World News

Border-Ukraine pairing threatens to tear Democrats apart on December 2, 2023 at 11:00 am

Published

2 years ago

December 2, 2023

Immigration advocates are nearing their wits’ end as Senate negotiators barrel toward a deal that would permanently change immigration law in exchange for another round of Ukraine funding.

The four Latino Democrats in the chamber — who are not part of the talks — have made clear that the fundamental precept being negotiated is unacceptable to them.

This week three of them, Sens. Ben Ray Luján (N.M.), Alex Padilla (Calif.) and Bob Menéndez (N.J.) joined seven other Senate Democrats, including Majority Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.), to decry the talks.

“Using a one-time spending package to enact these unrelated permanent policy changes sets a dangerous precedent and risks assistance to our international partners. Any proposal considering permanent changes to our asylum and immigration system needs to include a clear path to legalization for long-standing undocumented immigrants,” they wrote.

But the negotiations have explicitly excluded any form of legalization, while tying border policy and wartime aid to Ukraine, two previously unrelated issues.

That core concept has made waves among immigration advocates outside Congress and in the House, where the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) and its allies have a larger contingent.

Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) called the Ukraine-border amalgam “an aberration.”

The Ukraine side of the deal is relatively simple, a question of opening the purse strings for the Biden administration to send much-needed aid to its Eastern European ally, a major priority for the administration, many Democrats and a fair share of Republicans.

On the border policy side, talks are revolving over changes to tighten asylum policy — a concession immigration advocates don’t take lightly — and curbing the president’s immigration parole powers, blowing a hole in President Biden’s border strategy.

Those are potential concessions immigration advocates would hope to avoid in tit-for-tat negotiations, let alone in a deal with no Republican concessions on immigration.

Republicans have so far been successful at portraying both Ukraine funding and their border policy proposals as national security priorities.

That’s making some Democrats nervous.

“It’s going to be ugly. I think the Senate effectively is going to sell us out. And when I say us out, it’s not just border communities. It’s not just the issue of asylum seekers and refugees attempting to be in this country,” said Grijalva.

“Allowing the Republicans to grab this narrative and to continue to attempt to poison with that narrative the upcoming election — because they see that it’s their issue, because they have no other issue — I think that’s what they sold out.”

Other House Democrats also said they were surprised by the nature of the talks, including that limitations on immigration would be swapped for something wholly unrelated.

“If we’re going to concede on policy, then the bill should be related or the concessions should be related to getting things on immigration and asylum reform and so forth. Not on issues of war or other funding,” one lawmaker said.

And advocates say the core issue is being overlooked: The proposed changes threaten to endanger human lives.

“The credible fear standard is being treated as a technical point that can be traded away, but in fact it’s the heart of the United States’ compliance with the Refugee Convention and if it’s out of reach, access to the entirety of the asylum system is blocked,” said Heidi Altman, director of policy at the National Immigrant Justice Center.

“Heightening it would be historic … are these lawmakers just OK with knowing that the U.S. will be regularly sending bona fide refugees back to harm?”

Lawmakers say those attitudes are par for the course.

“For 200 years, 250 years in this country, immigrants have been a good political piñata to swing at. You know, this country is made of immigrants. ‘We’re all immigrants but yet we detest immigrants,’” said Rep. Lou Correa (D-Calif.).

Regardless, the Senate negotiations have plowed on, attracting intense media attention.

The talks have been reported to include Sens. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.), James Lankford (R-Okla.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Tom Cotton (R-Ark.).

In public, each of the negotiators has played a different role.

Tillis, for instance, has led the charge to include limits on parole; Cotton has been an advocate for including elements of H.R. 2, a House GOP border security bill that is a nonstarter with most, if not all, Democrats.

The mediatization of the talks has rankled some participants.

“There’s a big difference between people going to the press versus the people doing the work,” said a source close to the talks.

That work, say immigration advocates, is leading Democrats into a trap.

“My question is, what are Democrats getting in exchange for this type of deal? Democrats understandably and rightfully should support border security, a more orderly border – those are all important democratic values for voters,” said Andrea Flores, vice president for immigration policy and campaigns at FWD.us on a recent call with reporters.

“But that is not what they’re getting here. And also, they’re showing Democratic voters that they’re willing to go through a whole negotiation, compromise on our values and not get a single, pro-immigrant Democratic priority in exchange.”

A Democratic aide put it more succinctly.

“Democrats are the ones putting themselves in a situation to eat a pile of s—.”

But pressure to fund Israel and Ukraine is intensifying, and Republicans could end up forcing Senate Democrats to take a tough vote letting down either a foreign ally or a core constituency.

Meanwhile, the White House is pushing Congress to act on a supplemental to fund aid to Israel and Ukraine, Indo-Pacific security and border security.

“We want to see all four priorities taken up by Congress and all four funded. The reason why it’s a supplemental is because they’re all urgent. And as I said earlier, we’re running out of runway on Ukraine, and I would tell you the same thing for Israel,” White House national security spokesperson John Kirby told reporters Friday.

The administration is likely to be more open to asylum changes than to parole restrictions, which would undermine President Biden’s border strategy.

Biden press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Monday the administration had “had conversations with members of Congress” regarding the supplemental request.

Jean-Pierre panned H.R. 2, but left the question open on Senate negotiations, saying, “as it relates to negotiations that are currently happening in Senate, with senators — right? — both Republicans and Democrats, we’re just not going to negotiate from here.”

Still, it was the White House that originally mashed the four issues together in their supplemental request; the original border requests rankled some in the CHC, but to a much lesser degree than the current talks.

With Senate Republicans supercharging the border provisions, many CHC legislators had hoped to see the White House stepping in to set boundaries.

“I’m disappointed in the lack of communication and consideration that the White House is giving the Hispanic Caucus and our priorities,” said CHC Chair Rep. Nanette Barragán (D-Calif.).

“This is where I think the problem lies. Combining this aid was a mistake. And I think it should have never been done.”

With House GOP opposition to the supplemental almost a certainty, a Senate deal — if it is reached and passed — will face an uphill battle in the lower chamber.

And any bill that tightens border policy without loosening immigration laws seems likely to split apart the unity that has characterized House Democrats this congress.

For some Democrats, that split won’t be a surprise.

“They sold out the opportunity to actually stand for something a little more fundamental. And it’s — it’s not even disappointing, to some extent it’s expected from the center,” said Grijalva.

Immigration advocates are nearing their wits’ end as Senate negotiators barrel toward a deal that would permanently change immigration law in exchange for another round of Ukraine funding. The four Latino Democrats in the chamber — who are not part of the talks — have made clear that the fundamental precept being negotiated is unacceptable…

Business

GLOBAL SUSTAINABILITY SUMMIT RETURNS FOR ITS 5TH EDITION AT THE BRITISH PARLIAMENT – HOUSE OF LORDS, PALACE OF WESTMINSTER

Published

2 weeks ago

May 16, 2026

Bolanle Media Staff

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Theme: “People, Planet, and Profit in the Age of AI and Innovation”

London, United Kingdom — The Global Sustainability Summit (GSS) is officially back for its landmark 5th Edition, continuing its legacy as one of the leading international platforms driving sustainable development, climate action, ethical investment, innovation, and global collaboration.

Convened annually at the prestigious British Parliament, House of Lords, Palace of Westminster, by Ambassador Canon Chinenem Otto, the Summit has, over the last four years, successfully fostered international dialogue and partnerships that have contributed to the advancement of global sustainability goals, the establishment of sustainability-focused ministries, departments and policy structures across national and subnational governments, and the attraction of major investors into sustainable development projects, corporations and emerging economies.

This year’s summit, themed “People, Planet, and Profit in the Age of AI and Innovation,” will explore how emerging technologies, responsible leadership, sustainable finance, innovation, and global partnerships can shape a more inclusive, resilient and environmentally conscious future.

The 5th Edition promises to be the most impactful yet, bringing together world leaders, policymakers, diplomats, investors, academics, innovators, climate experts and youth leaders from across the globe to discuss actionable solutions toward achieving a sustainable and equitable future.

Among the distinguished speakers, delegates and honorees already lined up for the Summit are:

• His Excellency Mallam AbdulRahman AbdulRazaq — Executive Governor of Kwara State, Nigeria and Chairman of the Nigeria Governors’ Forum

• His Excellency Senator Prince Bassey Otu — Executive Governor of Cross River State, Nigeria

• Ambassador Patricia Espinosa Cantellano — Former Executive Secretary of UN Climate Change (UNFCCC) and Former Foreign Minister of Mexico

• Lord Marvin Rees, Baron Rees of Easton OBE — Member of the House of Lords, United Kingdom

• Hon. Neema K. Lugangira — Secretary-General of Women Political Leaders (WPL), Brussels and Former Member of Parliament

• Her Excellency Dr. Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah — President of the Republic of Namibia

• His Excellency Nangolo Mbumba — Former President of Namibia

• Former President of Tanzania

• Her Excellency Ambassador Professor Olufolake AbdulRazaq — First Lady of Kwara State, Nigeria and Chairperson of Nigeria Governors’ Spouses Forum

• Your Excellency Dr. Dikko Umar Radda, PhD, CON — Executive Governor of Katsina State and Chairman of the Northwest Governors Forum, Nigeria

• Hon. Sam Shafiishuna Nujoma — Governor of Khomas Region, Namibia

• H.E. Mr. Veiccoh Nghiwete — High Commissioner of the Republic of Namibia to the United Kingdom

• Her Excellency Ms. Macenje “Che Che” Mazoka — High Commissioner of Zambia to the United Kingdom

• Ms. Danielle Newman — Partner Lead, ICT, World Economic Forum

• Leanne Elliott Young — Co-founder, Institute of Digital Fashion & CommuneEast

• Ms. Chloe Russell — Producer & Presenter, Art, Science and Nature

• Professor Marie-Claire Cordonier Segger — University of Cambridge & University of Waterloo

• Dr. Alexandra R. Harrington — IUCN World Commission on Environmental Law (WCEL)

• Professor Payam Akhavan — Massey College, University of Toronto

• Mr. Mallai C. E. Sathya — President, Dravida Vetri Kazhagam and International Movement for Tamil Culture Asia

The Summit will feature high-level panel discussions, strategic investment conversations, sustainability awards, policy dialogues, innovation showcases, youth engagement sessions and international networking opportunities focused on climate resilience, ethical financing, food-water-energy sustainability, circular economy, artificial intelligence, diplomacy and sustainable development.

Speaking ahead of the Summit, Convener Ambassador Canon Chinenem Otto noted:

“As the world rapidly evolves through artificial intelligence and technological innovation, we must ensure that sustainability remains people-centered, environmentally responsible and economically inclusive. The Global Sustainability Summit continues to serve as a bridge connecting governments, institutions, innovators and investors to accelerate practical sustainability solutions globally. Our fifth edition is not only a celebration of progress made over the years, but also a renewed call for global collaboration and actionable impact toward achieving the Sustainable Development Goals and Net Zero ambitions.”

The Global Sustainability Summit continues to position itself as a catalyst for transformative partnerships and sustainable global progress, reinforcing the urgent need for collective action toward a more resilient and sustainable future.

More announcements regarding additional speakers, partners and summit activities will be unveiled in the coming weeks.

News

US May Completely Cut Income Tax Due to Tariff Revenue

Published

6 months ago

November 30, 2025

Bolanle Media Staff

President Donald Trump says the United States might one day get rid of federal income tax because of money the government collects from tariffs on imported goods. Tariffs are extra taxes the U.S. puts on products that come from other countries.

What Trump Is Saying

Trump has said that tariff money could become so large that it might allow the government to cut income taxes “almost completely.” He has also talked about possibly phasing out income tax over the next few years if tariff money keeps going up.

How Taxes Work Now

Right now, the federal government gets much more money from income taxes than from tariffs. Income taxes bring in trillions of dollars each year, while tariffs bring in only a small part of that total. Because of this gap, experts say tariffs would need to grow by many times to replace income tax money.

Questions From Experts

Many economists and tax experts doubt that tariffs alone could pay for the whole federal budget. They warn that very high tariffs could make many imported goods more expensive for shoppers in the United States. This could hit lower- and middle‑income families hardest, because they spend a big share of their money on everyday items.

What Congress Must Do

The president can change some tariffs, but only Congress can change or end the federal income tax. That means any real plan to remove income tax would need new laws passed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate. So far, there is no detailed law or full budget plan on this idea.

What It Means Right Now

For now, Trump’s comments are a proposal, not a change in the law. People and businesses still have to pay federal income tax under the current rules. The debate over using tariffs instead of income taxes is likely to continue among lawmakers, experts, and voters.

News

Epstein Files to Be Declassified After Trump Order

Published

6 months ago

November 20, 2025

Bolanle Media Staff

Former President Donald Trump has signed an executive order directing federal agencies to declassify all government files related to Jeffrey Epstein, the disgraced financier whose death in 2019 continues to fuel controversy and speculation.

The order, signed Wednesday at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, instructs the FBI, Department of Justice, and intelligence agencies to release documents detailing Epstein’s network, finances, and alleged connections to high-profile figures. Trump described the move as “a step toward transparency and public trust,” promising that no names would be shielded from scrutiny.

“This information belongs to the American people,” Trump said in a televised statement. “For too long, powerful interests have tried to bury the truth. That ends now.”

U.S. intelligence officials confirmed that preparations for the release are already underway. According to sources familiar with the process, the first batch of documents is expected to be made public within the next 30 days, with additional releases scheduled over several months.

Reactions poured in across the political spectrum. Supporters praised the decision as a bold act of accountability, while critics alleged it was politically motivated, timed to draw attention during a volatile election season. Civil rights advocates, meanwhile, emphasized caution, warning that some records could expose private victims or ongoing legal matters.

The Epstein case, which implicated figures in politics, business, and entertainment, remains one of the most talked-about scandals of the past decade. Epstein’s connections to influential individuals—including politicians, royals, and executives—have long sparked speculation about the extent of his operations and who may have been involved.

Former federal prosecutor Lauren Fields said the release could mark a turning point in public discourse surrounding government transparency. “Regardless of political stance, this declassification has the potential to reshape how Americans view power and accountability,” Fields noted.

Officials say redactions may still occur to protect sensitive intelligence or personal information, but the intent is a near-complete disclosure. For years, critics of the government’s handling of Epstein’s case have accused agencies of concealing evidence or shielding elites from exposure. Trump’s order promises to change that narrative.

As anticipation builds, journalists, legal analysts, and online commentators are preparing for what could be one of the most consequential information releases in recent history.