Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

U.S. immigration court ruling on statelessness could have wide impact

Man climbing a set of exterior steps

The author, Miliyon Ethiopis, following a court’s decision to grant his asylum request on June 18.

Ethiopis is a co-founder of United Stateless, a national organization led by stateless people.

I feel like I have been born again, after a U.S. immigration court made a remarkable ruling in my “statelessness” case in June. I hope that my case will have significant, broader implications for other stateless people in America.

Being stateless means no country will claim you as a citizen. We don't belong anywhere. Stateless people are military veterans. We are Harvard graduates. We are Holocaust survivors. There are millions of stateless people around the world, and 200,000 such people in the United States.


My case is a single example of statelessness in this country, and we now need to see Immigration and Customs Enforcement acknowledge that stateless noncitizens need a specific policy, in line with a recent directive from its boss, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. That’s something it has so far been reluctant to do, prompting several prominent members of Congress to write to Mayorkas two days after the ruling came down in my case. In the meantime many stateless people continue to endure sleepless nights and unnecessary suffering as they worry about an ICE officer knocking at their door.

My own case dragged on for more than 20 years. It created more than 1,600 pages of legal documentation. The judge even apologized during my hearing that it had taken so long for me to get the ruling. I’m still having a hard time believing it. The case took a toll on my health. Every time I had a hearing approaching, I would get sick with anxiety. Now that I have some room to breathe, I hope we can clear things up for so many other people in a similar position.

I first wrote about my story a year ago. Until recently I managed eight gas stations in the D.C. area, seven days a week. For more than 20 years I worked 13-hour days and sometimes I’d work 36 hours straight. I was born in Ethiopia, but because my father was born in next-door Eritrea, I was targeted for my ethnicity. Based on my Eritrean blood, the Ethiopians tortured me in prison for three months. When I got out of prison, I fled the country. I've been trying to sort out my legal status since I arrived here in the United States.

In June, I was finally granted asylum after a long legal battle. After years of having argued for my deportation, ICE finally agreed to join me on my motion to reopen a deportation order issued more than 20 years ago. By reopening the case, the Board of Immigration Appeals effectively canceled the deportation order and allowed me to pursue asylum, which will provide the stability I need. The case wound its way back to the lower immigration court and, finally, last month, the immigration judge granted my asylum request.

I hope that ICE will now adopt broader policy reform ensuring more consistent treatment to protect stateless people, as I’m not alone. On June 12 my colleague at United Stateless wrote about another stateless man, Sergei, and his wife, Marina, who came here from the former Soviet Union. They’re still under threat of deportation by ICE, but there is no country that will accept them. Because ICE won't agree to lift that order and has not adopted a policy about statelessness, Sergei and Marina are not covered by new protections for stateless people, introduced last year by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. They’re just two more examples of stateless people living under deportation orders who need to see this change happen.

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 October 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 factor in decisions. USCIS also considered statelessness in updating processes for H-1B employment visas. And the agency has adopted policies that can assist certain stateless students, for example, by not requiring a waiver to stay in the United States where return to the country of origin is impossible. My colleagues have also engaged with USCIS representatives, who have shown willingness to open dialogue.

ICE, however, has not kept up. The agency has not adopted its own policy on statelessness, or even a legal definition of statelessness. Because of the deportation order, Sergei and Marina are under ICE’s jurisdiction, so they can't get protection under the new USCIS policy change; at least according to both ICE and USCIS interpretation. If ICE had a statelessness policy like USCIS does, or if it agreed to allow USCIS to have jurisdiction over stateless people under orders of deportation, it could allow people like Sergei and Marina access to protections.

If ICE enacts broader policy changes, which I hope it will now do, other stateless people will be able to clear up their status and move on with their lives.

Meanwhile I’m so grateful to my lawyers: David Bennion, executive director of the Free Migration Project, and Michelle Mendez, director of legal resources and training for the National Immigration Project. I’m also very grateful to United Stateless, an organization I co-founded, and to Executive Director Karina Ambartsoumian-Clough, who has been a stalwart advocate for my cause. There are countless others who have kept believing in my case, and in the cause of statelessness. I’m particularly grateful to Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) and Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) for their reintroduction of the Stateless Protection Act, which would provide a permanent administrative fix for statelessness, so we don’t have to rely on conflicting subagency policies.

I firmly believe that by coming together as stateless people, telling our stories and advocating in our own interests, we have the power to overcome this human rights issue in America and around the world. The resolution of my case should give people hope that more is possible on statelessness, and I am determined to keep fighting for justice for people like me.

Read More

In a room full of men, Hegseth called for a military culture shift from ‘woke’ to ‘warrior’

U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth stands at attention at the Pentagon on September 22, 2025 in Arlington, Virginia.

(Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

In a room full of men, Hegseth called for a military culture shift from ‘woke’ to ‘warrior’

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth called hundreds of generals and admirals stationed from around the world to convene in Virginia on Tuesday — with about a week’s notice. He announced 10 new directives that would shift the military’s culture away from what he called “woke garbage” and toward a “warrior ethos.”

“This administration has done a great deal since Day 1 to remove the social justice, politically-correct, toxic ideological garbage that had infected our department,” Hegseth said. “No more identity months, DEI offices or dudes in dresses. No more climate change worship. No more division, distraction of gender delusions. No more debris. As I’ve said before and will say, we are done with that shit.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Yes, They Are Trying To Kill Us
Provided

Yes, They Are Trying To Kill Us

In the rush to “dismantle the administrative state,” some insist that freeing people from “burdensome bureaucracy” will unleash thriving. Will it? Let’s look together.

A century ago, bureaucracy was minimal. The 1920s followed a worldwide pandemic that killed an estimated 17.4–50 million people. While the virus spread, the Great War raged; we can still picture the dehumanizing use of mustard gas and trench warfare. When the war ended, the Roaring Twenties erupted as an antidote to grief. Despite Prohibition, life was a party—until the crash of 1929. The 1930s opened with a global depression, record joblessness, homelessness, and hunger. Despair spread faster than the pandemic had.

Keep ReadingShow less
Millions Could Lose Housing Aid Under Trump Plan

Photo illustration by Alex Bandoni/ProPublica. Source images: Chicago History Museum and eobrazy

Getty Images

Millions Could Lose Housing Aid Under Trump Plan

Some 4 million people could lose federal housing assistance under new plans from the Trump administration, according to experts who reviewed drafts of two unpublished rules obtained by ProPublica. The rules would pave the way for a host of restrictions long sought by conservatives, including time limits on living in public housing, work requirements for many people receiving federal housing assistance and the stripping of aid from entire families if one member of the household is in the country illegally.

The first Trump administration tried and failed to implement similar policies, and renewed efforts have been in the works since early in the president’s second term. Now, the documents obtained by ProPublica lay out how the administration intends to overhaul major housing programs that serve some of the nation’s poorest residents, with sweeping reforms that experts and advocates warn will weaken the social safety net amid historically high rents, home prices and homelessness.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump’s Ultimatums and the Erosion of Presidential Credibility

Donald Trump

YouTube

Trump’s Ultimatums and the Erosion of Presidential Credibility

On Friday, October 3rd, President Donald Trump issued a dramatic ultimatum on Truth Social, stating this is the “LAST CHANCE” for Hamas to accept a 20-point peace proposal backed by Israel and several Arab nations. The deadline, set for Sunday at 6:00 p.m. EDT, was framed as a final opportunity to avoid catastrophic consequences. Trump warned that if Hamas rejected the deal, “all HELL, like no one has ever seen before, will break out against Hamas,” and that its fighters would be “hunted down and killed.”

Ordinarily, when a president sets a deadline, the world takes him seriously. In history, Presidential deadlines signal resolve, seriousness, and the weight of executive authority. But with Trump, the pattern is different. His history of issuing ultimatums and then quietly backing off has dulled the edge of his threats and raised questions about their strategic value.

Keep ReadingShow less