StatusWire — Clear Updates for Your U.S. Journey

What is ‘Semiquincentennial’? The word confusing internet ahead of America’s 250th anniversary

Indian Express – World

3h ago

What is ‘Semiquincentennial’? The word confusing internet ahead of America’s 250th anniversary

Summary

As the United States prepares to celebrate the 250th anniversary of its independence on July 4, 2026, one unusual word has become almost as widely discussed as the milestone itself: “Semiquincentennial”. It is the formally adopted term used by the US Semiquincentennial Commission, the body Congress established in 2016 to organise the anniversary, according to America250.org, the commission’s official nonprofit support organisation. With inputs from America250.org, the US Mint, the Smithsonian Institution and the US Department of State The Express Global Desk at indianexpress.com which delivers authoritative, verified, and context-driven coverage of key international developments shaping global politics, policy, and migration trends. The desk focuses on stories with direct relevance for Indian and global audiences, combining breaking news with in-depth explainers and analysis. A major focus area of the desk is US immigration and visa policy, including developments related to student visas, work permits, permanent residency pathways, executive actions, and court rulings. The Global Desk also closely tracks Canada’s immigration, visa, and study policies, covering changes to study permits, post-study work options, permanent residence programmes, and regulatory updates affecting migrants and international students. All reporting from the Global Desk adheres to The Indian Express’ editorial standards, relying on official data, government notifications, court documents, and on-record sources. Core Team The Express Global Desk is led by a team of experienced journalists and editors with deep expertise in international affairs and migration policy: Aniruddha Dhar – Senior Assistant Editor with extensive experience in global affairs, international politics, and editorial leadership. Nischai Vats – Deputy Copy Editor specialising in US politics, US visa and immigration policy, and policy-driven international coverage. Mashkoora Khan – Sub-editor focusing on global developments, with a strong emphasis on Canada visa, immigration, and study-related policy coverage. ...

From the source

What is ‘Semiquincentennial’? The word confusing internet ahead of America’s 250th anniversary

Read the full article

Published by Indian Express – World on indianexpress.com

Open on indianexpress.com ↗

US Supreme Court hands wealthy donors more sway with latest decision

The United States Supreme Court’s decision to lift limits on how much political parties can spend in coordination with a candidate will provide greater flexibility for political fundraising. The court on Tuesday ruled in the Federal Election Commission (FEC) v The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) case, which overturned a more than 50-year-old federa l election law that limited coordinated spending efforts between political parties and their candidates. Unlike super political action committees (super PACs), which are prohibited from coordinating directly with campaigns and instead spend independently on advertisements supporting or opposing candidates or ballot initiatives, political parties can coordinate directly with candidates’ campaigns. Because of that coordination, spending by political parties has historically been subject to federal campaign spending limits. The challenge was brought by party committees representing two Republican candidates— then-Representative Steve Chabot of Ohio and then-Senate candidate JD Vance. “This decision, as with its other campaign finance decisions since Citizens United, will inevitably render the government more responsive to special interests and indifferent to the demands of the American people,” Donald Sherman, president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, a Washington, DC-based watchdog group, said in a statement. The Republican committees then appealed the ruling to the US Supreme Court. The Supreme Court then allowed the law’s supporters to intervene and defend it in the government’s place. For Senate candidates, restrictions were as low as $127,000 for some races and as much as $3.9m for races in more populous states. Senate Democrats slammed the court’s decision, saying it is a “win for billionaire donors and special interests who want more influence over the GOP agenda and an invitation for corruption”, in a statement. But experts believe that combined, these changes could incentivise politicians even more to cater to special interests. “Yet again, the Supreme Court ignored the real-world impacts of its decision to grant high-dollar donors greater influence over our democracy,” Sherman added.

General U.S. News1h ago

Trump attorney general plots crackdown on ‘birth tourism’ after supreme court ruling

Todd Blanche to target tourists and migrants despite such births accounting for less than 1% of US babies born yearly A day after the US supreme court upheld the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship, the acting attorney general, Todd Blanche, has said federal prosecutors and law enforcement officers will focus on combating so-called “birth tourism” – the process of tourists, temporary visitors and undocumented immigrants traveling to the US and giving birth. “There’s other things that [the Department if Homeland Security] can do, and the federal government can do in the visa process, and the application process, to try to minimize or limit the opportunity of folks coming here not to visit, and not to do what they’re saying they’re doing on the tourist visa, but just to have a baby that can then be a US citizen,” Blanche told reporters. “What we have to do as Department of Justice is make sure our agents, our [Homeland Security Investigations] agents that we work with, and the FBI are focused on stopping that.” Shortly after the court’s last ruling of its current term, the assistant attorney general for the national fraud division also, in an office-wide memo, directed justice department staff to bring fraud charges in alleged cases of birth tourism. “The Department of Justice will zealously protect the sanctity of United States citizenship by investigating and prosecuting those who fraudulently exploit our immigration system,” Colin McDonald wrote. During the oral arguments in the Trump v Barbara case in April, the government’s lawyer D John Sauer conceded that “no one knows for sure” how significant a problem so-called birth tourism actually is. The Center for Immigration Studies, an anti-immigration thinktank, said that there are between 20,000 to 26,000 births by women on tourist visas annually. This is less than 1% of all babies born in the US each year. Nonetheless, the practice has been the bedrock of the Trump administration’s argument against birthright citizenship. Many Republicans and allies of the president have repeated concerns with limited evidence that shows birth tourism to be a sizable problem. “I do think that this has been grossly abused in recent years,” the House speaker, Mike Johnson, said at a press conference on Tuesday. “You just come on to the soil and have your child, and then they’re they’re able to avail themselves of the welfare state and everything else.” Trump’s executive order sought to redefine the meaning of the 14th amendment based on the claim that children born to non-citizen parents who are either unlawfully in the country or who possess temporary legal status, such as tourists or foreign students, are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US and therefore ineligible for birthright citizenship. However, a majority of the supreme court proved unconvinced in the 6-3 decision, with the chief justice, John Roberts, writing that the administration provided “scant evidence for this dramatically revisionist view”. Trump is now pushing for lawmakers to create new legislation that establishes exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to parents who do not have permanent legal status in the US. But any legislation would need to overcome the 60-vote filibuster, which has proved to be frequently insurmountable on extremely divisive bills during his second term. I do,” the vice-president said. “I don’t know how anybody can say that if a person who is an illegal alien, or a person for example who’s pregnant and comes to the United States on a vacation, they have a baby and all of a sudden their entire family gets the benefits of American citizenship … I don’t think that’s what the framers of the 14th amendment had in mind.”

theguardian.com Read ↗

What is ‘Semiquincentennial’? The word confusing internet ahead of America’s 250th anniversary

From the source

More in General U.S. News

US Supreme Court hands wealthy donors more sway with latest decision

Despite marquee losses, Supreme Court term grows Trump’s presidential power

Trump attorney general plots crackdown on ‘birth tourism’ after supreme court ruling