The Biden administration is facing a legal challenge from sixteen Republican-led states over a new rule that offers deportation protection and a potential path to permanent residency for certain illegal immigrants. According to Fox News, the states argue that this rule violates federal law and constitutes an unlawful use of parole.
The program, announced in June by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), aims to provide protection from deportation and a path to permanent residency for certain illegal immigrant spouses without requiring them to leave the country.
The lawsuit, led by Texas and America First Legal, challenges the "parole in place" rule, which allows for humanitarian parole and a potential route to permanent residency for illegal immigrant spouses of U.S. citizens who have lived in the country for at least 10 years as of June 2024. The states contend that this program circumvents established processes for obtaining immigration benefits and permanent status, which typically require individuals to leave the country and be readmitted.
The coalition of states argues that the Biden administration's use of parole in this context violates federal law, which limits the use of parole to case-by-case determinations for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit. They claim that the program effectively creates a new pathway to green cards and eventual citizenship for over 1.3 million illegal immigrants, with more than 200,000 residing in Texas alone.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, leading the charge against the program, expressed strong opposition to what he perceives as the Biden administration's efforts to undermine border security and immigration laws. Paxton stated that the new parole program unilaterally grants citizenship opportunities to unvetted individuals who initially entered the country illegally.
The Department of Homeland Security defends the program, asserting that it is grounded in well-established legal authority and aligns with fundamental American values of keeping families together.
The lawsuit reflects ongoing tensions between Republican-led states and the Biden administration over immigration policies. Critics of the program, including Stephen Miller, president of America First Legal, argue that it constitutes an unconstitutional amnesty program that could exacerbate existing border security challenges.
The White House has responded to the lawsuit, accusing Republican officials of prioritizing political maneuvers over addressing the needs of American families and reforming the immigration system. A spokesperson emphasized that the program aims to prevent the separation of U.S. citizens from their spouses and stepchildren who are already eligible for lawful permanent residency.
This legal challenge is part of a broader debate surrounding the Biden administration's use of parole in immigration policy. The administration has implemented other parole programs, including one that allows up to 1,450 individuals daily to enter at ports of entry via the CBP One app and another that permits 30,000 nationals from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela to enter the U.S. monthly.
The outcome of this lawsuit could have significant implications for the Biden administration's immigration policies and the lives of thousands of illegal immigrants married to U.S. citizens. If successful, the legal challenge may force the administration to revise its approach to family-based immigration and parole programs.
As the case progresses through the legal system, it is likely to draw attention to the ongoing debate over immigration reform and border security in the United States. The lawsuit underscores the complex interplay between executive actions, legislative processes, and judicial oversight in shaping immigration policy.
In conclusion, the lawsuit filed by 16 Republican-led states against the Biden administration's parole program for illegal immigrants married to U.S. citizens has ignited a heated legal and political debate. The challenge centers on the legality of using parole to provide a path to permanent residency without requiring individuals to leave the country.
As the case unfolds, it will likely have significant implications for immigration policy and families affected by the program. The outcome may shape future approaches to addressing the complex issues surrounding illegal immigration and family unification in the United States.
In a significant shakeup, the Colorado Republican Party voted to remove Dave Williams from his role as party chairman following widespread criticism of his divisive leadership and anti-L.G.B.T.Q rhetoric.
According to The New York Times, Williams, a hard-line state representative elected as chairman last year, was removed by a decisive vote on Saturday, with 88% of the party’s members supporting his ouster.
The vote came after a petition, signed by dozens of state Republican Party members, called for Williams's removal. The meeting, where the vote took place, was held at a Brighton church near Denver. Williams’s tenure had been marked by controversy, with accusations of hate speech and mismanagement of party resources.
Williams’s leadership had been under scrutiny for months, with many members expressing frustration over his conduct. Michael J. Allen, a prominent critic and party member, stated that Williams’s leadership had led to "an open revolt" within the party. He noted that the accumulation of issues under Williams's watch had come "at the expense of party unity and real electoral progress."
Criticism against Williams intensified after he made several inflammatory posts and sent emails targeting the L.G.B.T.Q community. Among the most egregious was a call to burn Pride flags, which many saw as a direct incitement to violence. Allen described these posts as "hate-fueled," arguing that they undermined the party’s efforts to present a united front.
Williams also faced accusations of using party resources for personal political gain. His failed congressional bid, during which he diverted funds and attention away from the party's broader objectives, further alienated members. Allen remarked that Williams's actions were not just unethical but detrimental to the party's success in November's elections.
In the wake of Williams's removal, Eli Bremer, the former chairman of the party in El Paso County, was selected to serve out the remainder of his term. Bremer’s appointment is seen by many as a move towards restoring stability and focusing on the party’s core objectives.
However, Williams did not accept the outcome quietly. In an email sent to supporters, he dismissed the meeting as a "sham" and "illegitimate," arguing that procedural errors invalidated the vote. He labeled the faction behind his removal as a "fringe minority" and asserted that only the results of a "real" meeting scheduled for next Saturday would be respected.
Despite his objections, the vote reflects a significant loss of confidence in Williams's leadership. State Senator Barbara Kirkmeyer, a longtime critic, had called for Williams’s removal as early as June. On X (formerly Twitter), she wrote that under Williams, the party had been divided by "hateful narratives" that undermined its ability to connect with Colorado voters.
The removal of Williams is not just a change in leadership but also a reflection of deeper divisions within the Colorado Republican Party. His tenure had been marked by infighting and a lack of cohesion, which many members believe cost them critical victories in recent elections.
In addition to Williams, the state party's vice chairwoman, Hope Scheppelman, and secretary, Anna Ferguson, were also removed from their positions. Efforts to reach Scheppelman and Ferguson for comment were unsuccessful. Their removal, like Williams’s, was part of a broader effort to cleanse the party of those seen as divisive influences.
As the party moves forward under Bremer’s leadership, there is hope that a more unified approach will emerge. The focus now shifts to rebuilding trust within the party and preparing for upcoming elections. Whether Bremer can steer the party back to a more inclusive and effective strategy remains to be seen.
The Colorado Republican Party's decision to remove Dave Williams marks a significant turning point in its leadership. His tenure, characterized by divisive rhetoric and questionable ethics, led to widespread discontent among party members. With Eli Bremer now at the helm, the party faces the challenge of unifying its members and refocusing on electoral success. The recent shakeup also sends a clear message that hate speech and divisive tactics will not be tolerated, even within the party’s ranks. As the party moves forward, the hope is that this new chapter will bring greater cohesion and a renewed commitment to its core principles.
A decades-old mystery has finally reached its conclusion, bringing closure to a family who has waited nearly half a century for justice.
Maryland authorities have sentenced Andre Taylor, 63, to life in prison for the 1979 murder of Vickie Lynn Belk. The case, which went unsolved for 45 years, was cracked using modern forensic technology, as reported by The Daily Caller.
Belk, who was 28 years old at the time, was reported missing by her boyfriend on August 28, 1979, after she failed to return to her apartment.
She was last seen at her workplace in Washington, DC, the day before. Her body was later discovered in a wooded area of Prince George's County, naked from the waist down and with a gunshot wound to the right side of her head.
The case remained unsolved for decades until Detective Sergeant John Elliot of the Charles County Sheriff's Office (CCSO) reopened the investigation.
Using advanced forensic technology, the CCSO's Forensic Science Section analyzed Belk's clothing in 2022 and found a DNA match that implicated Taylor in the murder.
Despite having no known address since 2019, authorities managed to locate Taylor in Washington, DC. During questioning, he admitted to raping Belk but denied killing her. Investigators found no evidence to suggest that Belk and Taylor, who was 18 at the time of the crime, knew each other.
The Charles County State's Attorney's Office announced the sentencing on Friday, bringing a long-awaited resolution to the case.
During the sentencing, Assistant State's Attorney John Stackhouse emphasized the far-reaching effects of this crime on Belk's family. He stated:
The case caused generational trauma because it went on for 45 years. [Belk's] son grew up without a mother. Her parents had to bury their daughter. Her parents had to lay on their deathbed not knowing who killed their daughter. Her grandchildren never got a chance to meet their grandmother.
This powerful statement underscores the lasting impact of unsolved crimes on families and communities, highlighting the importance of continued efforts to resolve cold cases.
Before handing down the life sentence, Judge West commented on the severity of the crime, stating, "[The incident was] so heinous, I can't think of a lesser sentence that would be appropriate."
The successful resolution of this case demonstrates the value of persistent investigation and the advancements in forensic technology. It serves as a reminder that even after decades, justice can still be served for victims and their families.
In conclusion, the sentencing of Andre Taylor brings an end to a 45-year-old cold case that has haunted the victim's family and law enforcement for decades. The use of modern DNA technology proved crucial in solving the murder of Vickie Lynn Belk, providing closure to her loved ones and ensuring that her killer is held accountable for his actions. This case highlights the importance of continued efforts to solve cold cases and the potential for new technologies to shed light on long-unsolved crimes.
The Taliban government in Afghanistan has implemented new laws that severely restrict women's rights and freedoms in public spaces.
According to an Associated Press report, the Taliban's Ministry for the Propagation of Virtue and Prevention of Vice has issued a 114-page document outlining regulations covering various aspects of daily life, including women's attire and behavior in public.
The new laws, approved by Taliban supreme leader Hibatullah Akhundzada, mandate that women must veil their bodies at all times in public and cover their faces to "avoid temptation." The regulations also prohibit women from singing, reciting, or reading aloud in public, deeming a woman's voice as "intimate."
Vice President Harris has defended her significant role in the controversial U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan, claiming she was influential in the decision-making process and was present during the final discussions. In an interview with CNN's Dana Bash, she stated her pivotal position in the room when President Biden decided to withdraw all troops.
Following the Taliban's takeover, the Biden-Harris administration provided Afghanistan with $1 billion, yet the exact allocation of these funds remains undisclosed by the Treasury Department and USAID. Activist Riley Gaines has highlighted the lack of public and governmental outrage or significant protest regarding these outcomes.
The recently published document contains 35 articles detailing the Taliban's interpretation of Islamic law. Article 13, which specifically addresses women, requires them to wear clothing that is neither thin, tight, nor short.
It also mandates that women veil themselves in front of all male strangers, including Muslims, and in front of all non-Muslims to "avoid being corrupted."
Furthermore, the new regulations forbid women from looking at men they are not related to by blood or marriage, and vice versa. These strict rules extend to various aspects of public life, including transportation and social gatherings.
The laws also impact other areas of Afghan society. Article 17 bans the publication of images of living beings, potentially affecting the already fragile Afghan media landscape. Article 19 prohibits the playing of music and the transportation of solo female travelers.
The United Nations has expressed significant concern over the expanding role of the Taliban's Ministry for the Propagation of Virtue and Prevention of Vice. A recent U.N. report highlighted the ministry's contribution to a climate of fear and intimidation among Afghans through its edicts and enforcement methods.
Fiona Frazer, the head of the human rights service at the U.N. mission in Afghanistan, stated:
Given the multiple issues outlined in the report, the position expressed by the de facto authorities that this oversight will be increasing and expanding gives cause for significant concern for all Afghans, especially women and girls.
The Taliban, however, has rejected the U.N.'s report and its concerns.
The implementation of these new laws in Afghanistan has reignited debates about women's rights under Taliban rule. The strict regulations on women's appearance and behavior in public spaces represent a significant setback for gender equality in the country. As the international community continues to monitor the situation, questions remain about the long-term implications of these policies and the potential for further restrictions on personal freedoms in Afghanistan.
Republican vice presidential candidate JD Vance appeared on NBC's Meet the Press to address controversial comments he made in 2021 about "childless cat ladies."
As reported by Vanity Fair, Vance's appearance on the show was part of an ongoing effort to explain his past remarks rather than issue an apology. During the interview with host Kristen Welker, Vance attempted to reframe his previous statement, insisting his intention was to advocate for more options for women.
In the summer of 2021, then-Senate candidate Vance told Tucker Carlson that he believed the United States was run by "childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they've made."
When asked about these comments on Meet the Press, Vance stated that in his conversations with women, he consistently hears that "a lot of young women feel like they don't have options." He added, "I just want women to have more choices."
Vance's comments touched on the difficulties faced by working mothers in the United States. According to statistics, approximately 24 million working mothers with children under 18 struggle to balance their careers and family responsibilities. These women often earn less than their male counterparts and typically shoulder a greater share of childcare and household duties.
The Ohio senator has previously made controversial statements regarding women's choices. In one instance, he suggested that women should remain in violent marriages for the sake of their children. These comments have drawn criticism from various quarters and have become a point of contention in his political career.
During the Meet the Press interview, host Kristen Welker provided Vance with multiple opportunities to apologize for his "childless cat ladies" remark. However, Vance consistently avoided offering a direct apology. When asked if he regretted making the comment, Vance responded:
Look, I regret, certainly, that a lot of people took it the wrong way. I think it's important for me to just be a normal human being who sometimes says things that people disagree...
When Welker interjected to ask if he had any regrets, Vance replied with a smile, "I have a lot of regrets, Kristen, but making a joke three years ago is not in the top ten list."
Vance's comments on women's choices extend to his views on abortion rights. In 2023, when Ohio voters chose to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution, Vance expressed strong opposition. He posted a statement on social media platform X (formerly Twitter), describing the pro-choice movement as "sociopathic" for encouraging young women and men to "murder their own children."
During his recent Meet the Press appearance, Vance claimed that his running mate, former President Donald Trump, would not sign a federal abortion ban if elected. This statement contradicts Trump's previous support for such legislation during his time in office.
Vance has consistently advocated for restrictions on abortion access. In 2021, when Texas passed a near-total abortion ban, Vance framed the issue not as a matter of forcing women to carry pregnancies to term but rather as a question of whether a fetus should be allowed to live despite potentially inconvenient circumstances.
In a podcast appearance at the time, Vance elaborated on his stance:
We want women to have opportunities, we want women to have choices, but above all, we want women and young boys in the womb to have the right to life.
In conclusion, JD Vance's recent appearance on Meet the Press highlighted his ongoing efforts to explain and contextualize his past controversial remarks about women. While claiming to support more choices for women, Vance has consistently advocated for policies that would restrict reproductive rights. His reluctance to apologize for his "childless cat ladies" comment, coupled with his stance on abortion, continues to generate debate and criticism from those who view his positions as contradictory to his stated goal of expanding women's options.
In a surprising turn of events, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has found himself at the center of a family controversy.
The former Democratic presidential candidate recently endorsed former President Donald Trump, causing a stir within the Kennedy family and raising questions about the impact on his personal relationships.
In an appearance on "Fox News Sunday," Kennedy addressed the criticism he has faced from his wife and other family members following his endorsement decision.
Kennedy spoke with host Shannon Bream on Fox News, where he responded to a letter from his siblings condemning his endorsement of Trump. The letter, released on Friday, expressed disappointment and claimed that Kennedy had betrayed the family's values.
Kennedy acknowledged the discomfort his decision has caused within his family, particularly mentioning his wife, actress Cheryl Hines, who has expressed her unease with the situation on social media. Despite the tension, Kennedy emphasized the importance of maintaining familial bonds even in the face of political disagreements.
He stated, "I love my family. I feel like we were raised in a milieu where we were encouraged to debate each other and debate ferociously and passionately about things and still love each other."
Kennedy also pointed out that while some family members are troubled by his decisions, others are actively supporting his campaign efforts.
The Kennedy family's long-standing connection to the Democratic Party adds an extra layer of complexity to the situation. Kennedy acknowledged this, mentioning that some of his family members are currently working for the Biden administration.
Kennedy said:
My family is at the center of the Democratic Party. I have members of my family that are working for the Biden administration. Biden has a bust of my father behind him at the Oval Office, and he's been a family friend for many years.
This statement highlights the deep-rooted ties between the Kennedy family and the Democratic establishment, making Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s endorsement of Trump all the more controversial within family circles.
In response to Kennedy's endorsement of Trump, five of his siblings released a public statement reaffirming their support for Vice President Kamala Harris. The letter, signed by Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, Courtney Kennedy, Kerry Kennedy, Chris Kennedy, and Rory Kennedy, expressed their belief in an America defined by individual freedom, economic promise, and national pride.
The siblings' statement boldly declared, "Our brother Bobby's decision to endorse Trump [Friday] is a betrayal of the values that our father and our family hold most dear." This public rebuke from his siblings underscores the divide within the Kennedy family over Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s political choices and allegiances.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s endorsement of former President Trump has created a rift within the Kennedy family, leading to public statements of disapproval from his siblings and discomfort expressed by his wife. Despite the family drama, Kennedy maintains that disagreements should not overshadow familial love and respect. The situation highlights the complex interplay between personal relationships and political convictions, especially within a family with such strong ties to the Democratic Party.
In a world where the lines between free speech and public safety are increasingly blurred, one man's social media posts have ignited a firestorm of controversy.
Elon Musk, the billionaire owner of X (formerly Twitter), has found himself at the center of a heated debate in the United Kingdom over his comments regarding immigration and civil unrest.
According to The Hill, some on the left are calling for Musk's arrest and the cancellation of X, citing concerns about the platform's role in spreading what they deem as misinformation.
The controversy stems from Musk's posts following a tragic incident in Southport, England, where three young girls were killed at a Taylor Swift-themed dance event. In the aftermath, Musk questioned the UK's immigration policies and what he perceived as a "two-tier" system of justice, drawing ire from British authorities and media figures.
Musk's most contentious statement came when he posted, "Civil war in the country is inevitable," referring to the UK. This comment and his critique of Prime Minister Keir Starmer's response to community attacks have led to accusations that Musk is inciting violence and undermining governmental authority.
The Guardian, a left-leaning British newspaper, suggested that Musk's actions in the UK were a "trial balloon" for potential future actions in the United States. This claim has further intensified the debate surrounding Musk's influence and the role of social media platforms in shaping public discourse.
Critics argue that Musk's comments on X have contributed to the spread of misinformation and fueled unrest. However, supporters of Musk contend that he is simply exercising his right to free speech and questioning policies that many citizens are concerned about.
The situation raises important questions about the balance between free speech and public safety. While some argue that Musk's comments are protected under free speech laws, others believe that his platform's reach and influence necessitate greater responsibility.
The calls for Musk's arrest and the cancellation of X highlight a growing trend of using censorship and legal action to silence opposing viewpoints. This approach has alarmed free speech advocates who fear it could lead to a slippery slope of suppressing dissenting opinions.
Musk supporters argue that attempts to silence him and shut down X would set a dangerous precedent for freedom of expression in the digital age. They contend that open dialogue, even on controversial topics, is essential for a healthy democracy.
The controversy surrounding Musk and X raises broader questions about the role of social media platforms in modern society. As these platforms continue to shape public discourse, the debate over how to regulate them while preserving free speech is likely to intensify.
Some argue that social media companies should be held more accountable for the content posted on their platforms, particularly when it comes to potentially inflammatory or misleading information. Others maintain that such regulation would infringe on users' rights to free expression.
In conclusion, the controversy surrounding Elon Musk and X underscores the complex challenges facing society in the digital age. As social media platforms continue to wield significant influence over public discourse, finding a balance between free speech and responsible communication remains a critical challenge. The outcome of this debate could have far-reaching implications for the future of online expression and the role of tech platforms in shaping public opinion.
A tragic incident unfolded in Manhattan, leaving a community in shock and a bride-to-be devastated.
Kirk Walker, 38, was killed in a wrong-way crash on the Henry Hudson Parkway in Harlem early Saturday morning, just one day before his wedding.
According to a report by the New York Post, Walker and his cousin, Rob McLaurin, 40, were celebrating Walker's bachelor party when their Dodge Challenger was struck head-on by a pickup truck traveling in the wrong direction.
The devastated fiancée, Shauntea Weaver, 40, shared her anguish with reporters on Sunday:
I'm supposed to be in my wedding dress right now — not in mourning. I feel like this is a TV show and I'm going to wake up any minute and go back to my real life. Every hour since it happened, I'm having a different emotion take me over.
Weaver and Walker were set to exchange vows at the Royal Manor wedding venue in Garfield, New Jersey, at 5 p.m. on Sunday. The catering hall confirmed that the ceremony had been canceled due to the fatal crash.
The collision occurred around 2:20 a.m. on Saturday near West 154th Street. Both Walker and McLaurin lost their lives in the crash, which left their vehicle severely damaged.
According to police reports, the driver of the pickup truck fled the scene after the accident. However, authorities were able to apprehend the passenger approximately 30 feet from the crash site.
The passenger was subsequently taken to the hospital, though their current condition and potential charges remain unclear.
Walker, a Manhattan resident and father of three, was described by his fiancée as a generous and hardworking man with a heart of gold. The couple had successfully established a car rental business together, which had flourished due to Walker's dedication.
Tommy Lee, Walker's neighbor, spoke highly of him, describing him as family-oriented, helpful, and smart. The news of Walker's passing sent shockwaves through the community, with many expressing disbelief and sorrow.
Weaver expressed her determination to seek justice for her deceased fiancé and his cousin. She revealed that detectives had assured her of their commitment to the case, citing potential DNA evidence left on the airbags of the pickup truck.
The grieving bride-to-be emphasized the need for accountability, stating that the responsible parties must face the consequences for the loss of two innocent lives. While acknowledging that nothing can bring Walker back, Weaver stressed the importance of pursuing justice for the victims and their families.
In conclusion, this tragic incident has left a community reeling, and a family shattered on what should have been a joyous occasion. Kirk Walker and Rob McLaurin's untimely deaths in a wrong-way collision have not only devastated their loved ones but also highlighted the devastating consequences of reckless driving. As authorities continue their investigation, the focus remains on seeking justice for the victims and providing support to their grieving families during this difficult time.
A federal judge has exonerated two former Louisville police officers from felony charges related to the death of Breonna Taylor, attributing responsibility for the fatal shooting to her boyfriend instead.
According to a Fox News report, U.S. District Judge Charles Simpson dropped felony "deprivation of rights under the color of law" charges against former Detective Joshua Jaynes and former Sgt. Kyle Meany.
The judge's ruling on Thursday stated that the actions of Taylor's boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, who fired a shot at police during the raid, were the legal cause of her death, not a faulty warrant. This decision comes after U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland announced federal charges against Jaynes and Meany in August 2022, accusing them of falsifying part of the warrant that led to the dangerous situation at Taylor's apartment.
In his order, Judge Simpson declared that Walker's conduct became the proximate, or legal, cause of Taylor's death. The judge stated that there was no direct link between the warrantless entry and Taylor's death, effectively reducing the civil rights violation charges against Jaynes and Meany from felonies to misdemeanors.
Simpson's ruling emphasized that while the indictment alleged Jaynes and Meany set off a series of events ending in Taylor's death, it also claimed that Walker disrupted those events by deciding to open fire on the police. This decision significantly altered the narrative surrounding the case, which had previously focused on the actions of the police officers involved.
The judge's ruling has been met with mixed reactions, with attorneys for Meany and Jaynes expressing satisfaction with the decision, while Taylor's family expressed devastation and disagreement with the judge's interpretation of events.
The judge's decision has implications for the ongoing legal proceedings related to the Breonna Taylor case. While Simpson declined to dismiss a conspiracy charge against Jaynes and another charge against Meany for making false statements to FBI investigators, the reduction of felony charges to misdemeanors significantly alters the potential consequences for the former officers.
The Justice Department has stated that it is reviewing the judge's decision and assessing next steps. This development may impact the scheduled October retrial of former officer Brett Hankison on civil rights charges, as well as the pending trial of Jaynes and Meany.
It's worth noting that a third former officer, Kelly Goodlett, had previously pleaded guilty to a conspiracy charge and is expected to testify against Jaynes and Meany at their trials. The outcome of these proceedings could have far-reaching consequences for how the Breonna Taylor case is ultimately resolved in the legal system.
Judge Simpson provided the following explanation for his ruling:
While the indictment alleges that Jaynes and Meany set off a series of events that ended in Taylor's death, it also alleges that (Walker) disrupted those events when he decided to open fire on the police.
This decision raises questions about the extent to which police officers can be held accountable for the consequences of their actions during raids, particularly when civilians respond with force. It also highlights the complex legal considerations involved in cases where multiple parties' actions contribute to a tragic outcome.
The judge's ruling may influence future cases involving police shootings and the legal standards applied when determining responsibility for fatalities during law enforcement operations. As the legal proceedings continue, this case will likely remain a focal point in ongoing discussions about police reform and accountability in the United States.
The federal judge's decision to clear two former Louisville police officers of felony charges in the Breonna Taylor case marks a significant shift in the legal narrative surrounding her death. By placing the blame on Taylor's boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, for firing at police during the raid, the judge has altered the potential consequences for the officers involved. This ruling has implications for ongoing legal proceedings and broader discussions about police accountability.
Vice President Kamala Harris briefly mentioned her father, Donald J. Harris, during her acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention (DNC) in Chicago. This rare reference to her father has drawn attention to his background as a "combative Marxist economist," a description given by the Economist.
According to a Fox News report, Donald J. Harris is a retired Stanford University professor of economics with a career steeped in Marxist theory.
Born in Jamaica in 1938, Donald J. Harris immigrated to the United States to pursue his doctorate in economics at the University of California, Berkeley. It was there that he met Shyamala Gopalan, Kamala Harris' mother, who had immigrated from India. The couple married and had two daughters, Kamala and Maya, before divorcing when Kamala was 7 years old.
Donald Harris' academic journey took him through various prestigious institutions, including Northwestern University and the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. In 1972, he joined Stanford University as a professor of economics, where he notably became the first Black scholar to receive tenure within the university's economic school.
The Stanford Daily, the university's student newspaper, described Harris as teaching "radical political economics" and referred to him as a "Marxian economist" in 1974. His approach to economics was characterized by its foundation in Marxist theory, which has led to some controversy and criticism.
After retiring from teaching in 1998, Harris continued to pursue his interests in developing public policies to promote economic growth and social equity. He has since served as an expert on economic growth strategies for his home country of Jamaica.
Throughout her political career, Kamala Harris has rarely mentioned her father. In 2003, she stated, "My father is a good guy, but we are not close." However, in 2021, she told the Washington Post that she and her father were on "good terms."
In her 2019 memoir "The Truths We Hold," Harris only mentioned her father a handful of times, noting that "it was mostly my mother who raised us." During her DNC acceptance speech, she briefly touched on her early memories of her parents, saying:
Donald Harris, in a recent essay, addressed the challenges he faced in maintaining a relationship with his daughters following his divorce from their mother.
He wrote:
After a hard-fought custody battle in the family court of Oakland, California, the context of the relationship was placed within arbitrary limits imposed by a court-ordered divorce settlement based on the false assumption by the State of California that fathers cannot handle parenting. Nevertheless, I persisted, never giving up on my love for my children or reneging on my responsibilities as their father.
In 2019, Donald Harris made a rare public statement in response to his daughter's comments about smoking marijuana. Kamala Harris had joked about her Jamaican heritage when asked about marijuana use, saying, "Half my family's from Jamaica. Are you kidding me?"
Her father took issue with this comment, writing in an essay for a Jamaican media outlet that his parents would be "turning in their grave" over the remark. He stated:
My dear departed grandmothers... as well as my deceased parents, must be turning in their grave right now to see their family's name, reputation and proud Jamaican identity being connected, in any way, jokingly or not with the fraudulent stereotype of a pot-smoking joy seeker and in the pursuit of identity politics.
Donald J. Harris, the father of Vice President Kamala Harris, is a retired Stanford University professor with a background in Marxist economic theory. While his relationship with his daughter has been described as complicated, he has maintained a low public profile throughout her political career. His academic contributions and occasional public statements have provided insight into the complex family dynamics of one of America's most prominent political figures.