Connect with us

American News

How Trump Turned the Land of Immigrants Against Its Own

Published

on

Paris (Imran Y. CHOUDHRY) :- Former Press Secretary to the President, Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France, Former MD, SRBC Mr. Qamar Bashir analysis : The United States was founded as a nation of immigrants—a place where people from every corner of the world sought refuge, dignity, and opportunity. Apart from the Native Americans, everyone who calls America home today descends from immigrants who crossed oceans and deserts to rebuild their lives on its soil. From the earliest settlers of England, Ireland, and Germany to the waves of Italians, Poles, and Jews who followed, immigration was never just a demographic process—it was America’s identity, its heartbeat, and its greatest strength.
For more than two centuries, immigration fueled the growth of the American economy, populated its vast frontiers, and shaped its unmatched diversity. Yet, the same nation that once prided itself on being a beacon for the oppressed has gradually turned hostile toward the very idea of immigration itself—especially when the immigrants come with darker skin, foreign tongues, or unfamiliar faiths.
Historically, the earliest immigrants were Europeans—white, Christian, and culturally similar to the Anglo founders. Assimilation was easy because whiteness acted as a passport to belonging. By 1900, nearly 80 percent of America’s foreign-born population came from Europe. Even then, there were prejudices against Italians, Irish, and Eastern Europeans, but time erased their differences. Within a generation, the children of Polish or German immigrants were “simply American.”
But the narrative changed after the U.S. began military and political interventions in non-white regions—from Vietnam to Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Afghanistan. These wars displaced millions, many of whom sought refuge in the very country that had destabilized their homelands. Asylum seekers from the Middle East, Latin America, and Africa arrived not out of choice, but desperation. Unlike their European predecessors, their darker skin and unfamiliar cultures became barriers to assimilation.
According to the Migration Policy Institute, nearly 45 million immigrants now live in the United States—making up about 13.7 percent of the total population. Yet, attitudes toward them remain deeply divided along racial lines. Surveys by Pew Research (2024) show that over 60 percent of white conservatives believe immigrants “burden the nation,” while 70 percent of non-white Americans view them as vital contributors to the economy.
Under the Trump administration’s second term, America is witnessing an unprecedented tightening of immigration laws. The new Senate immigration bill, reportedly enjoying bipartisan momentum, seeks to cut off federal and state benefits to all immigrants, regardless of legal status—permanent residents, work-visa holders, or even those who have contributed taxes for years. It is a striking shift from the nation’s foundational promise that anyone who works hard and abides by the law can earn both livelihood and dignity.
Simultaneously, federal and transport departments are enforcing regulations that restrict immigrant participation in key industries such as trucking, logistics, and services. Commercial driving licenses for immigrants are being rescinded, and companies employing non-citizen drivers face heavy penalties. The crackdown extends beyond the workplace: ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) has intensified raids and detentions across states, with reports of overcrowded detention centers and deportations even of long-time green-card holders.
These policies have drawn resistance from governors, business owners, and human-rights groups, who argue that the U.S. economy relies heavily on immigrant labor. In healthcare alone, foreign-born workers constitute nearly 17 percent of the workforce, including 28 percent of physicians and surgeons. In hospitality, agriculture, and construction, immigrants represent between 30 and 50 percent of employees. The restaurant and hotel sectors—worth over $1.1 trillion annually—would collapse without them.
America’s anti-immigration wave is not rooted in economics but politics. The irony is that while immigrants are blamed for “stealing jobs,” unemployment in 2025 remains near 3.9 percent, and companies are desperate for workers. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, there are 9 million unfilled jobs, many in sectors shunned by native-born Americans due to low wages or high physical demands.
Historically, immigrants have powered America’s economic rise. More than 40 percent of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or their children—names like Google, Tesla, Pfizer, and Apple. Collectively, these companies contribute over $8 trillion to the U.S. economy each year. Yet, today, the same immigrants who sustain the economy are vilified as threats to national security and social order.
Social-media platforms echo with xenophobic calls to “deport them all,” forgetting that the nation’s wealth was built not only on the labor of immigrants but also on the exploitation of other nations. The United States and its NATO allies waged decades of wars in resource-rich regions—extracting oil, minerals, and trade routes—and then turned away the refugees of those same wars. Libya’s collapse, Syria’s civil war, and Afghanistan’s disintegration are all painful reminders that Western intervention created chaos whose human cost now knocks at their own doors.
America’s short political memory compounds the tragedy. Each administration rewrites the moral code of migration. Obama expanded DACA and refugee resettlement; Trump dismantled both. Biden restored limited protections, but the political pendulum swung back again with renewed hostility. The result is a system that treats immigrants as expendable assets—welcomed when needed, discarded when convenient.
Even worse, detention centers have multiplied, with National Guard units deployed in several states to assist ICE. Civil-rights lawyers document cases of long-time residents deported without trial, separating families and traumatizing children. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) reports over 200,000 deportations in 2025 alone—many involving individuals who have lived in the U.S. for more than a decade.
The roots of this crisis are moral and structural. America cannot destabilize other nations through wars, sanctions, and regime change, then demonize those who flee the wreckage. Immigration is the mirror of foreign policy. Every missile dropped abroad creates another migrant seeking safety.
If the United States wishes to curb immigration sustainably, it must let other nations live with dignity—free from exploitation of their oil, minerals, and industries. Let their people build prosperity at home instead of being forced to cross borders for survival. China’s model offers an instructive contrast: by investing in its own citizens through education, infrastructure, and industry, it has sharply reduced outward migration.
America, too, must return to its founding promise—one that values people not by color or country, but by character and contribution. Instead of walls and bans, it needs reforms that regularize honest workers, integrate them through civic education, and penalize employers who exploit them.
The world once admired the United States for its open arms, not its closed borders. The Statue of Liberty still stands in New York Harbor, holding a torch once meant to light the path for the “huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” But today, that light flickers. A nation that rose from the dreams of immigrants risks collapsing under the weight of its own fear and hypocrisy.
To preserve its greatness, America must remember its origin story. It was not whiteness, wealth, or weapons that built this country—it was human hope. And hope knows no color, no visa, and no border.

American News

Trump celebrates as Democrats face fallout from end of shutdown

Published

on

By

After 43 days, the longest US government shutdown in history is coming to an end.

Federal workers will start receiving pay again. National Parks will reopen. Government services that had been curtailed or suspended entirely will resume. Air travel, which had become a nightmare for many Americans, will return to being merely frustrating.

After the dust settles and the ink from President Donald Trump’s signature on the funding bill dries, what has this record-setting shutdown accomplished? And what has it cost?

Senate Democrats, through their use of the parliamentary filibuster, were able to trigger the shutdown despite being a minority in the chamber by refusing to go along with a Republican measure to temporarily fund the government.

They drew a line in the sand, demanding that the Republicans agree to extend health insurance subsidies for low-income Americans that are set to expire at the end of the year.

When a handful of Democrats broke ranks to vote to reopen the government on Sunday, they received next to nothing in return – a promise of a vote in the Senate on the subsidies, but no guarantees of Republican support or even a necessary vote in the House of Representatives.

Since then, members of the party’s left flank have been furious.

They’ve accused Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer – who didn’t vote for the funding bill – of being secretly complicit in the reopening plan or simply incompetent. They’ve felt like their party folded even after off-year election success showed they had the upper hand. They feared that the shutdown sacrifices had been for nothing.

Even more mainstream Democrats, like California’s Governor Gavin Newsom, called the shutdown deal “pathetic” and a “surrender”.

“I’m not coming in to punch anybody in the face,” he told the Associated Press, “but I’m not pleased that, in the face of this invasive species that is Donald Trump, who’s completely changed the rules of the game, that we’re still playing by the old rules of the game.”

Newsom has 2028 presidential ambitions and can be a good barometer for the mood of the party. He was a loyal supporter of Joe Biden who turned out to defend the then-president even after his disastrous June debate performance against Trump.

If he is running for the pitchforks, it’s not a good sign for Democratic leaders.

For Trump, in the days since the Senate deadlock broke on Sunday, his mood has gone from cautious optimism to celebration.

On Tuesday, he congratulated congressional Republicans and called the vote to reopen the government “a very big victory”.

“We’re opening up our country,” he said at a Veteran’s Day commemoration at Arlington Cemetery. “It should have never been closed.”

Trump, perhaps sensing the Democratic anger toward Schumer, joined the pile-on during a Fox News interview on Monday night.

“He thought he could break the Republican Party, and the Republicans broke him,” Trump said of the Senate Democrat.

Although there were times when Trump appeared to be buckling – last week he berated Senate Republicans for refusing to scrap the filibuster to reopen the government – he ultimately emerged from the shutdown having made little in the way of substantive concessions.

While his poll numbers have declined over the last 40 days, there’s still a year before Republicans have to face voters in the midterms. And, barring some kind of constitutional rewrite, Trump never has to worry about standing for election again.

With the end of the shutdown, Congress will get back to its regularly scheduled programming. Although the House of Representatives has effectively been on ice for more than a month, Republicans still hope they can pass some substantive legislation before next year’s election cycle kicks in.

While several government departments will be funded until September in the shutdown-ending agreement, Congress will have to approve spending for the rest of the government by the end of January to avoid another shutdown.

Democrats, licking their wounds, may be hankering for another chance to fight.

Meanwhile, the issue they fought over – healthcare subsidies – could become a pressing concern for tens of millions of Americans who will see their insurance costs double or triple at the end of the year. Republicans ignore addressing such voter pain at their own political peril.

And that isn’t the only peril facing Trump and the Republicans. A day that was supposed to be highlighted by the House government-funding vote was spent dwelling on the latest revelations surrounding the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Later on Wednesday, Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva was sworn in to her congressional seat and became the 218th and final signatory on a petition that will force the House of Representatives to hold a vote ordering the justice department to release all its files on the Epstein case.

It was enough to prompt Trump to complain, on his Truth Social website, that his government-funding success was being eclipsed.

“The Democrats are trying to bring up the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax again because they’ll do anything at all to deflect on how badly they’ve done on the Shutdown, and so many other subjects,” he wrote.

It was all a very clear reminder that the best-laid plans and political strategies can be derailed in a flash.

Continue Reading

American News

BBC faces fresh claim of misleading Trump edit

Published

on

By

The BBC was accused of a misleading edit of Donald Trump’s 6 January 2021 speech two years before the Panorama sequence that led to the resignation of the director-general.

The clip aired on Newsnight in 2022, and a guest on the live programme challenged the way it had been cut together, the Daily Telegraph reported.

On Monday the BBC apologised for an “error of judgement” over an edited portion of the same speech that aired last year on Panorama.

The fallout saw the resignations of the BBC’s director-general Tim Davie and head of news Deborah Turness, and a legal threat from the US President.

Lawyers for Trump have written to the BBC saying he will sue for $1bn (£759m) in damages unless the corporation issues a retraction, apologises and compensates him for the Panorama broadcast.

In response to Thursday’s story in the Telegraph, a BBC spokesperson said: “The BBC holds itself to the highest editorial standards. This matter has been brought to our attention and we are now looking into it.”

In Trump’s speech on 6 January 2021, he said: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.”

More than 50 minutes later in the speech, he said: “And we fight. We fight like hell.”

In the Panorama programme, the clip shows him as saying: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol… and I’ll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell.”

In the Newsnight programme the edit is a little different.

He is shown as saying: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol. And we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women. And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not gonna have a country anymore.”

This was followed by a voiceover from presenter Kirsty Wark saying “and fight they did” over footage from the Capitol riots.

Responding to the clip on the same programme, former White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, who quit a diplomatic post and became a critic of Trump after describing the 6 January riots as an “attempted coup”, said the video had “spliced together” Trump’s speech.

“That line about ‘we fight and fight like hell’ is actually later in the speech and yet your video makes it look like those two things came together,” he said.

The Telegraph also reported that a whistleblower told the newspaper that a further discussion the following day was also shut down.

Last week, a leaked internal BBC memo claimed Panorama had misled viewers by splicing two parts of Trump’s 6 January 2021 speech together, making it appear as though he was explicitly urging people to attack the US Capitol after his election defeat.

The documentary aired days before the US presidential election in November 2024.

Speaking to Fox News, Trump said his 6 January 2021 speech had been “butchered” and the way it was presented had “defrauded” viewers.

Continue Reading

American News

President Donald Trump is asking the US Supreme Court to review the $5m (£3.6m) civil case that found he defamed and sexually abused writer E Jean Carroll.

Published

on

By

He has repeatedly claimed that the judge who oversaw the civil trial, Lewis Kaplan, improperly allowed evidence to be presented that hurt how the jury viewed Trump.

A federal appeals court agreed with the jury’s verdict last year and said Kaplan did not make errors that would warrant a new trial.

A New York jury awarded Ms Carroll damages over her civil claim that Trump sexually assaulted her in the 1990s, and then branded the incident a hoax on social media. He denied the allegations.

The Supreme Court is now Trump’s last hope of overturning the unanimous jury’s verdict. Whether the top US court will take the case up is unclear.

A federal appeals court declined to rehear Trump’s challenge to it in June.

Trump’s comments about the jury’s findings in the case led a separate jury to order him to pay Ms Carroll $83m for defaming her. A panel of federal judges denied his appeal of that decision in September, and Trump has now taken the next step in trying to have it overturned by asking the full bench of judges at a federal appeals court to review the case.

In the petition to the Supreme Court, Trump’s lawyers argued Kaplan should not have let jurors see the 2005 Access Hollywood tape that showed the president saying he groped and kissed women.

“There were no eyewitnesses, no video evidence, and no police report or investigation,” they wrote about Ms Carroll’s allegations.

“Instead, Carroll waited more than 20 years to falsely accuse Donald Trump, who she politically opposes, until after he became the 45th president, when she could maximize political injury to him and profit for herself.”

Roberta Kaplan, Ms Carroll’s attorney, told the BBC she had no comment on the Supreme Court appeal.

While Trump was found to have defamed and sexually abused Ms Carroll, the jury rejected her claim of rape as defined in New York’s penal code.

Ms Carroll, a former magazine columnist who is now 81, sued Trump for attacking her in the mid-1990s in a department store dressing room in Manhattan. The defamation stemmed from Trump’s post on his Truth Social platform in 2022 denying her claim.

Trump has said Ms Carroll was “not my type” and that she lied.

Continue Reading

Trending