Latest news with #Ginsburg
Yahoo
24-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
UM Health-Sparrow honors longtime volunteer with 2025 Founders' Award
LANSING, Mich. (WLNS) — The University of Michigan Health-Sparrow honored community volunteer Deborah Ginsburg with the 2025 Founders' Award for her contribution to the mid-Michigan community. Sparrow reports that Ginsburg has supported the hospital for decades. She began her work as a part-time team member in 1979. She was a longtime member of the Sparrow Hospital Guild, where she served as Chair, and joined the Sparrow Women's Board of Managers in 2016, leading the board as Chair from 2021 to 2022. Ginsburg also served two-year terms on the Sparrow Foundation Board and the Sparrow Hospital Board. She and her husband, Ira Ginsburg, the former senior vice president of operations and the 2012 Founders' Award recipient, are members of the Sparrow Foundation's Philanthropist League. 'We often encounter people in what is often a stressful time in their lives. To me, volunteering and supporting the many selfless people who help our patients and their families is what influences me, and I hope, in some small way, influences others too,' said Deborah Ginsburg in a news release sent to 6 News. Sparrow says Ginsburg currently serves on the Ele's Place Board of Directors, supporting children and young adults as they navigate grief in a safe and compassionate environment. 'The Founders' Award is presented by the Sparrow Women's Board of Managers to a volunteer, community member, retired team member or physician who has made a positive impact on the health of the Mid-Michigan region through their involvement with University of Michigan Health-Sparrow,' said Sparrow in a news release sent to 6 News. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
CNN
01-04-2025
- Politics
- CNN
What rights do immigrants have, and what do they not have?
In a 2014 joint interview, former Supreme Court justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia were asked a pressing legal question about immigrant rights. Do the five freedoms mentioned in the First Amendment – freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition – apply to undocumented immigrants? 'Oh I think so, I think anybody who's present in the United States has protections under the United States Constitution,' said Scalia, the reliable conservative voice. Ginsburg, the stalwart liberal, agreed. 'When we get to the 14th Amendment, it doesn't speak of 'citizens.' Some constitutions grant rights to 'citizens,' but our constitution says 'person,'' she said. 'And the 'person' is every person who is here – documented or undocumented.' Over a decade later, that bipartisan view faces a stiff test in the legal battles over the Trump administration's mass deportation efforts. The deportations have targeted undocumented immigrants from Venezuela for alleged gang affiliations based on limited evidence as well as students whose visas or green cards have been canceled in connection to pro-Palestinian protests. These migrants have been rounded up on the street by masked Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and tossed into a labyrinthine detention system, far from their attorneys and families. CNN spoke with several experts in immigration law to better understand what rights immigrants do and don't have and what legal recourse migrants at risk of deportation have. As Scalia and Ginsburg noted, immigrants do have the fundamental civil rights enshrined in the Constitution, including due process rights. 'A permanent resident and a non-permanent resident, somebody on let's say an H-1B visa or some other type of temporary visa … has due process rights,' David Leopold, the former president and general counsel of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said at a press briefing with immigrant rights advocates in mid-March. 'Everybody is covered by the United States Constitution. Everybody's protected by the United States Constitution inside the United States.' However, immigrants' presence in the US is generally considered to be a 'privilege' rather than a right and can be revoked for certain reasons laid out in federal law, such as a serious crime. 'There is this idea in US immigration law that dates to the very early Supreme Court decisions that treats immigration as a privilege,' explained Nayna Gupta, policy director of the American Immigration Council, a pro-immigration non-profit group. 'In other words, if you're a non-citizen, you are being given the privilege of being here in the United States, and since you have the privilege of being here, we're not obligated to extend the full range of constitutional rights and protections we might extend to a citizen.' Despite these protections on paper, permanent residents and visa-holders have been frightened by the speed and ferocity of the Trump administration's crackdown and its bulldozing of due process rights, said Neil A. Weinrib, an immigration attorney for more than four decades. 'The level of terror that I'm seeing is just incredible,' Weinrib said of his clients. 'I've never seen anything like this before. It's a new level. It's unprecedented and changes every day, and not for the better.' Trump administration officials have repeatedly argued in court and in public statements that immigration is a privilege, and said the federal government has the power to choose which non-citizens can stay and which must leave. 'A visa is a privilege not a right,' a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security said in defending the removal of Rasha Alawieh, a Brown University assistant professor and doctor. 'A green card holder, even if I may like that green card holder, doesn't have an indefinite right to be in the United States of America, right?' Vice President JD Vance said in a recent interview with Fox News. 'If the Secretary of State and the President decide, 'This person shouldn't be in America, and they have no legal right to stay here,' it's as simple as that.' This view is most evident in the Trump administration's move to revoke visas and green cards from the non-citizens who engaged in pro-Palestinian protests on college campuses over the last year and a half. The administration has been relying on an obscure section of US law which gives Secretary of State Marco Rubio authority to revoke a person's immigration status if their 'presence or activities in the United States would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences.' Rubio said the government may have revoked more than 300 visas for the 'lunatics' who were 'creating a ruckus' during campus protests. 'Every country in the world has a right to decide who comes in as a visitor and who doesn't,' he said. The idea that a visa or green card is a privilege is generally true, but that does not mean that a migrant's legal status is solely based on the whims of those in power, immigration law experts said. It's not altogether unusual for the government to revoke a migrant's green card for legally prescribed reasons, Leopold said at the press briefing last month. 'I think a lot of people were stunned that somebody with a green card, a lawful permanent resident, could be subjected to arrest and possibly deportation, but that happens all the time,' he said. 'So, a green card holder at the end of the day – and the Supreme Court has made clear since back in the Cold War era – they're guests, legally speaking, in the United States.' Even so, in previous administrations, deportation efforts were based on serious criminal conduct like felony charges. The Trump administration has focused on deporting people for petty offenses or even political positions, Weinrib explained. 'We're on the verge of a much more aggressive governmental intrusion in terms of exercising free speech for green card holders,' he said. 'It's a whole new era in enforcement that we've never seen before.' Further, migrants detained in the immigration system still have due process rights to challenge their detention and the evidence against them. 'We're deeply concerned that the Trump administration here is abusing the vague and overbroad provision of US immigration law,' Naureen Shah, deputy director of government affairs for the ACLU, said at the press briefing last month. 'What's clear to us is that non-citizens are entitled to due process, especially for something as serious as revoking a green card.' The other key difference in rights afforded to citizens and non-citizens is in the court venue. While criminal courts are part of the judicial branch, immigration courts are administrative civil venues under the umbrella of the executive branch's Department of Justice. Defendants accused of an immigration violation do not have the same rights as defendants accused of a crime. That means immigration court defendants are not granted the right to an appointed attorney; the courts do not follow the federal rules of evidence around hearsay; and there is no right to cross-examine accusers, according to Gupta. A 2016 study by the American Immigration Council looking at deportation cases from 2007 to 2012 found only 37% of immigrants secured legal representation, including just 14% of detained immigrants. 'In a criminal setting, everybody in that setting gets those set of rights,' Gupta said. 'But in the immigration civil system context, those rights are significantly less.' Even for defendants with attorneys, the government can make their accessibility difficult. For example, the Trump administration moved Mahmoud Khalil, the former Columbia University grad student and pro-Palestinian activist, from New York to a facility in Louisiana, making it harder for him and his attorneys to be in contact. Similarly, Weinrib said one of his clients, a man from Tajikistan applying for asylum, was apprehended at a standard check-in in New York and moved to central Pennsylvania. 'Part of the problem is they can be picked up and moved around like chess pieces, and that goes back many years,' Weinrib said. 'They've always done that deliberately.' On its website, ICE states that detention is 'non-punitive.' 'Once an alien is transferred to ICE custody, the agency makes a custody determination,' the agency says. 'ICE uses its limited detention resources to detain aliens to secure their presence for immigration proceedings or removal from the United States.' There is also no limit to how long people can be held in detention, Weinrib said. 'It's like a purgatory. Once you're in the system, your rights are really quite limited.' In sum, the question of what rights immigrants do and don't have is one that has changed just in the last few months and is likely to continue doing so. 'Every day we're hit with a different decision, and we just don't know how to make sense of it,' Veronica Cardenas, the former assistant chief counsel for the Department of Homeland Security, told CNN in mid-March. 'Us immigration lawyers are really experiencing the lack of due process circumventing immigration courts, and so it's been a very difficult time.' CNN's Priscilla Alvarez, Catherine Shoichet, Jennifer Hansler and Maria Prieto Aguilar contributed to this report.
Yahoo
01-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
What rights do immigrants have, and what do they not have?
In a 2014 joint interview, former Supreme Court justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia were asked a pressing legal question about immigrant rights. Do the five freedoms mentioned in the First Amendment – freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition – apply to undocumented immigrants? 'Oh I think so, I think anybody who's present in the United States has protections under the United States Constitution,' said Scalia, the reliable conservative voice. Ginsburg, the stalwart liberal, agreed. 'When we get to the 14th Amendment, it doesn't speak of 'citizens.' Some constitutions grant rights to 'citizens,' but our constitution says 'person,'' she said. 'And the 'person' is every person who is here – documented or undocumented.' Over a decade later, that bipartisan view faces a stiff test in the legal battles over the Trump administration's mass deportation efforts. The deportations have targeted undocumented immigrants from Venezuela for alleged gang affiliations based on limited evidence as well as students whose visas or green cards have been canceled in connection to pro-Palestinian protests. These migrants have been rounded up on the street by masked Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and tossed into a labyrinthine detention system, far from their attorneys and families. CNN spoke with several experts in immigration law to better understand what rights immigrants do and don't have and what legal recourse migrants at risk of deportation have. As Scalia and Ginsburg noted, immigrants do have the fundamental civil rights enshrined in the Constitution, including due process rights. 'A permanent resident and a non-permanent resident, somebody on let's say an H-1B visa or some other type of temporary visa … has due process rights,' David Leopold, the former president and general counsel of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said at a press briefing with immigrant rights advocates in mid-March. 'Everybody is covered by the United States Constitution. Everybody's protected by the United States Constitution inside the United States.' However, immigrants' presence in the US is generally considered to be a 'privilege' rather than a right and can be revoked for certain reasons laid out in federal law, such as a serious crime. 'There is this idea in US immigration law that dates to the very early Supreme Court decisions that treats immigration as a privilege,' explained Nayna Gupta, policy director of the American Immigration Council, a pro-immigration non-profit group. 'In other words, if you're a non-citizen, you are being given the privilege of being here in the United States, and since you have the privilege of being here, we're not obligated to extend the full range of constitutional rights and protections we might extend to a citizen.' Despite these protections on paper, permanent residents and visa-holders have been frightened by the speed and ferocity of the Trump administration's crackdown and its bulldozing of due process rights, said Neil A. Weinrib, an immigration attorney for more than four decades. 'The level of terror that I'm seeing is just incredible,' Weinrib said of his clients. 'I've never seen anything like this before. It's a new level. It's unprecedented and changes every day, and not for the better.' Trump administration officials have repeatedly argued in court and in public statements that immigration is a privilege, and said the federal government has the power to choose which non-citizens can stay and which must leave. 'A visa is a privilege not a right,' a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security said in defending the removal of Rasha Alawieh, a Brown University assistant professor and doctor. 'A green card holder, even if I may like that green card holder, doesn't have an indefinite right to be in the United States of America, right?' Vice President JD Vance said in a recent interview with Fox News. 'If the Secretary of State and the President decide, 'This person shouldn't be in America, and they have no legal right to stay here,' it's as simple as that.' This view is most evident in the Trump administration's move to revoke visas and green cards from the non-citizens who engaged in pro-Palestinian protests on college campuses over the last year and a half. The administration has been relying on an obscure section of US law which gives Secretary of State Marco Rubio authority to revoke a person's immigration status if their 'presence or activities in the United States would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences.' Rubio said the government may have revoked more than 300 visas for the 'lunatics' who were 'creating a ruckus' during campus protests. 'Every country in the world has a right to decide who comes in as a visitor and who doesn't,' he said. The idea that a visa or green card is a privilege is generally true, but that does not mean that a migrant's legal status is solely based on the whims of those in power, immigration law experts said. It's not altogether unusual for the government to revoke a migrant's green card for legally prescribed reasons, Leopold said at the press briefing last month. 'I think a lot of people were stunned that somebody with a green card, a lawful permanent resident, could be subjected to arrest and possibly deportation, but that happens all the time,' he said. 'So, a green card holder at the end of the day – and the Supreme Court has made clear since back in the Cold War era – they're guests, legally speaking, in the United States.' Even so, in previous administrations, deportation efforts were based on serious criminal conduct like felony charges. The Trump administration has focused on deporting people for petty offenses or even political positions, Weinrib explained. 'We're on the verge of a much more aggressive governmental intrusion in terms of exercising free speech for green card holders,' he said. 'It's a whole new era in enforcement that we've never seen before.' Further, migrants detained in the immigration system still have due process rights to challenge their detention and the evidence against them. 'We're deeply concerned that the Trump administration here is abusing the vague and overbroad provision of US immigration law,' Naureen Shah, deputy director of government affairs for the ACLU, said at the press briefing last month. 'What's clear to us is that non-citizens are entitled to due process, especially for something as serious as revoking a green card.' The other key difference in rights afforded to citizens and non-citizens is in the court venue. While criminal courts are part of the judicial branch, immigration courts are administrative civil venues under the umbrella of the executive branch's Department of Justice. Defendants accused of an immigration violation do not have the same rights as defendants accused of a crime. That means immigration court defendants are not granted the right to an appointed attorney; the courts do not follow the federal rules of evidence around hearsay; and there is no right to cross-examine accusers, according to Gupta. A 2016 study by the American Immigration Council looking at deportation cases from 2007 to 2012 found only 37% of immigrants secured legal representation, including just 14% of detained immigrants. 'In a criminal setting, everybody in that setting gets those set of rights,' Gupta said. 'But in the immigration civil system context, those rights are significantly less.' Even for defendants with attorneys, the government can make their accessibility difficult. For example, the Trump administration moved Mahmoud Khalil, the former Columbia University grad student and pro-Palestinian activist, from New York to a facility in Louisiana, making it harder for him and his attorneys to be in contact. Similarly, Weinrib said one of his clients, a man from Tajikistan applying for asylum, was apprehended at a standard check-in in New York and moved to central Pennsylvania. 'Part of the problem is they can be picked up and moved around like chess pieces, and that goes back many years,' Weinrib said. 'They've always done that deliberately.' On its website, ICE states that detention is 'non-punitive.' 'Once an alien is transferred to ICE custody, the agency makes a custody determination,' the agency says. 'ICE uses its limited detention resources to detain aliens to secure their presence for immigration proceedings or removal from the United States.' There is also no limit to how long people can be held in detention, Weinrib said. 'It's like a purgatory. Once you're in the system, your rights are really quite limited.' In sum, the question of what rights immigrants do and don't have is one that has changed just in the last few months and is likely to continue doing so. 'Every day we're hit with a different decision, and we just don't know how to make sense of it,' Veronica Cardenas, the former assistant chief counsel for the Department of Homeland Security, told CNN in mid-March. 'Us immigration lawyers are really experiencing the lack of due process circumventing immigration courts, and so it's been a very difficult time.' CNN's Priscilla Alvarez, Catherine Shoichet, Jennifer Hansler and Maria Prieto Aguilar contributed to this report.
CNN
01-04-2025
- Politics
- CNN
What rights do immigrants have, and what do they not have?
In a 2014 joint interview, former Supreme Court justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia were asked a pressing legal question about immigrant rights. Do the five freedoms mentioned in the First Amendment – freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition – apply to undocumented immigrants? 'Oh I think so, I think anybody who's present in the United States has protections under the United States Constitution,' said Scalia, the reliable conservative voice. Ginsburg, the stalwart liberal, agreed. 'When we get to the 14th Amendment, it doesn't speak of 'citizens.' Some constitutions grant rights to 'citizens,' but our constitution says 'person,'' she said. 'And the 'person' is every person who is here – documented or undocumented.' Over a decade later, that bipartisan view faces a stiff test in the legal battles over the Trump administration's mass deportation efforts. The deportations have targeted undocumented immigrants from Venezuela for alleged gang affiliations based on limited evidence as well as students whose visas or green cards have been canceled in connection to pro-Palestinian protests. These migrants have been rounded up on the street by masked Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and tossed into a labyrinthine detention system, far from their attorneys and families. CNN spoke with several experts in immigration law to better understand what rights immigrants do and don't have and what legal recourse migrants at risk of deportation have. As Scalia and Ginsburg noted, immigrants do have the fundamental civil rights enshrined in the Constitution, including due process rights. 'A permanent resident and a non-permanent resident, somebody on let's say an H-1B visa or some other type of temporary visa … has due process rights,' David Leopold, the former president and general counsel of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said at a press briefing with immigrant rights advocates in mid-March. 'Everybody is covered by the United States Constitution. Everybody's protected by the United States Constitution inside the United States.' However, immigrants' presence in the US is generally considered to be a 'privilege' rather than a right and can be revoked for certain reasons laid out in federal law, such as a serious crime. 'There is this idea in US immigration law that dates to the very early Supreme Court decisions that treats immigration as a privilege,' explained Nayna Gupta, policy director of the American Immigration Council, a pro-immigration non-profit group. 'In other words, if you're a non-citizen, you are being given the privilege of being here in the United States, and since you have the privilege of being here, we're not obligated to extend the full range of constitutional rights and protections we might extend to a citizen.' Despite these protections on paper, permanent residents and visa-holders have been frightened by the speed and ferocity of the Trump administration's crackdown and its bulldozing of due process rights, said Neil A. Weinrib, an immigration attorney for more than four decades. 'The level of terror that I'm seeing is just incredible,' Weinrib said of his clients. 'I've never seen anything like this before. It's a new level. It's unprecedented and changes every day, and not for the better.' Trump administration officials have repeatedly argued in court and in public statements that immigration is a privilege, and said the federal government has the power to choose which non-citizens can stay and which must leave. 'A visa is a privilege not a right,' a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security said in defending the removal of Rasha Alawieh, a Brown University assistant professor and doctor. 'A green card holder, even if I may like that green card holder, doesn't have an indefinite right to be in the United States of America, right?' Vice President JD Vance said in a recent interview with Fox News. 'If the Secretary of State and the President decide, 'This person shouldn't be in America, and they have no legal right to stay here,' it's as simple as that.' This view is most evident in the Trump administration's move to revoke visas and green cards from the non-citizens who engaged in pro-Palestinian protests on college campuses over the last year and a half. The administration has been relying on an obscure section of US law which gives Secretary of State Marco Rubio authority to revoke a person's immigration status if their 'presence or activities in the United States would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences.' Rubio said the government may have revoked more than 300 visas for the 'lunatics' who were 'creating a ruckus' during campus protests. 'Every country in the world has a right to decide who comes in as a visitor and who doesn't,' he said. The idea that a visa or green card is a privilege is generally true, but that does not mean that a migrant's legal status is solely based on the whims of those in power, immigration law experts said. It's not altogether unusual for the government to revoke a migrant's green card for legally prescribed reasons, Leopold said at the press briefing last month. 'I think a lot of people were stunned that somebody with a green card, a lawful permanent resident, could be subjected to arrest and possibly deportation, but that happens all the time,' he said. 'So, a green card holder at the end of the day – and the Supreme Court has made clear since back in the Cold War era – they're guests, legally speaking, in the United States.' Even so, in previous administrations, deportation efforts were based on serious criminal conduct like felony charges. The Trump administration has focused on deporting people for petty offenses or even political positions, Weinrib explained. 'We're on the verge of a much more aggressive governmental intrusion in terms of exercising free speech for green card holders,' he said. 'It's a whole new era in enforcement that we've never seen before.' Further, migrants detained in the immigration system still have due process rights to challenge their detention and the evidence against them. 'We're deeply concerned that the Trump administration here is abusing the vague and overbroad provision of US immigration law,' Naureen Shah, deputy director of government affairs for the ACLU, said at the press briefing last month. 'What's clear to us is that non-citizens are entitled to due process, especially for something as serious as revoking a green card.' The other key difference in rights afforded to citizens and non-citizens is in the court venue. While criminal courts are part of the judicial branch, immigration courts are administrative civil venues under the umbrella of the executive branch's Department of Justice. Defendants accused of an immigration violation do not have the same rights as defendants accused of a crime. That means immigration court defendants are not granted the right to an appointed attorney; the courts do not follow the federal rules of evidence around hearsay; and there is no right to cross-examine accusers, according to Gupta. A 2016 study by the American Immigration Council looking at deportation cases from 2007 to 2012 found only 37% of immigrants secured legal representation, including just 14% of detained immigrants. 'In a criminal setting, everybody in that setting gets those set of rights,' Gupta said. 'But in the immigration civil system context, those rights are significantly less.' Even for defendants with attorneys, the government can make their accessibility difficult. For example, the Trump administration moved Mahmoud Khalil, the former Columbia University grad student and pro-Palestinian activist, from New York to a facility in Louisiana, making it harder for him and his attorneys to be in contact. Similarly, Weinrib said one of his clients, a man from Tajikistan applying for asylum, was apprehended at a standard check-in in New York and moved to central Pennsylvania. 'Part of the problem is they can be picked up and moved around like chess pieces, and that goes back many years,' Weinrib said. 'They've always done that deliberately.' On its website, ICE states that detention is 'non-punitive.' 'Once an alien is transferred to ICE custody, the agency makes a custody determination,' the agency says. 'ICE uses its limited detention resources to detain aliens to secure their presence for immigration proceedings or removal from the United States.' There is also no limit to how long people can be held in detention, Weinrib said. 'It's like a purgatory. Once you're in the system, your rights are really quite limited.' In sum, the question of what rights immigrants do and don't have is one that has changed just in the last few months and is likely to continue doing so. 'Every day we're hit with a different decision, and we just don't know how to make sense of it,' Veronica Cardenas, the former assistant chief counsel for the Department of Homeland Security, told CNN in mid-March. 'Us immigration lawyers are really experiencing the lack of due process circumventing immigration courts, and so it's been a very difficult time.' CNN's Priscilla Alvarez, Catherine Shoichet, Jennifer Hansler and Maria Prieto Aguilar contributed to this report.
CBS News
21-03-2025
- Politics
- CBS News
Anti-DEI investigation threatens opportunities for minority students at Towson University
45 universities including Towson University, are being investigated for alleged racial discrimination as part of the Trump administration's push to end diversity, equity and inclusion programs that officials say exclude White and Asian American students. "Towson is the only university in Maryland that's part of this group of 45 that's being investigated now by the federal government and that's a very high stakes issue," Ginsburg, President of Towson University, said. A week after the Trump administration launched the anti-D.E.I. investigation into Towson University, it's president, Dr. Mark Ginsburg, joined Senator Chris Van Hollen to speak to the Maryland General Assembly. "We have 20,000 students and about 60% of those students identify themselves as being from a racial or ethnic minority group. 20% of our students are first generation, first in their family to attend college," Ginsburg touted. More than 45 universities, including Towson, are facing pressure from the Trump administration over their ties to "The PhD Project," a non-profit that helps almost 300 minority students get degrees in doctoral programs. The anti-DEI investigation challenges the funds to keep providing this opportunity. "What's really at risk is the opportunity for students who wouldn't otherwise afford a college education to come to a high-quality university like Towson," Ginsburg explained. President Trump signed an executive order on Thursday to dismantle the Department of Education, expanding the fight on several fronts. However, Senator Chris Van Hollen contends that the courts are showing the administration is breaking the law. "Just yesterday, a federal court judge in Boston ordered the Trump administration to pay $5 million in a federal grant for teacher training at Towson University because it was illegally withheld," Hollen said. "One has to step back and wonder what the real agenda is and where it's going," Ginsburg added. "I think the impact is almost incalculable and I think it's going to be a very turbulent time."
