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

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