p dir=”ltr”>A son of filmmaker Rob Reiner and producer Michele Singer Reiner has been arrested on suspicion of murder and is being held without bail. Authorities in Rhode Island are asking for the public’s help in identifying the gunman behind the shooting at Brown University. And, Australian authorities say the two suspected gunmen behind the mass shooting at a Hanukkah celebration on Bondi Beach were inspired by Islamic State.
<
p dir=”ltr”>Want more analysis of the most important news of the day, plus a little fun? Subscribe to the Up First newsletter.
<
p dir=”ltr”>Today’s episode of Up First was edited by Matteen Mokalla, Andrea DeLeon, Rebecca Rosman, Lisa Thomson and Alice Woefle.
<
p dir=”ltr”>It was produced by Ziad Buchh, Nia Dumas and Christopher Thomas.
<
p dir=”ltr”>We get engineering support from Stacey Abbott. Our technical director is Carleigh Strange. And our Supervising Senior Producer is Vince Pearson.
Europe’s push to shift asylum procedures to third countries risks outsourcing not only refugees, but also its moral and political responsibility.
VIENNA, Austria, Dec 16 2025 (IPS) – The debate on reforming the European asylum system has gained significant momentum following the agreement reached by EU interior ministers last week. Alongside questions of solidarity and distribution, the possibility of establishing ‘return hubs’ outside the EU was at the heart of the meeting.
Outsourcing asylum procedures – or at least those concerning rejected asylum seekers – has long been a desire of many heads of state and government, and the European Commission now aims to make this possible by creating the necessary legal foundations, for example by scrapping the so-called connection criterion. In future, rejected asylum seekers would therefore no longer need to demonstrate a personal link to the third country to which they are transferred.
Previously, such links included earlier stays or family members living there. Yet the EU remains a long way from concrete implementation.
One reason is the high cost of such outsourcing projects. According to the UK’s National Audit Office, the British Rwanda deal cost the equivalent of more than €800 million, with limited effect: only four asylum seekers were relocated over two years.
Under Prime Minister Keir Starmer, the plan was shelved for good due to excessive costs and minimal benefit. And despite the heated migration debate in the United Kingdom, a revival appears unlikely. Denmark faced a similar situation with its own Rwanda plans, which the country put on hold in 2023 due to unfeasibility. And then there is the much-cited Italy–Albania agreement, whose original idea – conducting asylum procedures under Italian law on Albanian soil – was never implemented.
Practical implementation remains doubtful
What third countries gain from allowing such outsourcing on their territory is obvious: money, and even more importantly, political capital. Speaking on a panel at the ‘Time to Decide Europe’ conference organised by the Vienna-based ERSTE Foundation, Albania’s Prime Minister and Socialist Edi Rama stated openly that his small country of just under three million people must join any alliance willing to take it in.
This includes – and above all – the EU. For Albania, which is an EU candidate country, it therefore makes sense to appear accommodating to a not insignificant member state with which it is also historically closely connected, and to help solve its unpopular ‘migration question’, at least to the extent that refugees arriving in Italy do receive protection, but, in practice, ‘not in my backyard’.
So far, however, this principle has not been put into action due to objections raised by Italian courts. That is also why – and to put the costly asylum camps built in the Albanian towns of Shëngjin and Gjadër (construction and operations are believed to have already cost hundreds of millions of euros) to some use – the European Commission created the option of return hubs, which were formally adopted last week at the meeting of EU ministers.
Italy can therefore repurpose the facilities originally intended for asylum procedures as deportation centres for asylum seekers who were already on Italian territory and whose applications have been legally rejected. Here too, the number of cases remains limited, and it is unclear on what legal basis those transferred there could be held for extended periods to prevent them from re-entering the EU via Montenegro and Bosnia. De facto detention, however, would present yet another legal complication, even if the connection criterion and other EU-law barriers are removed.
Anyone striving for ‘fair burden-sharing’ would have to redistribute towards Europe, not away from it.
There is, therefore, still a long way to go before any concrete return hubs become reality. Not only because, in the usual trilogue process, the European Parliament must also give its approval — and some MEPs, including Birgit Sippel of the Socialists and Democrats group, have already announced their opposition.
But even if a parliamentary majority can be secured, the practical implementation remains doubtful: where are the trustworthy and willing third countries; how can infrastructure be built there; how can respect for human rights standards be monitored and enforced from Europe (which proves difficult even within an EU member state such as Hungary); and how should looming legal disputes be handled?
Among the countries mentioned so far are several that themselves regularly appear among the places of origin of refugees arriving in Europe. Alongside Rwanda, the East African state of Uganda is frequently cited; it already hosts the largest number of refugees from other parts of Africa, especially from Sudan, South Sudan, Burundi and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Like Rwanda, it lies directly next to regional conflict zones; the protection rate for Ugandan nationals in European host countries stands at around 60 per cent.
The country is considered authoritarian — and precisely for that reason, it has an interest in striking an outsourcing deal with EU member states, such as the one it has already concluded with the Netherlands. Such an agreement implicitly acknowledges and legitimises the Ugandan government.
The notorious EU–Turkey Statement of 2016 demonstrated how refugees accommodated in third countries can repeatedly be used as leverage in foreign policy disputes, for example when Prime Minister Erdoğan had them bussed to the Greek border to put pressure on the EU. EU strategists may euphemistically call this ‘migration diplomacy’, but for the layperson, it is simply blackmail.
The example of Uganda illustrates not only how Europe, through deals with third countries, outsources not just refugees but also bargaining power and control; it also reflects the fundamental imbalance in a one-sided debate on externalisation.
Already today, 71 per cent of all refugees find protection in developing and emerging countries, with 66 per cent hosted in neighbouring countries in the Global South or the Middle East and North Africa. Anyone striving for ‘fair burden-sharing’ would therefore have to redistribute towards Europe, not away from it.
Europe’s answer cannot, under any circumstances, be to emulate the Trump administration by resorting to ever-tougher asylum policies.
This leads to the fundamental questions that EU policymakers appear increasingly unwilling to ask, let alone answer: How does Europe want to position itself in future with regard to global refugee protection? How will people in need of protection from persecution – whose numbers are rising in an ever more unstable world – gain access to that protection?
How can the liberal post-war order be preserved, including and especially the Geneva Conventions, which were created in response to the lessons of the two World Wars and the Shoah? How should Europe position itself vis-à-vis an increasingly illiberal, in parts authoritarian United States, which now tends to view Europe more as an adversary than a partner?
A confident response to the new US national security strategy – which claims that migration threatens Europe with ‘civilisational erasure’ – must lie in emphasising Europe’s civilisational achievements since 1945. These include, above all, the prohibition of torture enshrined in Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights: it applies absolutely, and therefore also to asylum seekers who are obliged to leave and who may not be deported to countries where they risk inhuman treatment. This is precisely where the line between civilisation and barbarism lies.
Furthermore, a united Europe that wants to stand its ground against attacks from former allies must recognise societal diversity as one of its strengths, and acknowledge the indispensable contribution that migrants – from guest workers and refugees to highly skilled expats – have made to Europe’s reconstruction and prosperity.
Europe’s answer cannot, under any circumstances, be to emulate the Trump administration by resorting to ever-tougher asylum policies that effectively validate the American assessment.
For that would indeed amount to an obliteration — an obliteration of the founding idea of a united, open and liberal Europe which, let us not forget, received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2012 and stands for a rules-based order that has ensured decades of peace as well as economic prosperity. In short: for the very life that we are fortunate enough to enjoy day after day, in diversity, security and freedom.
Dr Judith Kohlenberger heads the FORM research institute at WU Vienna and is affiliated with the Austrian Institute for International Affairs, the Jacques Delors Centre Berlin and the Einstein Centre Digital Future. Her book Das Fluchtparadox (The Flight Paradox) was named Austrian Science Book of the Year in 2023 and nominated for the German Non-Fiction Prize. Her most recent publication is Migrationspanik (Migration Panic) (2025).
Source: International Politics and Society (IPS), Brussels, Belgium
Australian authorities have more detail about who they believe killed at least 15 people in a shooting at a Hanukkah celebration over the weekend. Authorities say they’ll release a “Person of Interest” detained after the Brown University shooting. And, police are investigating the reported deaths of actor and director Rob Reiner and his wife Michele Singer Reiner.
Want more analysis of the most important news of the day, plus a little fun? Subscribe to the Up First newsletter.
Today’s episode of Up First was edited by Rebecca Rosman, Alfredo Carbajal, Matteen Mokalla , Lisa Thomson and Arezou Rezvani.
It was produced by Ziad Buchh, Nia Dumas and Christopher Thomas.
We get engineering support from Neisha Heinis. And our technical director is Carleigh Strange.
Abraham Quintanilla, the father of late singer Selena Quintanilla, has died. He was 86.
“It’s with a heavy heart to let you guys know that my Dad passed away today…,” the late singer’s brother, Abraham “A.B.” Isaac Quintanilla, wrote via Instagram on Saturday, December 13, announcing his father’s death. Abraham’s son also shared a photo of his father, wearing rose-colored sunglasses.
The cause of death has not been made public.
Selena’s father married her mother, Marcella Quintanilla, in June 1963. In addition to their famous daughter and A.B., the pair also welcomed daughter Suzette.
Abraham took on the role of Selena’s manager as her music career took off. Her musical rise was truly a family enterprise, as A.B. played the bass and Suzette played the drums in her band.
In 2021, Abraham shared excerpts from his memoir A Father’s Dream: My Family’s Journey in Music with 3News. He also told the news station of the book, “It has a lot of things in there the public wants to know. Because there’s always been, and now it’s grown even more curiosity about Selena.”
He added, “You have to understand that people have sometimes the wrong image of musicians. But they forget one thing: that being involved in music is also a business, and for me it was a business, it became a business.”
While speaking about the beginning of Selena’s career, Abraham reflected on what the experience was like for the entire family. “At first it was a dream and then within time it became a reality because Selena became one of the leading female artists in the world,” he said
Selena was shot dead in Corpus Christi, Texas, at the age of 23 by her former friend and business associate Yolanda Saldívar, who was also accused of embezzling money from the singer’s business in the months that preceded the shooting.
Coroners ruled the death a homicide despite Saldívar’s claim it was accidental.
Marcella Quintanilla and Abraham QuintanillaBob Levey/WireImage
Us Weekly obtained the original 1995 report that confirmed that Selena died from a bullet wound to her lower right shoulder. The coroner further confirmed Selena died from “exsanguinating internal and external [bleeding] due to [a] perforating gunshot wound.”
“It is my opinion that Selena Quintanilla Pérez, a 23-year-old woman, came to her death as a result of an exsanguinating internal and external hemorrhage, in other words massive bleeding, due to a perforating gunshot wound of the thorax (chest),” coroner Lloyd White wrote.
Saldívar was charged with first-degree murder and was convicted in October 1995. Despite making a parole request in December 2024, as of November 2025, Saldívar has not been released from custody. Saldívar has served her sentence at a women’s prison in Gatesville, Texas.
“It was the parole panel’s determination to deny parole to Yolanda Saldívar and set her next parole review for March 2030,” the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles confirmed via a statement obtained by Us.
“While nothing can bring Selena back, this decision reaffirms that justice continues to stand for the beautiful life that was taken from us and from millions of fans around the world far too soon,” the Quintanillas said via Instagram at the time. “Selena’s legacy is one of love, music, and inspiration. She lived with joy, gave selflessly, and continues to uplift generations with her voice and her spirit.”
Share this:
Like this:
LikeLoading…
Discover more from The Maravi Post
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says he’s willing to hold elections if the US and other allies help ensure security. Is that a promise Trump can make as he pushes Ukraine to surrender territory to Russia Also, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a man illegally deported by the Trump administration in March and eventually returned, is now free from immigration custody. Plus, Republicans in Indiana have rejected a redistricting proposal. President Trump successfully pushed other states to redraw their congressional maps to help Republicans win next year’s midterm elections, so why did Indiana’s Republicans break with the president?
Want more analysis of the most important news of the day, plus a little fun? Subscribe to the Up First newsletter.
Today’s episode of Up First was edited by Kate Bartlett, Anna Yukhananov, Larry Kaplow and Alice Woelfle.
It was produced by Ziad Buchh, Nia Dumas and Christopher Thomas.
We get engineering support from Stacey Abbott. Our technical director is Carleigh Strange
GENEVA, Dec 11 2025 (IPS) – Human rights are underfunded, undermined and under attack. And yet. Powerful. Undeterred. Mobilizing.
This year no doubt has been a difficult one. And one full of dangerous contradictions. Funding for human rights has been slashed, while anti-rights movements are increasingly well-funded.
Profits for the arms industry are soaring, while funding for humanitarian aid and grassroots civil society plummets. Those defending rights and justice are attacked, sanctioned and hauled before courts, even as those ordering the commission of atrocity crimes continue to enjoy impunity.
Diversity, equity and inclusion policies that were adopted to address historical and structural injustices are being vilified as unjust. The prognosis would be incredibly dire if these were the only trends. But the pushback on human rights is facing pushback from a groundswell of human rights activism.
In Nepal, Serbia, Madagascar, Kenya, Bangladesh, Ecuador, Paraguay, the Philippines, Indonesia, Tanzania, Morocco, Peru and beyond, mostly young people have taken to the streets and to social media against inequalities, against corruption or repression, in favour of freedom of expression, and for their everyday essential rights.
People across the world have also been protesting against war and injustice, and demanding climate action, in places far from home, expressing solidarity and pressuring their governments to take action.
I urge governments around the world to harness the energy of these social movements into opportunities for broader transformational reforms rather than rushing to suppress them or label them as extremist threats to national security. They are, in fact, the exact opposite of threats to national security.
On the challenges I had set out earlier, here is some data:
Funding: Our resources have been slashed, along with funding for human rights organisations – including at the grassroots level – around the world. We are in survival mode.
My Office has had about USD 90 million less than we needed this year, which means around 300 jobs have been lost, and essential work has had to be cut, including on Colombia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Myanmar, Tunisia and other countries at a time when the needs are rising.
Special Rapporteur country visits and investigative missions by fact-finding bodies have also been reduced, sometimes drastically. Crucial dialogues with States on their compliance with UN human rights treaties have had to be postponed – last year there were 145 State party reviews, we are down to 103 this year.
We see that all this has extensive ripple effects on international and national efforts to protect human rights.
Meanwhile, anti-rights and anti-gender movements are increasingly coordinated and well-funded, operating across borders. According to the European Parliamentary Forum for Sexual and Reproductive Rights, for example, almost USD 1.2 billion was mobilized by anti-rights groups in Europe between 2019 and 2023.
There is significant money flowing into the anti-rights agenda from funders based in Europe, Russia and the United States of America. Such massive funding, coupled with media capture and disinformation strategies have made the anti-rights agenda a powerful cross-regional force.
Another distressing dataset is that from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). It says that arms and military services revenues for the 100 largest arms companies reached a record USD 679 billion in 2024. SIPRI has said demand was boosted by wars in Ukraine and Gaza, by global and regional geopolitical tensions, and ever-higher military expenditure.
There have been efforts this year to secure ceasefires and peace deals, which are certainly welcome. However, for peace to be sustainable, human rights must play a central role. There From prevention to negotiating to monitoring to accountability, recovery and peacebuilding.
And we need to do a reality check.
As we have seen in Gaza and in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, agreements have yet to translate into effective protection of civilians on the ground.
Gaza remains a place of unimaginable suffering, loss and fear. While the bloodshed has reduced, it has not stopped. Attacks by Israel continue, including on individuals approaching the so-called “yellow line”, residential buildings, and IDP tents and shelters as well as other civilian objects.
Access to essential services and goods remain severely inadequate. In the West Bank, we are seeing unprecedent levels of attacks by Israeli forces and settlers against Palestinians, forcing them from their land. This is a time to intensify pressure and advocacy – not to sink into complacency – for Palestinians across the occupied territory.
Clashes between the DRC armed forces and the Rwandan-backed M23 armed group continue, alongside serious human rights violations and abuses. Civilians, again, are bearing the brunt. Overnight, you’ll have seen, there have been reports of thousands fleeing the densely populated South Kivu city of Uvira amid escalating clashes between the M23 and DRC armed forces, backed by Wazalendo militia.
This comes just days after the DRC and Rwanda reaffirmed their commitment to implement the June 2025 Washington Peace Agreement. Over the years, we have documented outrageous violations against civilians in Uvira, including rape and sexual and gender-based violence. The risk of a broader regional confrontation appears to be increasing.
In Sudan, the brutal conflict between the army and the Rapid Support Forces continues unabated. From Darfur and the Kordofans to Khartoum and Omdurman and beyond, no Sudanese civilian has been left untouched by the cruel and senseless violence. I am extremely that we might see a repeat of the atrocities committed in El Fasher in Kordofan.
In Ukraine, civilian harm has risen sharply. Civilian casualties so far this year are 24 per cent higher than the same period last year, largely due to Russia’s increased use of powerful long-range weapons in large numbers and its continuing efforts across broad front to capture further Ukrainian territory by armed force.
Large-scale attacks on Ukraine’s energy system have caused emergency outages and prolonged daily electricity cuts, disruptions to water and heating services in many areas. Urgent steps need to be taken to alleviate suffering, including the return of transferred children, the exchange of all prisoners of war, and the unconditional release of civilian detainees held by Russian authorities.
For any sustainable peace to be negotiated, it is important that confidence-building measures are taken, grounded in human rights, including steps to alleviate civilian suffering, promote accountability and preserve a basis for future dialogue. And, importantly, women need to be a part of this process.
It is imperative that peace deals and ceasefires are secured and implemented in good faith. And with full respect for international law, which can never be set aside for political convenience.
It is also critical to counter the demonization of and hatemongering rhetoric against migrants and refugees. In various countries, worryingly, we are seeing violent pushbacks, large-scale raids, arrest and returns without due process, criminalization of migrants and refugees and those who support them, as well as the outsourcing of responsibilities under international law.
I urge States to embark on an evidence-based policy debate on migration and refugee issues, anchored in international human rights and refugee law.
In the course of many electoral campaigns this year, we have also seen a pattern of democratic backsliding, restrictive civic space and electoral violence.
Myanmar’s upcoming military-imposed “election”, is accompanied by new waves of acute insecurity and violence, continued arrests and detentions of opponents, voter coercion, the use of extensive electronic surveillance tools and systemic discrimination. I fear this process will only further deepen insecurity, fear and polarization throughout the country.
There is, unfortunately, never a shortage of human rights challenges to face, issues to resolve, and values to defend. What is heartening is that there are so many of us, around the world, attached to the same universal human rights values – no matter the noise, the gaslighting, and the persistent injustices.
I am energized by the social movements – particularly those led by young people. They are writing the latest chapters in the time-honoured struggle for our collective humanity and dignity. Journalists, activists, and human rights defenders have been at the forefront of the global movement for freedom, equality and justice.
Such perseverance has achieved landmark victories for the rights of women, migrants, people discriminated against on the basis of descent, minorities, our environment, and so much more.
