SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Federal Court Blocks Extreme Texas Legislation That Would Overstep Federal Immigration Law
AUSTIN, Texas
The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas today granted a motion for preliminary injunction to block Texas Senate Bill 4 (88-4), which would permit local and state law enforcement to arrest, detain, and remove people they suspect to have entered Texas from another country without federal authorization. The legislation is one of the most extreme anti-immigrant laws ever passed by any state legislature in the country.
A lawsuit from civil rights groups argues that the S.B. 4 violates the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution and is preempted by federal law, as Texas judges would be required to order a person’s deportation regardless of whether a person is eligible to seek asylum or other humanitarian protections under federal law. Advocates have warned that the law will separate families and directly lead to racial profiling, subjecting thousands of Black and Brown Texans to the state prison system, which is rife with civil rights abuses.
The lawsuit was filed in December 2023 by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Texas, and the Texas Civil Rights Project (TCRP) on behalf of El Paso County, American Gateways, and Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center. It was subsequently consolidated with a lawsuit by the Department of Justice.
The court’s decision will temporarily block the law from going into effect as the case is litigated. Without an injunction, the law would have gone into effect on March 5, 2024. This ruling is likely to be appealed by the state.
The following reactions are from:
Anand Balakrishnan (he/him), senior staff attorney at the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said:
“The federal court’s decision confirms over a century of Supreme Court precedent, affirming that immigration enforcement is squarely within the federal government’s authority. S.B. 4 is a blatantly unconstitutional attempt to bypass federal law. We applaud the court’s decision, but we must ensure this harmful law is struck down altogether.”
Edna Yang (she/her), co-executive director of American Gateways, said:
“This decision is a victory for all our communities as it stops a harmful, unconstitutional, and discriminatory state policy from taking effect and impacting the lives of millions of Texans. Local officials should not be federal immigration agents, and our state should not be creating its own laws that deny people their right to seek protection here in the U.S. While we are thankful for this court decision, we know that too many people fleeing persecution are being denied their legal rights to make their case and seek political asylum. The only way to fix our broken immigration system is through federal congressional action, not individual state action.”
Jennifer Babaie (she/her), Director of Advocacy and Legal Services with Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, said:
“With today’s decision, the court sent a clear message to Texas: SB 4 is unconstitutional and criminalizing Black, brown, indigenous, and immigrant communities will not be tolerated. This crucial decision allows us to continue to focus our efforts on building a safe, legal, humane immigration system not contingent on abuses like racial profiling and harassment. We must continue to be vigilant against Texas’ politics of fear and hatred. But today, immigrants and Texans of color get to pursue living lives of hope, opportunity, and family. It’s a win worth celebrating.”
David Donatti (he/him), senior staff attorney at the ACLU of Texas, said:
“The court’s decision to block this anti-immigrant law from taking effect is an important win for Texas values, human rights, and the U.S. Constitution. Our current immigration system needs repair because it forces millions of Americans into the shadows and shuts the door on people in need of safety. S.B. 4 would only make things worse. Cruelty to migrants is not a policy solution.”
Aron Thorn (he/him), senior attorney, Beyond Borders Program at TCRP, said:
“We celebrate today’s win, blocking this extreme law from going into effect before it has the opportunity to harm Texas communities. This is a major step in showing the State of Texas and Governor Abbott that they do not have the power to enforce unconstitutional, state-run immigration policies. While this is only the first step in abolishing the law, people across the state can breathe a sigh of relief knowing they will not be needlessly arrested or deported by Texas under S.B. 4.”
Iliana Holguin (she/her), El Paso County Commissioner Precinct 3, said:
“El Paso County applauds the court’s clear confirmation today that immigration policies rest solely under Federal jurisdiction, and the state of Texas’ interference with the U.S. Constitution will not be tolerated. A piecemeal approach from individual states on federal matters such as immigration enforcement would put an undue burden on local taxpayers, while opening the door to potential civil rights violations for border residents and immigrants alike.”
The order granting a preliminary injunction is available here: https://www.aclu.org/documents/las-americas-v-mccraw-order-granting-preliminary-injunction
Access “Know Your Rights” under S.B. 4 materials in English here: https://www.aclutx.org/en/know-your-rights/know-your-rights-under-texas-deportation-scheme-sb4
Access “Know Your Rights” under S.B. 4 materials in Spanish here: https://www.aclutx.org/es/know-your-rights/conozca-sus-derechos-segun-el-plan-de-deportacion-sb4-de-texas
The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and is our nation's guardian of liberty. The ACLU works in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(212) 549-2666LATEST NEWS
Israeli Use of AI Weapons in Gaza Denounced as Blatant Violation of Treaty Obligations
"As the Israeli military weaponizes AI for oppression, the world must confront this hypocrisy and hold it accountable to save lives," said Jewish Voice for Peace.
Nov 20, 2024
Amid reporting that the Israel Defense Forces is using an artificial intelligence weapons system touted as improving "operator lethality," Jewish Voice for Peace said Israel's use of technological warfare is "nothing new"—but pointed out that the new reports follow the country's signing of "the first global 'safety' AI treaty."
The Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence, spearheaded by the Council of Europe, was signed by Israel in September, and "claims to be a legal framework governing AI systems to mitigate risks to human rights, democracy, and the rule of law—but the Israeli military is using AI to do precisely the opposite," said JVP.
The Jewish-led advocacy group spoke out after Middle East Eye (MEE)reported that the IDF has been using a weapons system in Gaza that came out of a collaboration between Israeli Weapons Industries and the Indian company Adani Defence & Aerospace.
The AI system, Arbel, was first unveiled at a defense expo in Gandhinagar, Gujarat in October 2022. MEE reported it is capable of turning "machine guns and assault rifles into computerized killing machines," using algorithms to increase Israeli soldiers' chances of hitting targets with accuracy and "efficiency."
The huge death toll in Gaza—which is conservatively estimated to be about 44,000 but which nearly 100 medical professionals estimated to be more than 118,000 last month, based on their experiences in hospitals there—has previously been linked to Israel's use of AI.
As Common Dreams reported in April, an AI machine called Lavender has been used by the IDF to devise "kill lists," with the military deeming 100 civilian deaths for every Hamas official an acceptable error rate. In December, the Israeli outlets +972 Magazine and Local Callreported that another AI machine called Gospel has been used to target dozens of buildings per day.
Defense analysts told MEE that Arbel has likely been used to "carry out the carnage of Palestinians in a more efficient manner in Gaza."
Antony Loewenstein, an independent journalist who tracks the use of technological warfare in Gaza and the West Bank, told MEE that as Israel has used numerous AI systems over the past 13 months, "targeting civilians was the point. It was never about just going after Hamas."
"I have spoken to people in Gaza, I have seen the direct human impact of this kind of killing," he told the outlet. "It is horrific."
Research analyst Noah Sylvia of the Royal United Services Institute in London told MEE that the IDF "has demonstrated a disregard for civilian life in Gaza to the point of routinely targeting children with small arms, meaning that Arbel could easily be used to make the killing of civilians, of children, more efficient."
The impact of the AI system depends "on the military's operating procedures and commitment to international humanitarian law," said Sylvia.
Humanitarian groups and human rights experts have said Israel is blatantly disregarding international law with its near-total blockade of aid into Gaza and its attacks—some with U.S. weapons—on civilians infrastructure.
JVP said the IDF's use of Arbel indicates Israel is also violating the Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence, and noted reports that the military has also used "facial recognition technology and advanced weapons to monitor, silence dissent, cut internet access, and obscure its war crimes."
Marwa Fatafta, Middle East policy and advocacy director for Access Now, warned that Israel's partnering with India—where AI companies reportedly have the sixth-highest AI investments in the world at $7.73 billion—may provide "a new and terrifying blueprint for tech-enabled warfare... this time through Indian-Israel military tech."
"Rarely does a technology stay dormant in one location," Fatafta said. "The lawlessness and impunity in which Israel commits egregious crimes with the use of AI should terrify everyone."
Keep ReadingShow Less
House Democrats Back Sanders Senate Effort to Halt Arms Sales to Israel
"The U.S. must use its leverage to safeguard civilian lives, secure a lasting cease-fire, and advance a pathway toward peace."
Nov 20, 2024
A group of progressives in the U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday endorsed Sen. Bernie Sanders' joint resolutions of disapproval that would block sales of American weapons to Israel as its troops continue to lay waste to the Gaza Strip.
Sanders (I-Vt.) introduced the six resolutions in September and plans to force a vote on Wednesday. In a statement led by Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), the House members said that "if given the opportunity to do so, we would vote in favor of S.J. Res. 111, S.J. Res. 113, and S.J. Res. 115."
Jayapal was joined by Democratic Reps. Becca Balint (Vt.), Joaquin Castro (Texas), Lloyd Doggett (Texas), Sara Jacobs (Calif.), Barbara Lee (Calif.), Jim McGovern (Mass.), Mark Pocan (Wis.), and Jan Schakowsky (Ill.).
While condemning the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attack and backing "defensive systems that are designed to meet Israel's security needs," the nine House members also argued that "the United States must use all available leverage, including the suspension of offensive weapons transfers, to de-escalate the violence and protect the lives of hostages, including Americans, Palestinian civilians, and all those impacted by the ongoing conflict."
"We are and have been deeply alarmed by the Israeli military's conduct in Gaza, where independent human rights monitors have documented the use of U.S.-provided weaponry in violations of international law," they continued. "According to the Biden administration's own report, 'it is reasonable to assess' that Israeli security forces have used U.S. weapons to violate international humanitarian law. The humanitarian aid entering Gaza has also reached historic lows. In October, an average of 28 trucks per day crossed into Gaza, compared to a pre-war daily average of 500."
The coalition also pointed to the Biden administration's mid-October letter, which threatened to cut off U.S. weapons unless the Israeli government took "urgent and sustained actions" to improve humanitarian conditions in Gaza within 30 days.
"On November 4, 2024, State Department Spokesperson Matthew Miller stated Israel had so far 'failed' to implement the recommendations in the letter, and that assessment was substantiated by several humanitarian organizations," the lawmakers noted. "Despite this clear lack of progress, no meaningful action has been taken by the Biden administration to promote Israeli compliance with stated U.S. policy goals."
Sanders announced plans to bring his resolutions to a vote after a U.S. State Department spokesperson last week responded to a question about the Biden administration's deadline by declaring that Israel is not violating federal and international law.
Warning that U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's return to the White House in January "will only embolden" Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his far-right ministers, the House members asserted that a vote for the resolutions "is a vote to politically restrain the Netanyahu government from any forthcoming efforts to formally annex the West Bank and settle parts of Gaza."
"We urge senators to support these joint resolutions of disapproval to block specific offensive arms sales to Israel, upholding U.S. law that prohibits arms transfers to countries that engage in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights or restrict the delivery of U.S. humanitarian assistance," the coalition concluded. "The U.S. must use its leverage to safeguard civilian lives, secure a lasting cease-fire, and advance a pathway toward peace."
Some House progressives have separately endorsed Sanders' resolutions. Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.)—who lost her August primary to a Democrat backed by pro-Israel lobbyists—said that since President Joe Biden "won't stop sending bombs, it's up to Congress to uphold the law" and urged "every senator who cares about humanity and the rule of law" to vote yes.
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), the only Palestinian American in Congress, said on social media Wednesday, "Section 620I of the Foreign Assistance Act is very clear: The U.S. cannot provide weapons to any country that 'prohibits or otherwise restricts, directly or indirectly, the transport or delivery of United States humanitarian assistance.'"
Biden "has refused to enforce U.S. law and stop sending weapons to the Israeli government as they commit genocide in Gaza and use starvation as a weapon of war," Tlaib added. "Today, every senator will have to decide if they will vote to uphold our own laws and block arms sales to Israel."
So far, only a small number of senators have signaled support for the resolutions—Democratic Sens. Tim Kaine (Va.), Jeff Merkley (Ore.), Brian Schatz (Hawaii), Chris Van Hollen (Md.), Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), and Peter Welch (Vt.). The measures would also have to get through the Republican-controlled House to hit Biden's desk, and overriding an anticipated veto would require two-thirds support in both chambers.
Although the resolutions are not expected to pass even in the Senate, "the Biden administration is aggressively pushing senators to bless continued U.S. weapons shipments for Israel ahead of a first-of-its-kind vote in Congress on the policy," HuffPostrevealed Wednesday after obtaining a copy of talking points the White House is circulating on Capitol Hill.
"Administration officials are suggesting lawmakers who vote against the arms are empowering American and Israeli foes from Iran to the militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah, which the U.S. treats as terror organizations," HuffPost reported. "Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) is also privately pressing senators to endorse the ongoing flow of military equipment to Israel, according to one of the aides."
Responding to the report on social media, Sanders ally and Arab American Institute president James Zogby—who is considering a run for Democratic National Committee chair—said that "this White House effort is disgraceful."
"Senators trying to block offensive weapons to Israel aren't aiding Hamas, they're trying to stop genocide, starvation, and massive violations of U.S. laws," Zogby added. "They're saving Palestinian lives and the last shred of U.S. honor."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Dr. Oz Nomination Seen as Potential Boon for Medicare Privatization
"Dr. Oz wants to fully privatize Medicare," warned one advocacy group. "That’s why Donald Trump put him in charge of Medicare."
Nov 20, 2024
Dr. Mehmet Oz, whose unsuccessful 2022 Pennsylvania Senate bid included pitching voters on a plan to expand the privatized Medicare Advantage program, is now in a position to potentially actualize that plan.
President-elect Donald Trump announced Tuesday that Oz, also known by his TV personality name Dr. Oz, is his pick to lead the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).
"Dr. Oz—a massive investor in Pharma—told the voters of Pennsylvania his plans to privatize Medicare… and they rejected him. Now Trump is giving him the authority to see his industry-approved plan carried through," wrote the progressive-leaning outlet The Lever, which covered Oz's support for Medicare Advantage back in 2022.
Through Medicare Advantage, which has been promoted by Trump and other congressional Republicans, seniors can opt out of traditional government-run Medicare health plans and instead choose plans administered by private insurers, such as UnitedHealthcare and Cigna.
According to The Lever's 2022 reporting, Oz pushed Medicare Advantage plans on his show The Dr. Oz Show and co-wrote a 2020 column for Forbes with a former healthcare executive in which they argued that a "Medicare Advantage For All" plan can "save" our healthcare system. In the column, Oz and his co-author articulated a plan to expand Medicare Advantage by imposing a 20% payroll tax.
Oz "is not a good pick for a very powerful position in charge of a trillion dollars of healthcare spending," wrote Matt Stoller of the American Economic Liberties Project on X, in reference to The Lever's investigation.
The Lever also reported that Oz's plan to expand private plans under Medicare Advantage could "boost companies in which he invests." For example, Oz and his wife owned up to $550,000 worth of stock in UnitedHealth Group, at the time of reporting. UnitedHealthcare and Humana account for nearly half, or 47%, of Medicare Advantage enrollees nationwide, according to the health policy organization KFF.
Additionally, a 2022 investigation by The New York Timesfound that major health insurers have exploited Medicare Advantage to boost their profits by billions of dollars.
Project 2025, a list of right-wing policy proposals led by the Heritage Foundation that Trump has tried to distance himself from, calls for making Medicare Advantage the default option for Medicare beneficiaries, which, if enacted, "would be a multibillion-dollar annual giveaway to corporations at the expense of Medicare enrollees and taxpayers," according to the liberal research and advocacy organization the Center for American Progress.
Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen, offered a related critique of Oz: Americans "need someone who will crack down on insurers who want to deny care to the sick, providers who skimp on quality healthcare, corporations that want to privatize Medicare, and Big Pharma profiteers and ideologues who want to slash Medicaid and refuse care to low-income people. What they do not need is a healthcare huckster, which unfortunately Dr. Mehmet Oz appears to have become, having spent much of his recent career hawking products of dubious medical value."
In addition to the potential boon for private insurers, some researchers, news outlets, and members of Congress have also raised concerns about the quality of care administered under Medicare Advantage.
A 2022 government report found that "[Medicare Advantage Organizations] sometimes delayed or denied Medicare Advantage beneficiaries' access to services, even though the requests met Medicare coverage rules" and also "denied payments to providers for some services that met both Medicare coverage rules and [Medicare Advantage Organization] billing rules."
In October, a group of three Democratic lawmakers wrote to the current CMS administrator about increasingly widespread abuses and care denials by for-profit Medicare Advantage insurers.
"We are concerned that in many instances MA plans are failing to deliver, compromising timely access to care, and undermining the ability of seniors and Americans with disabilities to purchase the coverage that’s right for them," Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.), and Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.) wrote in a letter.
"We continue to hear alarming reports from seniors and their families, beneficiary advocates, and healthcare providers that MA plans are falling short, and finding a good plan is too difficult," they wrote.
In particular, they pointed to Medicare Advantage plans' growing reliance on prior authorization, a complex, barrier-ridden process whereby doctors must demonstrate a proposed treatment is medically necessary before the insurer will cover it.
"Overuse of prior authorization is not only harmful to patients, it hinders healthcare providers' ability to offer best-in-class service," they added.
Social Security Works, a progressive advocacy group, warned in a social media post Tuesday that "Dr. Oz wants to fully privatize Medicare."
"That's why Donald Trump put him in charge of Medicare," the group added. "We will fight to stop this charlatan from getting anywhere near our Medicare system."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular