaineTo the Editor:Re “One Very Real Problem Lost in the Politics of Aid Cuts: Child Malnutrition,” by Nicholas Kristof (The Point, Opinion, nytimes.com, Feb. 10):As one of the world’s richest and most powerful nations, America has historically responded to the cries of hunger from abroad. We simply can’t turn our back now when children are starving in Sudan, Gaza, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Haiti and many other impoverished areas.U.S.A.I.D. should be reopened and the Food for Peace program, which was started by President Dwight Eisenhower, must get a funding increase. Food for Peace supports lifesaving programs including nutrition for infants.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

  • in

    America Loses Its Soul When It Rejects People Fleeing Danger

    I’ve been thinking a lot lately about what it means to be “civilized.” It’s not caring for one’s own; animals do that. It’s not making music and art; cave men drew and sang. It is, I believe, to live with a moral standard that takes into account our fellow man, and to ask: What do we owe one another, and what do we owe strangers?For me, to be civilized boils down to being willing to work against our own lesser interests in order to alleviate greater suffering, no matter the sufferer’s identity or relationship to us. It is a high standard, but it is not heroism, which is putting one’s own life in real danger for another.After World War II, a large group of lawmakers decided to codify this principle of humanitarian duty into international law. Nonrefoulement (from the French “fouler,” meaning “to trample”) is the idea that vulnerable people, once arrived on safe shores, should never be sent back into danger. Put simply, it is the premise that the least we can do is not knowingly send someone out to die. It is this idea that was challenged by the first Trump administration, with its “Remain in Mexico” policy, which denied responsibility for asylum seekers. Now, in his second term, President Trump has not only reinstated that harmful policy but also suspended thousands of existing asylum cases, and canceled appointments and even flights for refugees already cleared to enter the United States. All of this goes against a contract this country signed 58 years ago.One hundred and forty-five countries signed the United Nations 1951 Refugee Convention (the United States signed on to the bulk of the convention’s requirements in 1967, including those on refoulement), which states: “No contracting state shall expel or return (‘refouler’) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.”The language in the treaty was designed to be all-encompassing, and to acknowledge that there will always be refugees fleeing persecution. The vaguest protected category, “particular social group,” was added by a Swedish delegate who worried that some people who deserve shelter would not fit into the existing categories. How could anyone when this language was drafted, just six years after the horrors of the Holocaust, foretell whom the next atrocity would target? “Particular social group,” then, was written as a catchall, to make sure everyone who needed refuge would be covered by the legal language.In 1988, my family fled Iran and landed in the United Arab Emirates. After nearly a year, we were recognized as refugees by the U.N.’s High Commissioner on Refugees and sent to a camp in Italy. There we sat for another six months or so, waiting and submitting to “credible fear” interviews, wherein asylum seekers must prove to an immigration office that the danger back home is real, not imagined. My mother explained to the officers that her Christian conversion was apostasy according to Islamic law, and that before we escaped, she had been imprisoned, interrogated and told she’d be executed. As we told our story, I sensed that our interlocutors’ aim was to save us, not to send us away. Later, too, I saw American neighbors and friends embracing this moral duty, a responsibility and an instinct to protect lives more vulnerable than their own.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

  • in

    Costa Rica Receives First Flight of Trump Deportees From Faraway Countries

    Migrants from around the world — including dozens of children — landed on Thursday evening in San José, Costa Rica’s capital, after having been deported from the United States for illegally crossing the southern border.Their plane was the first such flight to arrive in Costa Rica and carried the latest group of migrants from countries in the Eastern Hemisphere to be deported by the United States to Central America — a new tactic in the Trump administration’s crackdown on migration.Last week, three flights were sent to Panama with people from countries such as China and Iran, where arranging deportations is more complicated for the United States because of a lack of diplomatic relations with their governments or other roadblocks.In Panama, the migrants managed to communicate with reporters from The New York Times while being held in a hotel, drawing attention to their uncertain situation. Some said they had left their countries to escape persecution and feared for their safety if they were to be sent back.Thursday, when the plane landed at Juan Santamaría International Airport outside San José, a group of reporters that had gathered on the tarmac captured images of the migrants on board.They held their cellphones to the windows, revealing both that they were not in handcuffs and had not had their devices taken away.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

  • in

    Can Trump Legally Transfer Migrants to Guantánamo Bay? Here’s What to Know

    Lawsuits are challenging President Trump’s abrupt decision to send men awaiting deportation to the American military base in Cuba.The Trump administration has started sending migrants from the United States to the American military base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, raising a series of legal questions over the government’s authority to do so and the basic rights of detainees.More than 150 Venezuelans, so far, are believed to have been taken there. Already at least three lawsuits have been filed related to aspects of the policy, and rights groups are expected to mount a broader challenge. Here is a closer look at some of the major legal issues.Can migrants lawfully be transferred there?It is unclear whether the government has legal authority to transfer migrants from the United States to Guantánamo, which is an odd and ambiguous place for legal purposes.The base sits on Cuba’s sovereign territory, but the United States has exclusive jurisdiction and control over what happens there because of a perpetual lease and the rupture in relations between the United States and Cuba’s Communist government.Normally, transfer authority comes from the Immigration and Nationality Act, which empowers the government to detain migrants who have final removal orders and are awaiting deportation.There is no dispute that Immigration and Customs Enforcement can transfer them among its different holding facilities inside the United States while they await their removal from the country. But the act defines the geographic territory of the United States as the 50 states, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands and the Northern Mariana Islands. It does not include Guantánamo.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

  • in

    Adams to Sue Trump Administration Over Clawback of Migrant Shelter Funds

    The decision to sue over the $80 million in seized funds comes as the New York City mayor has been accused of supporting the White House’s immigration agenda in exchange for legal leniency.Mayor Eric Adams intends to sue the Trump administration by the end of next week over its clawback of $80 million in federal funding meant to cover the cost of housing migrants in New York City, according to a letter from City Hall.The letter, which was sent to the city comptroller on Friday, said the Law Department was in the process of “drafting litigation papers” in an effort to reverse the administration’s clawback of the funds, which were transferred to New York by the Federal Emergency Management Agency this month.Liz Garcia, a spokeswoman for Mr. Adams, said the suit was expected to be filed by Friday. The mayor’s intention to sue was first reported by Politico on Friday.The decision by Mr. Adams to take a legal stand against the Trump administration on an immigration-related issue comes at a critical moment for the mayor, who this week faced mounting calls to resign after Manhattan’s acting U.S. attorney, Danielle R. Sassoon, accused him of trading concessions on immigration policy for the dismissal of the corruption charges against him.On Monday, the Justice Department’s No. 2 official, Emil Bove III, ordered Manhattan prosecutors to drop the case against Mr. Adams.Mr. Bove said the move had nothing to do with the case’s legal strengths, but rather that its prosecution would impede Mr. Adams’s ability to cooperate with the Trump administration’s immigration policies, a highly unusual justification for dropping criminal charges.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

  • in

    Trump Might Have a Case on Birthright Citizenship

    On his first day in office, President Trump issued an executive order that purports to end birthright citizenship for certain children. It does so despite Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, which declares, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”The central question raised by Mr. Trump’s order is what it means to be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. The answer most legal observers give is that it includes virtually anyone born on American soil, including those whom the order is meant to exclude, namely children born to parents in the country illegally or temporarily. Indeed, on Monday, the American Bar Association described the order as an attack on a “constitutionally protected” right. Federal judges in four states have enjoined the order, with one claiming that it “conflicts with the plain language of the 14th Amendment.”Not necessarily.The Supreme Court has held, in the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, that children born here to permanent residents are citizens. But it has never squarely held that children born to those illegally present are citizens. When the court addresses that question — which it almost certainly must — it should consider the 14th Amendment’s original purpose and the common-law principle of “jus soli,” or birthright citizenship, which informed the original public meaning of the text. Both relate to the idea of social compact and contradict today’s general assumption that the common-law principle depends solely upon place of birth.The 14th Amendment’s RootsAt the time of its adoption, the publicly known purpose of the 14th Amendment was to extend the benefits of the social compact — including, specifically, the privileges and immunities of citizenship — to African Americans newly freed after the Civil War. (Due in large part to a series of egregious Supreme Court rulings gutting the original letter and spirit of the amendment, that promise of equal citizenship was largely denied for decades.)Abraham Lincoln’s administration, rejecting the reasoning of Dred Scott v. Sandford, had already acknowledged that free African Americans were citizens. As Edward Bates, Lincoln’s first attorney general, wrote in 1862, in an official opinion, “The Constitution uses the word ‘citizen’ only to express the political quality of the individual in his relations to the nation; to declare that he is a member of the body politic, and bound to it by the reciprocal obligation of allegiance on the one side and protection on the other.”The equal protection clause, also found in Section 1 of the amendment, provides that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This clause was based on the same allegiance-for-protection theory enunciated by Bates.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

  • in

    Eric Adams Highlights Coordination With Trump’s Border Czar on Fox News

    If Mayor Eric Adams of New York City wanted to dispel fears that he was beholden to the Trump administration in exchange for its maneuvering to have his criminal case dropped, his appearance on “Fox and Friends” on Friday morning seemed to have the opposite effect.In the joint appearance with President Trump’s border czar, Thomas Homan, the two described their newfound collaboration on Mr. Trump’s immigration crackdown. It led to some uncomfortable moments for Mr. Adams, a Democrat.The mayor, who is facing vigorous calls to resign, reiterated his support for working with Mr. Trump to detain and deport immigrants who are accused of crimes. Then Mr. Homan warned that he would make sure Mr. Adams complied.“If he doesn’t come through, I’ll be back in New York City, and we won’t be sitting on the couch — I’ll be in his office, up his butt, saying, ‘Where the hell is the agreement we came to?’” Mr. Homan said.Mr. Homan pressed for further cooperation from Mr. Adams and attacked Gov. Kathy Hochul, who is facing growing pressure to use her power to remove Mr. Adams from office.“Governor Hochul, she needs to be removed,” Mr. Homan said. “The one who needs to be removed is her. She supports sanctuary policies.”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