Latest news with #Venezuelan
Winnipeg Free Press
23 minutes ago
- Entertainment
- Winnipeg Free Press
Domingo Hindoyan to become music director of LA Opera for 2026-27 season
NEW YORK (AP) — Domingo Hindoyan will succeed James Conlon as music director of the LA Opera and start a five-year contract on July 1, 2026. The appointment of the 45-year-old Venezuelan-Armenian, the husband of soprano Sonya Yoncheva, was announced Friday night. Conlon has been music director since 2006-07 and said in March 2024 that he will retire after after the 2025-26 season. 'LA is a city that is known by innovation, taking risks in productions and musically,' Hindoyan said in New York, where his wife is currently singing at the Metropolitan Opera. 'The idea is to do new pieces, commissions and modern pieces, something to really have a balance between what is classic and go further as much as we can.' Hindoyan will conduct two productions in 2026-27 and three in each of the following four seasons, LA Opera President Christopher Koelsch said. Koelsch hopes Hindoyan can lead works with Yoncheva, who has not sung a staged production at the LA Opera. Like other companies, the LA Opera has struggled with increased costs following the pandemic and scrapped a planned pair of world premieres over finances. Tenor and conductor Plácido Domingo was a key figure in fundraising for the company as general director from 2003-19. 'Part of my job as a music director and the job of any musician is to really take care of the art form as much as we can,' Hindoyan said, 'not only on stage, not only studying at home (but also) the connection with the community and the connection to the donors.' Hindoyan was born in Caracas, played violin and is a product of El Sistema, the Venezuelan music education system that was instrumental in the careers of Gustavo Dudamel and Rafael Payare. He was an assistant to Daniel Barenboim at Berlin's Staatsoper unter den Linden. 'Given Barenboim's extremely exacting standards, I was impressed that he had that job and held onto that job,' Koelsch said. 'And then I saw a performance of 'Tosca' and was kind of immediately struck by the elegance of the baton technique and just the sort of the absolute clarity of what he was conveying.' Hindoyan has been chief conductor of the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic since the 2021-22 season. He first conducted the LA Opera last November in Gounod's 'Roméo et Juliette.' 'There's a kind of a natural warmth and charisma to him. In my experience, he almost always coaxes the best out of people,' Koelsch said. 'The 'Roméo' run for me was kind of a test run of how those qualities resonated inside our building, how it worked with the orchestra and the chorus and the administration and the audiences.'
AsiaOne
25 minutes ago
- Politics
- AsiaOne
US Supreme Court lets Trump revoke humanitarian legal status for migrants, World News
The US Supreme Court on Friday (May 30) let President Donald Trump's administration revoke the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan, Cuban, Haitian and Nicaraguan migrants living in the United States, bolstering the Republican president's drive to step up deportations. The court put on hold Boston-based US District Judge Indira Talwani's order halting the administration's move to end the immigration "parole" granted to 532,000 of these migrants by Trump's predecessor Joe Biden, potentially exposing many of them to rapid removal, while the case plays out in lower courts. Immigration parole is a form of temporary permission under American law to be in the country for "urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit," allowing recipients to live and work in the United States. Biden, a Democrat, used parole as part of his administration's approach to deter illegal immigration at the US-Mexican border. Trump called for ending humanitarian parole programs in an executive order signed on January 20, his first day back in office. The Department of Homeland Security subsequently moved to terminate them in March, cutting short the two-year parole grants. The administration said revoking the parole status would make it easier to place migrants in a fast-track deportation process called "expedited removal." As with many of the court's orders issued in an emergency fashion, Friday's decision was unsigned and gave no reasoning. Two of the nine-member court's three liberal justices, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor, publicly dissented. The court botched its decision by failing to account for its impact, Jackson wrote in an accompanying opinion. The outcome, Jackson wrote, "undervalues the devastating consequences of allowing the government to precipitously upend the lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens while their legal claims are pending." The case is one of many that Trump's administration has brought in an emergency fashion to the nation's highest judicial body seeking to undo decisions by judges impeding his sweeping policies, including several targeting immigrants. The Supreme Court on May 19 also let Trump end a deportation protection called temporary protected status that had been granted under Biden to about 350,000 Venezuelans living in the United States, while that legal dispute plays out. Biden starting in 2022 let Venezuelans who entered the United States by air request a two-year parole if they passed security checks and had a US financial sponsor. Biden expanded that to Cubans, Haitians and Nicaraguans in 2023. A group of migrants granted parole and Americans who serve as their sponsors sued, claiming the administration violated federal law governing the actions of government agencies. Talwani in April found that the law governing such parole did not allow for the programme's blanket termination, instead requiring a case-by-case review. The Boston-based 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals declined to put the judge's decision on hold. 'Traumatic impact' Guerline Jozef, executive director of Haitian Bridge Alliance, one of the plaintiffs, expressed dismay at Friday's decision. "Once again, the Trump administration blatantly proves their disregard for the lives of those truly in need of protection by taking away their status and rendering them undocumented. We have already seen the traumatic impact on children and families afraid to even go to school, church or work," Jozef said. The administration called Friday's decision a victory, asserting that the migrants granted parole had been poorly vetted. Ending the parole programs "will be a necessary return to common-sense policies, a return to public safety and a return to America First," Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said. [[nid:718316]] While many of those with parole status are at risk of deportation, at least 250,000 had pending applications for another legal status, according to Karen Tumlin, director of the Justice Action Center, one of the groups suing over the parole termination. Those applications had been frozen by Trump's administration but the freeze was lifted this week, said Tumlin, adding: "Those should be processed right now." Migrants with parole status reacted to Friday's decision with sadness and disappointment. Fermin Padilla, 32, waited two years in Chile to receive parole status and paid for his work permit. "We complied with all the requirements the United States government asked for," said Padilla, who lives in Austin, Texas, and delivers Amazon packages. "Now I'm left without security because we don't know what will happen. We're without anything after so much sacrifice. It's not fair." Retired university professor Wilfredo Sanchez, 73, has had parole status for a year and a half, living in Denver with his US citizen daughter, a doctor. "I was alone in Venezuela, with diabetes and hypertension," Sanchez said. "I have been relaxed here, happy with (my daughter), her husband and my grandkids. I have all my medical treatment up to date." "To return to Venezuela is to die, not just because of my medical conditions, but from loneliness," Sanchez added. Carlos Daniel Urdaneta, 30, has lived in Atlanta for three years with parole status, working in a restaurant, since coming to the United States to earn money to send to his ill mother in Venezuela. "If I have to work triple in my country, I will," said Urdaneta, whose wife and son are still in Venezuela. "I won't risk staying here undocumented with this government."
Time of India
an hour ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Supreme Court allows Trump administration, for now, to end Biden-era migrant program
Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads The Supreme Court on Friday allowed the Trump administration, for now, to revoke a Biden-era humanitarian program intended to give temporary residency to more than 500,000 immigrants from countries facing war and political court's order was unsigned and provided no reasoning, which is typical when the justices rule on emergency applications. It granted a request that will allow the administration to act even as an appeals court considers the case and, potentially, the justices review it ruling comes as the White House is stepping up pressure on the Department of Homeland Security to increase the pace of deportations and could speed efforts to remove thousands of migrants living legally in the United immediate practical impact of the court's order, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in a dissent joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, will have "the devastating consequences of allowing the government to precipitously upend the lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens while their legal claims are pending."The ruling, which exposes some migrants from Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Haiti to possible deportation, is the latest in a series of emergency orders by the justices in recent weeks responding to a flurry of applications asking the court to weigh in on the administration's attempts to unwind Biden-era immigration court's decision to side with the Trump administration, though a temporary order at an early stage in the litigation, is a signal that a majority of the justices believe the administration is likely to prevail in the indicated as much in her dissent, when she wrote that the Supreme Court should have kept the lower court's pause in place, allowing people to maintain their immigration status for now "even if the government is likely to win on the merits." Jackson added that "success takes time" and that standards to block a lower court order "require more than anticipated victory."Friday's ruling focused on former President Joe Biden 's expansion of a legal mechanism for immigration called humanitarian parole. It allows migrants from countries facing instability to enter the United States and quickly secure work authorization, provided they have a private sponsor to take responsibility for month, the justices let the Trump administration remove deportation protections from nearly 350,000 Venezuelan immigrants who had been allowed to remain in the United States under a program known as Temporary Protected Status In a statement, Tricia McLaughlin, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, called the Biden-era parole program "disastrous" and accused the previous administration of using it to admit "poorly vetted" for the immigrants said Friday's decision would be devastating to thousands of people who had sought protection in the United States."The Supreme Court has effectively greenlit deportation orders for an estimated half a million people, the largest such de-legalization in the modern era," said Karen Tumlin, founder and director of the Justice Action Center, an immigrant advocacy parole and Temporary Protected Status are two different mechanisms by which migrants from troubled countries can be temporarily settled in the United States. Humanitarian parole is typically obtained by individuals who apply on a case-by-case basis, while protected status is more often extended to large groups of migrants for a period of time. Individuals can hold both statuses at the same the two rulings, the justices have agreed that, for now, the Trump administration can proceed with plans to deport hundreds of thousands of people who had fled war-torn and unstable homelands and legally taken refuge in the United use of humanitarian parole has a decades-long history. It was used to admit nearly 200,000 Cubans during the 1960s and more than 350,000 Southeast Asians after the fall of Saigon during the Vietnam Biden administration announced a humanitarian parole program in April 2022 for Ukrainians seeking to flee after the Russian officials then introduced the program for Venezuelans in late 2022 and for Cubans, Haitians and Nicaraguans in January 2023. With a stalemate in Congress over immigration and a sharp rise in border crossings, the programs cleared the way for hundreds of thousands of immigrants from those nations to enter the country officials had hoped that the programs would encourage immigrants to fly to the United States and apply for entry in an organized fashion, instead of traveling north by foot and crossing the border the program was adopted for Venezuelans, official ports of entry had been closed to migrants since the start of the coronavirus pandemic, which had provided additional incentive for those intent on reaching the country to take more dangerous routes and cross the border the administration introduced its policy, Border Patrol apprehensions of migrants at the border from those countries dropped lawmakers have pushed back sharply against the humanitarian parole programs, arguing that they allowed migration by those who would not have otherwise qualified to enter the and other Republican-led states filed lawsuits while Biden was in office seeking to block the parole program, arguing that it burdened them by adding costs for health care, education and law enforcement. The courts upheld the programs' Donald Trump moved to end the humanitarian parole programs for people from Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Haiti on his first day back in far, the Trump administration has not tried to revoke the status of 240,000 Ukrainians who received humanitarian parole, though it has paused consideration of new applications under that for migrants have sued. They argued that the termination of the humanitarian and other immigration parole programs was "contrary to law, arbitrary and capricious."A federal judge in Massachusetts temporarily paused the administration's revocation of the program in April, finding that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem lacked the authority to categorically revoke parole for all 532,000 people without providing individualized, case-by-case May 5, a three-judge panel in the 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court's temporary block on the administration, finding that Noem had not made a "strong showing" that her "categorical termination" of humanitarian parole for all migrants was likely to survive a court an emergency application to the Supreme Court on May 8, Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that Noem had "broad discretion over categories of immigration determinations" and that federal immigration law permitted the secretary "to revoke that parole" whenever its purposes had been blocking the Trump administration from ending the programs, the lower court had "needlessly" upended "critical immigration policies that are carefully calibrated to deter illegal entry" and had undone "democratically approved policies that featured heavily in the November election," Sauer for the immigrants filed a brief with the court arguing that Noem's decision to end the parole protections "contravened express limits on her authority" and that siding with the Trump administration would "cause an immense amount of needless human suffering" for the lawyers for the immigrants added: "All of them followed the law and the rules of the US government, and they are here to reunite with family and/or to escape, even temporarily, the instability, dangers and deprivations of their home countries."
Yomiuri Shimbun
3 hours ago
- Politics
- Yomiuri Shimbun
Supreme Court Lets Trump End Legal Protections for 500,000 Migrants, Exposing More to Deportation
AP file photo Supreme Court is seen on Capitol Hill in Washington, April 25, 2024. WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Friday again cleared the way for the Trump administration to strip temporary legal protections from hundreds of thousands of immigrants for now, pushing the total number of people who could be newly exposed to deportation to nearly 1 million. The justices lifted a lower-court order that kept humanitarian parole protections in place for more than 500,000 migrants from four countries: Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela. The decision comes after the court allowed the administration to revoke temporary legal status from about 350,000 Venezuelan migrants in another case. The court did not explain its reasoning in the brief order, as is typical on its emergency docket. Two justices publicly dissented. The administration filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court after a federal judge in Boston blocked the administration's push to end the program. The Justice Department argues that the protections for people fleeing turmoil in their home countries were always meant to be temporary, and the Department of Homeland Security has the power to revoke them without court interference. Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman, said the Biden-era policies weren't in line with immigration law. 'We are confident in the legality of our actions to protect the American people and look forward to further action from the Supreme Court to vindicate us,' she said. But Karen Tumlin, founder and director of Justice Action Center, said the decision has 'effectively greenlit' deportation orders for a half-million people. 'I cannot overstate how devastating this is,' she said. The court 'allowed the Trump Administration to unleash widespread chaos, not just for our clients and class members, but for their families, their workplaces, and their communities.' Republican President Donald Trump promised on the campaign trail to deport millions of people, and in office has sought to dismantle Biden administration policies that expanded paths for migrants to live legally in the U.S. In a 2024 presidential debate, Trump amplified false rumors that Haitian immigrants in Ohio, including those with legal status under the humanitarian parole program, were abducting and eating pets, court documents note. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in dissent to Friday's ruling that the effect of the high court's order is 'to have the lives of half a million migrants unravel all around us before the courts decide their legal claims.' Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined the dissent. Jackson echoed what U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani wrote in ruling that ending the legal protections early would leave people with a stark choice: flee the country or risk losing everything. Her ruling came in mid-April, shortly before permits were due to be canceled. An appeals court refused to lift it. The Supreme Court's order is not a final ruling, but it means the protections will not be in place while the case proceeds. It now returns to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston. Talwani, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, did allow the Trump administration to revoke parole, but on a case-by-case basis. But the Trump administration argued the parole was granted en masse, and the law doesn't require ending it on an individual basis. Taking on each case individually would be a 'gargantuan task,' and slow the government's efforts to press for their removal, Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued. The high court's decision could ultimately affect another ruling from Talwani this week in favor of other people covered by humanitarian parole policies, including Afghans, Ukrainians and children from Central America. Joe Biden used humanitarian parole more than any other president, employing a special presidential authority in effect since 1952. Beneficiaries included the 532,000 people who have come to the United States with financial sponsors since late 2022, leaving home countries fraught with 'instability, dangers and deprivations,' as attorneys for the migrants said. They had to fly to the U.S. at their own expense and have a financial sponsor to qualify for the designation, which lasts for two years. The Trump administration's decision was the first-ever mass revocation of humanitarian parole, attorneys for the migrants said. They called the Trump administration's moves 'the largest mass illegalization event in modern American history.' The case is the latest in a string of emergency appeals the administration has made to the Supreme Court, many of them related to immigration. The court has sided against Trump in other cases, including slowing his efforts to swiftly deport Venezuelans accused of being gang members to a prison in El Salvador under an 18th century wartime law called the Alien Enemies Act.
Irish Independent
3 hours ago
- Politics
- Irish Independent
US Supreme Court lets Donald Trump revoke legal status for over 500,000 migrants
©Reuters Today at 21:30 The US Supreme Court yesterday let Donald Trump's administration revoke the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan, Cuban, Haitian and Nicaraguan migrants living in the United States, bolstering the Republican president's drive to step up deportations. The court put on hold Boston-based US District Judge Indira Talwani's order halting the administration's move to end the immigration 'parole' granted to 532,000 of these migrants by Mr Trump's predecessor Joe Biden – potentially exposing many of them to rapid removal, while the case plays out in lower courts. Related topics Donald Trump
