Mahmoud Khalil refuses to outright condemn Hamas
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Tenants of Quebec public lands call proposed rent increases 'unacceptable and indefensible'
A group representing tenants of public lands in Quebec is speaking out against the province's plan to increase the rent for many of its members, describing the proposal as "unacceptable and indefensible." The province rents out public land, mostly in wooded areas and near bodies of water, to Quebecers who can use them as camp sites, hunting camps or to build cottages. Under the Natural Resources and Forestry Ministry's proposal, people with vacation lots would see their minimum rent go up by 46 per cent, meaning it would go from $343 to $500. For those with rough shelters, the hike would be 52 per cent, going from $198 to $300 per year. The new prices, outlined in Quebec's Official Gazette, would take effect next January. The Regroupement des locataires des terres publiques du Québec said the increase would affect about 26,000 members in total. "We understand that it has to increase, but why so much?" said Bertrand Grenier, an administrator of the association who has rented his own public land lot near Chibougamau since 1981. The Ministry said in a statement to Radio-Canada that the rents hadn't been revised in 15 years, and that "it's only fair to update the rates to better reflect the fair value of the land." But Grenier says that the rates have been increasing steadily for years, with his own lot going from 263$ a year in 2010 to 577$ in 2024. His own rent would be raised by less than 46 or 52 per cent because he pays more than the minimum fee, but he is speaking out on behalf of those affected by the steep increases, he said. He added that the association have known of the proposed increases since the winter, and had been in negotiations with the Ministry. "The rent of the land is one thing, but we pay municipal taxes," he said. "And we also, believe it or not, we also pay school taxes." He added that the high demand for the land allows the government to increase prices to their liking. In 2021, over 28,000 people signed up to access the 189 lots made available that year, according to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. The province uses a lottery system to give out these lands. Grenier says the association hopes to put enough pressure on the government to accept their proposal to spread the increases over five years. In a statement, the ministry wrote that "draft regulations are currently under consultation, and we are listening to all stakeholders."
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Judge blocks Trump's birthright citizenship restrictions in third ruling since high court decision
BOSTON (AP) — A federal judge on Friday blocked the Trump administration from ending birthright citizenship for the children of parents who are in the U.S. illegally, issuing the third court ruling blocking the birthright order nationwide since a key Supreme Court decision in June. U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, joining another district court as well as an appellate panel of judges, found that a nationwide injunction granted to more than a dozen states remains in force under an exception to the Supreme Court ruling. That decision restricted the power of lower-court judges to issue nationwide injunctions. The states have argued Trump's birthright citizenship order is blatantly unconstitutional and threatens millions of dollars for health insurance services that are contingent on citizenship status. The issue is expected to move quickly back to the nation's highest court. White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said in a statement the administration looked forward to "being vindicated on appeal.' New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, who helped lead the lawsuit before Sorokin, said in a statement he was 'thrilled the district court again barred President Trump's flagrantly unconstitutional birthright citizenship order from taking effect anywhere.' "American-born babies are American, just as they have been at every other time in our Nation's history,' he added. "The President cannot change that legal rule with the stroke of a pen.' Lawyers for the government had argued Sorokin should narrow the reach of his earlier ruling granting a preliminary injunction, saying it should be 'tailored to the States' purported financial injuries.' Sorokin said a patchwork approach to the birthright order would not protect the states in part because a substantial number of people move between states. He also blasted the Trump administration, saying it had failed to explain how a narrower injunction would work. 'That is, they have never addressed what renders a proposal feasible or workable, how the defendant agencies might implement it without imposing material administrative or financial burdens on the plaintiffs, or how it squares with other relevant federal statutes,' the judge wrote. 'In fact, they have characterized such questions as irrelevant to the task the Court is now undertaking. The defendants' position in this regard defies both law and logic.' Sorokin acknowledged his order would not be the last word on birthright citizenship. Trump and his administration 'are entitled to pursue their interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and no doubt the Supreme Court will ultimately settle the question,' Sorokin wrote. 'But in the meantime, for purposes of this lawsuit at this juncture, the Executive Order is unconstitutional.' The administration has not yet appealed any of the recent court rulings. Trump's efforts to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily will remain blocked unless and until the Supreme Court says otherwise. A federal judge in New Hampshire issued a ruling earlier this month prohibiting Trump's executive order from taking effect nationwide in a new class-action lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Joseph LaPlante in New Hampshire had paused his own decision to allow for the Trump administration to appeal, but with no appeal filed, his order went into effect. On Wednesday, a San Francisco-based appeals court found the president's executive order unconstitutional and affirmed a lower court's nationwide block. A Maryland-based judge said last week that she would do the same if an appeals court signed off. The justices ruled last month that lower courts generally can't issue nationwide injunctions, but it didn't rule out other court orders that could have nationwide effects, including in class-action lawsuits and those brought by states. The Supreme Court did not decide whether the underlying citizenship order is constitutional. Plaintiffs in the Boston case earlier argued that the principle of birthright citizenship is 'enshrined in the Constitution,' and that Trump does not have the authority to issue the order, which they called a 'flagrantly unlawful attempt to strip hundreds of thousands of American-born children of their citizenship based on their parentage.' They also argue that Trump's order halting automatic citizenship for babies born to people in the U.S. illegally or temporarily would cost states funding they rely on to 'provide essential services' — from foster care to health care for low-income children, to 'early interventions for infants, toddlers, and students with disabilities.' At the heart of the lawsuits is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War and the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision. That decision found that Scott, an enslaved man, wasn't a citizen despite having lived in a state where slavery was outlawed. The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship. 'These courts are misinterpreting the purpose and the text of the 14th Amendment,' Jackson, the White House spokeswoman, said in her statement. ____ Associated Press reporter Mark Sherman in Washington contributed.
Bloomberg
38 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
How a US Trade War With China Could Become a Hot War
Listen to Odd Lots on Apple Podcasts Listen to Odd Lots on Spotify Tension between the US and China has been building for some time. But so far this has been limited to issues of trade. The US has imposed tariffs on China. It's imposed restrictions on technology exports. In turn, China has imposed some of its own tariffs, and also limited the export of things like rare earths. But historically speaking, many hot wars have their roots in some kind of trade-related tensions between nations. So the risk exists that a trade war one day becomes a hot war. So how does this happen, and how can it be avoided? On this episode, we speak with Dale Copeland, a professor of international relations at the University of Virginia. He discusses his theories of trade, and we discuss his most recent book, A World Safe for Commerce: American Foreign Policy From the Revolution to the Rise of China, which specifically discusses the prospect for an outright US-China confrontation.
