The National Republican Senatorial Committee has canceled some of its advertising buys in North Dakota, a sign of confidence that Rep. Kevin CramerKevin John CramerRepublicans prepare to punt on next COVID-19 relief bill GOP senators introduce resolution opposing calls to defund the police Trump tweets spark fresh headache for Republicans MORE (R) has pulled sufficiently ahead of Sen. Heidi HeitkampMary (Heidi) Kathryn Heitkamp70 former senators propose bipartisan caucus for incumbents Susan Collins set to play pivotal role in impeachment drama Pro-trade group launches media buy as Trump and Democrats near deal on new NAFTA MORE (D).
The committee canceled about $87,000 in advertising reservations that had been planned for cable networks in Minot and Bismarck, according to a source familiar with the advertising market.
The NRSC still has reservations in place for broadcast airtime in both markets over the final three weeks before the midterms, totaling $385,000.
ADVERTISEMENT
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Senate Majority PAC, the largest outside group supporting Senate Democrats, have shown no indication they plan to pull out of the state. The DSCC has nearly $900,000 in advertising reserved in North Dakota between October 16 and Election Day.
Heitkamp, who won her seat by a scant 2,900 votes in 2012, has long been seen as one of the most vulnerable Senate Democrats facing re-election this year. She has trailed Cramer in every public poll since June.
A Fox News poll released on Wednesday showed Cramer holding a 53 percent to 41 percent lead, similar to an NBC Valley News poll conducted the week prior.
Heitkamp on Thursday said she would vote against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. About a third of likely voters told Fox News pollsters that they would be less likely to support Heitkamp if she voted against Kavanaugh, while 17 percent said the decision would make them more likely to support her.
President TrumpDonald John TrumpSenate advances public lands bill in late-night vote Warren, Democrats urge Trump to back down from veto threat over changing Confederate-named bases Esper orders ‘After Action Review’ of National Guard’s role in protests MORE’s approval rating in North Dakota stands at 64 percent.
This story was corrected at 4:34 to reflect that the canceled advertisements were to run in Bismarck and Minot.
After Central American migrants approached the U.S.-Mexico border on Sunday to call attention to awful shelter conditions and request asylum, U.S. Border Patrol agents reportedly fired tear gas into Mexico, forcing parents with toddlers to flee.
“Children were screaming and coughing in the mayhem,” the Associated Press reported. “On the U.S. side of the fence, shoppers streamed in and out of an outlet mall.”
Earlier on Sunday, U.S. authorities closed off both directions of the San Ysidro port of entry, which is one of the largest border crossings between the U.S. and Mexico.
“Imagine having tear gas launched at you after escaping gang violence/poverty while carrying your child,” Juan Escalante, a columnist at the Huffington Post, wrote on Twitter.
The demonstrations by Central American asylum seekers came amid reports that the Trump administration is looking to cut a deal with the newly-elected Mexican government to keep migrants out of the U.S. until their asylum claims are fully processed.
While U.S. President Donald Trump took to Twitter late Saturday to claim that asylum seekers will now be forced to stay in Mexico until their cases are processed, incoming Mexican government officials said publicly that no such agreement has been reached.
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
As the U.S. Senate prepared Wednesday to vote on a resolution to cut military support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen, House Republicans in their last days in power moved to undermine efforts to end U.S. complicity in the assault that’s dragged on for more than three years in the impoverished country.
The House Rules Committee advanced the Farm Bill to a floor debate Tuesday evening, with progressives celebrating the absence of work requirements for low-income families who rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)—but hidden in the annual agricultural bill was a provision keeping lawmakers from forcing a vote on any legislation invoking War Powers resolutions for the rest of the year.
“This is why people hate Congress,” Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who introduced the Yemen resolution, said in response to the move. “Speaker Ryan is not allowing a vote on my resolution to stop the war in Yemen because many Republicans will vote with us and he will lose the vote. He is disgracing Article 1 of the Constitution, and as a result, more Yemeni children will die.”
While the Senate is widely expected to pass a proposal invoking the 1973 War Powers Resolution on Wednesday, allowing Congress to end U.S. support for the war, the GOP’s maneuver in the House stymied the plan to ensure that Khanna’s proposal would pass.
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
“The provisions of section 7 of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1546) shall not apply during the remainder of the One Hundred Fifteenth Congress to a concurrent resolution introduced pursuant to section 5 of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1544) with respect to Yemen,” wrote the Republicans on the House Rules Committee, hours before the Senate’s expected vote.
Progressives including Khanna and Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) have led the charge to end U.S. support of the Saudi’s war against the Houthis in Yemen, in which the U.S.-backed coalition has bombed such civilian targets as a school bus filled with children, wedding parties, and marketplaces. The U.S. has also provided tactical support, intelligence, and weapons to the Saudis and the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.).
At least 10,000 Yemeni civilians have been killed by Saudi airstrikes, which have been able to hit targets throughout the country thanks to refueling support by U.S. planes. The British NGO ACLED (Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project) estimates that up to 80,000 people have been killed by the cholera and diphtheria epidemics and famine that have resulted from the war.
Since the Saudis’ killing of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi in October, public outrage over U.S. support for Saudi Arabia has grown, with three-quarters of Americans telling YouGov in November that the U.S. should end its involvement in the war.
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
With only one day left for Congress to save national net neutrality rules rolled back by the GOP-controlled Federal Communications Commission (FCC) last year, internet defenders have set their sights on the 36 signatures still needed to reverse the repeal.
“Time is running out for members of Congress to make decision… will they sign on to the CRA discharge petition and show that they’re willing to put their constituents’ basic rights ahead of their corporate donors?” —Evan Greer, Fight for the Future
The vast majority of the American public supports federal net neutrality rules, which bar internet service providers (ISPs) from prioritizing or throttling access to certain online content. However, most Republicans and a handful of telecom-backed Democrats in the U.S. House are blocking a vote on a Senate-approved Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution to restore the repealed Obama-era regulations.
“Pressure is reaching a boiling point as internet users continue sounding the alarm ahead of the deadline for members of Congress to show they support real net neutrality protections by signing on to the discharge petition for the CRA resolution to reverse the FCC’s repeal,” Fight for the Future said in a statement.
“Time is running out for members of Congress to make decision,” declared the group’s deputy director Evan Greer. “Do they want to go down in history as the corrupt politicians who rubber stamped the repeal of net neutrality? Or will they sign on to the CRA discharge petition and show that they’re willing to put their constituents’ basic rights ahead of their corporate donors?”
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
According to campaigners’ latest tally, these are the 16 Democrats who haven’t yet signed the discharge petition for the CRA: Reps. (Pa.), (Pa.), (N.C.), (Pa.), (Calif.), (Texas), (Pa.), (Texas), (N.J.), (Texas), (Ariz.), (Ill.), (Ga.), (Ariz.), (Texas), and (Ind.).
To pass, the CRA needs every Democrat and at least 20 Republicans to sign on before the Friday deadline. Net neutrality advocates are maintaining a public scoreboard to track how every member of Congress has responded to the CRA here. Advocacy groups also have created a tool to help concerned constituents contact their representatives.
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
In a move decried by critics as blatant suppression of dissent and an attack on all who advocate for the rights and dignity of the Palestinian people, CNN on Thursday fired contributor Marc Lamont Hill for daring to denounce the oppression of Palestinians and endorse “a single secular democratic state for everyone” over the failed two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict.
“Professor Hill, like all morally decent people, opposes apartheid. Therefore, he advocates a single state in which both Palestinians and Israelis have equal political rights.” —Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept
CNN terminated Hill just 24 hours after he delivered a speech at a meeting of the U.N.’s Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People in New York, in which he expressed support for Palestinians’ resistance against brutal Israeli occupation, denounced Israel for actively depriving Palestinians of basic human rights, and called for a “free Palestine from the river to the sea.”
Slamming CNN for caving to right-wing defenders of Israel’s decades-long occupation by firing a commentator for the crime of doing political commentary, Intercept journalist Ryan Grim began circulating a petition calling on the network to apologize and reverse its decision.
Jewish Voice for Peace echoed the demand that CNN reverse course and praised Hill for speaking “powerfully” in defense of Palestinian rights.
In a series of tweets after his firing on Thursday, Hill dismissed the notion that his remarks were anti-Semitic or that they amounted to a call for the destruction of Israel.
“CNN fired him because he believes Palestinians, too, fit into a vision where all people deserve equal rights.” —Yousef Munayyer, U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
“I support Palestinian freedom. I support Palestinian self-determination. I am deeply critical of Israeli policy and practice,” Hill wrote. “I do not support anti-Semitism, killing Jewish people, or any of the other things attributed to my speech. I have spent my life fighting these things.”
“My reference to ‘river to the sea’ was not a call to destroy anything or anyone. It was a call for justice, both in Israel and in the West Bank/Gaza. The speech very clearly and specifically said those things,” Hill added. “No amount of debate will change what I actually said or what I meant.”
Yousef Munayyer—executive director of the U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights—argued in a column for the Huffington Post that Hill was “targeted by what can only be described as an organized campaign to silence his principled and consistent advocacy against racism and for the equal treatment of all people, including Palestinians.”
“CNN fired him because he believes Palestinians, too, fit into a vision where all people deserve equal rights,” Munayyer continued. “For CNN, that was just too much.”
Describing CNN‘s decision to terminate Hill as “shameful and cowardly,” The Intercept‘s Glenn Greenwald argued that Hill’s firing “is a major defeat for the right to advocate for Palestinian rights, to freely critique the Israeli government, and for the ability of journalism and public discourse in the U.S. generally to accommodate dissent.”
Greenwald added that Hill’s ouster lays bare the fact that in the boundaries of discourse established by the corporate media, “it’s forbidden” to acknowledge that the so-called “two-state solution” is unviable because “illegal Israeli settlements have grown so rapidly and have eaten up so much Palestinian land in the West Bank that such a solution is now essentially impossible.”
The only remaining options, Greenwald argues, are apartheid or a single state “in which both Israelis and Palestinians share full and equal political rights.”
“Professor Hill, like all morally decent people, opposes apartheid,” Greenwald continued. “Therefore, he advocates a single state in which both Palestinians and Israelis have equal political rights.”
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
In a win for climate campaigners and Massachusetts’ Democratic Attorney General Maura Healey on Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected ExxonMobil’s attempt to block Healey’s demand for documents related to her state’s ongoing investigation into allegations that one of the world’s largest oil and gas corporations deceived the public and investors for decades about how fossil fuels drive global warming.
“Executives at Exxon knew about climate change decades ago, but they chose to lie to the rest of us to line their oily pockets. Now, it’s those who have done the least to cause the problem who are paying the cost of this deception.” —Thanu Yakupitiyage, 350.org
“The public deserves answers from this company about what it knew about the impacts of burning fossil fuels, and when,” Healey said, responding on Twitter to the ruling. This victory, she added, “clears the way for our office to investigate Exxon’s conduct toward consumers and investors.”
The news, which followed a Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling against the company in April, was also welcomed by climate activists—including 350.org U.S. communications manager Thanu Yakupitiyage, who thanked Healey “for her vigilant leadership in standing up for people over polluters.”
“Executives at Exxon knew about climate change decades ago, but they chose to lie to the rest of us to line their oily pockets,” Yakupitiyage declared. “Now, it’s those who have done the least to cause the problem who are paying the cost of this deception through our lives and livelihoods. In 2019, we’ll use all our power to make sure Big Oil pays its fair share for climate destruction.”
Richard Wiles, executive director of the Center for Climate Integrity, celebrated the high court’s decision and said that the company’s failed attempt to block Healey from obtaining internal records indicates concern over what the documents could mean for legal attempts to take the company to court over its alleged climate deception.
“Exxon’s last ditch effort to avoid turning over additional documents to investigators suggests the company has a whole lot more it’s still hiding from the public, shareholders, and policymakers.” —Richard Wiles, Center for Climate Integrity
“Exxon’s last ditch effort to avoid turning over additional documents to investigators suggests the company has a whole lot more it’s still hiding from the public, shareholders, and policymakers,” he noted.
Wiles also posited that “Exxon fears nothing more than the truth these documents will reveal: that they have known for 50 years that their products cause climate change, and ran a massive deception campaign to confuse the public about it, consequences be damned.”
Bill McKibben, co-founder of 350.org, said in response to the ruling on Monday, “This is an important moment.”
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
As the #ExxonKnew campaign—run by a coalition of groups that aim to hold the company accountable—concluded, “No one is above the law.”
Despite a series of damning investigative reports in recent years, ExxonMobil has dismissed allegations of deception as “meritless” and continued to battle against probes launched by the attorneys general of Massachusetts and New York as well as the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC), which ended its investigation in August without any further action.
New York’s Democratic Attorney General Barbara Underwood, meanwhile, officially filed suit against ExxonMobil October, claiming the oil giant “built a façade to deceive investors into believing that the company was managing the risks of climate change regulation to its business when, in fact, it was intentionally and systematically underestimating or ignoring them, contrary to its public representations.”
As Carroll Muffett, president of the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) pointed out in a statement on Monday, “The millions of pages of documents Exxon was compelled to turn over in the New York investigation evidenced widespread malfeasance reaching the highest levels of the company, and they led the New York attorney general to sue the company on multiple counts of securities fraud.”
However, Muffett continued, “the Massachusetts investigation poses an even bigger risk for the company because the pool of Exxon’s potential victims includes not only seven million citizens and consumers in Massachusetts, but also untold tens of millions more living in states with nearly identical consumer protection laws.”
This post has been updated with comment from Bill McKibben of 350.org and Carroll Muffett of CIEL.
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
In addition to pushing thousands of low-wage workers to the brink of financial collapse and imperiling life-saving public programs like food stamps and Medicare, a Public Citizen report released on Wednesday found that the government shutdown over President Donald Trump’s demand for border wall funding is also placing crucial consumer, health, and safety protections at serious risk.
“The shutdown is already impeding vital consumer and worker protection priorities. If the shutdown is allowed to persist, the cessation of these essential consumer and worker protections threatens significant public harms.” —Rick Claypool, Public Citizen
“Corporate lawbreakers are going unpunished, safety inspections are being postponed, discrimination charges are going uninvestigated, polluters are not being held in check, financial fraudsters are not being policed, consumer complaints are not being received, and accident investigations have ceased,” Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen, said in a statement.
Authored by Rick Claypool, a research director at Public Citizen, the new report examines how nearly a dozen federal agencies have been impacted by the Trump shutdown, which has furloughed hundreds of thousands of government employees.
According to Public Citizen’s analysis, under-discussed but extremely important federal agencies like the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and Securities and Exchange Commission are currently operating without over 90 percent of their staff due to the shutdown, which is just days away from becoming the longest in U.S. history.
“The shutdown is already impeding vital consumer and worker protection priorities. If the shutdown is allowed to persist, the cessation of these essential consumer and worker protections threatens significant public harms, as corporate violators go unpunished and food and product safety inspections are delayed and decreased,” Claypool writes. “The importance of these functions makes even slight capacity reductions a serious cause for concern.”
“It’s a crisis alright,” Claypool added on Twitter. “This is just the tip of the iceberg, and I’m sure more ugly details will emerge if the Trump shutdown continues. And the longer it continues, the worse this crisis for consumer and worker safety will get.”
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
Public Citizen’s report includes a chart showing how eleven federal agencies have been impacted by the shutdown:
“As long as the shutdown continues, essential consumer, worker, health, and safety protections carried out by these agencies are on hold,” Weissman said.
Public Citizen’s report cites the severe staff shortage at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as just one of many examples of how prolonged government shutdowns can have devastating impacts on public safety.
“Forty percent of FAA staff are furloughed during the government shutdown—notably staff responsible for facility security inspections and law enforcement assistance support,” Claypool notes.
The report goes on to quote Doug Lowe, president of the Florida chapter of the Professional Aviation Safety Specialists (PASS), who warned on Tuesday: “The longer it goes without that oversight, the more dangerous the aviation system becomes.”
“A week from now,” Lowe concluded, “I would tell you, ‘Yes, I would not get on an aircraft.'”
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
Following reports on Thursday that federal officials forcibly separated thousands more migrant children from their families than previously reported, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D.-Ore.) released a document to NBC News revealing the Trump administration intended to “traumatize children and intentionally create a humanitarian crisis at the border.”
The December 2017 draft memo—which Merkley shared with NBC News after receiving it from a government whistleblower—shows that Trump administration officials wanted to deport children more quickly by denying them asylum hearings after taking them away from their parents.
“It appears that they wanted to have it both ways—to separate children from their parents but deny them the full protections generally awarded to unaccompanied children,” concluded ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt, who led a class-action lawsuit on behalf of migrant parents.
President Donald Trump’s “child immigration strategy is immoral and comes from a dark place in the heart of this administration,” Merkley declared, responding to the revelations on Twitter. “Children are NOT expendable commodities in political battles.”
also shows officials wanted to specifically target parents in migrant families for increased prosecutions, contradicting the administration’s previous statements. In June, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said the administration did “not have a policy of separating families at the border” but was simply enforcing existing law.
The authors noted that the “increase in prosecutions would be reported by the media and it would have a substantial deterrent effect.”
The memo was shared with high-ranking members of DHS and the Justice Department before then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, an ex-senator infamous for his anti-immigrant positions, officially unveiled the administration’s cruel “zero tolerance” policy in the spring.
Merkley, a vocal critic of Trump’s immigration policies, appeared on MSNBC‘s “All In With Chris Hayes” to discuss the developments:
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
Appearing on “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” Monday night, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) once again brought to American households a discussion of the economic system which has allowed an extreme wealth gap to widen in the United States, explaining her proposal to impose a far higher tax rate on the wealthiest Americans in order to even the playing field.
“At what level are we really just living in excess, and what kind of society do we want to live in?” —Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.)
Weeks after telling Anderson Cooper on “60 Minutes” that Americans who make more than $10 million per year should be taxed at 70 percent, Ocasio-Cortez explained to Colbert that her proposal is far from radical.
“It’s not a new idea,” she said. “Under the Republican administration of Dwight D. Eisenhower, we had 90 percent marginal tax rates.”
The first-term congresswoman, whose outspoken advocacy for a Medicare for All system, a Green New Deal, and bold reforms to pull working Americans out of poverty has left establishment Democrats and their supporters claiming that she is a “radical,” did not mince words in summing up how economic inequality in the U.S. has spiraled out of control.
“I do think that a system that allows billionaires to exist when there are parts of Alabama where people are still getting ringworm because they don’t have access to public health is wrong,” she said.
While Ocasio-Cortez clarified that she doesn’t believe billionaires like Bill Gates or Warren Buffet are “immoral” just because they are billionaires, she highlighted the moral question around an economic system that permits a handful of people to amass such wealth when so many in society are forced to live in poverty as they work long hours for meager pay.
“At what level are we really just living in excess,” she asked, “and what kind of society do we want to live in?”
The line drew loud applause from Colbert’s studio audience.
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
When Colbert asked, “How many fucks do you give?” about establishment Democrats and critics who have scolded Ocasio-Cortez and other progressives for their outspokenness regarding improvements the party leadership could make, the congresswoman replied, “I think it’s zero.”
She added that she rejects the characterization of her advocacy and activism as “divisive,” saying she looks to civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. for examples of tactics which bring about lasting change.
“People called Martin Luther King divisive in his time,” Ocasio-Cortez reminded Colbert. “We forget he was wildly unpopular when advocating for the Civil Rights Act. I think that what we need to realize is that social movements should be the moral compass of our politics.”
Ocasio-Cortez elaborated on her point in another Monday interview with author Ta-Nehisi Coates, explaining that elected officials in the current political climate must take extra care to prove to the public that they are working for American families—by forcefully fighting against the systems which have created massive inequities in one of the richest countries in the world.
“Right now, I think with this administration, with the current circumstances, with the abdication of responsibility that we’ve seen from so many powerful people—even people who kind of abdicate that responsibility by calling themselves liberal or a Democrat or whatever it is—I feel a need for all of us to ‘breathe fire,'” Ocasio-Cortez said.
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
A day after the 7-year-old girl’s small body returned to Guatemala in a coffin, a United Nations human rights expert demanded an independent probe into the death of Jakelin Caal while she was in the custody of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)—and made a broader call for the U.S. to stop its international law-violating practice of detaining children on the basis of their migratory status.
“The U.S. authorities must ensure that an in-depth, independent investigation of the death of Jakelin Ameí Caal is conducted,” Felipe González Morales, U.N. Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, said in a statement Monday.
Caal died earlier this month in Texas right after after being detained along with her father and over 160 other migrants at a border crossing in New Mexico. Her death prompted outrage, with the ACLU calling it a “tragedy” that “represents the worst possible outcome when children are held in inhumane conditions.”
“Access to justice for her relatives should be granted, including but not limited to having legal representation in the proceedings in a language they understand well,” González Morales said, and called on the U.S. to prevent similar tragedies.
Moreover, he added, “As repeatedly stated by a series of U.N. human rights bodies, detention of children based on their migratory status is a violation of international law.”
González Morales also expressed hope for being able to conduct an official visit to the United States, as that “would allow me to get first-hand, direct information about the situation of migrant children, especially on those who are being held in detention,” and would “allow me to present my recommendations to the U.S. government to fulfill its international commitments to respect and protect the human rights of all migrants.”
Given the tragedy, González Morales’s office also sent a formal complaint to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, the Guardian reported Monday. Among the U.N. expert’s specfic points of inquiry is finding out whether Caal was held in a kind of cell known as an “hielera” or ice box.
“There have been many complaints about the conditions of migrants in hieleras—they are places that pose a risk to the health of the persons detained,” he said to the news outlet in an interview.
“When a person, especially a child, is in the custody of a state, that state has to ensure their rights. States have an obligation to care for migrants who arrive at the border, they cannot treat them as animals in inhuman conditions,” he added.
Following Caal’s death, the National Immigration Law Center made a similar call to agencies regarding the treatment of the people they detain.
“The death of 7-year-old Jakelin Amei Rosmery Caal Maquin is a tragic reminder of a longstanding pattern of systemic cruelty and secrecy at CBP and its parent agency, DHS, and underscores the stark need for greater transparency and accountability at these agencies. As we mourn and demand justice for Jakelin and her loved ones, we must also take meaningful steps to prevent anything like this from happening again,” said Nora Preciado, senior staff attorney for the immigrant rights organization.
“Direct accounts over years from people in CBP custody and hard evidence obtained through litigation reveal a culture of utter disregard for human life at the agency,” she added, and declared that “The culture of cruelty at CBP has only worsened under the Trump administration.”
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.