Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

A military veteran without a question

A military veteran without a question

Tankoano lives in Houston Texas after serving three years in the Army for 2018 to 2021. He applied for a new passport in 2019 only to be told he wasn’t a U.S. citizen.

I am a New York-born soldier now living in Houston, Texas, who was recently sworn in as a citizen after a years-long legal battle with the U.S. government over my citizenship.


There is a little known problem of statelessness in America and my recently resolved case highlights the flaws in the current system and the urgent need for change. November is National Veterans and Military Families Month and is the perfect time for us to reflect on the need to fix this problem. I was issued a U.S. passport at birth and served in the U.S. Army, risking my life for this country. I had always believed myself to be an American citizen. However, when I applied for a new passport in 2019, I was told much to my surprise that I wasn't a citizen after all and was at risk of being deported to Africa. I was shocked and found this hard to believe.

The State Department argued that since my father was a diplomat from Niger with immunity, I was exempt from U.S. laws that grant birthright citizenship to those born on U.S. soil, even though I was born in Manhattan. They claimed their earlier decision to issue me an American passport had been a mistake.

What followed was a three-year legal battle that left me in a state of legal limbo. I was considered “stateless” because I had renounced my citizenship of Niger and thus I was a “citizen of nowhere.”

I was given a notice to appear in court as part of a deportation process. The reason cited for the rejection of my citizenship application was that I lacked "good moral character," based on my rejected passport application. As someone who had served in the military and passed multiple background checks, this was particularly upsetting. Imagine finding out that your government thinks you lack good moral character, even though you served in the military overseas. It’s an organization in which I embodied the deep moral values of honesty and integrity.

The government's treatment of my case and the many other veterans who have faced deportation or statelessness due to technicalities or bureaucracy is unacceptable. These issues undermine the sacrifices and contributions of those who have served honorably and put themselves in harm's way for this country. This also goes against American values and the principles of justice and fairness that we serve to uphold.

This November is a good time for us to consider addressing this issue, and to ensure that all veterans, especially those who have served in combat, receive the benefits we deserve. It is a time to honor those who have served and sacrificed for their country.

I commend the efforts of the White House to address the deportation of veterans and the Department of Veterans Affairs for providing information to non-citizen veterans on how to become citizens. However, more needs to be done to fix the broken system that allows statelessness to continue.

There are an estimated 218,000 stateless people in America. We all have our own stories, and as a veteran, I am just one formerly stateless person. I’ve recently met other stateless people through United Stateless, an organization seeking to fix this bureaucratic nightmare for all of us. Thanks to our advocacy, the U.S. Department for Homeland Security recently issued new guidance on statelessness. The new guidance will help by allowing immigration officers the ability to consider statelessness as a discretionary factor in their decisions. But the changes are only temporary, and we need to enshrine them into law through the legislative process. To do that, we need to pass the Stateless Protection Act.

Statelessness is a pressing issue in the United States. Stateless people are denied access to education, job opportunities, healthcare, and the freedom to travel, perpetuating their vulnerability and hardship. We must raise awareness, promote legislative solutions, and empower stateless individuals to access legal status and the protection they deserve on American soil.

We need a system that recognizes the contributions of all individuals who serve in the military, regardless of their parentage or immigration status. We also need to legally enshrine clear and fair procedures for verifying citizenship and addressing cases of statelessness.

As we mark National Veterans and Military Families Month, let’s remember the sacrifices and bravery of those who have served, and commit to fixing the bureaucratic limbo of statelessness. Let us ensure that no veteran is left in a state of legal limbo or forced to fight for their own citizenship. Let us honor their service by providing them with the rights and protections they have earned. I urge all Americans to support efforts to fix the broken system. It's high time we honor our commitment to our veterans in the most meaningful way possible.


Read More

AI chip
a computer chip with the letter a on top of it
Photo by Igor Omilaev on Unsplash

We Should Regulate AI to Make It Grow Faster

The debate over artificial intelligence has become divided between two powerful ideas: that we need a “moratorium” to slow AI until we can make it safe, and that regulating AI will slow the innovation we need for our economy and national security. Both concerns are legitimate. But “moratorium” and “slowing AI growth” are divisive terms: they reassure those concerned about AI's safety, economic and environmental consequences while alarming those who see AI competition and national security as urgent priorities. We need a different starting point—meaningful regulation that provides the safeguards necessary to protect people, communities and the environment while creating the conditions for AI to continue growing. The experiences of Europe and China challenge the assumption that regulation must slow AI.

China has combined increasingly detailed, technology-specific AI regulation with substantial government support for AI development. Recent studies provide evidence that this approach can promote innovation. One 2026 study of Chinese companies from 2017 through 2023 found that the creation of national AI innovation and development pilot zones significantly increased corporate digital transformation, in part through increased research and development, human capital and reduced transition costs. Another 2026 study, covering Chinese manufacturing companies from 2014 through 2024, found that the same policy significantly promoted the adoption of intelligent technologies.

Keep ReadingShow less
The History of U.S. Prevention Through Deterrence: Effective Border Policy or Humanitarian Risk?

The History of U.S. Prevention Through Deterrence: Effective Border Policy or Humanitarian Risk?

A Brief History of Prevention Through Deterrence

The U.S. Border Patrol agency has evolved greatly over the years, shifting its focus to address changing national security concerns. It was originally established in 1924 to restrict illegal immigration by Chinese and European immigrants before moving to restrict alcohol smuggling during Prohibition. The agency adopted its current focus on illegal immigration from Mexico during the 1970s, when immigration pressures coincided with a severe economic recession in the United States. In 1994, the Border Patrol released a strategy document with the support of the Clinton administration which introduced an approach to immigration known as Prevention Through Deterrence. This tactic aimed to discourage border crossings by funneling immigrants through border entry points with harsh terrain, in contrast with previous policies based on arrest and apprehension post-entry.

Successful Prevention Through Deterrence is measured by fewer encounters and apprehensions at the border, indicating that illegal attempts to enter the country have been prevented and deterred. Barriers to entry are policed by a range of physical infrastructure like fences, vehicle barriers, and other blockades designed to stop illegal foot and vehicle traffic. These measures are supported by camera- and thermal-based surveillance systems as well as measures like deportation and criminal charges which impose legal consequences on migrants. The focus of Prevention Through Deterrence operations themselves is twofold: establishing control of high-traffic border sectors and using security measures to enable the seizure of contraband.

Keep ReadingShow less
A microphone in the foreground and a crowd, blurry in the background.

INC ‘26 gathered independent leaders in D.C. to unveil a seven-candidate slate, a Fulcrum Caucus strategy and new tools for corruption-free governance.

Getty Images, uschools

Independent Movement Unites at INC ’26 to Build National Power

From September 23–25, leaders from across the American independent political movement gathered at the JW Marriott in Washington, D.C., for the fourth Independent National Convention (INC ’26). Produced by United Independents, the event brought together hundreds of participants representing political reform organizations, independent campaigns, alternative parties, civic initiatives and grassroots organizing efforts.

The gathering reflected the breadth of activity outside the traditional two-party system while addressing a persistent challenge: translating America's large independent constituency into greater political representation, institutional capacity, and coordinated action.

Keep ReadingShow less
Meeting, handshake and business people with deal in office for funding approval and success.

Four Reds and four Blues reached unanimous Points of Agreement on immigration, then presented them to Reps. Fitzpatrick and Suozzi. Here’s how it worked.

Jacob Wackerhausen/Getty Images

On Immigration, Common Ground May Be Closer Than We Think

Immigration has become one of the issues pulling Americans apart. Earlier this month, at a constituent conversation in Bristol, Pennsylvania, I watched eight Americans with very different political views offer a glimpse of how it does not have to stay that way.

Four “Reds” and four “Blues” — terms used for participants on the political right and left — sat across from Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) and Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.), the Republican and Democratic co-chairs of the House Problem Solvers Caucus, to present something increasingly unusual in our politics: unanimous Points of Agreement on immigration developed through an earlier Common Ground Workshop.

Keep ReadingShow less