Ƶ

Nicaragua breaks diplomatic relations with Israel

A destroyed part of a building stands at Al Shifa Hospital after Israeli forces withdrew from the hospital and the area around it following a two-week operation, amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, in Gaza City April 1, 2024. 9REUTERS)
A destroyed part of a building stands at Al Shifa Hospital after Israeli forces withdrew from the hospital and the area around it following a two-week operation, amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, in Gaza City April 1, 2024. 9REUTERS)
Short Url
Updated 12 October 2024

Nicaragua breaks diplomatic relations with Israel

Nicaragua breaks diplomatic relations with Israel
  • The conflict, the Nicaraguan government said, now also “extends against Lebanon and gravely threatens Syria, Yemen and Iran”

MANAGUA: Nicaragua has announced plans to break off relations with Israel over the war in Gaza, calling the Israeli government “fascist and genocidal.”
Left-wing President Daniel Ortega, who has been fiercely critical of Israel’s yearlong war with Hamas, ordered ties to be cut over Israel’s attacks on Palestinian territories, said Vice President Rosario Murillo, who is also Ortega’s wife.
The move is essentially symbolic, with ties between Israel and the Central American country virtually nonexistent.
Israel has no ambassador in the Nicaraguan capital, Managua.

FASTFACT

UN officials have expressed concern that the ongoing Israeli offensive in northern Gaza could disrupt the second phase of its polio vaccination campaign.

Nicaragua has twice broken off ties with Israel — once in 2010 under Ortega and in 1982 under the Sandinista revolutionary government led by Ortega following the country’s 1979 revolution.
UN officials have expressed concern that the ongoing Israeli offensive and evacuation orders in northern Gaza could disrupt the second phase of its polio vaccination campaign set to begin next week.
Healthcare officials have reported that dozens of facilities in Gaza are under evacuation orders from the Israeli military, complicating humanitarian efforts amid the conflict.
Aid groups carried out an initial round of vaccinations last month after a baby was partially paralyzed by the type 2 polio virus in August, in the first such case in the territory in 25 years.


UN Security Council to meet Wednesday on Israel's Qatar strikes: diplomatic sources

UN Security Council to meet Wednesday on Israel's Qatar strikes: diplomatic sources
Updated 28 sec ago

UN Security Council to meet Wednesday on Israel's Qatar strikes: diplomatic sources

UN Security Council to meet Wednesday on Israel's Qatar strikes: diplomatic sources
  • The meeting, scheduled for 3:00 p.m. in New York (1900 GMT), was requested by Algeria and Pakistan, among others, the sources said Tuesday

UNITED NATIONS, United States: The UN Security Council will hold an emergency meeting on Wednesday in response to Israel’s strikes targeting Hamas officials in Qatar, diplomatic sources told AFP.
The meeting, scheduled for 3:00 p.m. in New York (1900 GMT), was requested by Algeria and Pakistan, among others, the sources said Tuesday.
 

 


Top US immigration official defends rule targeting ‘anti-American’ views in green card, visa process

Top US immigration official defends rule targeting ‘anti-American’ views in green card, visa process
Updated 9 min 5 sec ago

Top US immigration official defends rule targeting ‘anti-American’ views in green card, visa process

Top US immigration official defends rule targeting ‘anti-American’ views in green card, visa process
  • Edlow said the agency needs to be aware of what people applying for benefits are saying online and when that speech becomes hateful

CAMP SPRINGS, Maryland: A new rule allowing a US immigration agency to scrutinize a person’s “anti-American” views when applying for a green card or other benefits isn’t designed to target political beliefs, but to identify support for terrorist activity, the organization’s director told The Associated Press.
In a wide-ranging interview on Monday, the director of the US Citizenship and Immigration Services, Joseph Edlow, delved into the agency’s contentious policy — announced last month — which allows officers to decide whether a foreigner applying for a certain benefit has endorsed what they believe are anti-American views.
Edlow also detailed problems he sees with a training program that’s popular with international students, but hated by some Trump supporters. He described how and why he’s thinking of changing the process by which hundreds of thousands of people become American citizens every year.
Edlow is overseeing the pivotal immigration agency at a time when President Donald Trump is upending traditional immigration policy and charging ahead with an aggressive agenda that restricts who gets to come into the US through legal pathways.
Questions over what constitutes anti-Americanism
The new policy by USCIS stipulates that its officers could now consider whether an applicant “endorsed, promoted, supported, or otherwise espoused” anti-American, terrorist or antisemitic views when making their decision about whether to grant the benefit.
Critics questioned whether it gives officers too much leeway in rejecting foreigners based on a subjective judgment.
Edlow said the agency needs to be aware of what people applying for benefits are saying online and when that speech becomes hateful. He said the agency won’t automatically deny someone a benefit because of what they said, but it’s a factor they take into consideration.
He said they’re not looking for people who’ve posted anti-Trump speech. He said criticism of any administration was “one of the most American activities you can engage in.”
“This goes beyond that. This is actual espousing (of) the beliefs and the ideology of terrorist, of terrorist organizations and those who wish to destroy the American way of life.”
In examples of speech that might raise a red flag, Edlow noted students who post pro-Hamas beliefs or are taking part in campus protests where Jewish students are blocked from entering buildings.
The Trump administration has made cracking down on student protests a high priority. The government has said noncitizens who participate in such demonstrations should be expelled from the US for expressing views the administration considers to be antisemitic and “pro-Hamas,” referring to the Palestinian militant group that attacked Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.
In one of the most high-profile examples, federal immigration authorities in March arrested Palestinian activist and green card holder, Mahmoud Khalil, who as a student played a prominent role in Columbia University’s pro-Palestinian protests.
USCIS agents now carry weapons and could make arrests
USCIS recently announced that it could now hire law enforcement agents who could make arrests, execute search warrants and carry weapons. That’s a change for the agency that historically investigates immigration fraud but hands cases over to other agencies to prosecute.
Edlow said their focus would be on “large scale criminal activity” such as large-scale asylum fraud or marriage fraud.
“They’re not a police force. This is going to be a highly trained and very small section of this agency dealing specifically with rooting out immigration fraud,” said Edlow. He said previously the agency was stymied by how far it could take cases because they eventually had to turn them over to another agency for prosecution.
Edlow said there would be a “couple hundred” of the officers to start, but put it in the context of the “thousands upon thousands” of other staff that the agency has to adjudicate benefits.
The agency’s role in verifying voter rolls
The Systemic Alien Verification for Entitlements program was created in 1987 as a way for various government agencies to check whether someone is eligible for public benefits.
Edlow said his agency has been working with the Social Security Administration to make it easier for states and local governments to access. They can now access the system using a Social Security number or the last four digits of one, instead of needing a specific Homeland Security identifying number that most of them didn’t have. And they can submit a number of requests at the same time as opposed to one at a time.
Edlow also said USCIS is also entering into agreements with secretaries of state so they can use the system to verify their voter rolls in what he said was a bid to counter voter fraud.
Critics have questioned the reliability of the data and whether people will be erroneously dropped from voter rolls as well as whether their privacy is being protected.
Edlow says the agency has a “huge team” to verify the information is accurate.
Putting ‘parameters’ on work for international students
While Edlow created a furor in his confirmation hearing when he said he’d like to see an end to post-graduate work authorization for international students, he told The AP he’s not proposing any specific changes at this time.
About 240,000 of the 1.1 million people on student visas in the US are on Optional Practical Training — a one-year post-graduation period when they are authorized to work in fields related to their degrees. It can last up to three years for graduates in science, math and technology fields, which have faced persistent labor shortages in the US.
Edlow said ultimately the fate of the program isn’t just up to his agency to decide, but he wants to put “parameters” on it.
“It creates a competitive, in my opinion, an unfair, competitive advantage for businesses to hire these students over US students because, well, they can get in for short term, maybe get them for cheaper,” he said.
Changes in the offing for citizenship tests
Anyone wishing to become an American must pass tests on English and American government and history.
Edlow said the agency will soon be reverting to using a test introduced in 2020, during Trump’s first term. That test required applicants to answer more questions. He’s exploring various changes to the current test, with no firm timeline. He described it as “too easy,” saying answers can just be memorized.
“That’s not showing an attachment to the Constitution as required by the statute,” said Edlow. “Nor is writing a single sentence in English and reading a single sentence in English really demonstrating a familiarity at a certain degree with the English language.”
Edlow said he’s weighing having applicants write an essay to assess their understanding of the citizenship process.
H1-B visas and the ‘displacement of American workers’
The H1-B visa program, commonly associated with the tech industry, was created in 1990 for people with a bachelor’s degree or higher in fields where jobs are deemed hard to fill, especially science, technology, engineering and math. Critics say the visa allows companies to pay lower wages with fewer labor protections.
Controversy over the program has been especially pronounced in the Republican Party. Wealthy members of the tech world have supported the visas, while many people in Trump’s base are suspicious.
The White House is believed to be weighing new rules for the program.
Edlow said his concern with H1-B visas is the “displacement of American workers.”
“These companies can more easily and cheaply bring in very experienced foreign workers at the lower wage level, as opposed to having US employees that you might need to pay at a different level,” he said.


US Supreme Court to decide legality of Trump’s tariffs

A view of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, U.S. June 29, 2024. (REUTERS)
A view of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, U.S. June 29, 2024. (REUTERS)
Updated 10 September 2025

US Supreme Court to decide legality of Trump’s tariffs

A view of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, U.S. June 29, 2024. (REUTERS)
  • The Supreme Court agreed to hear a separate challenge to Trump’s tariffs brought by a family-owned toy company, Learning Resources

WASHINGTON: The US Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to decide the legality of Donald Trump’s sweeping global tariffs, setting up a major test of one of the Republican president’s boldest assertions of executive power that has been central to his economic and trade agenda.
The justices took up the Justice Department’s appeal of a lower court’s ruling that Trump overstepped his authority in imposing most of his tariffs under a federal law meant for emergencies. The court swiftly acted after the administration last week asked it to review the case, which implicates trillions of dollars in customs duties over the next decade.
The court, which begins its next nine-month term on October 6, placed the case on a fast track, scheduling oral arguments for the first week of November.
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington ruled on August 29 that Trump overreached in invoking a 1977 law known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to impose the tariffs, undercutting a major priority for the president in his second term. The tariffs, however, remain in effect during the appeal to the Supreme Court.

HIGHLIGHTS

• Trade court said Trump exceeded powers with tariffs

• Administration called decision judicial overreach

• Trump cited longstanding trade deficit as an emergency

The appeals court ruling stems from two challenges. One was brought by five small businesses that import goods, including a New York wine and spirits importer and a Pennsylvania-based sport fishing retailer. The other was filed by 12 US states — Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon and Vermont — most of them governed by Democrats.
The Supreme Court also agreed to hear a separate challenge to Trump’s tariffs brought by a family-owned toy company, Learning Resources.
The levies are part of a global trade war instigated by Trump since he returned to the presidency in January that has alienated trading partners, increased volatility in financial markets and fueled global economic uncertainty.
Trump has made tariffs a key foreign policy tool, using them to renegotiate trade deals, extract concessions and exert political pressure on other countries. Trump in April invoked the 1977 law in imposing tariffs on goods imported from individual countries to address trade deficits, as well as separate tariffs announced in February as economic leverage on China, Canada and Mexico to curb the trafficking of fentanyl and illicit drugs into the US
The law gives the president power to deal with “an unusual and extraordinary threat” amid a national emergency. It historically had been used for imposing sanctions on enemies or freezing their assets. Prior to Trump, the law had never been used to impose tariffs.
“The fact of the matter is that President Trump has acted lawfully by using the tariff powers granted to him by Congress in IEEPA to deal with national emergencies and to safeguard our national security and economy. We look forward to ultimate victory on this matter with the Supreme Court,” White House spokesperson Kush Desai said.
Jeffrey Schwab, a lawyer with the Liberty Justice Center legal group representing small business challengers to Trump’s tariffs, said he is confident that the Supreme Court will recognize that the president does not have unilateral tariff power under this law.
“Congress, not the president alone, has the constitutional power to impose tariffs,” Schwab said.

’ECONOMIC CATASTROPHE’
Trump’s Justice Department has argued that the law allows tariffs under emergency provisions that authorize a president to “regulate” imports.
Denying Trump’s tariff power “would expose our nation to trade retaliation without effective defenses and thrust America back to the brink of economic catastrophe,” it said. Trump has said that if he loses the case the US might have to unwind trade deals, causing the country to “suffer so greatly.” The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported in August that the increased duties on imports from foreign countries could reduce the US national deficit by $4 trillion over the next decade.
The US Constitution grants Congress, not the president, the authority to issue taxes and tariffs, and any delegation of that authority must be both explicit and limited, according to the lawsuits.
The Federal Circuit agreed. “It seems unlikely that Congress intended, in enacting IEEPA, to depart from its past practice and grant the president unlimited authority to impose tariffs,” it said in a 7-4 decision.
The appeals court also said that the administration’s expansive view of this law violates the Supreme Court’s “major questions” doctrine, which requires executive branch actions of vast economic and political significance to be clearly authorized by Congress. The New York-based US Court of International Trade, which has jurisdiction over customs and trade disputes, previously ruled against Trump’s tariff policies on May 28.
Another court in Washington ruled that the law does not authorize Trump’s tariffs, and the administration has appealed that decision as well. At least eight lawsuits have challenged Trump’s tariff policies, including one filed by the state of California.
Tim Brightbill, an expert in international trade law at the Wiley Rein law firm, said it was important for the Supreme Court to weigh in as quickly as possible given that it is an “extremely important question involving billions of dollars — potentially trillions of dollars.”
Brightbill said that only a handful of trade law cases have gone to the Supreme Court, “so it just shows the extreme importance of this issue across the US economy, and really the global economy.”

 

 


Pig heads, some with ‘Macron’ scrawled on them, found outside nine Paris mosques

Pig heads, some with ‘Macron’ scrawled on them, found outside nine Paris mosques
Updated 10 September 2025

Pig heads, some with ‘Macron’ scrawled on them, found outside nine Paris mosques

Pig heads, some with ‘Macron’ scrawled on them, found outside nine Paris mosques
  • There were 181 anti-Muslim acts recorded by the Interior Ministry between January and June 2025, an 81 percent rise on the same period in 2024
  • A Paris police unit was investigating the incident for suspected incitement to hatred, aggravated by discrimination, the Paris prosecutor’s office said

PARIS: Pig heads appeared outside at least nine mosques in and around Paris on Tuesday, authorities said, with French President Emmanuel Macron’s name scrawled on five of them.
Authorities did not say who could be behind the attacks but pledged support for France’s Muslim population at a time of rising anti-Islamic sentiment. France has Europe’s largest population of Muslims, over 6 million, for whom eating pork is forbidden.
“I want our Muslim compatriots to be able to practice their faith in peace,” Interior Minister Bruno Retailleau told reporters.
Paris police chief Laurent Nunez said he could not rule out foreign interference to unsettle France as it faces a fiscal and political crisis.
“We can’t avoid drawing parallels with previous actions, which often took place at night and were proven to be acts of foreign interference,” he said.
He gave no further details, but France has accused Russia of trying to sow discord in the past. Three Serbians accused of links to a “foreign power” were arrested after synagogues and a Holocaust memorial were defaced with green paint in May.
The Paris prosecutor’s office said four pig heads were found outside Paris mosques and five on the capital’s outskirts.
A Paris police unit was investigating the incident for suspected incitement to hatred, aggravated by discrimination, the Paris prosecutor’s office said.
“It’s catastrophic and disappointing to see such things,” said Alim Burahee, president of a Paris mosque where a pig head was found around 5 am on Tuesday. “If they can do that, what else could they do?“
Racism is rising in France, according to a 2024 report from France’s human rights commission. There were 181 anti-Muslim acts recorded by the Interior Ministry between January and June 2025, an 81 percent rise on the same period in 2024.
Bassirou Camara, head of ADDAM, an association fighting discrimination against Muslims, told Reuters mosque-goers are increasingly fearful as insecurity and stigmatization have been growing for months.
In June, after a Tunisian barber was shot dead by his neighbor, France’s anti-terror prosecutor’s office opened its first investigation into a murder inspired by far-right ideas.
In April, thousands protested after a Malian was stabbed to death in a mosque by an intruder who insulted Islam while filming the act.

 


US Supreme Court to decide legality of Trump’s tariffs

US Supreme Court to decide legality of Trump’s tariffs
Updated 09 September 2025

US Supreme Court to decide legality of Trump’s tariffs

US Supreme Court to decide legality of Trump’s tariffs
  • The court, which begins its next nine-month term on October 6, placed the case on a fast track, scheduling oral arguments for the first week of November
  • Trump has made tariffs a key foreign policy tool, using them to renegotiate trade deals, extract concessions and exert political pressure on other countries

WASHINGTON: The US Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to decide the legality of Donald Trump’s sweeping global tariffs, setting up a major test of one of the Republican president’s boldest assertions of executive power that has been central to his economic and trade agenda.
The justices took up the Justice Department’s appeal of a lower court’s ruling that Trump overstepped his authority in imposing most of his tariffs under a federal law meant for emergencies. The court swiftly acted after the administration last week asked it to review the case, which implicates trillions of dollars in customs duties over the next decade.
The court, which begins its next nine-month term on October 6, placed the case on a fast track, scheduling oral arguments for the first week of November.
The justices also agreed to hear a separate challenge to Trump’s tariffs brought by a family-owned toy company, Learning Resources.
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington ruled on August 29 that Trump overreached in invoking a 1977 law known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to impose the tariffs, undercutting a major priority for the president in his second term. The tariffs, however, remain in effect during the appeal to the Supreme Court.
The levies are part of a trade war instigated by Trump since he returned to the presidency in January that has alienated trading partners, increased volatility in financial markets and fueled global economic uncertainty.
Trump has made tariffs a key foreign policy tool, using them to renegotiate trade deals, extract concessions and exert political pressure on other countries.
Trump in April invoked the 1977 law in imposing tariffs on goods imported from individual countries to address trade deficits, as well as separate tariffs announced in February as economic leverage on China, Canada and Mexico to curb the trafficking of fentanyl and illicit drugs into the US
The law gives the president power to deal with “an unusual and extraordinary threat” amid a national emergency. It historically had been used for imposing sanctions on enemies or freezing their assets. Prior to Trump, the law had never been used to impose tariffs.
Trump’s Department of Justice has argued that the law allows tariffs under emergency provisions that authorize a president to “regulate” imports.
“The stakes in this case could not be higher,” the Justice Department said in a filing.
Denying Trump’s tariff power “would expose our nation to trade retaliation without effective defenses and thrust America back to the brink of economic catastrophe,” it added.
Trump has said that if he loses the case the US might have to unwind trade deals, causing the country to “suffer so greatly.”
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported in August that the increased duties on imports from foreign countries could reduce the US national deficit by $4 trillion over the next decade.
The appeals court ruling stems from two challenges. One was brought by five small businesses that import goods, including a New York wine and spirits importer and a Pennsylvania-based sport fishing retailer. The other was filed by 12 US states — Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon and Vermont — most of them governed by Democrats.
The US Constitution grants Congress, not the president, the authority to issue taxes and tariffs, and any delegation of that authority must be both explicit and limited, according to the lawsuits.
The Federal Circuit agreed. “It seems unlikely that Congress intended, in enacting IEEPA, to depart from its past practice and grant the president unlimited authority to impose tariffs,” it said in a 7-4 decision.
The appeals court also said that the administration’s expansive view of this law violates the Supreme Court’s “major questions” doctrine, which requires executive branch actions of vast economic and political significance to be clearly authorized by Congress.
The New York-based US Court of International Trade, which has jurisdiction over customs and trade disputes, previously ruled against Trump’s tariff policies on May 28.
Another court in Washington ruled that the law does not authorize Trump’s tariffs, and the administration has appealed that decision as well. At least eight lawsuits have challenged Trump’s tariff policies, including one filed by the state of California.