Connect with us

World

Imposing new asylum regulations, Joe Biden aims to “gain control” at the US-Mexico border.

Published

on

In an effort to neutralise immigration as a political risk before of the November elections, President Joe Biden announced intentions on Tuesday to implement immediate, significant limits on migrants seeking refuge at the US-Mexico border.

The much-awaited presidential proclamation would prevent asylum from being awarded to migrants when U.S. authorities determine that the southern border is overrun. Following the failure of a bipartisan border security agreement in Congress, which was rejected by the majority of Republican lawmakers at the urging of former President Donald Trump, the presumed GOP presidential contender, the Democratic president had been considering taking unilateral action for months.

Biden stated that although he desired more comprehensive legislative action, “Republicans have left me no choice.” Instead, he insisted that “I believe immigration has always been the lifeblood of America” and stated that he was acting independently to “gain control of the border.”

Biden stated, “Trump told the Republicans he wanted to use the problem to attack me, not to fix it.” “It was a political ploy that was cynical, incredibly cynical, and a total disservice to the American people who want us to fix the border rather than weaponize it.”

However, Trump took to social media to attack Biden once more about immigration, claiming that the Democrat had “totally surrendered our Southern Border” and that his order was “all for show” ahead of their June 27 presidential debate.

When will Biden’s new border policy be implemented?
According to senior administration officials, the directive would take effect when there are 2,500 border interactions between ports of entry per day. Given that the daily averages have increased, Biden’s directive ought to take effect right now. Less than 2,500 people were arrested on average per day for entering the country illegally from Mexico in January 2021, the month Biden took office. At the height of the COVID-19 epidemic in July 2020, border interactions last decreased to 1,500 per day.

Under a seven-day average, the limits would remain in place for two weeks once the daily encounter numbers are at or below 1,500 between ports of entry. Those numbers  were first reported by The Associated Press on Monday.

Increased enforcement with Mexico following high-level bilateral discussions in late December, according to Homeland Security, has reduced illegal crossings but is “likely to be less effective over time,” necessitating further action. “Smuggling networks are flexible, adapting to new policies and procedures,” the government stated in a federal regulation that was released on Tuesday.

According to the government, from July through September, the number of arrests for unlawful crossings might increase to an average of 6,700 per day.

After this order goes into force, immigrants who show up at the border and do not show that they are afraid to go back to their native countries risk being immediately deported from the United States, maybe even in a matter of hours or days. Those immigrants may be subject to penalties that last up to five years.

Advertisement

In the meantime, a U.S. asylum officer will conduct a more thorough screening process than is now the case for anyone who expresses that fear or plans to apply for asylum. They can seek more restricted humanitarian protection, such as the United Nations Convention Against Torture, if they make it through the screening process.

The president and CEO of Global Refuge, Krish O’Mara Vignarajah, expressed his displeasure with the administration’s decision to tighten restrictions on individuals seeking refuge at our southern border and exercising their legal rights. “While it is true that no one likes to see immigrants who are coming to use the asylum system in order to obtain a better life or a better opportunity for employment, we see that our clients and other immigrants are escaping the worst possible situations at a time of unprecedented global migration and believe that the U.S. is still a beacon of hope and refuge.”

On Tuesday, there were no obvious indications of an immediate impact at the border.

The U.S. has the right to impose further limits, according to Iselande Peralta, a Haitian mother and her 3-year-old son who is lodging at a migrant shelter in Reynosa, Mexico. She has been attempting to schedule an appointment via the CBP One web app for the past ten months, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Peralta, 26, believes that CBP One is her best option and would never consider crossing the border illegally.

“I wouldn’t cross the river, even if I was insane.” With a small child like him, how would I go about doing that? I’m ready to hold out,” she remarked.

Biden’s decision comes at a time when the number of migrants encountered at the border has been steadily declining since December. However, senior administration officials argue that the numbers are still excessive and that they may, as is customary, increase in better weather.

Advertisement

How the Biden directive would be carried out
For example, top administration officials claim that under this order, Mexico will continue to admit up to 30,000 residents per month from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela once they are denied entrance from the United States, as per an arrangement already in place between the two countries. However, it’s unclear what happens to foreign nationals who are sent away due to Biden’s order.

In an interview with reporters, four senior administration officials—who insisted on remaining anonymous—acknowledged that Biden’s objective of expeditiously deporting migrants is hampered by a lack of financing from Congress. When it comes to holding migrant families in detention, the administration is also subject to specific legal restrictions, which it has stated it will continue to follow by those obligations.

Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act gives a president the ability to restrict immigration for particular migrants if it is believed that their entry would be “detrimental” to the interests of the country. This is the legal basis for Biden’s claim. Despite promises to sue over the direction from well-known legal groups, senior officials were certain they could carry out Biden’s order.

“We plan to file a lawsuit,” declared Lee Gelernt, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who won comparable court battles during Trump’s administration. The prohibition on asylum is unlawful, just as it was during Trump’s botched attempt to obtain it.

Senior administration officials insisted that Biden’s proposal is very different from Trump’s, who relied on the same sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act as Biden. These include Trump’s efforts in 2018 to tighten asylum laws and his 2017 directive to bar citizens of countries with a majority of Muslims.

In Biden’s order, a number of immigrant groups are listed as being exempt for humanitarian reasons. These groups include unaccompanied youngsters, victims of human trafficking, and those with serious medical issues.

Advertisement

Additionally, the instruction would not apply to immigrants who use the CBP One app to schedule appointments with border officers at ports of entry. Since the app’s inception last year, about 1,450 appointments have been arranged to enable migrants to file requests for asylum.

Advocates for immigrants are concerned that Biden’s proposal would just lengthen the already months-long queue of migrants awaiting an appointment via the app, particularly in the absence of a corresponding financial boost for immigration authorities.

According to Jennie Murray, the head of the National Immigration Forum, it would also be challenging for border authorities to swiftly deport migrants given that a large number of them are already assigned to assist with shelters and other humanitarian projects.

“Customs and Border Protection does not have enough staff to handle the current volume of apprehensions, which would lead to even more chaos,” the spokesperson stated.

Biden’s directive was brushed aside by Republicans as merely a “political stunt” designed to demonstrate more stringent immigration enforcement in the run-up to the election.

Advertisement

At a press conference, GOP House Speaker Mike Johnson stated, “He tried to convince us all for all this time that there was no way he could possibly fix the mess.” “Keep in mind that he designed it.”

General News Platform – https://ihtlive.com/
Entertainment News Platforms – anyflix.in 
Construction Infrastructure and Mining News Platform – https://cimreviews.com/
Podcast Platforms – https://anyfm.in/

World

During the G7 meeting, Modi and Trudeau interact briefly as tensions over the Nijjar massacre claims rise.

Published

on

Toronto: On Friday, during the G7 leaders’ summit in Apulia, Italy, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Canadian counterpart Justin Trudeau had a brief meeting. This was the first time the two leaders had met since Trudeau revealed in the House of Commons on September 18, 2018, that there were “credible allegations” of a possible connection between Indian agents and the three-month-old murder of pro-Khalistan activist Hardeep Singh Nijjar in Surrey, British Columbia.

The meeting was not scheduled by either PM on their official calendar.

Modi shared a picture of the two leaders together on X, none of them seemed to be smiling. A Canadian PMO official was quoted by the Globe and Mail in a statement that stated, “The Prime Minister congratulated Prime Minister Modi on his re-election and the leaders had a brief discussion on the bilateral relationship.” Of course, there are significant problems currently dividing our two nations. We hope you understand that we won’t be releasing any more information at this time,” the statement continued.

On June 5, after Modi was re-elected to a third term, Trudeau’s office released a statement. In that statement, it was said that “Canada stands ready to work together to advance the relationship between our peoples – anchored to human rights, diversity, and the rule of law” as both bilateral and Indo-Pacific partners. “India looks forward to working with Canada based on mutual understanding and respect for each other’s concerns,” was Modi’s response on X four days later.

They had last had a face-to-face meeting in September of last year at the G20 leaders’ conference in New Delhi. It was subsequently revealed that Trudeau had brought up the subject of Nijjar’s murder in that conversation. Trudeau “raised the importance of respecting the rule of law, democratic principles, and national sovereignty,” according to his PMO at the time.

At the time, a statement from the External Affairs Ministry emphasised New Delhi’s “strong concerns about continuing anti-India activities of extremist elements in Canada” while stating that “mutual respect and trust” were crucial for the relationship to advance.

The next meeting of the G7 leaders will take place in Canada in 2025 in Kananaskis, Alberta. As an outreach partner for the earlier events in Italy, Germany, Japan, and the UK, India was invited. But when Canada last hosted the summit in Charlevoix, Quebec, in 2018, India was not invited.

Advertisement

General News Platform – https://ihtlive.com/
Entertainment News Platforms – anyflix.in 
Construction Infrastructure and Mining News Platform – https://cimreviews.com/
Podcast Platforms – https://anyfm.in/

Continue Reading

World

Did the G7 proclamation no longer include abortion or the LGBTQ community? Italy responds

Published

on

Artificial intelligence, the world economy, security and defence, and the ongoing battles in Gaza and Ukraine were the main topics of discussion during the G7 conference in Italy. However, the actual G7 proclamation, which was released to the public on Friday, included no mention of LGBTQ problems or abortion rights.

According to The Guardian, Italy’s far-right government, led by Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, denied that the G7 declaration’s references to abortion and the LGBTQ community had been eliminated. It should be mentioned that during last year’s G7 conference in Japan, both of these allusions were mentioned in the statement.

The protection of the LGBTQ community’s “gender identity and sexual orientation” was not included in the statement released on June 13, the first day of the summit. The proclamation also omitted the word “abortion.”

The G7 leaders committed to ensuring that women have “universal access to adequate, affordable, and quality health services for women, including comprehensive sexual and reproductive health and rights for all,” even though abortion was not included in the declaration.

The G7 leaders pledged last year to include “access to safe and legal abortion” in Japan’s women’s healthcare system. Bloomberg was the first to report on the loss of LGBTQ rights and abortion, and they connected it to Pope Francis’s participation in the G7 summit.

Meloni’s office was quoted in The Guardian as saying, “There is no basis for the Bloomberg report that suggested that any mention of LGBT rights will be eliminated from the final G7 communiqué. This rebuilding is absolutely denied by the Italian presidency [of the G7].

Meloni and French President Emmanuel Macron have previously spat over allegations that Italy had softened the G7 declaration’s final wording regarding access to safe abortion.

On the fringes of the conference, Macron remarked to an Italian journalist, “You don’t have the same sensibilities in your country.” The French government envisions gender equality, although not all political parties share this goal.

General News Platform – https://ihtlive.com/
Entertainment News Platforms – anyflix.in 
Construction Infrastructure and Mining News Platform – https://cimreviews.com/
Podcast Platforms – https://anyfm.in/

Advertisement
Continue Reading

World

President Cyril Ramaphosa of South Africa is re-elected for a second term following a stunning last-minute coalition agreement.

Published

on

Legislators on Friday re-elected South African President Cyril Ramaphosa to a second term. This came about when his party, hours before the election, forged an unexpected coalition agreement with a former political rival.

In Parliament, African National Congress leader Ramaphosa defeated the unexpectedly nominated Julius Malema of the far-left Economic Freedom Fighters with a decisive win. In the 400-member house, Ramaphosa earned 283 votes to Malema’s 44.

With the support of some smaller parties and legislators from the Democratic Alliance, the nation’s second-largest party, 71-year-old Ramaphosa was able to win a second term. After the African National Congress (ANC) lost its long-held majority in a historic election two weeks ago, reducing it to 159 members in Parliament, they supported him in the vote and helped him over the finish line.

The ANC and the DA inked the last-minute deal during a break in what ended up being an extended parliamentary session, thereby guaranteeing Ramaphosa’s continued leadership of Africa’s most developed economy. In their first national coalition in which no party holds a majority in Parliament, the parties will now share governance of South Africa.

The agreement, known as a government of national unity, unites the ANC with the Democratic Alliance (DA), a white-led party that has long served as the primary opposition and the ANC’s most ardent opponent. Two smaller parties at least joined the deal as well.

The agreement, which thrust South Africa into unknown territory, was hailed by Ramaphosa as a “new birth, a new era for our country” and he urged the involved parties “to overcome their differences and to work together.”

He declared, “This is what we are going to do, and this is what I promise to accomplish as President.”

Since the apartheid system of white minority rule ended in 1994, the ANC, the renowned party of Nelson Mandela, had controlled South Africa with a comfortable majority.

However, in the humiliating national election held on May 29, a pivotal moment for the nation, it lost its 30-year majority. The vote took place in the midst of a general outcry among South Africans due to the country’s high rates of unemployment, inequality, and poverty.

Given the radically divergent philosophies of the ANC, a former liberation movement, and the centrist, business-friendly DA, which received 21% of the vote in the national election—the second-largest percentage after the ANC’s 40%—analysts caution that difficulties may lie ahead.

To start, the DA took issue with the ANC government’s decision to bring a highly sensitive case before the UN Supreme Court, accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza.

The first person to confirm the deal was DA leader John Steenhuisen.

He said, “A deal has been signed, and the DA lawmakers will vote for Ramaphosa for president,” as he left Friday’s sessions to give a speech that was broadcast live on television. “From today, the DA will co-govern the Republic of South Africa in a spirit of unity and collaboration,” he stated.

The Parliament session started at 10 a.m. in the unusual setting of a conference center near Cape Town’s waterfront, after the city’s historic National Assembly building was gutted in a fire in 2022. The house first went through the hours long swearing-in of hundreds of new lawmakers and electing a speaker and a deputy speaker.

Advertisement

The presidential election took place late at night, and the results weren’t made public until well after 10 p.m. As midnight slipped into Saturday, Ramaphosa concluded his acceptance speech.

The MK Party, led by former president Jacob Zuma, boycotted the meeting, although this had little bearing on the results because a quorum only requires a third of the chamber.

Speaking with anyone else who wished to join the unity government, the ANC was willing to listen, according to Secretary-General Fikile Mbalula. He claimed that the multi-party accord will “prioritize the country across the political and ideological divide.” There are eighteen political groups represented in Parliament.

A few parties declined to participate, among them Malema’s EFF.

The Patriotic Alliance, whose leader, Gayton McKenzie, served a prison sentence for bank robbery, and the Inkatha Freedom Party were the other two parties who signed onto the coalition agreement.

McKenzie claimed that just as he had been granted a second shot at life, South Africa now had one as well—a chance to address its severe socioeconomic issues.

After the election results were announced on June 2, Parliament had to vote on the president within 14 days, giving the ANC a deadline to reach a coalition agreement. The final negotiations for a coalition agreement were held over the course of Thursday and Friday, according to party officials, after the ANC had been trying for two weeks to reach one.

Since the African National Congress (ANC) won the first all-race election in 1994 and put an end to over fifty years of racial segregation, South Africa has not experienced such a high degree of political unpredictability. Since then, starting with Mandela, every leader in South Africa has come from the ANC.

Advertisement

The new unity administration also had similarities to the 1994 act of reconciliation when the African National Congress (ANC) held the majority and Nelson Mandela, South Africa’s first Black president, invited political rivals to join a unity government. In his early political career, Ramaphosa had been instrumental in such negotiations.

The ANC’s hand was forced this time.

Leader of the PA McKenzie remarked, “The ANC has been very magnanimous in that they have accepted defeat and said, ‘let’s talk.”

General News Platform – https://ihtlive.com/
Entertainment News Platforms – anyflix.in 
Construction Infrastructure and Mining News Platform – https://cimreviews.com/
Podcast Platforms – https://anyfm.in/

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2023 India Hot Topics. Powered with Passion.