World News
Hispanic Democrats call for investigation into separation of migrant fathers on August 16, 2023 at 4:15 pm
Hispanic Democrats are calling on the Biden administration to investigate Texas over a series of alleged human rights violations stemming from local authorities arresting migrant men on accusations of criminal trespassing.
In a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) asked the feds to take action to stop the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) from “intentionally separating migrant families.”
The Hill has reached out to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) for comment.
According to the CHC members, DPS’s policy of arresting certain migrants for criminal trespassing — a practice that aims to inject local criminal consequences for crossing the U.S.-Mexico border — has resulted in the separation of at least 26 families.
The lawmakers said they confirmed the practice in a recent CHC tour of the border.
The letter, first reported by PBS NewsHour, alleges that the arrests of migrant men are followed by a series of human rights violations including lengthy pretrial detention and faulty legal advice.
“For example, CHC members learned, that migrants were being told that they could either wait 6-9 months in jail or, if they want to be reunited with their families, they could plead guilty and get out on bond automatically,” wrote the lawmakers, noting that pretrial detention for class B misdemeanors in Texas usually lasts one to three days.
A guilty plea for a crime can bar an individual from receiving asylum in the United States if the crime is not properly disclosed during the application process, and if an individual is convicted of two misdemeanors, it can render them ineligible for other immigration benefits, such as Temporary Protected Status (TPS).
“Since most of these individuals have little to no legal support, they do not understand what they are admitting guilt to or how it will affect their immigration status,” wrote the lawmakers.
The lack of legal representation under DPS custody is aggravating representation issues for asylum seekers, who often have trouble finding affordable or pro bono legal services.
The lawmakers called specifically on Mayorkas to investigate how DPS detainees are being transferred to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a federal agency under his purview.
“After the fathers are incarcerated in state or local facilities, they are then transferred to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody, with no reference to the families they have been separated from and placed in expedited removal,” they wrote.
“With little to no communication, mothers and children are traumatized and left wondering what happened to their loved ones.”
The allegations of human rights violations are compounding a growing rift between the Abbott and Biden administrations, as Texas turns to ever-intensifying methods to put its mark on border security.
The Biden administration has filed lawsuits against Texas over the installation of buoys in sections of the Rio Grande, meant to either discourage or physically prevent migrants from reaching dry land in Texas.
Though the lawmakers commended that lawsuit, they raised concerns over other practices conducted by Texas as part of Operation Lone Star, Abbott’s signature border program.
Operation Lone Star has drawn heavy criticism both from a legal perspective, questioning whether Texas has stepped into federal jurisdiction on immigration and border issues, and from a humanitarian perspective.
“Governor Abbott has been able to implement Operation Lone Star and act with impunity for more than two years. We urgently call on the Administration to consider what further decisive action they can take to address this alarming situation,” wrote the lawmakers.
Hispanic Democrats are calling on the Biden administration to investigate Texas over a series of alleged human rights violations stemming from local authorities arresting migrant men on accusations of criminal trespassing. In a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) asked the feds…
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.
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.
What Happened at the United Nations
On Friday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the United Nations General Assembly in New York City, defending Israel’s ongoing military operations in Gaza. As he spoke, more than 100 delegates from over 50 countries stood up and left the chamber—a rare and significant diplomatic walkout. Outside the UN, thousands of protesters gathered to voice opposition to Netanyahu’s policies and call for accountability, including some who labeled him a war criminal. The protest included activists from Palestinian and Jewish groups, along with international allies.
Why Did Delegates and Protesters Walk Out?
The walkouts and protests were a response to Israel’s continued offensive in Gaza, which has resulted in widespread destruction and a significant humanitarian crisis. Many countries and individuals have accused Israel of excessive use of force, and some international prosecutors have suggested Netanyahu should face investigation by the International Criminal Court for war crimes, including claims that starvation was used as a weapon against civilians. At the same time, a record number of nations—over 150—recently recognized the State of Palestine, leaving the United States as the only permanent UN Security Council member not to join them.
International Reaction and Significance
The diplomatic walkouts and street protests demonstrate increasing global concern over the situation in Gaza and growing support for Palestinian statehood. Several world leaders, including Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro, showed visible solidarity with protesters. Petro called for international intervention and, controversially, for US troops not to follow orders he viewed as supporting ongoing conflict. The US later revoked Petro’s visa over his role in the protests, which he argued was evidence of a declining respect for international law.
Why Is This News Important?
The Gaza conflict is one of the world’s most contentious and closely-watched issues. It has drawn strong feelings and differing opinions from governments, activists, and ordinary people worldwide. The United Nations, as an international organization focused on peace and human rights, is a key arena for these debates. The events surrounding Netanyahu’s speech show that many nations and voices are urging new action—from recognition of Palestinian rights to calls for sanctions against Israel—while discussion and disagreement over the best path forward continue.
This episode at the UN highlights how international diplomacy, public protests, and official policy are all intersecting in real time as the search for solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains urgent and unresolved.
Disney Brings Beloved Characters to ChatGPT After $1 Billion OpenAI Deal
Google Accused Of Favoring White, Asian Staff As It Reaches $28 Million Deal That Excludes Black Workers
