Sen. Tim Kaine to force votes on conditions for deported migrants
Kaine filed the resolutions Thursday under the Foreign Assistance Act, a 1961 law that allows a single senator to force votes to require the State Department to produce reports on human rights, even though Republicans control the Senate. It's the latest effort by Democrats to pull the limited levers available to them to push back on President Donald Trump's policies and actions.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
a minute ago
- The Hill
Carville to Democrats: ‘Kick the s— out of' Vance ‘every chance you get'
Democratic strategist James Carville criticized Democrats for failing to adequately target Vice President Vance in their political messaging. 'Use JD Vance,' Carville said in Thursday's episode of his 'Politics War Room' podcast, 'and just kick the s— out of him every chance you get.' Carville pointed to Vance's recent trip to England as a missed opportunity for Democrats to target Vance for not supporting domestic tourism. 'He went on vacation. People, Florida resorts are hurting. Las Vegas tourism is down substantially. The national parks — Yellowstone's down 15 percent,' Carville said, in remarks first highlighted by Mediaite. 'So, OK, he's entitled to a vacation. I'll give him that,' he continued. 'Guess where he went? To a place called Oxfordshire in England, which is a tony wealthy place that rich Londoners go to. It's kind of like the Martha's Vineyard of England.' Carville said Democrats should have made the story a bigger issue. 'Why we didn't blow this up, OK? Why didn't the Tourist Association of the Florida Panhandle blow this up? The Las Vegas people, the California people, the Wyoming people,' Carville said. 'You mean, you can't vacation and your wife and kids in this own country?' Carville said, offering a suggestion for messaging. 'I'm getting ready to go to Lake George. It could be the most beautiful place on earth. People in Upstate New York would have been glad to have his money. But what does he do? He goes to a tony English village.' Vance returned on Sunday from his working vacation in the United Kingdom, where he met with U.K. Foreign Secretary David Lammy on Aug. 8, before heading with his family to the Cotswolds, which has become a popular area for wealthy American tourists to visit in the rural countryside of England. He also met with U.S. troops while traveling overseas and ended his stay with a visit in Scotland.
New York Post
a minute ago
- New York Post
Gavin Newsom and Zohran Mamdani can bring about the ruin of California and New York
It was in December 1777 that the great Scottish economist Adam Smith learned of General Burgoyne's defeat at Saratoga. Smith's correspondent said that he feared Smith's own nation of Great Britain, was ruined. The economist's reply was: 'There is a great deal of ruin in a nation.' Ever since that quote became famous, it has been both consoling and misleading. Consoling because it is true that while some people always claim the sky is falling down, more often than not, it stays up perfectly nicely. Adam Smith's own nation more than survived the defeat at Saratoga. Advertisement At the same time, the quote is misleading. Nations cannot cope with an infinite amount of ruin. Cities and states can tolerate even less. In our own country, there are many politicians who think that US cities in particular can put up with almost anything. Take Governor Gavin Newsom of California. In recent days, he has been trying to 'win' the internet. That's because, having failed at his job of governing an actual state, he seems to have decided to become chief troll online. Democrat pundits are 'LOLing' all over the place at Newsom's alleged brilliance in aping the internet manners of President Trump. Advertisement It would be a lot more fun if the situation in Gavin's own state were sunnier. As it is, while Newsom plays cute online, California is in a disastrous state. Just this year, it has suffered ruinous wildfires, causing billions of dollars worth of damage. And even if the areas of Los Angeles that burned to the ground are rebuilt, good luck to anyone trying to get home insurance. Then there are the riots — stoked along by Democrat politicians, who seem to think that it is the natural-born right of every illegal alien to riot against ICE and other law-enforcement officers and wave the flags of Mexico and other countries to demonstrate just how many rights they think they should get in America. Advertisement All this comes as the state of California still struggles to recover from the disastrous COVID-19 lockdown policies that Newsom tried to install in his state. For everyone but himself, naturally. Perhaps Newsom and the sycophants in his party think that some winsome online behavior will bring back the 2.1 million registered Democrats who seem to have been lost by the party in the years between 2020 and 2024. But the reality is that Newsom's policies — from taxation to homelessness and law and order — have seen a great exodus of the people the state needs most. In recent years, California has lost even more wealthy millennials than New York has. Some 10,000 millennial households bringing in more than $200,000 a year fled California in a single year. A figure almost twice the size of the exodus from New York of the same demographic in the same year. Of course, in part, that is because of the genius of the federal system in this country that makes moving between states so relatively easy. Advertisement A British person afflicted by high taxes and high crime cannot just up sticks and move to a different jurisdiction in their country. It's all going to be the same. Get opinions and commentary from our columnists Subscribe to our daily Post Opinion newsletter! Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters But if California or New York decides to tax the successful beyond their endurance and fails to give them a decent quality of life in return, then Florida or Texas will never look so appealing. That is a fact that Democrats in New York, as much as in California, should keep at the top of their minds. Even as New York is considering the possibility of electing a high-taxing, radical socialist mayor, there are people who say that it is an empty threat that people will actually leave this city. These are the same people who seemed to think that the Golden State would be endlessly attractive, even if there were syringes all over the sidewalks and the place was on fire. The same people seem to think that you can test and test New York as much as you like, and it doesn't matter because people will still want to live here. Tell that to the people who had to live through the city's downturn in the 1970s. In fact, tell that to the citizens of the numerous cities in this country that have managed to fall through the floor. Advertisement There was a time when Detroit seemed like the city of the future. There was a time when St. Louis seemed like a good bet. But these places should be reminders that what seems enduring can in fact be stress-tested to death in front of your eyes. I mentioned the country of Adam Smith, and it is still worth looking to it for a lesson in what could happen here. The left-wing Labour government in the UK came into power last year, promising to tax the rich to fill its fiscal deficits. Of course, it hasn't worked. But the threat has certainly chased money out of the country. The UK is expected to lose some 16,500 millionaires this year alone. An uptick of over 50% just in the year before. All driven away by the brilliant tax policies of a government that doesn't even say it is socialist. Advertisement What Zohran Mamdani and Co. would do to this city is orders of magnitude worse than anything Labour has achieved in the UK. But there is another lesson still to learn. Which is that, having chased the wealthy out of the UK, the Labour government is now suddenly hoping to woo them back. They are learning in real time the old conservative lesson that it is much easier to destroy than it is to build. Easier to chase people away than to give them the long-term confidence that would be needed to encourage them back. Which returns me to Adam Smith. There may be a great deal of ruin in a nation. But there isn't an endless amount of ruin in a state. Much less of a city. Come November, New Yorkers should remember that.
Forbes
3 minutes ago
- Forbes
Medical Marijuana Users Shouldn't Lose Their Second Amendment Rights, Court Rules
A federal appeals court has handed medical marijuana patients a major victory, ruling that the government hasn't shown that banning them from owning guns lines up with America's long-standing traditions of firearm regulation. In a ruling issued this week, a three-judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals set aside a lower court's dismissal and said the plaintiffs had plausibly claimed a violation of their Second Amendment rights. The dispute focuses on federal provisions that ban 'unlawful drug users' of controlled substances, including marijuana, from possessing or purchasing guns. Florida law allows medical marijuana, but the drug remains illegal under federal law. Marijuana Users Are Not Criminals Two residents, Vera Cooper and Nicole Hansell, who use marijuana for health reasons, were denied gun purchases after disclosing their use, while a retired police officer, Neill Franklin, owns a firearm but has avoided joining the medical program despite being eligible, fearing prosecution. The Justice Department argued that marijuana users are comparable to felons or dangerous people historically barred from having guns. The district court agreed, pointing to traditions of disarming felons, alcoholics, and the mentally ill. The appeals court, however, disagreed, finding no basis, at least at this stage, for treating medical marijuana patients as criminals or dangerous. 'Viewing these allegations in the light most favorable to Cooper and Hansell, it appears they use rational thought in making their decision to use marijuana… Cooper's and Hansell's mental state is a far cry from that of addicts and alcoholics whose actions are controlled by their need to use,' the court wrote. The court further noted that the complaint described conduct that, at most, could constitute a federal misdemeanor, and did not include any allegations of addiction, impairment, or other criminal activity. The judges made clear, however, that the law still stands, but the plaintiffs can continue to fight their case, while the Justice Department may still try to prove later that some marijuana users pose risks similar to intoxicated or dangerous people historically barred from having guns. 'The Federal Government has failed, at the motion to dismiss stage, to establish that disarming Appellants is consistent with this Nation's history and tradition of firearm regulation,' the court said. A Long Trend The ruling aligns with recent decisions by other federal appeals courts and adds momentum to a case challenging whether medical marijuana users can be barred under federal law from owning or buying firearms. Last year, a U.S. appeals court said a Texas woman who owned a gun and used marijuana could not be prosecuted under federal law, ruling it unconstitutional to disarm her based on past drug use. The panel said that while restrictions may apply to people who are actively intoxicated, taking away firearms from a sober, non-violent person for past or occasional use does not align with historical gun laws. In 2023, a federal judge in the Western District of Oklahoma also struck down the long-standing federal ban on marijuana users possessing firearms, calling the prohibition unconstitutional. Courts, therefore, have questioned whether automatically banning marijuana users fits with the country's long-standing tradition of firearm regulation, emphasizing that using medical marijuana doesn't automatically make someone a danger and shouldn't strip them of their Second Amendment rights without cause.
