Regional shockwaves: The fall of Al-Assad's regime and Iraq's political dilemmas

2024-12-09 

Shafaq News/ The collapse of Bashar al-Assad's regime in Syria has sent shockwaves across the Middle East, with profound implications for neighboring Iraq.

The Syrian civil war, which began in 2011, culminated in November 2024 when opposition forces started a surprise attack on the Syrian army and took control of major cities including Aleppo, Homs, and Damascus, ending over 50 years of Al-Assad family rule and marking a historic turning point.

Iraq, already grappling with internal challenges, is now facing heightened instability due to the spillover effects of Syria's fragmentation along ethnic and religious lines. This raises fears of similar repercussions within Iraq.

Shiite Bloc: Balancing Act Amid Regional Upheaval

The relationship between Iraq's Shiite political factions and the Alawite Al-Assad family has been historically rooted in alliances forged during the Iran-Iraq War (1980–1988), with both siding with Iran against Saddam Hussein's Sunni-dominated regime.

Post-2003, some Iraqi Shiite factions, particularly those aligned with Iran, actively supported Al-Assad's regime, even fighting alongside Syrian government forces. However, this time Iraqi leaders have shown restraint, avoiding direct involvement in Syria’s conflict to prevent destabilizing effects at home.

Political analyst Azzam Al-Hamdani highlighted the Shiite bloc's cautious stance, "The Shiite political bloc [Coordination Framework] is the decision-maker in Iraq and perceives the war in Syria as a potential catalyst for change and the emergence of new regimes in the region. Therefore, it fears for its interests and Iraq, given its control over the political balancing act in the country."

This sentiment was echoed by Abdul Rahman Al-Jazairi, a leader within the ruling Framework. He expressed concerns about the broader regional implications, stating, "Prime Minister Mohammed Shia Al-Sudani believes Iraq is not part of the conflict, contrary to some politicians' claims that the war is approaching the country."

Sunni Bloc: Limited Influence in Regional Affairs

The Sunni political bloc in Iraq is viewed as lacking decision-making power and influence, often following the directives of the Shiite leadership.

Al-Hamdani noted, "The Sunni political bloc is not a decision-maker in Iraq; it represents the weakest link and thus relies on the outcomes rather than influencing regional events."

"The Sunni political actor is weak and ineffective to be a party in the equation; rather, it is subject to the dictates of Shiite political decisions. Even though there is a partnership in the state within the political system, it still adheres to what is imposed on it by Shiite political decisions."

“The Sunni house is a participant, not a partner, and follows the path dictated by Shiite political decisions. The same is true for the Kurdish political house." Al-Hamdani said.

Khamis al-Khanjar, head of Iraq’s Sunni Sovereignty (Al-Siyada) Alliance, is one of the few Sunni leaders to address the Syrian regime's collapse. He congratulated the Syrian people, calling the event “the end of an era of criminal dictatorship in Syria and the beginning of a new chapter.” Al-Khanjar also urged all nations to respect Syria's sovereignty, emphasizing non-interference in its internal affairs.

Kurdish Bloc: A Measured Response

The Kurdish political perspective reflects both strategic considerations and a sense of shared danger. Kurdish analyst Abdul Salam Barwari emphasized the Alawite-led Syrian regime's pivotal role as a conduit for Iranian support to Hezbollah via Iraq.

Barwari explained, "It is unfair to say that Sunnis and Kurds are uninterested in the events in Syria. However, their reactions are calmer compared to the Shiite positions, due to the lack of a direct threat to them. But if Iraq is targeted, the threat will affect everyone."

He further noted the uneven media attention on different political groups, "Sunni and Kurdish politicians share the same sense of danger as the Shiites, but media coverage tends to focus more on Shiite politicians and officials, resulting in their greater media presence."

UK

Internationalists in Sheffield express their solidarity with Rojava Kurds

A demonstration for Rojava took place in Sheffield.


ANF
SHEFFIELD
Tuesday, 10 December 2024, 09:12

Internationalists gathered outside Sheffield Train Station, to demonstrate their solidarity with the Kurdish Freedom Movement.

Two internationalists spoke about the recent police raids against the Kurdish community in London, and the attacks on the Autonomous Administration. This was followed by a solidarity statement from a local councilor, condemning the role of the British and Turkish states.

Internationals express their solidarity with friends on hunger strike in London, and demand the release of all our Kurdish political prisoners.

Those that came to the demonstration made their way to the local community centre to discuss further the political situation.


The internationalists said: "We believe there has to be internationalism in a globally connected world, to hold systems of power to account, and condemn the impunity of nation-state actors.

To build societal strength, we cannot stay silent. Our silence allows state violence.

The Kurdish Freedom Movement at its heart is the work of collaborating international revolutionaries from Turkey. They were proud traitors of their national identity, they were able to critically look at their political situation, and realise true democratic organising must be without nation state borders."

The internationalists added: "Those of us born under British State rule, want to declare 'not in our name!'; these acts of violence against Kurdish people are not new. We see the truth behind British state intervention and rule across the globe and throughout history. We attest the outrageous division of the Middle East by hegemonic state powers following the First World War.

Nation-states to this day greedily grasp the Middle East, intentionally causing violent chaos and displacement for their own interests."

The internationalists reminded that "in November 2014, millions of people around the world took to the streets to express their solidarity with the resistance against ISIS. This time has come again, and it is our responsibility as internationals, to understand the unfolding situation, and to not compromise on truth due to complexity.

We as internationalists are following the progression of the Autonomous Administration in North East Syria, as we grapple with the idea of freedom, autonomy and women's liberation in our context."

The internationalists said: "We demand the freedom of all Kurdish political prisoners but especially the freedom of Abdullah Öcalan, who has been in isolation since 1999.

We believe that the Autonomous Administration will play an important role in the democratic future of Syria."

Esquerra Republicana: The fall of al-Assad's dictatorship, an opportunity for change for Syria

The Catalan party Esquerra Republicana said in a statement that "the fall of Bashar al-Assad's dictatorship is an opportunity for change for Syria.


ANF
BARCELONA
Tuesday, 10 December 2024

The Catalan party Esquerra Republicana issued a statement on the fall of the Syrian regime.

The statement said that "the fall of Bashar al-Assad's dictatorship is an opportunity for change for Syria, a regime that has brutally repressed its own people for decades. Given proper support, this should open the door to a new phase that could lead to the reconstruction. However, the victory of the Islamist militias of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the extremist group that has consolidated control over major areas of the country, raises uncertainty in a country with diverse ethnic and religious minorities."

The statement added: "It is essential that the future of Syria be decided by the Syrians, without interference from foreign powers such as the United States, Russia, Turkey, Israel or Iran. All of them have used the country as a geopolitical chessboard, often ignoring the suffering of the civilian population. The latest events are a reminder that the war in Gaza and the West Bank cannot be understood without a broader understanding of the conflict; war begets more war, and its effects spread, bringing devastation and instability throughout the region.

Peace and reconstruction will only be possible if the international community prioritizes human rights, the well-being of the Syrian people and respect for their sovereignty. This new chapter must be an opportunity to guarantee a future of freedom, justice and coexistence for all people living in Syria, regardless of their identity, religion or origin. That is why we reiterate our commitment to peace and solidarity with the Syrian people on this path replete with challenges, but also opportunities."

The statement continued: "It is essential to deliberate on the future of Syria in its entirety, recognizing and respecting its extraordinary ethnic, cultural and religious diversity; the Kurdish, Arab, Armenian, Assyrian and Turkmen communities, as well as the religious minorities of Christians, Shiites, and Alawites. Only by guaranteeing a project of coexistence based on respect for all these minorities will it finally be possible to ensure peace and justice in a country inordinately punished by war and devastation.

In this regard, we wish to highlight the project for coexistence of the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES), a model based on equality, democracy and the defence of the rights of all minorities. This endeavour is an inspiration that can offer solutions for the rest of Syria. At Esquerra Republicana, we feel especially committed to the Kurdish community in its fight for a dignified future that respects human values, and we will always be at their side.

Finally, we wish to reiterate the importance of protecting the rights of ethnic and religious minorities, who have suffered persecution and excessive violence. Their diversity is not only a treasure for Syria, but also for all of humanity.

It is the responsibility of the international community to work for a Syria in peace, where life, dignity and diversity are protected. Esquerra Republicana will offer our unconditional support to these principles in all those institutions where we are represented."

South Africa: Over 1,400 trapped illegal miners resurface

South African authorities accused the miners of illegally entering the mines to dig for gold. Photo: Reuters

A significant number of illegal miners have emerged from disused mine shafts in the Stilfontein area of North West province, South Africa, following increased police presence, police said.

Spokesperson for the South African Police in North West Province, Colonel Adele Myburgh, told local media that since the beginning of November, over 1,420 illegal miners have surfaced from various abandoned shafts.


“Up until Friday, a total of 1414 illegal miners resurfaced at various abandoned mine shafts and Margaret mine shaft in Stilfontein. Eight bodies in total were recovered at Buffelsfontein nr 11 Shaft.

"On Saturday morning, six more illicit miners surfaced at Margaret shaft. They were all Mozambican foreign nationals. The total illicit miners who resurfaced are 1420,” Myburgh said at a briefing at the mine site over the weekend.

Illegal mining

The intensive police operation, aimed at curbing illegal mining activities, has led to a steady stream of miners coming out of the dangerous underground tunnels.


This includes the controversial mine Shaft 11, where illegal miners have had a standoff with police for more than a month.


South African authorities last month accused the miners of illegally entering the mines to dig for gold and have refused to emerge for fear of being arrested.


But following deteriorating health conditions underground, some of the miners have resurfaced. It remains unclear how many miners are still underground.

Rescue mission


Last week, emergency workers said they were racing against time to rescue trapped illegal miners underground after several bodies from mine shafts were recovered.


Those rescued alive told local media they are being forced to mine gold underground by heavily armed men often referred to as "zama zamas," which means "take a chance" in Zulu.


The gangs refuse to let the miners leave the mines even as health conditions underground deteriorated, state broadcaster SABC reports.


South Africa says it will continue working to tackle illegal mining in the country, which poses significant risks to the lives of miners and damages the environment.


In November last year, President Cyril Ramaphosa authorised the deployment of 3,300 South African National Defence Force (SANDF) personnel to support SAPS in their fight against illegal mining.


More than 150 people rescued from abandoned gold mine

3 days ago
Richard Kagoe & Natasha Booty
BBC News
Getty Images
The men say they were forced to mine for rocks containing gold (stock photo)


More than 150 illegal miners have been rescued from an abandoned mine in South Africa's eastern Mpumalanga province.

Police say three bodies were recovered earlier this week on the first day of the rescue operation.

Most of those rescued, reportedly foreign nationals, claim they were forced underground against their will to search for gold.

A police spokesperson confirmed the miners have been arrested, and investigations are continuing into illegal mining activities in the region.

Days earlier, the national police head Fannie Masemola also confirmed officers were investigating "allegations of human trafficking and forced labour in these mining operations by those who have resurfaced".

On Friday night, the final miner to emerge from the disused shaft blew a whistle as he was received by army officers.

He appeared exhausted but could not hide his relief after surfacing.

A police spokesperson confirmed the rescue operation at the Mpumalanga mine is now complete, though investigations will continue before the site is shut down.

Meanwhile, rescue efforts are still under way at another abandoned mine in Stilfontein, south-west of Johannesburg.

Authorities plan to deploy more equipment on Monday to assist with removing those still trapped underground.

Illegal mining is widespread across South Africa, costing the economy millions in lost revenue.

Gen Masemola has described Mpumalanga as a hotspot for such activities.

New Jersey Governor Signs Freedom to Read Act Barring Book Bans

The law, said the Democrat, "cements New Jersey's role on the forefront of preventing book bans and protecting the intellectual freedom of our educators and students."


Democratic New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy signs the Freedom to Read Act in Princeton on December 9, 2024.
(Photo: Gov. Phil Murphy/X)

Brett Wilkins
Dec 09, 2024
COMMON DREAMS

Democratic New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy on Monday signed legislation protecting librarians and prohibiting public schools and libraries from banning books—a move that came as Republican state lawmakers are proscribing a record number of titles, many of them works addressing sexual orientation, gender identity, and racial injustice.

Flanked by educators, librarians, and other advocates, Murphy signed A.3446/S.2421—known as the Freedom to Read Act—in the Princeton Public Library.


"The Freedom to Read Act cements New Jersey's role on the forefront of preventing book bans and protecting the intellectual freedom of our educators and students," said Murphy. "Across the nation, we have seen attempts to suppress and censor the stories and experiences of others. I'm proud to amplify the voices of our past and present, as there is no better way for our children to prepare for the future than to read freely."



According to a statement from Murphy's office:
Under the law, boards of education and governing boards of public libraries are barred from excluding books because of the origin, background, or views of the material or of its authors. Further, boards of education and governing boards of public libraries are prevented from censoring library material based on a disagreement with a viewpoint, idea, or concept, or solely because an individual finds certain content offensive, unless they are restricting access to developmentally inappropriate material for certain age groups.

The legislation "also provides protections for library staff members against civil and criminal lawsuits related to complying with this law."

New Jersey Association of School Librarians President Karen Grant said that "the Freedom to Read Act recognizes the professionalism, honor, work ethics, and performance of school and public library staff" and "promotes libraries as trusted sources of information and recognizes the many roles that libraries play in students' lives."

"The bill will protect the intellectual freedom of students as well as acknowledge that school libraries are centers for voluntary inquiry, fostering students' growth and development," Grant added. "Additionally, we are grateful for the broad coalition of support from so many organizations for this legislation."

The leader of one of those groups—Garden State Equality executive director Christian Fuscarino—said, "Gov. Murphy just made it clear: In New Jersey, censorship loses, and freedom wins."

"At a time when access to diverse and inclusive materials is under attack across the nation, this legislation sends a powerful message that New Jersey will stand firm in protecting intellectual freedom and fostering a culture of understanding and inclusion," Fuscarino added.

The New Jersey law comes amid a near-tripling in the number of books banned or challenged by Republican state lawmakers and right-wing organizations over the past year, with PEN America counting over 10,000 such titles during the 2023-24 academic year—up from 3,362 titles during the previous scholastic year.

With Murphy's signature, New Jersey joins Minnesota and Illinois in passing state legislation to counter GOP book-banning efforts.As the Chicago Tribunereported Sunday, "a number of school districts, many of them in deeply conservative areas of south and central Illinois," are giving up state grants rather than adopting principles against book-banning."

Green, Indigenous Groups Warns Arctic Still at Grave Drilling Risk When Trump Returns

"Drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is all risk with no reward," said one advocate.


A member of the Porcupine caribou herd is seen in the Arctic Refuge in Alaska.
(Photo: G MacRae/flickr/cc)

Julia Conley
Dec 09, 2024
COMMON DREAM

Wildlife protection groups and Indigenous leaders in Alaska said Monday that they would push to discourage bidding in an oil and gas lease sale just announced by the U.S. Interior Department for part of the Arctc National Wildlife Refuge.

Under the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which opened the refuge for oil and gas drilling, the Biden administration announced the second of two lease sales, set to be held on January 9, 2025.

The first Trump administration held the initial lease sale in 2021, but with banks and insurance companies increasingly reticent to back drilling projects in the area, it generated little interest and led to less than 1% of the projected sale revenue.




Releasing its final record of decision, the Interior Department said Monday that 400,000 acres of wilderness in the refuge's 1.6-million-acre northwest Coastal Plain would be put up for bidding at a minimum price of $30 per acre—despite vocal opposition from the Gwich'in Nation and the Iñupiat Alaska Natives.

The land supports local communities as well as porcupine caribou herds and polar bears.

"Our way of life, our food security, and our spiritual well-being is directly tied to the health of the caribou and the health of this irreplaceable landscape," Kristen Moreland, executive director of Gwich'in Steering Committee, toldBloomberg News. "Every oil company stayed away from the first lease sale, and we expect them to do the same during the second."

The record of decision concludes the Bureau of Land Management's process for developing a supplemental environmental impact statement, which was required after President-elect Donald Trump's first administration completed an analysis with "fundamental flaws and legal errors," as the Sierra Club said Monday.

Selling the drilling rights just before Trump takes office could complicate the GOP's plans to hold a more expansive sale later on, but Dan Ritzman, director of Sierra Club's Conservation Campaign, emphasized that regardless of who is in office when the sale takes place, "oil and gas development in the Arctic Refuge is a direct threat to some of the last untouched landscapes on Alaska's North Slope and to the caribou herds that the Gwich'in people rely on."

"The 2017 tax act, forced through Congress by Donald Trump and his Big Oil CEO allies, opened up the Coastal Plain to oil and gas leasing," said Ritzman. "Letting him oversee a lease sale over these pristine lands would be beyond irresponsible. In the meantime, President [Joe] Biden should listen to the Gwich'in and do all that he can to preserve these lands and waters. His legacy is on the line."

Erik Grafe, an attorney at environmental law firm Earthjustice, said the group is "committed to going to court as often as necessary to defend the Arctic Refuge from oil drilling and will work toward a more sustainable future that does not depend on ever-expanding oil extraction."

"Drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is all risk with no reward," said Grafe. "Oil drilling would destroy this beautiful land, held sacred by Gwich'in people, and would further destabilize the global climate, but it offers zero benefit to taxpayers or consumers."

Defenders of Wildlife called on Congress to repeal the 2017 tax law's mandate for leasing sales in the "iconic American landscape" of the Arctic Refuge.

"Turning the coastal plain into an oilfield will obliterate the pristine wilderness of the Arctic Refuge," said Nicole Whittington-Evans, Alaska senior program director for the group, "directly threatening the future of the Porcupine caribou herd and the physical, cultural, and spiritual existence of the Gwich'in people who depend on them."

62% of Americans Agree US Government Should Ensure Everyone Has Health Coverage

The new poll shows the highest level of support in a decade for the government ensuring all Americans have healthcare.

Activists march in New York City to demand universal health coverage.
(Photo: Erik McGregor/LightRocket via Getty Images)

Julia Conley
Dec 09, 2024
COMMON DREAMS
Public sentiment regarding the nation's for-profit healthcare system—an outlier among wealthy nations—has dominated the national news in recent days following last week's killing of an insurance executive in New York.

On Monday, just hours before a suspect in the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson was arrested by police, a new Gallup poll found a 62% majority in the U.S. believe the government should ensure all Americans have healthcare coverage—the highest percentage in more than a decade.

Just 42% of people in 2013 believed it was the government's responsibility to make sure everyone in the country had health coverage—a low since the beginning of this century.

The poll found that a majority of Republicans still believe ensuring health coverage is not the government's job, but the majority has shrunk since 2020.

That year, only 22% of Republican voters believed the government should ensure everyone in the country has healthcare, but that number has now grown to 32%.

The percentage of Independents who think the issue is in the government's purview has also gone up by six points since 2020, and Democratic support remains high, currently at 90%.

Americans have vented their frustrations about the current for-profit health insurance system in recent days as police searched for a suspect in the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, before arresting Luigi Mangione in Pennsylvania on Monday. Mangione, according to claims by police, was found with a manifesto that railed against the insurance industry.

Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield last week also faced public outcry and was forced to reverse a decision to slash coverage for anesthesia care, with U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) saying the move indicated that "the current system is broken."

"Democrats will regain trust by standing up to special interest insurance companies and fighting for Medicare for All," he said.

President-elect Donald Trump and other Republicans, who are set to control both chambers of Congress starting in January, have indicated that they would go in the opposite direction, working to weaken the popular, government-run Medicare program by promoting Medicare Advantage, which is administered by for-profit companies like United and is already used by half of Medicare beneficiaries.

But one of Trump's top allies, billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk, waded into the debate last week about the current healthcare system, questioning why the U.S. pays far more in administrative healthcare costs than other wealthy countries and suggesting Americans don't "get their money's worth."

Another poll released last Friday found Americans' positive opinion of the nation's healthcare quality has declined to its lowest point since 2001, with most agreeing the U.S. system dominated by private insurers has "major problems."

'Completely Un-American': Progressives Slam Trump Plan to End Birthright Citizenship

"Emboldened by a Supreme Court that would use its power to uphold white supremacy rather than the constitution of our nation, Trump is on a mission to weaken the very soul of our nation," said Rep. Delia Ramirez.


U.S. President-elect Donald Trump sits in the Salon Jaune room at the U.K. ambassador's residence in Paris, France on December 7, 2024.

(Photo: Aaron Chown/pool/AFP via Getty Images)

Jessica Corbett
Dec 09, 2024
COMMON DREAMS

Progressives in Congress and other migrant rights advocates sharply criticized U.S. President-elect Donald Trump for his comments on immigration during a Sunday interview, including on his hopes to end birthright citizenship.

During a 76-minute interview with NBC News' Kristen Welker, Trump said he "absolutely" intends to end birthright citizenship, potentially through executive order, despite the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Among many lies the Republican told, he also falsely claimed that the United States is the only country to offer citizenship by birth; in fact, there are dozens.

In response, outgoing Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said on social media Monday: "This is completely un-American. The 14th Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship. Trump cannot unilaterally end it, and any attempt to do so would be both unconstitutional and immoral."

Congresswoman Gwen Moore (D-Wis.) similarly stressed that "birthright citizenship is enshrined in the Constitution as a cornerstone of American ideals. It reflects our belief that America is the land of opportunity. Sadly, this is just another in the long line of Trump's assault on the U.S. Constitution."



Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.), the daughter of Guatemalan immigrants, said in a statement: "'Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.' It is important to remember who we are, where many of us came from, and why many of our families traveled here to be greeted by the Mother of Exiles, the Statue of Liberty."

Ramirez argued that "the story of our nation wouldn't be complete without the sweat, tears, joy, dreams, and hopes of so many children of immigrants who are citizens by birthright and pride themselves on being AMERICANS. It is the story of so many IL-03 communities, strengthened by the immigration of people from Poland, Ukraine, Italy, Mexico, and Guatemala, among others. It is the story of many members of Congress who can point to the citizenship of their forebears and ancestors because of immigration and birthright."

"Let's be clear: Trump is posing the question of who gets to be an American to our nation. And given that today's migrants are from Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, and Latin and Central America, it is clear he is questioning who are the 'right' people to benefit from birthright citizenship," she continued. "Questioning birthright citizenship is anti-American, and eliminating it through executive action is unconstitutional. Donald Trump knows that."

"But emboldened by a Supreme Court that would use its power to uphold white supremacy rather than the Constitution of our nation, Trump is on a mission to weaken the very soul of our nation," she warned. "I—like many sons and daughters of immigrants and first-generation Americans—believe in and fight for a land of freedom, opportunities, and equality. To live into that promise, we must stand against white nationalism—especially when it is espoused at the highest levels of government."

Although Republicans are set to control both the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives next year, amending the Constitution requires support from two-thirds of both chambers of Congress and three-fourths of the state legislatures, meaning that process is unlikely to be attempted for this policy.

Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.) highlighted the difficulties of passing constitutional amendments while discussing Trump in a Monday appearance on CNN. The incoming chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus was born in the Dominican Republic and is the first formerly undocumented immigrant elected to Congress.



As Mother Jones reporter Isabela Dias detailed Monday:
Critics of ending birthright citizenship for the U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants argue it would not only constitute bad policy, but also a betrayal of American values and, as one scholar put it to me, a "prelude" to mass deportation.

"It's really 100 years of accepted interpretation," Hiroshi Motomura, a scholar of immigration and citizenship at UCLA's law school, told me of birthright citizenship. Ending birthright citizenship would cut at the core of the hard-fought assurance of equal treatment under the law, he said, "basically drawing a line between two kinds of American citizens."

Trump's NBC interview also addressed his long-promised mass deportations. The president-elect—whose first administration was globally condemned for separating migrant families at the southern border and second administration is already filling up with hard-liners—suggested Sunday that he would deport children who are U.S. citizens with undocumented parents.

"I don't want to be breaking up families, so the only way you don't break up the family is you keep them together and you have to send them all back," Trump told Welker.



Responding in a Monday statement, America's Voice executive director Vanessa Cárdenas said, "There's a growing consensus that the Trump mass deportation agenda will hit American consumers and industries hard, but the scope of what Trump and his team are proposing goes well beyond the economic impact."

"Trump and allies are making clear their mass deportation agenda will include deporting U.S. citizens, including children, while aiming to gut a century and a half of legal and moral precedent on birthright citizenship," she added. "In total, their attacks go well beyond the narrow lens of immigration to the fundamental question of who gets to be an American."

What is birthright citizenship and could Trump end it?




By —Rebecca Santana, Associated Press

Dec 9, 2024 

WASHINGTON (AP) — President-elect Donald Trump has promised to end birthright citizenship as soon as he gets into office to make good on campaign promises aiming to restrict immigration and redefining what it means to be American.

But any efforts to halt the policy would face steep legal hurdles.

READ MORE: Fact-checking Trump’s ‘Meet the Press’ interview

Birthright citizenship means anyone born in the United States automatically becomes an American citizen. It’s been in place for decades and applies to children born to someone in the country illegally or in the U.S. on a tourist or student visa who plans to return to their home country.

It’s not the practice of every country, and Trump and his supporters have argued that the system is being abused and that there should be tougher standards for becoming an American citizen.

But others say this is a right enshrined in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, it would be extremely difficult to overturn and even if it’s possible, it’s a bad idea.

Here’s a look at birthright citizenship, what Trump has said about it and the prospects for ending it.
What Trump has said about birthright citizenship

During an interview Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Trump said he “absolutely” planned to halt birthright citizenship once in office.

“We’re going to end that because it’s ridiculous,” he said.

Trump and other opponents of birthright citizenship have argued that it creates an incentive for people to come to the U.S. illegally or take part in “birth tourism,” in which pregnant women enter the U.S. specifically to give birth so their children can have citizenship before returning to their home countries.

READ MORE: Trump won’t rule out revenge prosecutions, deportation of U.S. citizens when he takes office

“Simply crossing the border and having a child should not entitle anyone to citizenship,” said Eric Ruark, director of research for NumbersUSA, which argues for reducing immigration. The organization supports changes that would require at least one parent to be a permanent legal resident or a U.S. citizen for their children to automatically get citizenship.

Others have argued that ending birthright citizenship would profoundly damage the country.

“One of our big benefits is that people born here are citizens, are not an illegal underclass. There’s better assimilation and integration of immigrants and their children because of birthright citizenship,” said Alex Nowrasteh, vice president for economic and social policy studies at the pro-immigration Cato Institute.

In 2019, the Migration Policy Institute estimated that 5.5 million children under age 18 lived with at least one parent in the country illegally in 2019, representing 7% of the U.S. child population. The vast majority of those children were U.S. citizens.

The nonpartisan think tank said during Trump’s campaign for president in 2015 that the number of people in the country illegally would “balloon” if birthright citizenship were repealed, creating “a self-perpetuating class that would be excluded from social membership for generations.”
What does the law say?

In the aftermath of the Civil War, Congress ratified the 14th Amendment in July 1868. That amendment assured citizenship for all, including Black people.

“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 14th Amendment says. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

But the 14th Amendment didn’t always translate to everyone being afforded birthright citizenship. For example, it wasn’t until 1924 that Congress finally granted citizenship to all Native Americans born in the U.S.

A key case in the history of birthright citizenship came in 1898, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrants, was a U.S. citizen because he was born in the states. The federal government had tried to deny him reentry into the county after a trip abroad on grounds he wasn’t a citizen under the Chinese Exclusion Act.

But some have argued that the 1898 case clearly applied to children born of parents who are both legal immigrants to America but that it’s less clear whether it applies to children born to parents without legal status or, for example, who come for a short-term like a tourist visa.

“That is the leading case on this. In fact, it’s the only case on this,” said Andrew Arthur, a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, which supports immigration restrictions. “It’s a lot more of an open legal question than most people think.”

READ MORE: What the data says about birthright citizenship

Some proponents of immigration restrictions have argued the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment allows the U.S. to deny citizenship to babies born to those in the country illegally. Trump himself used that language in his 2023 announcement that he would aim to end birthright citizenship if reelected.
So what could Trump do and would it be successful?

Trump wasn’t clear in his Sunday interview how he aims to end birthright citizenship.

Asked how he could get around the 14th Amendment with an executive action, Trump said: “Well, we’re going to have to get it changed. We’ll maybe have to go back to the people. But we have to end it.” Pressed further on whether he’d use an executive order, Trump said “if we can, through executive action.”

He gave a lot more details in a 2023 post on his campaign website. In it, he said he would issue an executive order the first day of his presidency, making it clear that federal agencies “require that at least one parent be a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident for their future children to become automatic U.S. citizens.”

Trump wrote that the executive order would make clear that children of people in the U.S. illegally “should not be issued passports, Social Security numbers, or be eligible for certain taxpayer funded welfare benefits.”

This would almost certainly end up in litigation.

Nowrasteh from the Cato Institute said the law is clear that birthright citizenship can’t be ended by executive order but that Trump may be inclined to take a shot anyway through the courts.

“I don’t take his statements very seriously. He has been saying things like this for almost a decade,” Nowrasteh said. “He didn’t do anything to further this agenda when he was president before. The law and judges are near uniformly opposed to his legal theory that the children of illegal immigrants born in the United States are not citizens.”

Trump could steer Congress to pass a law to end birthright citizenship but would still face a legal challenge that it violates the Constitution.

Associated Press reporter Elliot Spagat in San Diego contributed to this report.

How birthright citizenship could change under Trump

Adam Gray/AP
People carry the American flag during the annual Veterans Day Parade, Nov. 11, 2024, in New York.

By Sarah Matusek Staff writer
Caitlin Babcock Staff writer

CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
Dec. 09, 202

Everyone born in the United States, with limited exception, is a U.S. citizen. The Constitution says so.

That’s the legal reading, over a century old, that Donald Trump says he seeks to scrap on Day 1. The president-elect has pledged to end birthright citizenship for children of unauthorized immigrant parents, so that those children born in the country aren’t automatically American.

He confirmed the plan in an NBC interview that aired Sunday.

Why We Wrote This

Donald Trump’s campaign featured the issue of unauthorized immigrants. On Day 1, he may try to change their children’s future in the U.S. – against a century of legal precedent.

“We have to end it,” said Mr. Trump. He added that he hoped to do so through “executive action.”

His transition team is starting to draft versions of an executive order, reports The Wall Street Journal. An ensuing legal fight could end up before the Supreme Court. The Constitution outlines how it can be amended – and involves approval from both Congress and the states.

The birthright debate isn’t new. It’s part of a long-term national grappling over the promise and limits of immigration, and what some analysts see as legal questions left unsettled.

How is automatic citizenship a right?

In the U.S. Constitution, Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment leads with this line:

“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 country’s concept of citizenship transformed through the Civil War era. In 1857, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that enslaved people weren’t U.S. citizens. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 reversed that decision, establishing U.S. citizenship for people born here regardless of race or past enslavement.

The act was a stepping stone to the Fourteenth Amendment, which granted citizenship to formerly enslaved people when it was ratified in 1868. Three decades later, the Supreme Court affirmed birthright citizenship in the case United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

Born in San Francisco to Chinese parents, Wong Kim Ark was denied entry back into the U.S. after a trip to China on the grounds he wasn’t a U.S. citizen. In a 6-2 decision, the justices confirmed that he was.

The Wong Kim Ark ruling has governed the prevailing understanding of automatic citizenship. But some legal minds argue the citizenship clause remains unsettled – especially for children of unauthorized immigrants. That question wasn’t addressed in the Wong Kim Ark case, they argue.

During the NBC interview, Mr. Trump repeated the false claim that only the U.S. has birthright citizenship. Several countries do, including Canada and Mexico.

Why does President-elect Trump want to restrict automatic citizenship?

Mr. Trump casts it as part of cracking down on illegal immigration that swelled under the Biden administration. This includes removing what Mr. Trump calls an “incentive.”

He spoke of ending automatic citizenship leading up to and during his first term, but he never signed an order. During his latest campaign, he released a video vowing to tackle the task anew as part of securing the border.

On Day 1, “I will sign an executive order making clear to federal agencies that under the correct interpretation of the law, going forward, the future children of illegal aliens will not receive automatic U.S. citizenship,” he said. “At least one parent will have to be a citizen or a legal resident in order to qualify.”

The New York Times reported last month that Mr. Trump’s team plans to stop issuing documents like passports and Social Security cards to babies born to unauthorized migrant parents on U.S. soil.

The president-elect has also said he wants to rein in “birth tourism,” in which women come from abroad to birth their babies here. Those schemes exist, and fraudulent operations by Chinese nationals have been prosecuted by the U.S. government. Some Trump critics, however, have called his treatment of “birth tourism” xenophobic.

In 2016, the latest year available, around 250,000 babies were born to unauthorized immigrant parents in the U.S., reports Pew Research Center.

Can Mr. Trump actually change birthright citizenship?

It’s unclear. Any executive order would likely draw a legal fight, and could end up in the nation’s top court. One point of debate, which some legal experts say could prove key, is how to interpret who is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. – as the law says.

Changing the citizenship clause in the Constitution, however, would require an amendment. That would involve an approval by two-thirds vote from the U.S. House and Senate, and ultimately a ratification by at least 38 states. The last amendment was added in 1992.

Birthright citizenship is among the “hallmark pieces of the American experiment,” says Jennie Murray, president of the National Immigration Forum. Restricting this right “begins to unwind the definition of what it means to be American,” she says, which could be seen as a step too far for some Trump supporters.

Former immigration judge Andrew Arthur underscores that entering the U.S. without authorization is a crime. The citizenship benefit “creates a pull factor,” he says. “And generally, we try to eliminate those incentives from our law.”

Automatic citizenship is a “question that needs to be resolved in the Constitution,” says Mr. Arthur, law and policy fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies. He notes there’s already an exception to whom the Fourteenth Amendment citizenship clause applies: children of foreign diplomats.

Hiroshi Motomura, co-director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at UCLA School of Law, thinks it’s unlikely the Supreme Court would overturn Wong Kim Ark. That’s because while possible, he says, that would reverse more than a century of precedent.

TCE & PERC

EPA Bans Known Carcinogens Used in Dry Cleaning, Other Industries

"Both of these chemicals have caused too much harm for too long, despite the existence of safer alternatives," said one environmental campaigner.

BOTH ARE BANNED IN CANADA


Activist Anne Anderson delivers brief remarks while U.S. Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) (left) looks on during an October 23, 2023 press conference in Woburn, Mass. Anderson, whose 12-year-old son Jimmy died of acute lymphocytic leukemia in 1981, was hailed by Markey while remembering "all those kids who didn't stand a chance against toxic chemical pollution."
(Photo: Sen. Ed Markey/X)

Jon Queally
Dec 09, 2024
COMMON DREAMS

The Biden administration's Environmental Protection Agency on Monday announced a permanent ban on a pair of carcinogenic chemicals widely used in U.S. industries, including dry cleaning services and automative work.

According to the Washington Post:
The announcement includes the complete ban of trichloroethylene—also known as TCE—a substance found in common consumer and manufacturing products including degreasing agents, furniture care and auto repair products. In addition, the agency banned all consumer uses and many commercial uses of Perc—also known as tetrachloroethylene and PCE — an industrial solvent long used in applications such as dry cleaning and auto repair.

Jonathan Kalmuss-Katz, a senior attorney at Earthjustice, applauded the move but suggested to the Post that it should have come sooner.

"Both of these chemicals have caused too much harm for too long, despite the existence of safer alternatives," Kalmuss-Katz.

The EPA's decision, reports the New York Times, was "long sought by environmental and health advocates, even as they braced for what could be a wave of deregulation by the incoming Trump administration."

The Timesreports:
TCE is known to cause liver cancer, kidney cancer and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and to damage the nervous and immune systems. It has been found in drinking water nationwide and was the subject of a 1995 book that became a movie, “A Civil Action,” starring John Travolta. The E.P.A. is banning all uses of the chemical under the Toxic Substances Control Act, which was overhauled in 2016 to give the agency greater authority to regulate harmful chemicals.

Though deemed "less harmful" than TCE, the Times notes how Perc has been shown to "cause liver, kidney, brain and testicular cancer," and can also damage the functioning of kidneys, the liver, and people's immune systems.

Environmentalists celebrated last year when Biden's EPA proposed the ban on TCE, as Common Dreamsreported.

Responding to the news at the time, Scott Faber, senior vice president for government affairs at the Environmental Working Group (EWG), said the EPA, by putting the ban on the table, was "once again putting the health of workers and consumers first."

While President-elect Donald Trump ran on a having an environmental agenda that would foster the "cleanest air" and the "cleanest water," the late approval of EPA's ban on TCE and Perc in Biden's term means the rule will be subject to the Congressional Review Act (CRA), meaning the Republican-control Senate could reverse the measure.

In his remarks to the Times, Kalmuss-Katz of Earthjustice said that if Trump and Senate Republicans try to roll back the ban, they will be certain to "encounter serious opposition from communities across the country that have been devastated by TCE, in both blue and red states."

DARK TOURISM

More than 900 people died in Jonestown. Guyana wants to turn it into a tourist attraction.

The Rev. Jim Jones and more than 900 of his followers died there in 1978.


FILE - A view of the People's Temple compound, Jonestown, Guyana, November 1978, where more than 900 followers of the Rev. Jim Jones committed suicide. (AP Photo, File) | AP

By Associated Press
12/08/2024 

GEORGETOWN, Guyana — Guyana is revisiting a dark history nearly half a century after U.S. Rev. Jim Jones and more than 900 of his followers died in the rural interior of the South American country.

It was the largest suicide-murder in recent history, and a government-backed tour operator wants to open the former commune now shrouded by lush vegetation to visitors, a proposal that is reopening old wounds, with critics saying it would disrespect victims and dig up a sordid past.

Jordan Vilchez, who grew up in California and was moved into the Peoples Temple commune at age 14, told The Associated Press in a phone interview from the U.S. that she has mixed feelings about the tour.

She was in Guyana’s capital the day Jones ordered hundreds of his followers to drink a poisoned grape-flavored drink that was given to children first. Her two sisters and two nephews were among the victims.

“I just missed dying by one day,” she recalled.

Vilchez, 67, said Guyana has every right to profit from any plans related to Jonestown.

“Then on the other hand, I just feel like any situation where people were manipulated into their deaths should be treated with respect,” she said.

Vilchez added that she hopes the tour operator would provide context and explain why so many people went to Guyana trusting they would find a better life.

The tour would ferry visitors to the far-flung village of Port Kaituma nestled in the lush jungles of northern Guyana. It’s a trip available only by boat, helicopter or plane; rivers instead of roads connect Guyana’s interior. Once there, it’s another six miles via a rough and overgrown dirt trail to the abandoned commune and former agricultural settlement.

Neville Bissember, a law professor at the University of Guyana, questioned the proposed tour, calling it a “ghoulish and bizarre” idea in a recently published letter.

“What part of Guyana’s nature and culture is represented in a place where death by mass suicide and other atrocities and human rights violations were perpetuated against a submissive group of American citizens, which had nothing to do with Guyana nor Guyanese?” he wrote.

Despite ongoing criticism, the tour has strong support from the government’s Tourism Authority and Guyana’s Tourism and Hospitality Association.

Tourism Minister Oneidge Walrond told the AP the government is backing the effort at Jonestown but is aware “of some level of push back” from certain sectors of society.

She said the government already has helped clear the area “to ensure a better product can be marketed,” adding that the tour might need Cabinet approval.

“It certainly has my support,” she said. “It is possible. After all, we have seen what Rwanda has done with that awful tragedy as an example.”

Rose Sewcharran, director of Wonderlust Adventures, the private tour operator who plans to take visitors to Jonestown, said she was buoyed by the support.

“We think it is about time,” she said. “This happens all over the world. We have multiple examples of dark, morbid tourism around the world, including Auschwitz and the Holocaust museum.”

U.S. soldiers remove the last of the bodies of the victims at Jonestown, Guyana, on Nov. 26, 1978. | AP

Luring tourists: The November 1978 mass suicide-murder was synonymous with Guyana for decades until huge amounts of oil and gas were discovered off the country’s coast nearly a decade ago, making it one of the world’s largest offshore oil producers.

New roads, schools and hotels are being built across the capital, Georgetown, and beyond, and a country that rarely saw tourists is now hoping to attract more of them.

An obvious attraction is Jonestown, argued Astill Paul, the co-pilot of a twin-engine plane that flew U.S. Rep. Leo J. Ryan of California and a U.S. news crew to a village near the commune a day before hundreds died on Nov. 18, 1978. He witnessed gunmen fatally shoot Ryan and four others as they tried to board the plane on Nov. 18 and fly back to the capital.

Paul told the AP he believes the former commune should be developed as a heritage site.

“I sat on the tourism board years ago and did suggest we do this, but the minister at the time lashed the idea down because the government wanted nothing to do with morbid tourism,” he recalled.

Until recently, successive governments shunned Jonestown, arguing that the country’s image was badly damaged by the mass murder-suicide, even though only a handful of Indigenous people died. The overwhelming majority of victims were Americans like Vilchez who flew to Guyana to follow Jones. Many endured beatings, forced labor, imprisonment and rehearsals for a mass suicide.

Those in favor of a tour include Gerry Gouveia, a pilot who also flew when Jonestown was active.

“The area should be reconstructed purely for tourists to get a first-hand understanding of its layout and what had happened,” he said. “We should reconstruct the home of Jim Jones, the main pavilion and other buildings that were there.”

Today, all that is left is bits of a cassava mill, pieces of the main pavilion and a rusted tractor that once hauled a flatbed trailer to take temple members to the Port Kaituma airfield.

Bottles of poison are seen in 1978 in Jonestown, Guyana. | AP

An offering to the land: Until now, most visitors to Jonestown have been reporters and family members of those who died.

Organizing an expedition on one’s own is daunting: the area is far from the capital and hard to access, and some consider the closest populated settlement dangerous.

“It’s still a very, very, very rough area,” said Fielding McGehee, co-director of The Jonestown Institute, a nonprofit group. “I don’t see how this is going to be an economically feasible kind of project because of the vast amounts of money it would take to turn it into a viable place to visit.”

McGehee warned about relying on supposed witnesses who will be part of the tour. He said the memories and stories that have trickled down through generations might not be accurate.

“It’s almost like a game of telephone,” he said. “It does not help anyone understand what happened in Jonestown.”

He recalled how one survivor had proposed a personal project to develop the abandoned site, but those from the temple community said, ‘Why do you want to do that?’

McGehee noted that dark tourism is popular, and that going to Jonestown means tourists could say they visited a place where more than 900 people died on the same day.

“It’s the prurient interest in tragedy,” he said.

If the tour eventually starts operating, not everything will be visible to tourists.

When Vilchez returned to Guyana in 2018 for the first time since the mass suicide-murder, she made an offering to the land when she arrived in Jonestown.

Among the things she buried in the abandoned commune where her sisters and nephews died were snippets of hair from her mother and father, who did not go to Jonestown.

“It just felt like a gesture that honored the people that died,” she said.