For the second time this month, President Joe Biden has flown solo on immigration policy. 

On Tuesday, the president announced his administration would make it easier for unauthorized immigrants who have married U.S. citizens to legalize their status. This follows an action earlier this month that limits access to asylum at the U.S. southern border. 

The alternating scorn and praise for these new measures fall largely along ideological lines. Yet as the election looms less than half a year away, the president has signaled a willingness to act – and risk litigation – while lawmakers remain stalemated over deeper reform.

“We can both secure the border and provide legal pathways to citizenship,” said President Biden at a White House event Tuesday. Under his administration, illegal crossings at the southern border have soared to historic highs – more than 2 million for each of the past two fiscal years.

The new process makes it easier for certain unauthorized immigrants to earn lawful permanent residence, through their families. Some half a million “noncitizen spouses” could be eligible, estimates the Department of Homeland Security. That’s fewer than 5% of the more than 11 million unauthorized immigrants estimated to live in the United States.

“I think it’s historic,” says Cori Alonso-Yoder, a law professor at George Washington University. The White House may be “counting on this being seen as a commonsense fix to a broken immigration system that Congress hasn’t stepped in to make more humane,” she says.

The changes won’t take effect immediately. Additional measures announced today involve employment-based visas. Here’s what we know so far.

What changes is Biden making?

Unauthorized immigrants who are married to U.S. citizens – and have lived here for at least 10 years – will have an easier time applying to become a lawful permanent resident. That’s another way to say green-card holder. The process is expected to roll out sometime this summer.

Immigrants without a lawful status can already apply for a green card through their U.S. citizen spouse, under current law. However, applying often requires the applicant to leave the U.S. and wait out the process for years abroad – an indefinite separation period from their American family. The new process would offer a permission called “parole in place” as a steppingstone to securing a green card without having to exit the country.

Susan Walsh/AP

President Joe Biden speaks during an event marking the 12th anniversary of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, in the East Room of the White House in Washington, June 18, 2024. President Biden also discussed his administration's plans to make it easier for unauthorized immigrants who have married U.S. citizens to legalize their status.

For Marisol, a U.S. citizen in Colorado, and her husband, who crossed into the U.S. illegally two decades ago, eligibility would relieve substantial mental health and financial tolls. 

Marisol, an immigrant housing advocate who asked that only her first name be used for privacy, says they’ve pursued an expensive, yearslong process of trying to secure her husband’s green card amid immigration court proceedings. Unable to reenter the U.S. easily if he were to depart now, her husband has sacrificed seeing his family in Guatemala for 17 years. He recently missed the death of his father. 

The looming question of his future in the U.S. has also complicated their plans to build a family, says Marisol, who says she’s always wanted children. “If we were to have children right now, and then he gets deported ... Am I going to be able to raise a child on my own?” 

Those eligible under the new policy need to be approved by the Department of Homeland Security and can receive work authorization for up to three years, along with protection from deportation. Green-card holders can apply for citizenship after five years. 

The announcement comes two weeks after the White House limited access to asylum along the southern border. Immigrant rights groups have sued, claiming the policies conflict with the right under U.S. law to seek asylum – even if a migrant entered the country illegally.

The June 4 border action “can be understood as the stick in the Biden administration’s use of this carrot-and-stick approach,” says Ms. Alonso-Yoder.

Has this type of immigration relief been offered before? 

Yes. As is often the case in immigration, the new Biden policies aren’t entirely new, but rather are new uses of old tools. Again, an unauthorized immigrant can already try to legalize their status through their American spouse under current law, but the process can lead to family separation. 

Parole, a temporary permission to enter the U.S., has been one tool available to presidents since the Cold War. Mr. Biden has used parole more expansively than the Trump administration and has framed it as an orderly alternative to illegal border crossings based on humanitarian need. His administration has allowed in more than a million immigrants under this provision who may have been otherwise unable to enter.

Republican-led states sued to stop a parole process he created for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans, alleging the president had breached the bounds of his authority. A Trump-appointed judge this year threw out that lawsuit based on the plaintiffs’ lack of standing to bring the case.

“Parole in place,” the process used in Tuesday’s announcement, is a different application of parole. It refers to an option for unauthorized immigrants who are already in the country – not seeking entry at an official port. For instance, U.S. military members and veterans have been able to pursue this process to legalize the status of family members at risk of deportation.

Many Americans “incorrectly believe that once you marry a U.S. citizen, you’re just automatically given a green card or automatically given citizenship,” says Theresa Cardinal Brown, senior adviser for immigration and border policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center. “That is absolutely not the case. It is a multistep process.” 

While the new policy “won’t cure everything,” she adds, it is a leg up for people who entered without permission and have been living in the U.S. free of criminal records and national security concerns.

The president’s June 18 announcement comes on the heels of the 12th anniversary of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. Currently entangled in federal litigation, DACA offers work permits and deportation protections to people brought to the U.S. illegally as children. Some of these “Dreamers” with U.S. spouses may benefit from the new policy.

What are the politics of this? 

It’s unclear how Mr. Biden’s recent actions on immigration will help or hurt him politically. Polling suggests that a growing share of Americans think unauthorized immigrants shouldn’t be allowed to stay in the country, though about 6 in 10 registered voters do support a way for them to stay.

So far, responses to Tuesday’s news fall along typical ideological divides.

The new benefits for unauthorized immigrants, many of whom already qualify, is a welcome step forward, says Jennie Murray, president of the National Immigration Forum, an immigrant advocacy nonprofit. “It’s seeking to take a pragmatic step forward to support folks who have been here and contributing,” says Ms. Murray, adding that the focus on family unity presents a “solution that could bring everyone together.”

Critics of the administration reiterate national security concerns, and what they see as oversteps of the president’s immigration authority.

“This is going to send a message to the whole world: It’s OK to enter this country illegally,” said Tom Homan, a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation, on a call with reporters. 

“This is nothing but a political ploy. This administration hasn’t done anything in 3 1/2 years” to secure the border, added Mr. Homan, an acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement during the Trump administration.

Sarah Meyssonnier/Reuters

French President Emmanuel Macron waves as he waits for a guest at the Élysée Palace in Paris, June 17, 2024.

German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche once said that the greatest amount of happiness comes from living life with a maximum amount of danger and risk.

French President Emmanuel Macron seems to have taken that advice to heart. Last week, Mr. Macron took the ultimate political risk, announcing the dissolution of parliament and snap elections at the end of the month. This, after his center-right Renaissance party finished a distant second in the European Union elections to the far-right National Rally (RN) party, fronted by 28-year-old Jordan Bardella.

Now, France is looking at a potential “co-habitation” – a power-sharing government run by two opposing camps. If RN wins an outright majority after the second round of voting on July 7, Mr. Macron would be obligated to name Mr. Bardella as his prime minister.

But in doing so, the president would be stripped of much of his power, stuck in only the fourth co-habitation in French history and the first ever parliamentary leadership for the far right.

Mr. Macron is banking on the hope that if he forces the French to choose between him and the far right, they will choose him. But his popularity has plummeted since his election in 2017, from his handling of the Yellow Vest protests to his defiant implementation of a highly unpopular pension reform bill. Some observers are calling his latest move political suicide.

With so much running against him, why is Mr. Macron risking it all, and what is at stake if his strategy fails?

“The situation in France is dramatic,” says Roger Sue, a professor emeritus of sociology at Université Paris Cité. “Whether it’s the right or left that wins, we don’t know, but it’s almost a guarantee that Macron’s party will not win a majority. So he’s gambled with his own team’s future while he gets to remain at the center of the game. I find that rather unforgivable.”

Benoit Tessier/Reuters

Jordan Bardella, president of the far-right National Rally party, talks with a farmer while campaigning for the upcoming parliamentary elections, in Chuelles, France, June 14, 2024.

Checks and balances

The results of last Sunday’s European elections saw RN leading with 31% of the vote, and Mr. Macron’s Renaissance party trailing at 14%. The Socialists, with the charismatic Raphaël Glucksmann at the helm, pulled in 13% percent.

But even as reactions from the political class came pouring in, the results were no surprise – least of all to Mr. Macron. Pre-election polling had predicted a strong result by RN, leaving the president ample time to strategize. So while his announcement shocked the French public, observers say it’s all part of a carefully hedged plan, and one that keeps him in a relative power position.

“Mr. Macron did this for two reasons: for the general interest of the French people and for his own personal interests,” says Thomas Guénolé, a French political scientist. “If he wins, his party has the majority and can pass laws. If [the far right] wins, he can still block bills. ... In any case, he’s probably thinking his risk is minimal: he is still the president until 2027.”

In practical terms, if the far right succeeds in winning an outright majority in parliament, Mr. Bardella and his government will hold most of the cards.

Mr. Macron would still control France’s use of nuclear weapons and be in charge of international dossiers, like Russia’s war in Ukraine. But he would have minimal power over the military, and would not be able to dissolve the parliament again for another year.

Stephane Mahe/Reuters/File

Socialist leader Raphaël Glucksmann attends a campaign meeting ahead of European elections in Nantes, April 13, 2024. Mr. Glucksmann is backing a leftist coalition in the upcoming French elections.

Mr. Macron would also lose his ability to set domestic policy. A far-right parliament could be expected to overturn the current budget bill, which looks to cut $25 billion in public spending to address the country’s spiraling deficit. It also could reverse bills like Mr. Macron’s pension reform – moving the retirement age from 64 back down to 60 – as well as tighten immigration and security laws.

While technically Mr. Macron could refuse to sign RN bills into law, the prime minister holds a trump card: a procedure set out by Article 49, clause 3 of the French Constitution (aka “49.3”) which allows the government to elevate a bill straight into law, bypassing a parliamentary vote. Using 49.3, Mr. Bardella would be able to overcome Mr. Macron’s attempts to stop a bill from becoming law.

Still, the French government is subject to checks and balances – if fewer than a less centralized governmental system like the United States. There is a cap on the number of times a prime minister can use 49.3, and the government can be removed if the president calls for – and wins – a vote of no confidence in the National Assembly, France’s lower house of parliament.

In 1997, President Jacques Chirac and Prime Minister Lionel Jospin were forced to work together during their five year-long co-habitation. Despite their differences and predictions of political paralysis, Mr. Jospin avoided any moves that would have spurred Mr. Chirac to dissolve the Assembly and win back parliament.

If Mr. Bardella is elected prime minister, “it would be in his best interest to exercise moderation,” says Gilles Ivaldi, a researcher on the far right at Sciences Po’s CEVIPOV. “He’s in a complicated position. His supporters expect radical change on buying power and immigration. But he also needs to prove that he can effectively lead the country as he looks to pursue a presidential bid in 2027.”

Fired-up parties

That excitement about a future Bardella presidency could incite more far-right supporters – who historically enjoy stronger voter turnout than their more moderate counterparts – to head to the polls.

But the French left has been inspired to fight, too. Since Mr. Macron’s shock announcement, left-wing leaders like Jean-Luc Mélenchon and Socialist leader Mr. Glucksmann have banded together to create a united coalition, in hopes of fending off a far-right win.

Meanwhile, some conservative members of parliament have followed their party leader, Eric Ciotti, into an alliance with the RN, breaking a hitherto strict taboo on aligning with the extreme right.

Voters may, in the end, choose the vote utile (useful vote) – by selecting whichever party they see as the lesser of two evils.

“Macron knows he’s not popular but for him, it’s the elections that count,” says Mr. Guénolé. “There is a big difference between how people say they will vote and how they actually do. … Macron is gambling on the fact that if pushed up against a wall, the French will make the right decision.”

France’s soccer captain and arguably the best player in the world, Kylian Mbappé, is in the news again.

And not just because he sustained an injury to his nose Monday night that might stop him from playing any more games in the Euro 2024 soccer championship, denting French hopes of glory.

Mr. Mbappé seized the spotlight before the tournament began, making a dramatic and highly unusual public intervention in French politics.

Through the media, he pleaded with France’s young people to get out and vote against the far right in the upcoming snap legislative elections.

The National Rally (RN), led by Marine Le Pen, stands a realistic chance of winning a parliamentary majority in the vote July 7. That would put France under its first hard-right government since World War II, when the country was under German control.

Mr. Mbappé told voters that France was “at a crucial moment” in its history and called on his fans to reject “extremists.”

His comments came a day after teammate Marcus Thuram urged the French to “fight so that the RN does not get through.” The sports newspaper L’Équipe published an open letter signed by 200 athletes and sports personalities calling on readers to vote against the National Rally.

This outbreak of efforts by French sporting royalty to use their collective voice for political ends is highly uncommon. Professional contracts and sponsorship deals typically bind athletes to silence. But even the French Football Federation (FFF), which has squirmed in the past over questions of secularism and LGBTQ+ issues in sports, says Mr. Mbappé and other players have the right to express themselves.

With the Paris Olympics opening in just over a month, Mr. Mbappé’s political stand is a reminder that – despite the pressures of sponsors and sporting federations – professional athletes, like other cultural stars, can sway the collective consciousness.

Thibault Camus/AP

Former American sprinter Tommie Smith, visiting the U.S. base camp for the Paris Olympics, raises his fist in the Black Power salute he made as victor in the 1968 Olympic 200-meter race.

Coincidentally, a pioneer in this field, and perhaps its most famous practitioner, was in Paris last week. At the 1968 Mexico City Olympics, U.S. sprinter Tommie Smith raised his fist on the victory podium in a Black Power salute, alongside fellow athlete John Carlos, to protest racial injustice in the United States.

Mr. Smith, now 80 years old, said that despite the backlash he faced in the aftermath of his controversial gesture – he was banned by the U.S. Olympic Committee from competing again – he never regretted it. Asked if, given the chance, he’d do it again today, he said, “I do it every day.”

“Politics are not just part of sports,” he said during a conversation with journalists at the National History of Immigration Museum. “Politics are sports.”

Regarding his injury, FFF officials have not said when Mr. Mbappé might return to the Euro championship soccer pitch; there is talk of his wearing a protective mask during matches.

But when it comes to expressing his political views, Mr. Mbappé has taken the mask off.

“In this country, we value diversity, tolerance, and respect,” he said in his plea to fans. “I hope we can make the right decision and that I can remain proud to wear the French team jersey on July 7.”

AP

Girls practice ballet in a bomb shelter in Kharkiv, Ukraine, March 18.

A new school that opened last month in Ukraine’s second-largest city is only 18 miles from Russia – with only a five-minute warning of incoming missiles. Yet Kharkiv’s primary school 155 is also on the front line of innovative efforts to ensure that children in crisis-affected countries have safe access to education.

The school is the first of many to come in Ukraine that was built with permanent underground classrooms. On opening day in mid-May, a gaggle of third graders – who had never been in a physical school during two years of war – walked down 20 feet of steps into windowless but brightly lit rooms to be taught by their teachers.

“The children have dreamed of meeting their classmates,” one father told Deutsche Welle news media.

Now when air sirens go off, the students will not need to interrupt their studies by running to a bomb shelter. And their bunkerlike school will probably not be destroyed – as nearly 400 schools have been so far by Russian forces.

Education is the most powerful weapon you can use to change the world, said Nelson Mandela, and Ukraine wants to make sure the next generation is prepared to keep the country strong and independent.

“The Ukraine war isn’t merely about soldiers defending their homeland,” wrote American reporter Tim Mak in the news blog Counteroffensive after visiting a temporary underground school in a Kharkiv subway station. “These kids are what those soldiers are fighting to defend.”

Ukraine’s efforts to offer online schooling for some 900,000 students has been admirable, according to Education Cannot Wait, a fund for providing education in emergencies and protracted crises. From repairing bomb-damaged schools to handing out devices for remote learning, the government has prevented significant learning losses.

“We have a unique chance, with global support, to make courageous choices in creating a new education system – one that is high-quality, innovative, secure, and European,” wrote Dr. Yevhen Kudriavets, first deputy minister in Ukraine’s education ministry, in the Kyiv Post.

In the world’s most stressed places, says Education Cannot Wait’s executive director Yasmine Sherif, ensuring a safe education for children allows them to “draw on their resilience, heal from their experiences, develop fully and to prepare their future and unleash their potential.” That’s especially true inside a solid and sunken bunker in a Ukrainian war zone.