U.S. deports 37 illegal Nepali nationals
The U.S. government has deported 37 Nepali nationals who were illegally staying in America, an official said on Monday (June 9, 2025).
A chartered flight carrying the illegal Nepali nationals arrived from the U.S. in Kathmandu on Sunday (June 8) evening, an Immigration Department official said.
This is the largest number of Nepalis deported by the U.S. in a single day, the official said.
They were found to have violated the U.S. immigration laws, the official said.
Anjan Neupane, spokesperson for the Immigration Office at Tribhuvan International Airport, said that with Sunday's deportation, 177 Nepali nationals illegally staying in the U.S. had been sent back since President Donald Trump assumed office in January.
Hundreds of Nepalese have gone to the U.S. in the past through illegal channels by paying millions of rupees to brokers and risking their lives.
The Trump administration is also planning to deport thousands of Nepalis staying in the U.S. under Temporary Protection Status.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
2 hours ago
- Economic Times
Cryptocurrency Live News & Updates : Trump Discusses U.S.-Europe Trade Challenges
29 Jun 2025 | 01:50:11 AM IST U.S. President Donald Trump acknowledged positive relations with Europe but highlighted significant trade challenges, including heavy taxes and legal actions against American firms. In recent news, U.S. President Donald Trump addressed the complexities of trade relations with Europe, noting the imposition of heavy taxes and legal disputes affecting American companies. Meanwhile, the cryptocurrency sector is witnessing a surge in venture capital funding, with startups raising $739.5 million across 17 deals, led by Kalshi's impressive $185 million Series C round. The NFT market is also rebounding, with sales reaching $125 million, as Ethereum surpasses Polygon in sales volume. Bitcoin continues to show strength, recently hitting the $107,000 mark. Additionally, Elon Musk has shared his optimistic outlook on economic growth driven by advancements in artificial intelligence and robotics, suggesting a future of significant surplus. These developments reflect a dynamic landscape in both trade and technology, highlighting the interconnectedness of global markets and innovation. Show more
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
What is the legality of U.S. strikes on Iran?
The story so far: On June 22, U.S. President Donald Trump launched military strikes on Iran, joining its ally Israel in efforts to derail Iran's nuclear programme, which both countries claim is approaching weapons production. Iran retaliated the following day with missile attacks on Al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar, the forward headquarters of U.S. Central Command. After nearly two weeks of escalating hostilities, Iran and Israel agreed to a ceasefire on June 24. What is a lawful exercise of self-defence? The UN Charter, under Article 2(4), prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, except in narrowly defined circumstances — a claim of self-defence under Article 51 or with the UN Security Council's (UNSC) authorisation. The restrictive interpretation, grounded in the text of Article 51, permits self-defence only in response to an armed attack that is already under way. A more permissive interpretation allows for self-defence in response to an armed attack that is imminent. This broader interpretation, often referred to as anticipatory self-defence, has been endorsed in several UN-affiliated reports. Notably, the 2004 report of the Secretary-General's High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change affirmed that 'a threatened State, according to long-established international law, can take military action as long as the threatened attack is imminent, no other means would deflect it, and the action is proportionate'. These criteria are derived from the famous Caroline case, which established that the use of force is lawful only when the need for self-defence is 'instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation'. Over time, many states have argued that the Caroline standard is too rigid to address contemporary security threats. This has led to attempts to reinterpret and expand the notion of imminence, giving rise to the controversial doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence. Under this doctrine, a state may use force not only in response to an attack that is imminent but also during what is perceived as the 'last window of opportunity' to neutralise a threat posed by an adversary with both the intent and capability to strike. The U.S. has been a leading proponent of this doctrine, invoking it to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq. 'Pre-emptive self-defence lacks the requisite state practice and opinio juris to qualify as customary international law. States are generally reluctant to endorse its legality, as the absence of an imminent threat renders the doctrine highly susceptible to misuse,' Prabhash Ranjan, Professor at Jindal Global Law School, told The Hindu. Did Iran pose an 'imminent' threat? The U.S. has not submitted an Article 51 notification to the UNSC declaring its strikes on Iran as self-defence. However, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth described them as a precision operation to neutralise 'threats to national interest' and an act of 'collective self-defence' of U.S. forces and its ally, Israel. Tehran has maintained that its nuclear programme is for civilian purposes and remains under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency. However, on June 12, the UN nuclear watchdog passed a resolution accusing Iran of violating its non-proliferation obligations, while noting that inspectors have been unable to confirm whether the programme is 'exclusively peaceful'. In March, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard initially told Congress that while Iran had stockpiled materials, it was not actively building a nuclear weapon. However, she later warned that Iran could do so 'within weeks,' after President Trump claimed Iran could develop one 'within months.' Dr. Ranjan noted that the criteria for determining an 'imminent threat' remain highly contested, as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has never ruled on the legality of anticipatory self-defence or pre-emptive strikes. 'For the U.S. to credibly invoke pre-emptive self-defence, it must present clear evidence of both Iran's intent and capability to strike in the near future. This is a difficult threshold to meet, given that Iran does not yet possess a nuclear weapon,' he said. He added that ongoing U.S.-Iran negotiations indicate that diplomatic means were still available. What about collective self-defence? Under Article 51 of the Charter, Israel can call on the assistance of its allies to exercise collective self-defence against an attack. 'Israel's strikes on Iran, framed as pre-emptive action against perceived nuclear threats, are legally suspect. This, in turn, casts doubt on the legitimacy of any claim to collective self-defence,' Dr. Ranjan said. Israel has also sought to justify its military offensive as part of an 'ongoing armed conflict,' citing a history of attacks by groups like Hamas and the Houthis, which it claims act as Iranian proxies. However, to legally sustain this argument, Israel must meet the 'effective control' test set by the ICJ in Nicaragua versus U.S. (1986). This is a high threshold to meet since it requires proof that Iran exercises 'overall control' over these groups beyond merely funding or arming them. What are the implications? Allowing states to invoke pre-emptive self-defence would effectively grant powerful nations the licence to unilaterally use force based on mere conjecture. This would further weaken the already fragile rules-based international order. It is, therefore, crucial to resist expanding legal definitions of what constitutes an imminent threat, particularly when punitive action by the UNSC against permanent members like the U.S. remains unlikely due to their veto power.
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
G7 agrees to exempt U.S. multinationals from global minimum tax
The Group of Seven nations said on Saturday (June 28, 2025) they have agreed to exempt U.S. multinational companies from a global minimum tax imposed by other countries — a win for President Donald Trump's government, which pushed hard for the compromise. The deal will see U.S. companies benefit from a "side-by-side" solution under which they will only be taxed at home, on both domestic and foreign profits, the G7 said in a statement released by Canada, which holds the group's rotating presidency. The agreement was reached in part due to "recently proposed changes to the U.S. international tax system" included in Mr. Trump's signature domestic policy bill, which is still being debated in Congress, the statement said. The side-by-side system could "provide greater stability and certainty in the international tax system moving forward," it added. Nearly 140 countries struck a deal in 2021 to tax multinational companies, an agreement negotiated under the auspices of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). That agreement, deeply criticized by Trump, includes two "pillars," the second of which sets a minimum global tax rate of 15 percent. The OECD must ultimately decide to exempt the U.S. companies from that tax — or not. The G7 said it looked forward to "expeditiously reaching a solution that is acceptable and implementable to all." On Thursday, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent had signalled that a "joint understanding among G7 countries that defends American interests" was in the works. He also asked US lawmakers to "to remove the Section 899 protective measure from consideration in the One, Big, Beautiful Bill" — Mr. Trump's policy mega-bill. Section 899 has been dubbed a "revenge tax," allowing the government to impose levies on firms with foreign owners and on investors from countries deemed to impose unfair taxes on U.S. businesses. The clause sparked concern that it would inhibit foreign companies from investing in the United States.
