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

Silence, Signals, and the Unfinished Story of the Abandoned Disability Rule

Waiting for the Door to Open: Advocates and older workers are left in limbo as the administration’s decision to abandon a harsh disability rule exists only in private assurances, not public record.

AI-created animation

Silence, Signals, and the Unfinished Story of the Abandoned Disability Rule

We reported in the Fulcrum on November 30th that in early November, disability advocates walked out of the West Wing, believing they had secured a rare reversal from the Trump administration of an order that stripped disability benefits from more than 800,000 older manual laborers.

The public record has remained conspicuously quiet on the matter. No press release, no Federal Register notice, no formal statement from the White House or the Social Security Administration has confirmed what senior officials told Jason Turkish and his colleagues behind closed doors in November: that the administration would not move forward with a regulation that could have stripped disability benefits from more than 800,000 older manual laborers. According to a memo shared by an agency official and verified by multiple sources with knowledge of the discussions, an internal meeting in early November involved key SSA decision-makers outlining the administration's intent to halt the proposal. This memo, though not publicly released, is said to detail the political and social ramifications of proceeding with the regulation, highlighting its unpopularity among constituents who would be affected by the changes.

Keep ReadingShow less
How Trump turned a January 6 death into the politics of ‘protecting women’

A memorial for Ashli Babbitt sits near the US Capitol during a Day of Remembrance and Action on the one year anniversary of the January 6, 2021 insurrection.

(John Lamparski/NurPhoto/AP)

How Trump turned a January 6 death into the politics of ‘protecting women’

In the wake of the insurrection at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, President Donald Trump quickly took up the cause of a 35-year-old veteran named Ashli Babbitt.

“Who killed Ashli Babbitt?” he asked in a one-sentence statement on July 1, 2021.

Keep ReadingShow less
Gerrymandering Test the Boundaries of Fair Representation in 2026

Supreme Court, Allen v. Milligan Illegal Congressional Voting Map

Gerrymandering Test the Boundaries of Fair Representation in 2026

A wave of redistricting battles in early 2026 is reshaping the political map ahead of the midterm elections and intensifying long‑running fights over gerrymandering and democratic representation.

In California, a three‑judge federal panel on January 15 upheld the state’s new congressional districts created under Proposition 50, ruling 2–1 that the map—expected to strengthen Democratic advantages in several competitive seats—could be used in the 2026 elections. The following day, a separate federal court dismissed a Republican lawsuit arguing that the maps were unconstitutional, clearing the way for the state’s redistricting overhaul to stand. In Virginia, Democratic lawmakers have advanced a constitutional amendment that would allow mid‑decade redistricting, a move they describe as a response to aggressive Republican map‑drawing in other states; some legislators have openly discussed the possibility of a congressional map that could yield 10 Democratic‑leaning seats out of 11. In Missouri, the secretary of state has acknowledged in court that ballot language for a referendum on the state’s congressional map could mislead voters, a key development in ongoing litigation over the fairness of the state’s redistricting process. And in Utah, a state judge has ordered a new congressional map that includes one Democratic‑leaning district after years of litigation over the legislature’s earlier plan, prompting strong objections from Republican lawmakers who argue the court exceeded its authority.

Keep ReadingShow less
New Year’s Resolutions for Congress – and the Country

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) (L) and Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX) lead a group of fellow Republicans through Statuary Hall on the way to a news conference on the 28th day of the federal government shutdown at the U.S. Capitol on October 28, 2025 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Chip Somodevilla

New Year’s Resolutions for Congress – and the Country

Every January 1st, many Americans face their failings and resolve to do better by making New Year’s Resolutions. Wouldn’t it be delightful if Congress would do the same? According to Gallup, half of all Americans currently have very little confidence in Congress. And while confidence in our government institutions is shrinking across the board, Congress is near rock bottom. With that in mind, here is a list of resolutions Congress could make and keep, which would help to rebuild public trust in Congress and our government institutions. Let’s start with:

1 – Working for the American people. We elect our senators and representatives to work on our behalf – not on their behalf or on behalf of the wealthiest donors, but on our behalf. There are many issues on which a large majority of Americans agree but Congress can’t. Congress should resolve to address those issues.

Keep ReadingShow less