Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

DHS needs to resolve conflicting policies on stateless people

Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas testifies before Congress

Two agencies that fall under Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas have very different policies on how to handle stateless people in the United States

Sha Hanting/China News Service/VCG via Getty Images

Ambartsoumian-Clough is the executive director of United Stateless.

It's worrying when a government agency appears to go its own way over the stated commitments of the person in charge of overseeing it. Right now, Immigration and Customs Enforcement needs to do more to comply with the commitments of its leader, Homeland Security Security Alejandro Mayorkas, to help stateless people in America.


Sergei Kachenkov’s story illustrates why. He’s a member of United Stateless, a nonprofit organization founded by stateless people and where I’m the executive director. All our members have our own stories, but all stateless people are stuck in a legal limbo. We don't have passports from the countries of our birth, often because those countries disavow us for political, discriminatory or a host of other reasons, and many of us lack papers here in the United States. Sergei came to the United States fleeing the former Soviet Union in 1991. His Soviet passport is invalid because his country no longer exists. Now he lives in Alabama and is over 70. Retired, he is now a full-time career for his wife, Marina, who is disabled, suffering from a rare blood disorder, and stateless too. She worked for years managing retail stores.

Without laws to address statelessness, the couple were forced to seek other remedies for their situation, and so they applied for asylum. Their claim was denied years ago, and so they still face a final removal order by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Because ICE won't lift that order, and has not adopted a policy about statelessness, Sergei and Marina can’t get protection under new protections for stateless people, introduced last year.

Their predicament is a lot more than theoretical. It’s real and paralyzing. Yet it is the result of an unusual situation where one agency under Mayorkas (ICE) hasn’t kept up with the direction taken by another (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services) or with Mayorkas’ stated desire to help stateless people.

In December 2021, Mayorkas said the Department of Homeland Security would "enhance protections" for stateless people. And USCIS has since done much to honor that. In August 2023, USCIS amended its policy manual to define statelessness. It now addresses the legal needs of stateless people by allowing USCIS officers to consider statelessness as a positive factor in decisions. USCIS also considered statelessness in processes for H-1B employment visas. And the agency has adopted policies that can assist stateless students. We've also engaged with USCIS representatives, who have shown willingness to open dialogue.

ICE, however, has not kept up. That agency has not adopted its own policy on statelessness, and Sergei’s and Marina’s legal statuses are under ICE’s authority, so they can't get protection under the new USCIS definition of statelessness. If ICE had a similar policy to the new USCIS definition, it could lift Sergei and Marina’s final removal order, allowing people like them access to protections.

Despite having no criminal record whatsoever and despite paying taxes for more than 30 years, Sergei and Marina have also faced barriers accessing Social Security benefits. At one point, the elderly couple’s benefits were cut off for two years and Marina had to turn to charity to cover her medical treatment. Sergei worries that his Social Security benefits will be cut off again and that he’ll have to forage for food. He even said, “What am I going to do? Eat snakes from the woods behind our house?” When Sergei tried to explain to an officer about their predicament, he claims, the officer was rude. Sergei says the officer told the couple, "I don't care where you go, walk to Mexico, walk to Canada, just get out of this country."

Those aren't the words of a humane officer of the United States government. They sound a lot more like a soldier in the government of the country Sergei and Marina fled. I wish that Sergei's story was unique, but other United Stateless members have faced similar mistreatment.

Sergei and Marina’s story is illustrative of situations facing many stateless people in the U.S. For all of us, being stateless makes living, working, and getting health care or an education very challenging. Even if the government tries to deport us, there is no country that will accept us. Many of us find ourselves in ICE detention as a result. In the end we are often released because there is nowhere for us to go, leaving some of us to live under deportation orders and under supervision for up to 30 years.

In February, Washington Post columnist Theresa Vargas wrote about one of our stateless community members. Henry Pachnowski is a stateless Holocaust survivor who couldn't access Social Security benefits. His story shows anyone can get caught up in being stateless. Numbering around 200,000, we are Harvard graduates and military veterans. We run businesses. We contribute taxes to Social Security. And yet many of us are still living in fear of a knock on the door from ICE. That's despite efforts by Mayorkas to assist.

It is time for ICE to get in line with its leadership, its sister agency and the international community. ICE must adopt the international definition of statelessness and ensure that legal protections are available to stateless people to avoid legal limbo and indefinite detention. And it can do more. It can also collect data on stateless people applying for immigration relief.

What I fail to understand is why ICE seems resistant to following Mayorkas’s commitments. What’s going on here?


Read More

Trump Is Protecting Insurrectionists But Not Your Kids

An analysis of gun violence, political extremism, Islamophobia, and community resilience in America after the San Diego Islamic Center shooting.

GemaIbarra / Getty Images

Trump Is Protecting Insurrectionists But Not Your Kids

Last Monday, two teenage gunmen opened fire outside the Islamic Center of San Diego, murdering three Muslim men. Unfortunately, this is the type of horror Americans have been conditioned to expect. After years of political stagnation on gun safety and ongoing hateful acts of violence, our president has signaled once again to children, to the Muslim community, and to everyone else: he does not care if you get shot.

Gun violence has been on the rise in the United States for too long. Perhaps the most harrowing consequence is that gun violence is now the leading cause of death among children. Whether from school shootings, homicides, suicides, or accidents, the gun-death rate for children is nearly five in every 100,000. In fact, the number of domestic deaths due to gun violence is about as many as U.S. military deaths in every war since World War I combined. More children have been lost to gun violence since 2020 than troops lost since 9/11. Yet even with such a striking death toll—and one affecting children no less—happening on our own soil, Vice President J.D. Vance calls it a “fact of life.

Keep ReadingShow less
The dome of the United States Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., stands tall against a blue sky with the American flag waving proudly

Congress faces growing pressure to pass redistricting reform as lawmakers debate banning gerrymandering, independent commissions, and mid-decade map changes amid renewed national controversy over fair elections.

Getty Images, aire images

Congress's Missed Opportunities on Redistricting Reform

On April 29, Issue One posted an image on Facebook and Instagram: CONGRESS CAN FIX THIS WITH THREE SIMPLE STEPS:

  1. Establish Clear National Criteria for Fair Maps
  2. Require Independent Redistricting Commissions in Every State
  3. Ban Mid-Decade Redistricting.

Issue One added below: “… but it needs 60 Senate votes to do it.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less
Tourists gather at Mather Point on the South Rim of the Grand Canyon, enjoying panoramic views of the iconic natural wonder

National Park Service budget cuts are reshaping America’s public lands through underfunding and neglect. Explore how declining park staffing, deferred maintenance, and political inaction threaten national parks, local economies, and public trust in government.

Getty Images, miroslav_1

They Won’t Close the Parks. They’ll Just Let Them Fail.

This summer, before dawn, the Liu family from Buffalo will load up their SUV, coffee in hand, bound for a long-planned trip out west. The Grand Canyon has been on their list for years, something to do before the kids get too old and schedules get too tight. They expect crowds. They expect long lines at the entrance. That is part of the deal. In recent years, national parks have drawn more than 325 million visits annually, near record highs.

What they do not expect are shuttered visitor centers and closed trails, not because of weather but because there are not enough staff to maintain them. What they do not see is the budget decision in Washington that made those trade-offs, quietly, indirectly, and without much debate.

Keep ReadingShow less