Latest news with #TribuneNewsService
Gulf Today
3 days ago
- Politics
- Gulf Today
These immigrants fled violence, now harsh reality calls
Carolyn Komatsoulis, Kevin Fixler, Tribune News Service Gregory Bastos remembers being kidnapped along with a friend and beaten by Venezuelan forces for his political activism, not knowing whether he would die. The experience was traumatising, he said, sitting at a cafe in downtown Boise with his wife, Oriana Bastos. The Venezuelan-born couple, both 27, didn't wait long before they crossed the border to Colombia, took a bus to the capital, Bogotá, and flew to Mexico. The two turned themselves in at the US border to request asylum and were detained briefly. Since then, they've been waiting four years for an asylum court date. When a hearing was set for April 10, the two Idaho residents felt like there was an end in sight, finally. But their slot was cancelled a week beforehand because of a judge reassignment, they said, plunging them back into uncertainty. It's been a long road, starting from nothing. Away in the US, Oriana missed the death of her grandmother back home, she said, choking up. Oriana and her husband were both attorneys in South America, but have worked in restaurants and at a hospital locally. She said they've struggled in a different culture, with a different language and with people who aren't always welcoming. And since President Donald Trump retook office, the couple has been dealing with his rhetoric and the ever-changing news cycle. 'He doesn't have any idea what it means to be an immigrant,' Oriana said, in Spanish. 'It's life or death.' Asylum is an internationally recognised protection for people who face persecution in their home countries. The process has long been time consuming. But with the Trump administration's hardening attitude toward immigrants, local lawyers said asylum-seekers are struggling with a more hostile bureaucracy and a chaotic environment. Trump and other members of his administration have said they are trying to make America safer by deporting people and improving security at the US-Mexico border. Gregory and Oriana aren't alone in dealing with the judge's reassignment. Idaho cases are heard in Portland, according to local immigration lawyers, but a Washington state immigration judge used to hear Idaho cases remotely. Then scheduled hearings for Idaho cases started getting cancelled this spring, said Neal Dougherty, a Nampa-based immigration attorney with Ramirez-Smith Law. No official explanation was given. Department of Justice spokesperson Kathryn Mattingly did not answer questions about why those cases were cancelled. Dougherty said, after the reassignment, court dates are now scheduled as far out as 2030. In the past, his clients would wait just two or three years, he said. Some people, like Gregory and Oriana, are still waiting to be rescheduled, he said. Such legal challenges to local asylum-seekers affect more than just Latino communities. People from many other nationalities who are trying to establish legal residency or US citizenship are in the same dilemma. Eddie Hamdard, 30, a native of Afghanistan, received a path to US citizenship through a special immigration visa programme after he assisted the American military during its 20-year war in his home country. He arrived to the US in 2015 and became naturalised in 2020. But he has witnessed past US pledges to grant legal status to his immediate family members stall, and grown more and more frustrated by evolving policies, including sudden changes once Trump re-entered the White House in January. Hamdard, who lives in Boise, has been able to navigate a patchwork of US immigration systems to find routes for his mother, sister and older brother to join him in Idaho. But the status of those applications long remained in flux. And Hamdard has remained unable to find a successful path for his sister's husband. The lack of stability and reliable help and information over the years has severely impacted his and his family's mental health, he told the Statesman. 'My brother feels abandoned by the system he once trusted, while my brother-in-law faces life-threatening risks daily in Afghanistan,' Hamdard said last month. 'Many Afghans perceive US immigration policies as humiliating and dismissive of their sacrifices during US military operations, amplifying feelings of betrayal within our community.' Gregory and Oriana's home state of Táchira, in western Venezuela on the Colombian border, is well-known for its longtime opposition to the country's regime. Both of them protested against the government as part of the political party Acción Democrática. Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro took office in 2013 and has presided over the largest economic decline outside of wartime in decades. His critics say he stole an election last year and has imprisoned, tortured and kidnapped people. Millions of Venezuelans have already left in the years since his ascension. Recently, several members of his opposition fled to the US, and the top opposition leader remains in hiding. Inside Venezuela, Gregory and Oriana said they met as law students at a local university. They got married in the US in 2022. 'I believe that us Venezuelans, we don't lose faith,' Oriana said, tearing up. 'That one day it will change and we can go back once again.' Now to be lawyers again, they'd have to save up to attend law school in the US. It's very expensive, they said, especially amid all of their other expenses, including taxes, vehicle costs and sending money home. A dangerous country alone isn't enough for people to qualify for asylum, said J.J. Despain, managing attorney for the Wilner & O'Reilly Boise office. People have to show specific and credible fears to receive protection in the US. Immigrants can either apply on their own or raise asylum as a defense to deportation. For many hoping to stay in the country, asylum is their only legal option, driving up the number of applications, Despain said. The US has just under 2 million open asylum cases, according to the Transaction Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University. Asylum is under the purview of Congress, not the executive branch. But that didn't stop Trump from issuing orders with immediate impacts on asylum-seekers. In his first days, Trump signed an executive order prohibiting people from seeking asylum through the border with Mexico. His administration also shut down a mobile app called CBP One, which had allowed asylum-seekers to schedule appointments. The administration then cancelled the legal status of around 1 million people who had previously entered the country using the app, including some who had pending asylum applications. A recent memo laid out a plan for judges to dismiss asylum cases without a hearing. 'All that matters is if you're an immigrant, you're an enemy,' Oriana said. Trump campaigned on mass deportations and stopping the flow of immigrants into the country. In recent years, public opinion in the US has shifted to a more anti-immigration stance, according to recent Gallup national polling. That changing public opinion is part of what Gregory, Oriana and Hamdard said they find so discouraging about the current political climate. 'The systemic delays and anti-immigration policies have left my family in chaos — struggling to navigate complex legal processes while facing employment barriers and emotional distress,' Hamdard said.
Gulf Today
3 days ago
- Politics
- Gulf Today
How former president Biden cost Democrats the presidency
Carl P. Leubsdorf, Tribune News Service If the goal of Joe Biden's 'Politburo' was to hide reality and convince Americans the former president was fit for another term, it may have been the least successful cover-up since Richard Nixon sought to avoid complicity in the Watergate scandal. That's because even before Biden gave history's worst presidential debate performance — and longer before the recent Jake Tapper-Alex Thompson disclosures of how truly bad things had gotten in the White House — polls showed an overwhelming majority of Americans had already reached the conclusion he should step down. Indeed, members of Biden's palace guard were not the worst villains in this whole unhappy episode, which resulted in the 2024 Democratic loss to Donald Trump. After all, they only did what White House palace guards always do: protect their principal and portray him in the best light. It was the other top Democrats who saw enough and probably knew enough about Biden's age and his mental state to know their party needed a different standard-bearer if it was to prevent the return of Trump — but they lacked the political courage to do anything. After all, it didn't take a political genius to understand that, at the very least, the Democrats had undertaken a giant riverboat gamble in sticking with a president who showed increasing signs of physical and mental frailty and would be 86 at the end of a second term. A few said so publicly, like former Obama White House adviser David Axelrod, and Minnesota Rep. Dean Phillips, who launched a quixotic primary campaign against Biden. According to Tapper and Thompson, others raised doubts behind the scenes. 'Are we sure this is a good idea?' senior adviser Anita Dunn reportedly asked some colleagues. And Secretary of State Antony Blinken told Biden directly, 'I'm with you one hundred and ten percent, whatever you want to do. But I want to make sure you want to take this on.' The authors say he suggested on two separate occasions that the real issue was not how Biden felt now but, 'how would he feel in four, five, six years from now?' They write that former White House chief of staff Bill Daley 'felt strongly (in 2023) that the notion that Biden would be up to the task the following year was unsustainable' and reached out to some potential contenders — Governors Gavin Newsom of California, Andy Beshear of Kentucky, J. B. Pritzker of Illinois. But all demurred, reportedly fearing that, if they challenged Biden and he lost, 'they would be blamed.' (In fact, those who vouched for Biden's well-being may suffer; already, former Health and Human Services secretary Xavier Becerra's silence has been questioned by a California gubernatorial primary rival.) On the other hand, John F. Kennedy, Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama all won the presidency by taking on an initially resistant Democratic establishment. Nothing came of any of that. And one of the more startling disclosures is that Biden and his wife Jill apparently made his decision to run again without any effort to weigh the pros and cons or seek the views of his advisers. I've always felt that, had the Democrats suffered a traditional 2022 midterm setback instead of faring reasonably well, public pressure to replace Biden would have emerged before the last votes were counted. The irony is that he had almost nothing to do with the Democrats holding those losses to a minimum, though they did lose their House majority. That's because he was already sufficiently unpopular, thanks to factors like lingering inflation and the botched US withdrawal from Afghanistan, that most embattled Democrats resisted presidential appearances in their states or districts. That meant that the party failed to suffer the midterm rout many pre-election accounts predicted — despite Biden, not because of him. Still, the outcome deterred potential challengers from undertaking the massive and fraught task of taking on the party's incumbent in the crucial post-election period where they would have needed to start raising money and establishing campaigns in the early primary states. While a challenge might have caused an internal party bloodbath, it might also have precipitated Biden's withdrawal, given the diminished capacities he was showing behind the scenes and — when aides couldn't constrain them — in public. The authors provide additional details for the post-debate pressure that ultimately forced him to withdraw 23 days after the June 27 debate. Among their sources, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer seems to have been most open in recounting the conversation with Biden that finally convinced him he was headed for disastrous defeat. The book accepts the widespread belief that, despite initial enthusiasm for Vice President Kamala Harris' successor candidacy, she was doomed. But they only touch lightly on how the administration's policy failures on inflation and immigration enabled her flawed rival to sway enough 'swing' voters to prevail.
Gulf Today
3 days ago
- Politics
- Gulf Today
A celebration — and wake — for a political time gone by
Mark Z. Barabak, Tribune News Service They came to the baking desert to honour one of their own, a political professional, a legend and a throwback to a time when gatherings like this one — a companionable assembly of Republicans, Democrats and the odd newspaper columnist — weren't such a rare and noteworthy thing. They came to bid a last farewell to Stuart Spencer, who died in January at age 97. They came to Palm Desert on a 98-degree spring day to do the things that political pros do when they gather: drink and laugh and swap stories of campaigns and elections past. And they showed, with their affection and goodwill and mutual regard, how much the world, and the world of politics, have changed. 'This is how politics used to be,' Democrat Harvey Englander said after sidling up to Republican Joel Fox. The two met through their work with the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn., a spawn of the Proposition 13 taxpayer revolt, circa 1978. 'We had different views of how government should work,' Englander said as Fox nodded his assent. 'But we agreed government should work.' Spencer was a campaign strategist and master tactician who helped usher into office generations of GOP leaders, foremost among them Ronald Reagan. The former president and California governor was a Hollywood has-been until Spencer came along and turned him into something compelling and new, something they called a 'citizen-politician.' Hanging, inevitably, over the weekend's celebration was the current occupant of the Oval Office, a boiling black cloud compared to the radiant and sunshiny Reagan. Spencer was no fan of Donald Trump, and he let it be known. 'A demagogue and opportunist,' he called him, chafing, in particular, at Trump's comparisons of himself to Reagan. 'He would be sick,' Spencer said, guessing the recoil the nation's 40th president would have had if he'd witnessed the crass and corrupt behaviour of the 45th and 47th one. Many of those at the weekend event are similarly out of step with today's Republican Party and, especially, Trump's bomb-the-opposition-to-rubble approach to politics. But most preferred not to express those sentiments for the record. George Steffes, who served as Reagan's legislative director in Sacramento, described how the loudly and proudly uncouth Trump was '180 degrees' from the politely mannered Reagan. In five years, Steffes said, he never once heard the governor raise his voice, belittle a person or 'treat a human being with anything but respect.' Fox, with a seeming touch of wounded pride, suggested Trump could use 'some pushback from some of the 'old thinking' of the Stu Spencer/Ronald Reagan era.' Behind them, playing on a big-screen TV, were images from Spencer's filled-to-the-bursting life. Old black-and-white snapshots — an apple-cheeked Navy sailor, a little boy — alternated with photographs of Spencer smiling alongside Reagan and President Ford, standing with Dick Cheney and George H.W. Bush, appearing next to Pete Wilson and Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Wilson, a spry 91, was among the 150 or so who turned out to remember Spencer. He was given a place of honour, seated with his wife, Gayle, directly in front of the podium.) In a brief presentation, Spencer's son, Steve, remembered his father as someone who emphasised caring and compassion, as well as hard work and the importance of holding fast to one's principles. 'Pop's word,' he said, 'was gold.' Spencer's grandson, Sam, a Republican political consultant in Washington, choked up as he recounted how 'Papa Stu' not only helped make history but never stinted on his family, driving four hours to attend Sam's 45-minute soccer games and staying up well past bedtime to get after-action reports on his grandson's campaigns.
Gulf Today
5 days ago
- Business
- Gulf Today
War in Ukraine forced a lawyer to start over in Florida
Juan Carlos Chavez, Tribune News Service On a quiet afternoon at her nail salon in Seminole, Liudmyla Nikohosian gently held a client's hand while applying a layer of gel to make her nails strong and shiny. A flower arrangement sat in the corner. A flat-screen TV streamed videos of European cities as soft music played in the background. When clients asked for water or an espresso, Nikohosian brought it with a Ferrero Rocher chocolate wrapped in gold foil. It's a calm and carefully designed space, the centr of the new life she's built in Florida and a world away from the one she left in Zaporizhzhia, a city in southeastern Ukraine. Three years ago, Nikohosian was working as a private lawyer for a construction firm. But after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, she fled her home, leaving behind her career and everything familiar. She came to the United States through a humanitarian parole programme and settled in Tampa, where she learned English and began training as a nail technician. She opened her own business, Nails by Mila, a reinvention she never imagined but now owns. 'I had to make a decision: stay in a dangerous situation or take a chance,' said Nikohosian. 'The world I knew collapsed overnight.' Nikohosian remembers how that happened. It was the morning of Feb. 24, 2022, when a series of explosions erupted only a few blocks from her home, sending fear through the entire community. Zaporizhzhia was suddenly shaken. A week later, she was fleeing her country. She took temporary refuge at a friend's house in Turkey and later in Germany, while she prepared her move to the United States. 'Some of my acquaintances had already arrived in the US by April under the humanitarian programme, and after hearing about their experiences, I decided to take a leap of faith,' said Nikohosian. Launched by the Biden administration, the program temporarily sheltered thousands of Ukrainians displaced by the Russian invasion and allowed American citizens to sponsor and support those fleeing Europe's worst conflict in decades. The program was indefinitely paused by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in response to an executive order a week into President Donald Trump's second term. Before the war, Nikohosian dreamed of becoming a judge, she said. But when the conflict began, she made the difficult choice to start over, leaving behind her past and her community. 'At times, I questioned whether I had made the right decision,' said Nikohosian. 'But deep inside, I knew that I had to keep moving forward.' Alina Shaush, a close friend in Tampa, said she admires Nikohosian's strength, determination and the way she walks toward her goals. They met a month before the war began and arrived in the United States around the same time. 'She is a truly wonderful person,' Shaush said. 'I honestly don't know how I would have managed here without her.' In Tampa, Nikohosian temporarily lived with an American family that volunteered to be her sponsor. She also received help and guidance from local groups and volunteers. 'Their kindness reminded me that, even in the darkest moments, there are always people willing to help,' she said. Nikohosian kept trying to adapt to her new life in America. She looked for a job and tried to settle into a daily routine. But the change was far from easy, she said. 'The stress of starting over, the language barrier, and the uncertainty of my future weighed heavily on me,' she said. Nikohosian searched for something that would give her a sense of purpose and stability. The calling was in her hands. Inspired by a love of aesthetics and beauty, she found a new path as a nail technician. 'It was a completely different world from the courtroom,' she said. 'But I quickly fell in love with the craft.' Nikohosian soon found a job at a popular nail salon in St. Petersburg. During her breaks, she sketched out a plan to start her own business. She didn't know much how to run one or where the money would come from. But she had many ideas about how it might look and the kind of service she wanted to offer: a Ukrainian-style nail salon known for bold designs and unique styles. A space, she said, where she could express her own idea of art, beauty and elegance. Nikohosian got a startup loan to open her nail salon through the Micro Enterprise Development Program at Gulf Coast Jewish Family & Community Services. Later, in partnership with HIAS Economic Advancement Fund, the program awarded Nikohosian an additional grant to help cover other expenses. Lorene Gregory, the program's manager at Gulf Coast, said she didn't learn that Nikohosian had been an attorney in her home country until well into their conversations about her business idea. 'It was clear from the start that she was one of those rare individuals destined to succeed,' she said. Two years after arriving in the United States, Nikohosian had to adjust her immigration status as her stay under the Uniting for Ukraine program was limited to two years. She now lives under temporary protected status, a federal designation that used to be renewed every 18 months. Trump and his allies have suggested ending temporary protection status for Ukrainians, a move that could lead many to face deportation. About 240,000 Ukrainians came to the United States through the program.
Gulf Today
7 days ago
- Business
- Gulf Today
Trump's next 1,300 days could change the nation
James-Christian B. Blockwood, Tribune News Service The country has now witnessed and felt the first 100 days of President Donald Trump's second term. These days were filled with unrelenting, fast-paced executive action. He signed a record-breaking number of executive orders, though many have been challenged and may be reversed. Working with Congress to pass legislation, though more difficult, leads to more enduring change and is less likely to be challenged in court. While certainly eventful, the jury is still out on how effective these first days have been. More importantly, the period of greater consequence — the months following the first 100 days, which should focus on implementation — will ultimately determine whether the president's drastic changes can stand the test of time and have their desired impact on American society. The first months of all presidential terms include outlining a vision and using presidential influence to shift priorities and change governance structures. The media often focuses on polling and popularity, comparing previous presidents and highlighting public perception of the president's handling of specific issues like the economy, immigration, and national defense. Rasmussen Reports' daily presidential tracking poll now shows 50 percent of likely voters approve of Trump's job performance, but change has never been popular, and he is unapologetically pursuing it in these first months. The Trump administration should be credited for impressive planning and execution, transitioning from campaign to elected official, with a rapid roll-out of policy objectives and assembly of nearly his entire cabinet with blinding speed. We should also recognize the level of transparency brought to government spending and operations through publicized data and open sharing of findings of digital investigations into federal agencies. The president has also spurred national dialogue about the role, size, and management of government and public servants (which has forced introspection among government agencies and government-adjacent organizations that support them). The president's goals and areas of focus include higher levels of military recruitment, lower numbers of migrant crossings at the southern border, loosening of regulations to increase energy production, increased foreign investment to promote the creation of manufacturing jobs, attempts to reduce or eliminate global trade imbalances, and promoting a merit-based society. Yet any progress toward achieving these feats will be overshadowed, and Trump risks being remembered by some for retribution, destruction, authoritarianism, bigotry, and vitriol if his administration doesn't change tactics soon. The current approach — indiscriminately dismissing public servants, erratic economic policy stances, and strong-arm use of government pressure to reshape social issues in schools, businesses, and institutions — is being challenged by a growing number of people in the court of public opinion, not to mention actual courts with greater jurisdiction across the country. Trump has three critical opportunities to strengthen the federal government through smarter personnel management, greater accountability, and improved operational effectiveness. First, while the administration's new civil service regulations reclassifying upwards of 50,000 federal employees aim to enhance policy responsiveness, they fall short of addressing the deeper flaws in the federal hiring process. Structural reforms, not just removals, are needed to modernise how talent is recruited and retained. Second, the creation of the Department of Government Efficiency has sown confusion, fear, and unnecessary duplication. Rather than building a new bureaucracy, the administration should work with existing oversight bodies like auditors and inspectors general with clearer mandates and resources to combat fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. Third, the administration must articulate a coherent vision and management agenda, complete with clear performance goals, timelines, and feedback loops. These tools are well-known, effective, and already embedded within the government. What's needed is top-level leadership commitment and empowered public servants to use these mechanisms to their full potential. His first 100 days and attempts at bold reform underscore that incremental changes in governance are no longer sufficient to address the magnitude of challenges facing the nation, and the country should move beyond improving government to transforming it. The president, Congress, the public, and the public administration community have important roles to play in reshaping government. The next 100 days call for once-in-a-generation leadership typified by respect for people, adherence to the rule of law, and rebuilding institutions that can help reestablish trust and deliver the results the American people deserve. The next 1,300 days will be important for all of us. The president has demonstrated that the government deeply impacts our daily lives — every person and every community across our country. In the months to come, how we provide care and services to our most vulnerable populations, ensure the economic stability of our markets and individual households, secure our borders, and ensure the safety of our neighbourhoods, and learn about our history and our country's traditions will be affected.
