US news

Subterms

    More stories

    • 213 Shares132 Views

      in US Politics

      Rural Americans who rely on Head Start worry about its future: ‘Without free childcare I couldn’t work’

      by

      For almost as long as she’s been a mother, Sara Laughlin has known where she could turn for help in Troy, a western Ohio town 20 miles north of Dayton.For years, the local Head Start program provided stability and care for her oldest son, and it now does the same for her two younger children, twin boys. Head Start was there for Laughlin and her family through tough transitions, including the end of a long relationship. She credits the free federally funded program, housed in a blue building on the edge of this manufacturing hub of 27,000, for allowing her to keep her job as a massage therapist while raising three kids.“If we had to pay for childcare, I would not be able to work,” Laughlin said. “There’s no way I could do it.”So, Laughlin said, she was “dumbfounded” when she heard this spring that Head Start was targeted for elimination in an early draft of Donald Trump’s budget proposal.In small towns and rural areas throughout the country, voters like her were key to both of Trump’s election victories. Laughlin was particularly attracted to his campaign promise to eliminate taxes on tips, which she relies on. She couldn’t conceive why cuts to early childhood programs would be on the table.“Out of all the things in this country that we could get rid of, why do you want to attack our children’s learning?” she said. Laughlin’s experience shows what’s at stake in towns and rural areas up and down the western side of Ohio – and across the country. In many of these communities, Head Start, which combines early childhood education, health, nutrition and other family services, is the only game in town for childcare, allowing thousands of parents to work. It’s often the only early childhood program in which educators can make a decent wage in a chronically underpaid industry. And it’s a key source of connection and support for parents dealing with trauma, job loss, poverty and parenting challenges.View image in fullscreenNearly 90% of rural counties in the United States have Head Start programs, which are funded with federal dollars and run by public or private agencies including schools and non-profits. Almost half of the 716,000 children Head Start serves live in rural congressional districts, compared with just 22% in urban districts.“These are communities that are underinvested in by philanthropy or the states where they are,” said Katie Hamm, who during the Biden administration served as deputy assistant secretary for early childhood development at the federal Administration for Children and Families, which oversees Head Start.In many rural communities, the program is not just about education and childcare. Head Start is particularly crucial to the survival of these local areas in a way it isn’t in larger urban areas with more diverse economies. The program not only employs local residents; it also supports other local businesses as centers pay rent, buy food from local farmers and grocers, use local mechanics to repair buses, hire local technicians to service kitchens, and pay local carpenters to outfit centers.Head Start was created in 1965 to provide early learning, family support and health services to low-income families, part of Lyndon B Johnson’s “war on poverty”. The program has long enjoyed bipartisan support: 74% of Trump voters and 86% of Democrats said earlier this year that they support funding the program, according to a survey conducted on behalf of the advocacy group First Five Years Fund.Although Head Start has survived elimination so far this year, its local centers are still trying to recover from what many say feels like death by a thousand federal cuts since Trump took office – with more likely to come.In early February, many Head Start programs were caught up in a federal funding freeze. Then the Trump administration fired about 20% of the program’s federal staff.This spring, some rural programs shut down because the administration delayed Head Start payments in some regions. In April, the administration abruptly closed five regional Head Start offices, cutting off a main source for support for programs. Just three months after that, the administration announced that undocumented immigrant children, long eligible for Head Start, could no longer participate.In the midst of all that turmoil, some local and regional Head Start programs have begun laying off employees. At the start of the year, the government withheld nearly $1bn in funding from local programs, a move the Government Accountability Office called illegal in July. While the money has since been distributed, in the interim several Head Start programs closed temporarily, and a few have told some staff they will be let go.View image in fullscreenAfter all that, Head Start leaders in rural communities said, their futures feel more tenuous than ever. While urban Head Start programs are more likely to be supported by large, well-resourced organizations that receive donations from individuals and local philanthropies, those additional funding streams are often absent in rural communities.In Greenville, Ohio, a town of about 12,700 that hugs the Indiana border 40 miles north-west of Dayton, the median household income is just under $47,000. The local Head Start program is one of just two licensed childcare centers available in town for nearly 600 children under the age of five who live in Greenville. Run by the Ohio-based Council on Rural Services non-profit, it serves children whose parents work in nearby retail stores, fast food chains or factories, as well as a growing number of kids being raised by their grandparents.Teachers there describe their work as far more than providing childcare. On any given day, in addition to teaching a group of preschoolers, Greenville Head Start teacher Sasha Fair may find herself lending an ear to parents who need to vent and helping caregivers track progress toward personal educational, parenting or employment goals. At her center, like many others in the region, Head Start workers pool their money to buy birthday presents for children who would otherwise go without. They track down car seats for parents who can’t afford them. And they go door to door to local dentists trying to convince them to accept children who use Medicaid.“It’s about connection and community,” Fair said. She was terrified for the families she serves when she heard Head Start was briefly on the chopping block.“These are our future,” she said, gesturing at the preschoolers playing in her classroom. “We need to give them the strongest, best possible start, and that includes their healthcare, their access to care, their education.”Many residents would also be out of jobs if Head Start programs were to close. Nationally, nearly a quarter of the program’s teachers are parents with children currently or formerly in the program. In Ohio, Head Start is among the state’s 50 largest employers, providing work for more than 8,000 Ohioans and, by extension, additional area residents who rely on Head Start spending.“We try to stay local and utilize whoever is local,” said Stacey Foster, who leads a Head Start program in Urbana, a town of about 11,000 that is 40 miles north-east of Dayton and surrounded by picturesque fields and farmhouses.The program’s fleet of buses is serviced by Jeff’s Automotive Service, a local garage. Katy Leib, service manager at Jeff’s Automotive, said demand for work rises and falls, especially this year, with some people spending cautiously because of economic uncertainty.View image in fullscreenShe said being able to rely on Head Start as one of its larger, more consistent accounts has been helpful for the business’s stability. If Head Start were to lose its funding, it would affect not just Jeff’s Automotive, but other companies that contract with Jeff’s.“When we’re working on their vehicles, we’re also purchasing parts from local businesses. It’s affecting tire companies and our oil companies,” Leib said. ”It’s a domino effect.”Heather Littrell, who lives in Troy, is an example of a parent who found support, and eventually employment, through Head Start. At 19 years old, she was standing in line to apply for housing assistance when she spotted an ad for free preschool. At the time, she was struggling to keep a job while raising her two young children. Family members helped when they could, but without consistent childcare, Littrell was forced to leave job after job at local factories and a gas station.“Everything was unstable,” she said. “I wasn’t really knowing what direction I was going to take.”Littrell ended up enrolling her girls in Head Start, where they learned their colors, numbers and social skills, while Littrell received parenting advice, diapers and meals for her daughters. Most important, she could work. A few years later, inspired by her experience as a Head Start parent, Littrell decided to pursue a degree in early childhood education.Now, 17 years later, she has moved from being a Head Start student teacher to serving as a coordinator for mental health and disability services in Head Start programs across western Ohio.“If I hadn’t seen that flyer that day, I wouldn’t be standing here now,” she said. “I really did use Head Start to help me become a better person and a better member of society.”Trump’s latest budget proposal would not change the amount of money set aside for Head Start, but, given inflation, keeping the program’s budget unchanged effectively amounts to a cut.View image in fullscreenLaurie Todd-Smith, appointed by the Trump administration in June to oversee federal early childhood programs at the Administration for Children and Families, including Head Start, acknowledged that the programs play an important role in rural areas. “If Head Start wasn’t in rural areas where those most impoverished families are, we’d have very different outcomes for children,” she said.But Todd-Smith isn’t convinced that the program needs more money. Rather, she said, programs should look for ways to be more efficient. In some places, state-funded offices already provide health services, employment assistance and mental health assistance. She said Head Start programs could tap into those services instead of offering their own.“There might be some cost savings if we actually link state systems to some of the work of Head Start, instead of creating duplication of services,” Todd-Smith said.At the local level, however, Head Start providers say that if they’re going to raise salaries, keep teachers and serve more children – there aren’t currently enough seats for all who qualify – they need more money.Littrell, the former Head Start parent who now works for the program, hopes residents will realize programs such as Head Start are critical for communities like hers and vote for politicians who will try to protect them. From her early years as a teen mom, she said, she knows how easy it is to end up in a situation where a family needs some help to move forward.“We had food stamps, we had [subsidized] housing, we used Head Start,” Littrell said. “We used them to help us build a life where we didn’t depend on those social services. But they were there for us when we needed them.”This story was produced by the Hechinger Report, a non-profit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. More

    • 163 Shares106 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump to meet with US congressional leaders in last-ditch effort to avoid shutdown

      by

      Donald Trump has reversed course and is purportedly planning to host a bipartisan gathering of the top four US congressional leaders at the White House on Monday afternoon in a last-ditch effort to avoid a looming government shutdown, the House speaker and the US president’s fellow Republican Mike Johnson said on Sunday.Trump’s climbdown comes days after he scrapped a planned meeting to discuss the crisis with Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer, the respective Democratic minority leaders in the House and Senate.The president accused the pair of making “unserious and ridiculous demands” in return for Democratic votes to support a Republican funding agreement to keep the government open beyond Tuesday night – but left the door open for a meeting “if they get serious about the future of our nation”.Johnson, appearing on CNN, said he spoke with Trump at length on Saturday, and that the two Democrats had agreed to join him and John Thune, the Republican Senate majority leader, for an Oval Office discussion Monday.He did not say if Trump would be negotiating directly with the Democrats – but portrayed Trump as keen to “try to convince them to follow common sense and do what’s right by the American people”.Schumer, talking to NBC’s Meet the Press, said he was “hopeful we can get something real done” – but was uncertain of the mood they would find Trump in when they sat down for the 2pm ET discourse.“If the president at this meeting is going to rant, and just yell at Democrats, and talk about all his alleged grievances, and say this, that, and the other thing, we won’t get anything done,” Schumer said.“We don’t want a shutdown. We hope that they sit down and have a serious negotiation with us.”According to CBS News on Sunday, meanwhile, Trump is not hopeful the meeting will lead to an agreement.The network’s chief national correspondent, Robert Costa, told Face the Nation he spoke with Trump by phone Sunday morning and that a government shutdown “looks likely at this point based on my conversation … He says both sides are at a stalemate.”Costa said: “Inside the White House, sources are saying president Trump actually welcomes a shutdown in the sense that he believes he can wield executive power to get rid of what he calls waste, fraud and abuse.”If no deal is reached, chunks of the federal government are set to shut down as early as Wednesday morning, with the White House telling agencies to prepare to furlough or fire scores of workers.Republican and Democratic leaders have been pointing fingers of blame at each other for days as Tuesday’s deadline for a funding agreement approaches.The narrow House Republican majority passed a short-term spending bill known as a continuing resolution earlier in September that would keep the government funded for seven weeks – but it faces opposition in the Senate, where it needs the support of at least eight Democrats to pass.Democrats have made the extension of expiring healthcare protections a condition of their support, warning that planned Republican spending cuts would affect millions of people.“If we don’t extend the Affordable Care Act tax credits, more than 20 million Americans are going to experience dramatically increased premiums, copays, deductibles, in an environment where the cost of living in America is already too high,” Jeffries told CNN on Sunday.“We’ve made clear that we’re ready, willing and able to sit down with anyone, at any time and at any place, in order to make sure that we can actually fund the government, avoid a painful Republican caused shutdown, and address the healthcare crisis that Republicans have caused that’s [affecting] everyday Americans.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionBut Trump and Republicans have repeatedly accused their political opponents of exploiting the issue to force a shutdown while there was still plenty of time to fix healthcare before the subsidies expire on 31 December.“The Obamacare subsidies is a policy debate that has to be determined by the end of the year, not right now, while we’re simply trying to keep the government open so we can have all these debates,” Johnson said.“There is nothing partisan about this continuing resolution, nothing. We didn’t add a single partisan priority or policy rider at all. We’re operating completely in good faith to get more time.”Thune, on Meet the Press, also attempted to blame Democrats for the potential shutdown and said “the ball is in their court” as to the next development.“There is a bill sitting at the desk in the Senate right now, we could pick it up today and pass it, that has been passed by the House that will be signed into law by the president to keep the government open,” he said.“What the Democrats have done is take the federal government as a hostage, and by extension the American people, to try [to] get a whole laundry list of things that they want.”But US senator Chris Van Hollen, a Maryland Democrat who has previously urged his party leadership to be stronger in standing up to the Trump administration, said the problem was Republicans handing “a complete blank check” to the president to spend money on his own political interests, and not those of the nation.“Until now the president has said he’d rather shut down the government than prevent those healthcare costs from spiking,” he told CNN.“Democrats are united right now on this question. I’m glad we’re finally talking. We’ll see what happens.” More

    • 138 Shares112 Views

      in Elections

      Rudy Giuliani and Dominion settle $1.3bn defamation suit over election lies

      by

      Rudy Giuliani, the former New York mayor and personal lawyer to Donald Trump, has settled a long-running defamation lawsuit with Dominion Voting Systems over lies he told about the result of the 2020 presidential election.Details of the settlement, revealed in federal court in Washington DC in a filing late on Friday, are confidential. The Colorado-based voting machine manufacturer sued Giuliani for $1.3bn in 2021, citing more than 50 instances in which he made false or defamatory statements insisting the election was rigged against Trump, with the integrity of Dominion’s machinery at the heart of the conspiracy theory.Representatives for Giuliani and Dominion confirmed the resolution on Saturday but declined further comment when approached by CBS News. “The parties have agreed to a confidential settlement to this matter,” a Dominion spokesperson said in a short statement.It is Dominion’s third payout in defamation lawsuits about the election resolved before reaching trial. The company reached a $787.5m settlement in 2023 with Fox, the network that amplified numerous voices pushing the election lies, including the star’s then-star host Tucker Carlson, the rightwing personality who was later fired.The conservative outlet Newsmax in August agreed to pay $67m after a superior court judge in Delaware ruled it had defamed Dominion. Newsmax admitted no wrongdoing and said it stood by its reporting in a terse statement – but chose to settle before a jury got to decide the amount of damages in the $1.6bn lawsuit.All three lawsuits related to evidence-free claims pushed by conservatives in the aftermath of the 2020 election that Joe Biden’s victory over Trump was rigged – and that Dominion’s machines were easily manipulated to provide false results.As Trump’s personal lawyer, Giuliani was a leading purveyor of the lies, appearing on television and radio shows as well as podcasts to amplify them.“Dominion brings this action to set the record straight, to vindicate the company’s rights under civil law, to recover compensatory and punitive damages, and to stand up for itself, its employees, and the electoral process,” the complaint against him stated.Giuliani remained defiant at the time, stating he would countersue and insisting he was “exercising my right of free speech and defending my client”. But his involvement ultimately proved costly, professionally and personally.In July 2024, he was permanently disbarred from practicing law in the state of New York after earlier having his license suspended for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Three months later, he was disbarred in Washington DC after failing to respond to a demand to explain his actions.This past November, he lost his temper in a New York court room and shouted: “I can’t pay my bills” at a judge in a hearing to explore why he had not complied with orders to surrender assets to pay a $148m settlement to two Georgia election workers he defamed.His outburst came weeks after he showed up to vote in Florida in the 2024 presidential election that resulted in a second presidency for Trump. Giuliani at the time was in a Mercedes-Benz the court had ordered him to hand over to the poll workers, Ruby Freeman and her daughter Shaye Moss. More

    • 175 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      A Trump ally in California is fighting redistricting. Is that what his constituents want?

      by

      Inside a packed banquet hall in northern California in early August, tensions were flaring. As the representative Doug LaMalfa spoke to constituents in his district, he faced immediate pushback from frustrated audience members who shouted the Republican down.It was the first public town hall LaMalfa had held in Chico, the largest city in his district, in eight years. The booing and shouts grew louder still as the Republican representative, a loyal supporter of Donald Trump, talked about “waste and fraud” in government programs, and the uproar continued for more than an hour as people expressed fear and anger over immigration raids, tariffs, cuts to Medicaid and Medicare and the impacts on rural hospitals. Some called for his resignation, while one attendee yelled: “No fascism in America.” The rowdy scene made headlines across the US.It came before a crucial moment for the representative – just days later, California’s governor announced plans to move forward with a proposal to redraw the state’s voting map in an effort to create five new Democratic seats in the US House of Representatives. The redistricting plan is a direct response to gerrymandered maps in Texas. Now voters will decide on the proposal in a special election in November. If the proposition is approved, LaMalfa, a seven-term representative, could lose his seat in the war over control of the House.With less than six weeks before the election, the fight is on in the first congressional district, which covers a vast swath of northern California from the almond orchards and rice fields of the Sacramento valley to the forested and fire-prone foothills of the Sierra Nevada and Cascades. Audrey Denney, a previous Democratic challenger who came closer than any prior candidate to unseating LaMalfa, has said she will run again if Proposition 50 passes. LaMalfa, meanwhile, “is committed to running in his current district and ensuring that Proposition 50 fails”, his office said in a statement.Democratic and Republican groups alike are preparing for a contest that could dramatically reshape the area’s political representation and ultimately determine the US president’s ability to advance legislation after the midterm elections.“Overwhelmingly, the reason people care is the belief that the Democrats [winning] control of the House of Representatives next year is the only possible meaningful impediment to Donald Trump’s implementation of his authoritarian agenda,” said David Welch with the Democratic central committee of Butte county, where Chico is located.Conservatives in this area argue that Prop 50 represents an existential threat that will erode the already limited Republican representation in the state.“We already only have nine seats throughout the entire state of California on the Republican side and we could go down to four seats if 50 passes. It’s not a fair representation for the parties – it’s not fair for both sides,” said Teri DuBose, the chair of the Butte county Republican party, who also works for LaMalfa’s office. “The voters should be picking their representatives, not the representatives picking their constituents.”Residents of this part of northern California, with its remote mountain communities, frequent wildfires and vast agricultural industry, often say it’s different from the more densely populated areas of the state.“We’re very rural here,” DuBose said. “As I drive from Chico to Orland right now, all I see are almond trees and open fields and walnuts and tractors. We don’t have the big-city high-rises and freeways with traffic.”The first congressional district is among the most conservative, and whitest, in the state.Water, wildfires, housing and homelessness have been key issues for voters in recent years. The area was already struggling with a severe housing shortage when several years of large wildfires destroyed thousands of homes, worsening the crisis and pushing more people onto the streets.Over the last decade, wildfires have scorched nearly 40% of land in the county, including the 2018 Camp fire, which destroyed the community of Paradise and killed 85 people, 2020’s North Complex fire, which wiped out Berry Creek and left 16 people dead and last year’s Park fire, one of the largest blazes in state history.While there was a strong base of Democratic supporters in the region in the mid-20th century, much of what is now California’s first congressional district has largely voted Republican since the 1980s. Trump has consistently carried the area since 2016 and in 2024 received 61% of the vote.Butte county, where LaMalfa is from, is more evenly politically split due to the more liberal community of Chico, a university town, and the more conservative agricultural areas – in 2008, it supported Barack Obama, in 2020 backed Joe Biden, but in 2016 and 2024 went for Trump.LaMalfa, a rice farmer who previously served as a state lawmaker, has represented the district since 2013. In an interview this year with the Chico Enterprise-Record, he cited the work his staffers have done assisting people having issues with social security, Medicaid and Veterans Affairs as his proudest accomplishments in office.“It’s defending these folks and giving them a level of hope that somebody is actually listening to them,” he said.He’s garnered attention – and criticism – in recent years as an ally of the president who challenged the 2020 election outcome and voted against certifying the result and has expressed skepticism about the climate crisis and its cause. Efforts to unseat LaMalfa have been unsuccessful, but the 2018 and 2020 elections revealed some level of discontent.“He does not at all differ from Trump’s line-by-line mandate of what he says Republicans should say,” Denney said, adding that LaMalfa has introduced “anti-LGBTQ, anti-public health” legislation that “harms our communities”.In the 2018 race, Denney, an educator and consultant with a background in agriculture, pledged to represent working families in the district. She closed the representative’s more than 30-point lead in the primary down to 9.5%, and raised $1m, but LaMalfa ultimately prevailed, and did so again in 2020.“At the end of that election, I was feeling pretty defeated. And then when they redrew the maps in 2022, it was just clear to me that it was not a winnable district,” she said.But this year, frustrations in some corners of the district have continued to mount over the Trump budget, which is expected to have a significant impact on rural areas and hospitals with its cuts to Medicaid and new work requirements for food stamps. That anger was on full display at LaMalfa’s town hall.LaMalfa did not agree to be interviewed, but in a statement, Paige Boogaard, his communication director, said the representative had anticipated as much but stated that most constituents back Trump’s agenda.“Congressman LaMalfa purposefully chose highly contentious areas of his district so that they feel heard. Their reactions were completely expected,” she said. “Raucous townhalls in Chico do not change the fact that District 1 and Northern California remain overwhelmingly conservative and overwhelmingly supportive of both Congressman LaMalfa’s and the President’s policies.”Meanwhile, the area is already grappling with the loss of one rural hospital. Glenn medical center will close its emergency room in just a few days, leaving Glenn county without a hospital, after the federal government moved to eliminate its “critical access” designation. The representative “continues to work on issues related to Glenn Medical Center and rural healthcare”, Boogaard said.‘Not a fair representation for the parties’Ten days after the town hall, Gavin Newsom announced California would move ahead with a plan to put a redistricting proposal before voters. The governor described it as “neutralizing” Texas’s new maps that could flip up to five seats. The referendum would temporarily suspend the use of maps from California’s independent redistricting commission and instead use legislatively drawn maps until after the 2030 census. The special election could cost as much as $282m.LaMalfa has sharply criticized the effort.“No state should be doing mid-decade redistricting unless directed by a court or forced to. Voters in California have voted overwhelmingly twice to prevent partisan redistricting,” he said in a statement at the time. “I will fight to make sure Northern California is represented by someone they elect, not someone Sacramento Democrats selected in a back room.”Under the new map, Butte county and much of district 1 would be joined with counties further to the west and south, including Sonoma county. Democrats have praised the proposal, not just for what it will mean locally, but to the country.“I think Governor Newsom doing Prop 50 has got Democrats all across America saying to themselves: ‘Hey, we got a chance to retake the House to defeat Trump,” said Bob Mulholland, a veteran Democratic strategist and Butte county resident.Denney argued it was a necessary course of action for the current political era in which the Trump administration is “tearing down institutions and norms”.“In this moment of time that we’re living in, with the scope and the scale of the threat that we’re up against, I think it’s absolutely the right move,” she said.“I love the new district. I love how it combines the two college towns on each end, Santa Rosa and Chico. Both have been historically devastated by wildfires, both surrounded by agriculture,” she said, adding that it will bring together areas where natural resources and land management are of deep concern.Republican and Democratic chapters across the district are working to rally voters before the November election, spreading signs far and wide and door-knocking. In Denney’s Chico home earlier this month, she had boxes with thousands of pieces of pro Prop 50 literature.Further south, in Yuba county, the local Republican party has purchased 10,000 yard signs to spread across the state, said Johanna Lassaga, the county party chair.“I think [Prop 50] would be devastating to our area. Putting the urban areas with the rural areas, we don’t get that fair representation,” she said.West of Chico, in the farmlands of Glenn county, Lee McCorkle, the local Republican party chair, has also been posting signs far and wide. He argued LaMalfa has been a valuable representative, citing his role in securing federal money to build a reservoir and nearby levee.“Doug, he’s a conservative guy, he’s a rice farmer, he spends a lot of time to be a congressman,” McCorkle said. “It’s a heck of a job. I wouldn’t want it.”Texas shouldn’t have moved ahead with their new congressional maps, DuBose said, but she argued what’s happening in California is also wrong. People are frustrated the state is moving forward with a costly special election, she said, when the governor did not fully fund Prop 36, a measure approved by voters last year that implements harsher penalties for theft and drug offenses. (Newsom’s budget did not initially include funding for that proposition, which he said was a result of shortfalls, but he later approved $100m to support the legislation.)And the speed at which the proposition has moved ahead has forced the party to quickly jump into gear, she said.“We really kind of got blindsided. It didn’t give us much time, so we just went all out [with the campaign],” she said. “Every moment that I’m not working, I am doing this.”In a historically conservative district, the local Democratic party has relatively few resources, said Welch with the Butte county Democrats, but they too are doing “everything we can to mobilize and motivate people”.“It’s almost certain the spending [to] defeat this will be enormous,” he said. “Really our best hope of overcoming that is with motivating individuals to volunteer to work at a grassroots level.”For her part, Denney, who also chairs the Democratic Action Club of Chico, has been traveling to the far reaches of the district in north-eastern California to talk to voters about Prop 50.“Even up to a month ago, I had zero belief that anything would ever change,” she said. “It’s gonna have a different ending this time.” More

    • 188 Shares66 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Like the Gestapo’: trailblazing immigration judge on Ice brutality and Trump’s damage to the courts

      by

      Dana Leigh Marks had the kind of career most immigration judges dream of.At 32, she won a precedent-setting supreme court case that made it easier to claim asylum in the US. In the decades that followed, she led the National Association of Immigration Judges to gain collective bargaining rights, fought to protect immigration courts from political meddling and blazed a trail for a generation of female judges.Now retired at 71, she’s seen her share of political ups and downs over her 10 years as an immigration lawyer and 35 years on the bench. But nothing could have prepared her for what she’s seen the Trump administration do to the court systems she once served.“I have seen my entire career destroyed by Trump in six months,” said Marks, reflecting on the state of her profession while sipping coffee near her home in Marin county, just across the Golden Gate Bridge from San Francisco, where she spent much of her career. “I’m flat out terrified on all fronts.”Whip-smart, with a shock of white curls, Marks can speak more freely than a sitting immigration judge. And the picture she paints is alarming.Trump’s immigration crackdown has thrown the already backlogged courts into chaos. More than 100 immigration judges have been fired since Trump was sworn in, including roughly a third of the judges in San Francisco, home to one of the largest immigration courts in the country. People across the US are routinely arrested outside their court hearings by Ice agents “acting like the Gestapo”, Marks said.She described her former colleagues as under siege. “If I were an immigration practitioner now, I’d tell my clients that they have to act like they’re in a war zone,” she said. “Be prepared for any eventuality, because it is so random and so chaotic.”Despite the grim subject matter, Marks is full of wisecracks and seems to have her spirits permanently set on high – gushing at every passing dog and baby.“Immigration judges do death penalty cases in a traffic court setting” is among her oft-quoted zingers.She describes the frenetic work of an immigration judge as like “the guy behind the curtain in The Wizard of Oz”: managing dockets, juggling courtroom tech and interpreters, typing verbatim notes while monitoring audio recording levels, then issuing immediate oral rulings with few clerks and barely any time to think. It’s an already frenzied job, and one she believes the Trump administration is intentionally trying to make harder.Humor aside, her message for the public is a serious one: that the Trump administration is “attacking” immigration courts “on all fronts” in order to eliminate them entirely by proving they’re “dysfunctional”. There’s a backlog of 3.6m cases waiting to be adjudicated, and Marks believes the courts have been purposefully starved of resources.“I feel like the immigration courts are the canaries in the coalmine,” she said, “and what’s happening to them is an illustration of what might happen to other court systems if we don’t stop it.”A critical eye and an open mindMarks’ interest in refugees and the immigrant experience comes from her own family’s lucky escape to America.“I was raised with an awareness of immigration to begin with,” said Marks. Her Jewish grandmother fled pogroms in Lithuania and was on one of the last boats to the US before the first world war severely restricted transatlantic migration. By the 1920s, the US enacted laws imposing strict quotas on refugees from eastern and southern Europe that almost completely shut down legal pathways for Jewish refugees fleeing the Holocaust.View image in fullscreenMarks grew up in a diverse part of west Los Angeles, and spent a year in Chile after Salvador Allende’s election, where she learned Spanish and saw first-hand the dissonance between US media coverage of his presidency and how Chileans talked about politics around dinner tables. She learned to read and listen to many perspectives with a critical eye and an open mind.She wanted to be a social worker, but went to law school and nearly dropped out before falling in love with immigration law. “You met the world coming into your office,” she said, describing her years in private practice.In 1987, at the age of 32, she won the supreme court case known as INS v Cardoza-Fonseca, which expanded asylum eligibility by granting relief to those with a “well-founded fear” of persecution. The morning after that victory, she started her training to become a judge.Alongside her work in court, she led the National Association of Immigration Judges for nearly two decades and recruited half a dozen female judges to the bench. She prided herself on using compassion and humor to lower the tension in her courtroom: when people feel heard and judged fairly, they’re more likely to accept your decisions, she said, even when you rule against their claim.View image in fullscreenMarks retired in 2021 to become “Nana Dana” and care for her grandchild, but she remains deeply engaged in the field, speaking at conferences, advising the National Association of Immigration Judges, educating law students, officiating weddings and serving on the advisory board of the non-profit Justice Connection.What’s been playing out now in courtrooms, in policy memos and on the streets has chilling echoes of the authoritarian eras her Jewish ancestors fled.Among her more recent concerns is the push to recruit hundreds of military lawyers to serve as immigration judges. In late August, the Trump administration scrapped the rule requiring temporary immigration judges to have spent a decade practicing immigration law before qualifying for the bench. Days later, 600 military lawyers were cleared to fill vacant judge seats. All of this is “absolutely unprecedented”, said Marks. “I don’t want to slam military lawyers, but there is the concern that they’re being picked because there’s a perception that they will just follow orders.”Political interference in the courtFor Marks, political encroachment on immigration courts has been “a slow creep that now has gone to light speed”.A hallmark of American democracy is the separation of powers and an independent judiciary. But this has never been so for immigration courts, which are overseen by the Department of Justice, a part of the executive branch rather than the judicial branch.“Deep in my bones, I always felt the placement of the immigration court in the Department of Justice was wrong,” she said. “The boss of the prosecutor should not be the boss of the judge.”The court’s placement has led to political interference and underfunding by both parties in power, and Marks wanted to fight back. She spent decades advocating for the nation’s immigration court system to be moved out from under the political whims and meddling of the justice department and into an independent judiciary. In 2022, the congresswoman Zoe Lofgren introduced a bill that would have created an independent immigration court system – but the bill ultimately died. Marks thinks reviving that bill should be a top priority for Democrats.She believes everyone across the political spectrum should be incensed by the current level of meddling with due process: from firing immigration judges, to pressuring them to toss out asylum cases so they can be reassigned as emergency deportations, to turning courthouses into traps where Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents scoop up immigrants to meet deportation quotas, and more.“Americans were raised with the golden principle that everybody deserves due process, and I really think the majority of Americans believe that, and that that’s what makes us exceptional in the world,” she said.“What kills me, as a lawyer, is that Trump turns everything on its head and blows through clearly established legal precedent as if it doesn’t exist. Fealty to precedent is the core of our legal system.”If there’s a silver lining for her, it’s that she predicts the administration’s embrace of chaos will ultimately backfire. For example, she thinks that dropping military reservists on to the bench for six-month stints is a recipe for failure. Rather than expediting the backlog of asylum cases, it will unleash chaos, “screw up the records” and “make appeals go wild”.“If you build by chaos, even if you’re right in what you construct,” she quipped, “it’s going to crumble.” More

    • 200 Shares126 Views

      in US Politics

      We Americans love remaking British TV. Must the UK remake our odious politicians? | Dave Schilling

      by

      I’ve always wanted to visit the UK. This might sound absurd to you, considering I’m from California – home of sunshine, half-naked bodies and the studio where they film Jeopardy. What could possibly pull me to the cold, damp, gray shores of England? The oppressively brown food? The dodgy colonialist history? Tesco? No, it was the glowing box that vibrated with whatever passed for culture in my small town: television.British TV was an obsession in my house, via those purveyors of affordable, exotic entertainment at PBS. We’d get classy fare through the Masterpiece Theatre series, but also more downmarket comedies like Are You Being Served? (a variety of sexually obsessed retail clerks trip over each other) or Keeping Up Appearances (lower-middle-class oafs desperately wish they were posh). I had no concept of what people were saying in their thick accents or most of the jokes meant, especially the double entendres.But even the dumb shows seemed smart. I learned more about European history from Rowan Atkinson, Richard Curtis and Ben Elton’s Blackadder series than I ever did in school. British television, especially the comedies, assumed a certain futility to life. It probably won’t get better. In fact, it might get worse. Often. This is a tradition that carried over to other classic sitcoms such as I’m Alan Partridge and The Office, which I discovered in college. If it’s a small-town crime drama or a half-hour comedy, British TV is usually going to express something close to misery by the time the credits roll. In America’s land of good cheer and opportunity, this was like a salve of reality.My obsession with all things British (even the food) carried on into adulthood, but despite that abiding interest, I had never visited the UK until this year. I seemed to have picked the worst year imaginable. Or maybe the best. The country is in the midst of a political upheaval. Nigel Farage’s far-right Reform party is on the march, commanding the polls. Obviously, the first thing I did when I arrived was turn on the television to see how it compared to American media, which feels at all times like Jurassic Park after the electricity went out.In the US, we are obsessed with remaking British TV shows – The Office, Steptoe and Son, Absolutely Fabulous. But the British would rather remake our politicians. They’re just not as good at it.Farage is the English Trump, but only in the sense that he is dangerously unqualified for leadership and therefore believes he is actually qualified. He recently claimed that migrants were “eating swans” in parks. I can imagine a TV executive angrily shaking their fist at the ham-handed adaptation of Trump’s infamous dog comment. “Who would actually eat a swan? You don’t even get it!”Nigel Farage is just not the showman that Trump is, any more than Doctor Who is as flashy as Star Wars or Star Trek. British news is less single-mindedly fixated on him than we are with Trump. Because Farage is so tacky and second rate, it’s been easier for the UK media to shoo him away like a fly up until now. When I was in London this summer, it was the opposite of the wall-to-wall Trumpathon that is America. Maybe that’s why I found ITV’s Good Morning Britain so relaxing to watch. The noticeable lack of screaming or partisan rancor. The reassuring presence of former Labour politician and ex-Strictly Come Dancing competitor Ed Balls. Whatever it is, I came to love my daily dose of dry toast in TV form. One recent GMB episode featured a segment on an app designed to identify and catalog butterflies around the UK. It was sweet, until the presenter reminded the audience that this is important because butterflies are dying off due to the climate crisis. Even cheerful news segments need to remind you that life is a series of tiny hells.I did a few things besides watch TV, though. The Tate Modern is easily the best contemporary art museum I’ve ever been to. I think reading a newspaper in a pub at 11am is as civilized as life gets. I can’t tell if Waitrose is posh or a Trader Joe’s equivalent, but they had everything I needed, plus delicious cheeses I’ve never heard of. The Barbican Estate, where I stayed, is an architectural marvel that could never exist in a place like California. It’s purposefully difficult to get around, has an art gallery and a movie theater, and people crush bottles of wine openly in the courtyard long past bedtime. I found that people took tube etiquette so seriously that I wondered if not giving up your seat for an elderly person was now punishable by stoning. I’m sure there’s plenty of horrendous behavior in London, but I was so eager to enjoy myself that I didn’t even notice. And almost no one I met in London asked me, the dumb American, about Donald Trump. Almost.My one conversation about Trump took place in Whitechapel, a neighborhood known for a series of murders attributed to Jack the Ripper that is now home to a significant immigrant population – particularly people from Bangladesh. A sign was added to the Whitechapel tube station in Bengali, which upset Elon Musk (who is definitely not British) and assorted rightwing politicians obsessed with fighting multiculturalism. I was eager to have a proper British curry experience before flying back to LA and was given a recommendation for a restaurant in Whitechapel by my friend and co-creator of The Inbetweeners, Iain Morris (who is definitely British). I was asked very specifically not to name the restaurant, lest it become discovered by more brutish American tourists like myself. That’s what Dishoom is for, after all.After settling the bill for my meal, the waiter/proprietor asked me what I thought of “him.” The movie had not come out yet, so I realized “him” meant Trump. I said I was generally not a fan, that he would not be fond of a place like the restaurant we were in, and that I definitely did not vote for him. He chuckled, as though I had read him a joke written on a popsicle stick. “Every time an American comes in here and I ask if they voted for him, they say no,” he responded. I surmised that that’s because the people who did vote for him aren’t stopping into a curry house in Whitechapel on their UK vacation.The British and American political dilemmas can sometimes look eerily similar. Trump and Farage have both stuck around far longer than anyone expected. Anti-immigrant and anti-trans sentiment animate the right wings of both nations. The “unite the kingdom” rally feels like a hyper-charged Maga gathering. But, like the quality of our respective cheeses, we couldn’t be more different. Nihilism and a crazed impulse to start over from scratch animates both of our cultural schisms, but while in the US the face of populism is the frozen scowl of Trump, in Britain, it’s the vacuous grin of Farage. A recent feature in the New Yorker described the mood of the Reform party conference as jubilant. Farage is always smiling, which is either comforting to his sympathizers or terrifying for his detractors. Regardless, Reform is capturing Britain’s imagination precisely because of that smile.Labour and the Tories bumble around desperate to prove that they are the most serious, when what the nation seems to want is someone who admits that things aren’t great, but that the country (and the world) have a future. The future Reform offers is a terrifying one that looks a lot more like the worst aspects of modern America, but it’s a vision nonetheless. What afflicts both the US and the UK is a feeling of emptiness, of futility, and a growing realization that we’re all stuck. Technology, grand economic forces we don’t understand, and a dwindling social safety net have left the average citizen in a state of abandonment and isolation. The Democratic party and the Labour party just want things to go back to a mythical state of normalcy, hopelessly nostalgic and out of touch. This has pushed the dreamers, the malcontents and the futurists to the fringes. Maga and Reform seem nostalgic, but what they offer is not a return to anything, but a radical reshaping and perversion of the system that keeps our society functioning.When faced with the grim reality of British TV every day on my trip, I yearned for a bit of good ol’ Yankee razzle-dazzle – a dose of mindless optimism. I think maybe the most potent similarity between our two countries is that we could both use some of that right now.

      Dave Schilling is a Los Angeles-based writer and humorist More

    • 125 Shares132 Views

      in US Politics

      Why Trump is backing Argentina’s Thatcherite economics | Heather Stewart

      by

      “We’re backing him 100%. We think he’s done a fantastic job. Like us, he inherited a mess.” Donald Trump gave his enthusiastic endorsement to Javier Milei’s radical economic experiment when the pair met in New York last week.The US has declared itself ready to offer more than rhetorical support to the chainsaw-wielding Argentinian president in the coming days, as Buenos Aires stands on the brink of a fresh financial crisis.The US Treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, said the US was “ready to do what is needed”. He suggested the Federal Reserve could offer Buenos Aires a $20bn (£15bn) dollar swap line – a crucial crisis-fighting tool – or the US could even buy the country’s bonds directly.US administrations have rallied support for Argentinian governments in the past – Bill Clinton was a fan of Carlos Menem’s 1990s reforms, for example. But Trump’s readiness to wade in directly is the latest example of his determination to use economic tools for political ends: in this case, propping up an ideological ally.Milei swept into power two years ago, on a wave of frustration and discontent with the economic status quo.Like Trump and Boris Johnson, he eschewed the usual conventions of politics and promised to smash up the establishment and remake the state on behalf of the people.But while Milei’s political playbook may echo Trump’s, with its embrace of chaos and showbiz, his economic policies owe something to another radical with big hair – Margaret Thatcher, whom the Argentinian president has called “brilliant”.Like the Thatcher governments in the UK, Milei sees slaying the dragon of inflation as an overriding priority. The challenge in Argentina is on a completely different scale to 1980s Britain, however: the inflation rate peaked at more than 25% a month soon after Milei came to power.But aspects of his approach, including a systematic onslaught on trade union rights, public spending cuts and a wave of privatisations, have echoes of Thatcherism.Despite lacking a parliamentary power base, Milei has succeeded in cutting deep into pensions and public sector wages – and more than 48,000 public sector workers have lost their jobs.He travelled to CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Conference, in the US, to pose on stage next to a chainsaw-wielding Elon Musk, whose Department of Government Efficiency (Doge) was partly inspired by Milei’s aggressive style.Argentina’s tough policies have won plaudits from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which granted a new $20bn lifeline to Argentina in April.On stage at the IMF’s meetings in Washington that month, its managing director, Kristalina Georgieva, proudly pinned on to her green jacket a tiny silver chainsaw badge, handed to her by Argentina’s minister for deregulation, Federico Sturzenegger.But while Milei’s “shock therapy” may have met with approval in Washington – and indeed in financial markets – the Argentinian economist and campaigner Lucía Cirmi Obón highlights its human impact.“The macroeconomic changes implemented by Milei have not shown – nor do I believe they will show – any positive impact on people’s quality of life. In practice, what we are seeing is an economic recession,” she told the Guardian.“The main reasons are that real wages fell, and the opening of imports also dismantled a large part of national industry. On top of that, there were cuts to the number of people receiving a pension, support for childcare, for people with disabilities who used to receive pensions. All of the policies the population used to receive from the state have been reduced.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionUnemployment has risen by two percentage points, but she argues that there is also significant hidden unemployment – with former factory workers crowding into poorly paid gig-economy jobs such as Uber driving, for example. Household debt is rising, and because many of the occupations targeted by cuts are female-dominated, the gender pay gap has widened, undoing six years’ worth of progress.Obón adds that while Milei’s approach was meant to unleash the corporate sector, to open the way for surging economic growth, investment as a share of GDP has actually fallen.Meanwhile, determined to squash inflation, Milei has maintained the peso’s link to the dollar – a trigger for so many crises in Argentina over the years.For several decades, the peso has been pegged – within limits – to the greenback, which circulates within Argentina as an alternative currency, in which many citizens like to hold their savings, especially in times of trouble.Milei had advocated full dollarisation during the election campaign – a policy that would leave Argentina without the right to set its own interest rates. When he came to power and allies rejected that plan, he instead devalued the peso by more than half, willing to wear the resulting inflation in the hope of stimulating exports.But the currency has nevertheless come under continued selling pressure – exacerbated by the political uncertainty unleashed when Milei suffered a disastrous showing in local legislative elections in Buenos Aires province, which he had himself called a “life or death battle”.Since those local elections, and amid a mounting clamour of corruption claims against Milei’s powerful sister, Karina, the peso sell-off has accelerated. The central bank burned through more than $1bn of reserves in a week trying to prop up the currency, before Bessent announced Washington was ready to step in.As well as political fellow feeling, some experts suggest geopolitics may have been another motivation for Washington’s intervention, with China becoming increasingly influential in Latin America.The peso rallied and the markets calmed after Bessent’s comments, but as the costs of “shock therapy” bite and Milei looks to crucial midterm elections in October, the Argentinian public face a volatile period ahead. More

    • 150 Shares132 Views

      in US Politics

      The US government is facing a crisis of legitimacy | Daniel Mendiola

      by

      Between anti-immigrant zeal and a general disdain for any rules whatsoever, the Trump administration has shredded the constitutional order that makes government legitimate.This is now a legitimacy crisis.There are different philosophical approaches to government legitimacy, but in the United States, the most straightforward explanation is the social contract. Often associated with Enlightenment philosophers such as Locke and Rousseau and extremely influential with US founders, the social contract refers to the idea that the government requires the consent of the governed to be legitimate.Crucially, in exchange for this consent, the government accepts certain limits on what it can do. In other words, the government also has to follow the rules.The US has suffered crises of legitimacy before. Arguably, the 1964 Civil Rights Act emerged from just such a crisis. At a base level, the act conceded that to be legitimate, the government needed to actually recognize the rights of all its citizens – not just those of a certain race. It didn’t fix everything, but it was an important step in creating a stronger social contract for the next generation.The Trump administration, however, has reversed course on civil rights, abandoned limited government and eviscerated the social contract beyond recognition. From defying courts, to attacking judges, to capriciously revoking legal immigration statuses, to executing suspected drug smugglers, there is no shortage of examples.One example that deserves a lot more attention than it is currently receiving, however, is the horror story of Trump’s collaboration with a megaprison in El Salvador.To summarize, in March, the Trump administration forcibly sent more than 250 people, mostly Venezuelans accused of having ties to the Tren de Aragua gang, to El Salvador to be detained in a paid arrangement with Salvadorian president Nayib Bukele. Investigative reporting quickly confirmed that the entire operation – ostensibly to target dangerous criminals – was based on lies: only a small percentage of the targets had any criminal record at all, accusations of gang affiliations came from spurious evidence, and many of the detainees had followed the rules to enter the country legally.Nonetheless, instead of enjoying the rights guaranteed by US law, they suddenly faced imprisonment and alleged torture. Lower courts tried to halt the flights, but the Trump administration acted anyway.All of this would be horrifying enough as an isolated incident, but the legal saga surrounding the case has further disturbing implications. At first, the administration justified its actions through a controversial 18th-century law allowing the government to expel “alien enemies” in times of war – even though the country was not at war, and these were not “alien enemies”.However, the administration soon switched to a different argument that might be described like this: it doesn’t matter how many laws we broke – as long as the victims end up in a prison in a foreign country, US courts have no power to stop us. Also, we may do the same to US citizens.When the Trump administration first made these claims, news agencies covered them with much alarm. However, commentators since have avoided stating an uncomfortable truth: the administration was right. Apparently, it didn’t matter how many laws they broke. No one stopped them, nor have they faced any consequences.Significantly, the supreme court has played a critical role in this legitimacy crisis, not only by giving the Trump administration an unprecedented series of wins – often employing mind-boggling logic and blatant distortions of plain text – but also gutting the mechanisms that courts have to stop the executive branch when it gets caught doing illegal things.Here the battle over injunctions is revealing. In normal times, if the government gets caught doing something illegal, then judges have the power to issue an injunction to make the government actors in question stop. Government officials may appeal to a higher court, but in the meantime, the injunction prevents them from continuing to do harm while the case plays out.Now, think about a reality where injunctions don’t exist. If courts can’t issue an injunction to stop the government from doing illegal things, then no matter how blatantly the government is violating people’s rights, it can keep doing it unimpeded so long as the case stays tied up in appeals – a process that often takes years. In this scenario, law exists in theory, but there are virtually no limits to what the government can do in practice.This is shockingly close to the reality that the supreme court has now created. By rushing to overturn injunctions with no regard to who is being harmed, as well as creating seemingly arbitrary technicalities to prevent future injunctions, the message from the supreme court is clear: It doesn’t matter how many laws they broke. Now that Trump is in office, courts are simply not supposed to stop executive officials from putting Trump’s agenda into practice, regardless of how unlawful those practices might be.The extreme inability of our government to police itself becomes even clearer when it is placed alongside Brazil – the second-largest democracy in the Americas – where the former president Jair Bolsonaro was recently convicted for an attempted coup: after losing re-election in 2022, Bolsonaro tried a variety of tactics to stay in power, including inciting his followers to swarm government buildings to physically stop the peaceful transfer of power. If that sounds familiar, that’s because it was, indeed, strikingly similar to what Trump did in the January 6 riots after losing the 2020 election.Now, consider the difference in how our respective constitutional systems handled this. In the US, the supreme court not only blocked any potential trial for Trump’s role in the highly visible attempt to overthrow the government; it also took the opportunity to give him sweeping immunity for just about anything else. According to the logic of the majority decision, it doesn’t matter how many laws he broke. Being president is hard, and it is even harder if he has to worry about getting in trouble for breaking the law. So he should just have a virtual license to commit crimes. That way, he can take “vigorous, decisive” action.The Brazilian supreme court took a strikingly different approach. Apparently, it does matter how many laws Bolsonaro broke. Prosecutors presented strong evidence that he broke the law, so the supreme court decided that he should be prosecuted.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionTellingly, this infuriated the Trump administration, which heaped criticism and sanctions on Brazilian judges in response. Brazilian courts refused to back down, however, and the trial ultimately resulted in a conviction.After watching this play out, I can’t help but wonder: what would it look like if my country had the courage to hold a lawless executive accountable?Here I want to be clear that in posing this question, I am calling for peaceful action. People will have to decide for themselves what this peaceful action looks like, though there is strength in numbers, and I think those numbers exist. As I have written previously, the nationwide protests against capricious and unlawful immigration raids are a testament to how many people are already fed up, and looking for ways to remind the government that it owes us rights.I also don’t think that questioning the government’s legitimacy right now is radical, partisan or even unpatriotic. In fact, nothing I am saying here contradicts what I was taught about legitimate government in my fifth grade social studies class at a conservative, patriotic public school in rural Texas. It is simply our civic duty to call out the government when it strays from the social contract.What’s giving me hope nowIn the classic Latin American protest anthem Me Gustan los Estudiantes, the celebrated Chilean composer Violeta Parra lauds the indomitable spirit of students. “Long live the students!” the song declares. They are the “garden of our joy” because they fearlessly defend truth, even when those in power try to force them to accept lies.Students give me hope as well.Overwhelmingly, the students that I have worked with over the years have shown themselves to be insightful thinkers with an unyielding dedication to truth, empathy, and solidarity. This is hopeful for many reasons, not the least of which being that this seems to terrify the people in power. Indeed, the same architects of our legitimacy crisis are also waging an aggressive campaign to squash campus protests, restrict institutional autonomy, and generally abolish academic freedom. Clearly, academic institutions have the potential to serve as a counterweight to government abuses. Otherwise, why would a lawless government be trying so hard to suppress us?Sadly, too many university leaders are now sacrificing academic legitimacy by caving to government pressure. The situation is bleak on this front as well, yet the battle is far from over.Our best hope: we need to be as fearless as our students.

      Daniel Mendiola is a professor of Latin American history and migration studies at Vassar College More