Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

Congress approval is at a record-low 10%. Moderation and consensus-building, not partisan theatrics, are how Washington gets problems solved.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

Reclaiming the Politics of the Possible

Washington is stuck in a cycle of performative conflict. The incentives seem to reward outrage, not outcomes that last; purity tests, not problem‑solving. So it’s no surprise that after three shutdowns in less than a year, public approval of Congress collapsed to just 10 percent this spring. (Gallup, April 2026.) But the country we live in — where many middle-income families report persistent financial strain and businesses are navigating unprecedented technological upheaval — cannot be governed by theatrics. Breaking this cycle requires moderation, consensus‑building, and a cooperative approach to governance.

This is not a call for centrism as an ideology. Instead, this is a call for transformative leaders to embrace moderation as their governing strategy, recognizing that in a pluralistic country of nearly 350 million people durable solutions require broad and stable alliances. Ultimately, this is a call for the 240 million of us who are eligible to vote in November to elect consensus-builders instead of bomb-throwers, and healers instead of arsonists.

Keep ReadingShow less
Adult man holds a microphone while asking a question during a town hall meeting.

Congress ignored 90% of public support for background checks. Learn how citizen assemblies and sortition helped Ireland break gridlock and could work in the US.

SDI Productions/Getty Images

Consensus Without Power: How Sortition Could Break America's Legislative Gridlock

In April 2013, four months after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting killed twenty children, the US Senate voted on the Manchin-Toomey Act to expand background checks and to include gun-show and internet sales of firearms. Roughly nine in ten Americans, including a majority of gun owners, supported the bill—a figure that has held steady across more than a decade of polling. It fell short of the 60-vote threshold by six votes. This was not an outlier. On complex issues, representatives often fail to translate public consensus into reality. Research shows that legislators consistently vote in line with donor and interest group preferences over constituent opinion. Before the vote, the National Rifle Association (NRA) warned every senator it would “rate” their vote on its annual rating system, and a low NRA rating could cost senators their next primary. Consequently, the bill died 54-46, and the majority of Americans watched, powerless, as their consensus was overridden by self-interested representatives.

Liberal democracies need a method to bypass electoral incentives that run counter to public opinion. One already exists: Ireland faced the same stalemate on complex issues before it instituted a process called sortition. The beauty of sortition lies in its removal of the primary pressure that misaligns representatives’ interests from public interest: reelection. Much like jury duty, citizens are randomly drawn from the population. An independent body then stratifies the pool, so the final group mirrors the country by age, gender, geography, and income. The group meets over weeks or months, hearing from experts and the public, as well as debating frequently. At the end, it issues a recommendation that parliament may then put to a referendum or pass into law.

Keep ReadingShow less