Latest news with #SenateJudiciarySubcommittee
Time of India
26-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Proposed bill will ease the pathway for a green card — but will it pass?
Immigrants in the US could qualify for lawful permanent resident status (commonly known as a green card) if they have lived in the country continuously for at least seven years before applying, do not have a criminal record, and meet all other current eligibility requirements — according to a bill proposed to be introduced in the US Senate by Senator Alex Padilla . The announcement comes against the backdrop of what the bill's backers describe as the 'indiscriminate' immigration enforcement practices of the Trump administration, according to a release. The bill is expected to be introduced in the US Senate in the coming week, but immigration experts are skeptical about its chances of passing. Padilla, a ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, had made headlines just a month ago when he was forcibly removed from a press conference held by Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem — an incident that sparked nationwide debate. Senator Dick Durbin will co-lead the bill in the Senate, while Representative Zoe Lofgren will lead the parallel effort in the House of Representatives. 'This overdue update would provide a much-needed pathway to a green card for more than 8 million people, including Dreamers, forcibly displaced individuals ( Temporary Protected Status holders ), children of long-term visa holders, essential workers, and highly skilled members of our workforce, such as H-1B visa holders , who have been waiting years for a green card to become available,' says a release from Padilla's office. If passed, the bill would also benefit hundreds of Indian nationals stuck in a decades-long backlog for employment-based green cards and help prevent family separation caused by children 'ageing out' (turning 21). At present, these children must either switch from a dependent visa (such as an H-4) to an international student visa or deport to India or another country. According to a March 2023 analysis by David J. Bier, director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute , the employment-based green card backlog for India (EB-2 and EB-3 categories) had reached 10. 7 lakh, with nearly 1.34 lakh children projected to age out before a green card became available. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like American Investor Warren Buffett Recommends: 5 Books For Turning Your Life Around Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo Technically, the bill seeks to amend Section 249 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, known as the "Registry," which gives the Secretary of Homeland Security discretion to grant lawful permanent resident status to individuals who have been in the country since a specified date and meet other criteria. Section 249 was last updated in 1986, and the current cutoff date for eligibility remains January 1, 1972 — more than 50 years ago. Senator Padilla had introduced a similar bill in September 2022, which is now being revived and reintroduced. The 'Renewing Immigration Provisions of the Immigration Act of 1929' would amend the Registry statute by updating the eligibility cutoff, allowing individuals who have lived in the US for at least seven years before filing an application to qualify for permanent residency. 'Americans know there's a better path forward than the Trump administration's cruel scapegoating of hardworking immigrants and fearmongering in California communities,' said Padilla. 'We believe that if you've lived here for over seven years, paid taxes, contributed to your community, and have no criminal record, then you deserve a pathway to legalization. My bill is a commonsense fix to our outdated immigration system — the same kind of reform Republican President Ronald Reagan embraced four decades ago, calling it a 'matter of basic fairness.' This legislation creates no new bureaucracies or agencies — it simply updates a longstanding pathway to reflect today's reality and provide a fair shot at the American Dream for millions of Dreamers, TPS holders, and highly skilled workers who have faced delays and uncertainty for decades.'
Yahoo
04-06-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Booker, Cruz spar over threats to US judges in fiery Senate exchange
Sens. Cory Booker, D-N.J., and Ted Cruz, R-Texas., sparred Tuesday over the uptick in threats made to federal court judges during President Donald Trump's second term. Their heated standoff comes as federal judges have issued a record number of injunctions against the flurry of executive actions by the president. The testy exchange took place during a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearing titled "The Supposedly Least Dangerous Branch: District Judges v. Trump." Cruz, the subcommittee chair, used his remarks at the outset of the hearing to take aim at Democrats on the subcommittee, who he said were "utterly silent" about judicial threats under the Biden administration, including after threats were made against conservative Supreme Court justices. Trump Tariff Plan Faces Uncertain Future As Court Battles Intensify Cruz took aim at Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., for "unleashing" protesters who gathered outside the homes of Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh prior to their decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization – the landmark ruling that overturned a 50-year-old abortion rights precedent – which he later said was ironic given the current "pearl-clutching" stance of Democrats on the panel. His remarks sparked a quick rebuke from Booker, who said, "Something you said is actually dangerous, and it needs to be addressed." Read On The Fox News App "This implication that there was silence [from Democrats on the panel] at a time there were threats on people's houses is absolutely absurd," he continued. "I remember the rhetoric and the comments, the concern from [Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del.]," Booker said. "I actually distinctly remember you, chairman, on more than one occasion, condemning those attacks on Republican-appointed jurists." Trump Nominates Former Defense Attorney Emil Bove For Federal Appeals Court Vacancy "To say things like that just feeds the partisanship in this institution, and it feeds the fiery rhetoric. And it's just plain not true," Booker added. In response, Cruz argued the "angry mobs" that appeared outside the homes of conservative Supreme Court justices prior to their decision in Dobbs were in violation of U.S.C. Section 1507. That law prohibits picketing outside the homes of judges or justices' homes in a way that could influence their decision or otherwise obstruct justice. Despite the protests, Cruz said, the Biden-led Justice Department "prosecuted nobody." "I really appreciate that you have now shifted the accusation you made earlier," Booker shot back. "Your accusation was that we were silent in the face of protests at Supreme Court justices' homes. Again, we joined together in a bipartisan way, not only to condemn that but to pass legislation to extend round-the-clock security protection. So if you're saying we didn't criticize –" he started before Cruz interjected. "Did the Biden DOJ go out and arrest a single person under this law?" the Texas lawmaker asked. Booker attempted to respond before Cruz interrupted again, "Did the Biden DOJ arrest even one [person]? Again, the answer is no." 100 Days Of Injunctions, Trials And 'Teflon Don': Trump 2Nd Term Meets Its Biggest Tests In Court Booker attempted once more to respond before Cruz interrupted again, prompting Booker to raise his voice. "I did not interrupt you, sir, I would appreciate it if you would let me finish," he told Cruz. "I am sick and tired of hearing the kind of heated partisan rhetoric, which is one of the reasons why we have such divisions in this country," Booker continued, prompting Cruz to laugh openly in response. "The attacks we see from the president of the United States of America, trolling and dragging judges through is what we should be talking about," Booker said. "I'm simply taking issue with the claim that you made at the top, that people on the Democratic side of the aisle do not care about the safety and the security of judges and said nothing," he continued, adding that the notion that his Democrat colleagues said nothing in the face of Supreme Court justice threats "is a patent lie." Who Is James Boasberg, The Us Judge At The Center Of Trump's Deportation Efforts? The two continued arguing before Cruz said, "Let the record reflect that Spartacus did not answer the question and did not tell us whether the criminal law" under U.S.C. Section 1507 should be enforced, "because he knows the answer is yes." The hearing comes as the number of threats against federal judges has spiked during Trump's second term, which has seen hundreds of federal lawsuits filed in courts across the country seeking to either pause or halt the flurry of sweeping executive orders and actions taken by the president. Trump has repeatedly criticized what he called "activist judges," prompting Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to issue a rare public warning. The U.S. Marshals Service said last week that it has investigated more than 370 threats against federal judges since Trump's inauguration in January, which is a sharp rise from 2024, when 509 people were investigated during the entire year. Democrats on the panel used Tuesday's hearing to renew requests for the Justice Department and FBI to investigate an uptick in anonymous "pizza deliveries" sent to federal judges, which can be used as a threat or warning to let judges know their home address is article source: Booker, Cruz spar over threats to US judges in fiery Senate exchange
Fox News
24-03-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Biden admin's 'vast censorship enterprise' with help of NGOs slated for key hearing, lawmaker says
FIRST ON FOX: Ahead of a key hearing on Tuesday to examine the Biden administration's work with outside entities to censor Americans, Chairman Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., blasted the former president's "sprawling network of federal agencies and NGOs" reportedly used to limit speech and posts that were "disfavored." "The Biden Administration created a vast censorship enterprise, comprised of a sprawling network of federal agencies and NGOs that have been working overtime to censor Americans' speech. From special reporting portals to the White House press secretary admitting at the podium that they were flagging posts to be taken down, the level of coordination to subvert the First Amendment and remove disfavored speech was beyond what most imagined," the Missouri senator told Fox News Digital in an exclusive statement previewing the hearing. Chairman Schmitt will lead his first hearing in the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution to review "the role non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have played in the censorship of Americans, all while receiving billions in federal tax dollars and subsidies," per an advisory. While serving as Missouri Attorney General in 2022, Schmitt and now-Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry filed a lawsuit against the Biden administration over its alleged collusion with tech companies and social media to censor individuals. "When I was Missouri's attorney general, I filed the landmark Missouri v. Biden case that exposed this censorship for the world to see. Now, as a United States senator, I've introduced legislation that would hold social media companies and individual bureaucrats accountable for censorship. But the work doesn't stop there," Schmitt said. "This hearing is an opportunity to expose how a network of NGOs contributed to this vast censorship enterprise and keep up the fight for Americans' First Amendment rights." U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty rejected the Biden Justice Department's bid to pause a preliminary injunction in 2023, which upheld the order and barred the administration from communicating with social media companies about "protected speech." The injunction noted that while NGOs Stanford Internet Observatory, the Election Integrity Partnership, and the Virality Project aren't defendants themselves, "In partnership with these non-governmental organizations, the State Department Defendants flagged and reported postings of protected free speech to the social-media companies for suppression." "The flagged content was almost entirely from political figures, political organizations, alleged partisan media outlets, and social-media all-stars associated with right-wing or conservative political views, demonstrating likely 'viewpoint discrimination,'" Doughty wrote. Ultimately, the Supreme Court decided 6-3 to reject a bid to stop the Biden administration from pressuring social media platforms to remove certain content. The case before the top court was known as Murthy v. Missouri and included social media users, as well as the states of Missouri and Louisiana against Biden's then-U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, among others. Many were critical of the decision, with now-National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director nominee Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya saying at the time, "In the guise of countering misinformation, the Biden Administration used its regulatory power to suppress valid criticism of its COVID response. This led to irrational policies, such as extended school disruptions, the anti-science denial of recovered immunity, counterproductive vaccine mandates, and the sidelining and gaslighting of the vaccine-injured." "Free speech is essential to science, to public health, and to good health. In light of the Supreme Court's reluctance to fully protect free speech today, we will need concrete action by Congress, and a popular movement, to restore free speech rights as a central plank of the American civic religion," he added at the time of the ruling. Last year, a House Judiciary Committee 800-page report, titled "The Censorship-industrial Complex: How Top Biden White House Officials Coerced Big Tech to Censor Americans, True Information, and Critics of the Biden Administration," revealed a number of instances of COVID-19 censorship following significant pressure from the White House. "[B]oth Facebook and Amazon referred to the Biden White House's efforts as 'pressure,'" according to the report. July 2021 internal emails from executives at Facebook revealed that they understood the administration's position as wanting "negative information on or opinions about the vaccine" taken down, in addition to "humorous or satirical content that suggests the vaccine isn't safe." At one point during the same month, Facebook executive Nick Clegg queried in an email why they censored the lab-leak theory of COVID-19. The response from another employee was: "Because we were under pressure from the [Biden] administration and others to do more.... We shouldn't have done it." A representative for Biden did not provide comment in time for publication. The hearing will take place at 2 p.m. ET on Tuesday.
