Latest news with #AmnestyInternationalUSA
Yahoo
11-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Will Trump's tariffs affect U.S. jobs?
On again, off again: the spectre of the potential economic fallout of tariffs has worried Americans since President Trump's inaugural address, when he proposed to 'tariff and tax foreign countries to enrich our citizens'. Global tariffs were announced, amended or rescinded across February and March, with a number going into effect, for example, new tariffs on all steel and aluminum imports went into effect mid-March. Most recently, the President has rowed back on a package of steep tariffs he intended to levy on dozens of the country's trading partners. Executive Director, ROA, Washington Director of Policy – North America, Ellen MacArthur Foundation, Washington D.C. or New York City Senior Campaigner (17-Month Fixed Term), Amnesty International USA, New York City / Washington D.C. Legislative Director, Council of Large Public Housing Authorities, Washington D.C. Director of Government Affairs, Blueprint Biosecurity, Washington D.C. On April 9th, he said that nearly all of his reciprocal tariffs would be paused for 90 days. Additionally, he announced that he may consider exempting some U.S. companies altogether. That was welcome news, but regardless, the period of uncertainty that has been fostered by tariff announcements has sent shockwaves through the U.S. and wider global economies. Tariff announcements triggered the worst two-day loss in United States stock market history. Over one two-day period alone, $6.6 trillion in value was wiped out. Additionally, the S&P 500, an index tracking the performance of the largest publicly-traded companies in the U.S, suffered its biggest loss since its creation in the 1950s. Reuters says that it has been 'the most intense episode of financial market volatility since the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic.' Even as April 9th's reversal brought sighs of relief, and lacklustre markets quickly rallied, fears of a recession, and job losses are still top of mind. LinkedIn news says worker confidence is lower than it was in spring of 2020, while data from the Philly Fed's January 2025 Labor, Income, Finances, and Expectations (LIFE) Survey shows that 30 percent of workers said they were concerned about their employer's ability to stay in business. Younger and older workers are more likely to be concerned. Employees aged 18 to 35, and those aged 56 to 65 are more worried about losing their jobs. The most recent U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics report was released at the start of April. It has some better news in that it indicates that total nonfarm payroll rose by 228,000 in March. However, economists say the picture doesn't look quite as positive when viewed up close. For one, healthcare and social assistance accounted for a large portion of total jobs; 34 percent of March's numbers. 'At the surface level, it seems like a stable and resilient labor market. However, a closer examination of the data reveals that employers are exercising caution across nearly all sectors,' says Ger Doyle, the U.S. country manager at ManpowerGroup. Cory Stahle, who is an economist at Indeed's Hiring Lab, also offered sobering analysis in a statement. 'The residual confidence and optimism that helped buoy the labor market through the first quarter reversed virtually overnight after this week's announcements, and there is likely no going back,' he said. 'The velocity with which these policy changes are now happening is so fast that many employers will find it challenging to find the stability needed to maintain business as usual.' Stahle also says that 'prime-age labor force participation rate and employment-population ratio both appear to have reached a ceiling, suggesting labor supply issues could soon become a challenge for the market.' The fact is that the effects of tariffs don't fall equally on all households and demographics. A 2018 study by the U.S. The International Trade Commission found that tariffs disproportionately fall on both low-income groups and women. This is because less well-off consumers tend to spend a bigger portion of their income on necessary goods. As a result, tariffs act almost as an income tax on these cohorts. Women, too, may bear a disproportionate burden of the effects of tariffs. In particular, single-parent families are 90 percent more likely to be headed by females than males. These families also tend to spend about 40 percent of their income buying goods, which increases their exposure to the effects of tariffs. Uncertainty is not good for the labor market. It's likely that companies will bed-in until this period of fluctuation ends, and job creation will stall. Right now, Manpower's Ger Doyle notes that the labor market may be 'locked in place'. He also pointed out that while U.S. business and organizations are focused on preserving the status quo, this could all change. And that, he said, could put layoffs back on the agenda. Ready to buck the trend and get your job search underway? Browse thousands of jobs on The Hill Job Board Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
28-03-2025
- Yahoo
1 in 3 Americans have seen their boss insult or humiliate an employee
A new study that surveyed Americans in several of the country's largest cities reveals the alarming prevalence of toxic management across the U.S.. According to learning platform Preply, almost one-third of American workers have witnessed their boss publicly insulting or humiliating an employee. And that's not all. One in four Americans have considered quitting their job to get away from their boss, and again, one in four say their boss has cussed out people in the workplace. An equal proportion describe their workplace environment as fundamentally toxic. Enforcement Division Chief, Fair Political Practices Commission, Sacramento Director of Policy – North America, Ellen MacArthur Foundation, Washington D.C. or New York City Senior Campaigner (17-Month Fixed Term), Amnesty International USA, Washington Legislative Director, Council of Large Public Housing Authorities, Washington Director of Government Affairs, Blueprint Biosecurity, Washington Bad bosses are ubiquitous; one in nine Americans reported experiencing frequent mistreatment from their management. As well as uncovering the types of toxic management employees are experiencing, the research also uncovered the most-commonly cited cities for mean bosses. Its researchers discovered that Chicago, IL was the city where mean managers were encountered most frequently. Furthermore, employees in this city are the most likely to claim that their manager has cussed at people in the workplace. In terms of mean boss metropolises, the Windy City is followed by Virginia Beach, VA, and Las Vegas, NV, in second and third place. Nearly two in five workers in Sin City say they have seen their boss insult or humiliate an employee in front of others, and one in four Las Vegas workers consider their job to be in a toxic workplace. Washington D.C., and Los Angeles, CA, came in fourth and fifth places, respectively. Completing the top ten are Baltimore, MD, Pittsburgh, PA, Cleveland, OH, Atlanta, GA, and Seattle, WA. On the flip side, the five cities with the kindest bosses were also found. Wichita, KS, is the kindest, with one in two workers saying their boss is never mean to them. Omaha, NE, is in second place, where 67 percent of respondents said their boss never uses harsh language. While in Philadelphia, PA, one in four workers say their boss positively impacts their mental health. Minneapolis MN, and Oklahoma City, OK, complete the top five kindest boss cities. Certain industries demonstrate more pronounced challenges. Food services, construction, and manufacturing consistently ranked as sectors with the most aggressive management styles, though food services is by far and away the worst with a mean boss score of 99.47. Construction scored 90.48, and manufacturing sits at 70.96. Retail, media, entertainment and creative arts, engineering, hospitality and tourism, healthcare, government, professional services, and technology and information all ranked in the sixties. While ranking in the fifties were science and research, transportation, child and elder care, education and training, and finance and insurance. The nonprofit sector was the only industry with below fifty on the mean boss index, at 46.08. Workers earning less than $45,000 annually, and Gen Z employees appear particularly vulnerable to workplace mistreatment. Survey researchers also asked employees about their managers' communication styles. Some 37.15 percent said their boss was blunt, 26.29 percent said critical, and 25.58 percent said sarcastic. A further 14.92 percent said their manager was aggressive, while 12.33 percent said their boss was demeaning. Though over a third (34.21percent) said their manager was none of the above. These findings underscore the critical need for comprehensive reviews of workplace communication, and where necessary, leadership training. Tackling toxic management practices is essential for maintaining both individual wellbeing, and organizational productivity, so if your company is lacking, do speak to HR, and start putting change in you might be better off finding something new. If that's the case, visit The Hill's Job Board today, which is updated daily. Ready to get your job search underway? Browse thousands of jobs on The Hill Job Board Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Express Tribune
06-02-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Trump's immigration crackdown isn't policy, it's punishment
The Trump administration's latest moves to tighten immigration policies have sparked widespread concerns about their human rights implications and potential legal challenges. From restrictions on birthright citizenship to the suspension of key immigration programs, these actions are reshaping the U.S. immigration landscape and creating uncertainty for millions of immigrants. For the affected families, the stakes are heartbreakingly high. With the cancellation of asylum appointments and the expansion of fast-track deportation procedures, many now face the grim reality of being sent back to the dangers they fled. It is also a test of federal versus local power, with sanctuary cities pushing back against what they see as overreach. In the end, these policies raise more questions than answers. How do we balance national security with human rights? Can local communities withstand federal pressure? And most importantly, what happens to the lives caught in the crossfire? Trump Administration Expands Immigration Restrictions 'President Trump's National Emergency Declaration turns the white nationalist 'Great Replacement Theory' into federal policy. To be clear, reinstating cruel border policies, ending rights enshrined in the Constitution like birthright citizenship, halting the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, shutting down the CBP One application, and implementing targeted raids across the United States, not only sows chaos and fear among communities across the country and people attempting to seek safety in the U.S., it perpetuates false narratives and harm rooted in white supremacy' says Amy Fischer, Director of the Refugee and Migrant Rights Program at Amnesty International USA. The Trump administration's aggressive stance on immigration has evolved beyond targeting individuals living in the U.S. illegally, extending to new restrictions on legal immigration, including programs for refugees displaced by violence and conflict. This effort led to measures such as closing the U.S. asylum system to individuals without proper documentation, authorising the military to assist in deportations, and expanding the powers of federal officers to target unauthorised immigrants, including those without criminal backgrounds. Over 22,000 refugees who had been approved for entry into the U.S. were left stranded, unable to proceed with their relocation. 'Brave, resilient families and individuals arrive to the U.S. to exercise their right to seek safety, to seek a new life, to pursue their dreams, and contribute to their new communities. They are met by a broken system that prolongs and profits off their suffering' added Director of the Refugee and Migrant Rights Program. In a further move to tighten immigration controls, the Trump administration also shut down the CBP One app. This was a tool previously endorsed by the Biden administration that allowed migrants in Mexico to request entry at US border points. This app facilitated the lawful entry of more than 1,500 migrants per day seeking asylum through official ports of entry. In addition, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents have been authorised to revoke the parole status of hundreds of thousands of individuals who had entered under Biden-era programs. This could result in the deportation of over 530,000 Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans, as well as nearly 1 million migrants who had entered the U.S. through the now-defunct CBP One app. It also reduced the refugee intake cap from 110,000 to 50,000, a move that further devastated vulnerable populations, according to an Amnesty International UK report . Trump's Executive Orders on Immigration Draw Parallels to Historical Discriminatory Measure Previously, in 2017, the Trump administration also passed an executive order that banned individuals from six predominantly Muslim countries from entering the U.S. and imposed severe restrictions on refugees. The order was widely condemned for its discriminatory nature, framed as a 'national security measure' but viewed by critics as a thinly veiled attempt to restrict Muslim immigration. Despite facing temporary legal obstacles, the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately allowed the travel ban to go into effect in June 2018, overturning previous blocks. The ban targeted citizens from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, prohibiting entry for 90 days. The implications of these travel restrictions were far-reaching, with families separated and vulnerable refugees left without a haven. The policy raised significant human rights concerns, with critics arguing that it violated international law and contradicted the humanitarian principles upon which U.S. immigration policy had once been built. The recent executive orders by the Trump administration have now raised significant concerns drawing comparisons to past discriminatory measures that have long been criticized for undermining the nation's democratic values. These orders, which include restrictions on nationality status for those born on U.S. soil and an expansion of expedited removal procedures, echo troubling historical decisions. Such as the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II and the special registration of individuals from predominantly Muslim countries after the September 11 attacks. In 2001, under President George W. Bush, the U.S. government introduced a special registration program for nationals from countries such as Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Sudan—nations with predominantly Muslim populations. This system was widely criticized for its racial profiling implications, raising concerns about its resemblance to the internment camps used during World War II. The expansion of expedited removal under the Trump administration now threatens to increase the scope of deportations, potentially targeting individuals who are not actively involved in deportation proceedings. This shift has granted greater authority to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which oversees enforcement actions such as raids, arrests, and deportations. DHS, alongside U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS), assumed responsibility for immigration enforcement and legal processing following the dissolution of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in 2001. Although expedited removal is not a new tool in U.S. immigration law, the recent executive orders significantly broaden its application, further intensifying its potential use in enforcement actions. These executive orders are not without controversy and are expected to face legal challenges. While U.S. presidents have the authority to issue executive orders to change departmental rules, they cannot contravene the Constitution or existing laws, such as the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The Constitution remains the supreme law of the land, and no executive action can override its protections. Legal experts and immigration rights advocates can prepare for litigation to determine whether these measures infringe upon constitutional principles, particularly the 14th Amendment's guarantee of birthright citizenship. As these executive actions undergo legal scrutiny, the U.S. legal system, including its federal courts and the U.S. The Supreme Court will play a pivotal role in determining whether these orders align with the Constitution and established immigration laws. The coming months are likely to witness intense legal battles that could have far-reaching implications for the future of U.S. immigration policy. The revised ban, while repackaged, still enforced discriminatory policies. Immigration Policy Under Democratic Presidents: A Mixed Legacy The immigration policies during Democratic presidencies, particularly under President Barack Obama and President Joe Biden, have been marked by significant contradictions and challenges. Barack Obama's immigration policy legacy is a study in contrasts. On one hand, he expanded deportation efforts, becoming what some critics have dubbed the 'deporter-in-chief.' His administration deported over 3 million undocumented immigrants, more than any previous administration, largely due to the expansion of the Secure Communities program (S‑COMM). While the program aimed to target dangerous criminals, research suggested that it had little effect on crime rates, which raised questions about its effectiveness. On the other hand, Obama's presidency also saw significant moves towards progressive reforms. His executive actions, most notably the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, allowed around 750,000 young undocumented immigrants to stay in the U.S. without the fear of deportation. Despite these reforms, Obama's inability to pass comprehensive immigration reform meant that his actions were temporary solutions at best, with no permanent path forward for millions of undocumented immigrants. Joe Biden inherited a fractured immigration system from the Trump administration and sought to reshape it with promises of fairness and reform. He quickly sought to reverse many of Trump's immigration policies, including ending the 'Remain in Mexico' policy and Title 42, which allowed the expedited removal of migrants under the guise of public health concerns. Despite these efforts to facilitate legal entry, the Biden administration faced mounting criticism on both sides of the political spectrum. Conservatives argued that his policies were too lenient, inviting illegal immigration, while liberals lamented that his border enforcement policies, including the continuation of certain Trump-era practices, were too harsh. T he result was a border crisis that continued to escalate throughout Biden's term, leading to record numbers of encounters with migrants. 'The Trump administration believes our immigrant neighbors shouldn't be here. And after President Biden eroded the rights of people seeking safety, President Trump's promises to further crack down on asylum will only exacerbate the chaos across the country and the humanitarian crisis at the border' says Amy Fischer. Despite the advancements made under Obama and Biden, U.S. immigration policy remains deeply fractured. The failure to pass comprehensive reform under both administrations speaks to the gridlock in Congress, where immigration has long been a politically charged issue. While Obama's DACA program and Biden's parole initiatives offered temporary solutions, they fall short of addressing the root issues of undocumented immigration and border management. End of Birthright Citizenship A major change outlined by the administration includes the revocation of birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. after February 19, 2025, if the child's mother is unlawfully present or has temporary legal status, and the father is neither a U.S. citizen nor a green card holder. Previously, this was not the case. A baby born in the U.S. would automatically acquire citizenship because under the constitution of America, there is a 14th amendment, and the 14th amendment says that citizenship is acquired by birth. An anonymous lawyer who practised immigration and deportation law in the U.S. between 1999 and 2005 explains that President Trump cannot pass an executive order that violates the U.S. constitution, that goes against any past judgment of the Supreme Court, and also cannot violate the statute, Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. 'While the administration can amend executive rules within its own departments, it does not have the authority to alter judicial precedent or change the Immigration and Nationality Act' the lawyer adds. As a result, there is growing concern among many, with widespread uncertainty about the citizenship status of babies born to undocumented mothers on US soil after February 19. This ambiguity will persist until the executive order is challenged in court by immigrant rights advocates and legal experts, who are expected to argue that the order is unconstitutional and infringes upon the protections granted by the 14th Amendment. While the intent behind this measure is to restrict who can be recognized as a U.S. citizen, the practical implications remain unclear. The process of issuing birth certificates is managed by state governments, and it is uncertain how the policy will interact with those systems. The move has already attracted legal challenges, with several lawsuits filed against the order. As a result, the enforcement of the directive is currently on hold, pending legal rulings. Legal Uncertainty and Future Challenges As the administration moves forward with these restrictive measures, the future for millions of immigrants remains uncertain. The ongoing legal battles surrounding the birthright citizenship restrictions and the review of TPS designations will be pivotal in determining the long-term impact of these policies. In the meantime, immigrant families continue to face an uncertain future, navigating the shifting landscape of U.S. immigration policy under the Trump administration. The legal and social implications of these changes could reshape the U.S. immigration system for years to come, with potential ramifications for the broader immigrant community.
MTV Lebanon
05-02-2025
- Politics
- MTV Lebanon
First military flight with migrants deported from US lands in Guantanamo Bay
The first US military flight deporting migrants from the United States to Guantanamo Bay landed in Cuba on Tuesday evening, according to a US official. It was the first step in an expected surge in the number of migrants sent to the US naval base, which for decades was primarily used to detain foreigners associated with the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. President Donald Trump has eyed the facility as a holding center and said it has the capacity to hold as many as 30,000. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who was assigned to Guantanamo Bay when he was on active duty, has called it a 'perfect place' to house migrants. Additional US troops have arrived at the facility in the past few days to help prepare. Amy Fischer, director of the Refugee and Migrant Rights Program at Amnesty International USA, decried the use of Guantanamo. 'Sending immigrants to Guantanamo is a profoundly cruel, costly move. It will cut people off from lawyers, family and support systems, throwing them into a black hole so the US government can continue to violate their human rights out of sight. Shut Gitmo down now and forever!" Fischer said in a statement. In addition, the US flew Indian immigrants back to India on Monday, a second U.S. official said. Both officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to provide details not yet made public. There had previously been seven deportation flights, to Ecuador, Guam, Honduras and Peru. In addition, Colombian officials flew to the US and took two flights of migrants back to their country. There are approximately 300 service members supporting the holding operations at Guantanamo Bay, and the numbers will fluctuate based on the requirements of the Department of Homeland Security, which is the lead federal agency. At least 230 of those service members are US Marines from the 6th Marine Regiment, who began deploying on Friday. There are more than 725,000 immigrants from India living in the US without authorisation, the third most of any country after Mexico and El Salvador, according to the Pew Research Center. Recent years have also seen a jump in the number of Indians attempting to enter the country along the US-Canada border. The US Border Patrol arrested more than 14,000 Indians on the Canadian border in the year ending Sept. 30, which amounted to 60% of all arrests along that border and more than 10 times the number two years ago.
Yahoo
05-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
First military flight with migrants deported from US lands in Guantanamo Bay
The first US military flight carrying detained migrants from the United States to Guantanamo Bay landed in Cuba on Tuesday. President Donald Trump said he wants to expand a migrant detention facility at the base to hold more than 30,000 migrants. The first US military flight deporting migrants from the United States to Guantanamo Bay landed in Cuba on Tuesday evening, according to a US official. It was the first step in an expected surge in the number of migrants sent to the US naval base, which for decades was primarily used to detain foreigners associated with the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. President Donald Trump has eyed the facility as a holding center and said it has the capacity to hold as many as 30,000. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who was assigned to Guantanamo Bay when he was on active duty, has called it a 'perfect place' to house migrants. Additional US troops have arrived at the facility in the past few days to help prepare. Amy Fischer, director of the Refugee and Migrant Rights Program at Amnesty International USA, decried the use of Guantanamo. 'Sending immigrants to Guantanamo is a profoundly cruel, costly move. It will cut people off from lawyers, family and support systems, throwing them into a black hole so the US government can continue to violate their human rights out of sight. Shut Gitmo down now and forever!" Fischer said in a statement. (AP) Read more on FRANCE 24 EnglishRead also:Trump plans to detain 30,000 undocumented migrants at Guantanamo BayWhat are sanctuary cities, and how are they being targeted by Trump?Colombia to accept repatriated citizens after Trump sanctions threat
