The Government of Liberia (GOL) Strongly Refutes Misleading Claims in Recent Media Article
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs however seeks to use this opportunity to caution the public from being drawn into misinformation and disinformation, and to ask the concerned media to desist from such destructive actions of writing stories on false and baseless claims. The Government of Liberia is however engaged with the United States on actions required to address issues to prevent Liberia from being placed on a travel ban. These issues include the widespread presentation of fraudulent documents to the United States Embassy such as court papers, affidavits, birth certificates and others, as well as issues related to the slow prosecution of said cases of fraud. In addition, issues surrounding overstay are high on the agenda given that Liberia has a high record of overstays. This among several other issues are points of engagement between the US Government and the Government of Liberia, and we look forward to continue to work together to address these issues holistically to avoid Liberians being banned from traveling to the United States.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs encourages all Liberians including the diaspora, to comply with the US regulations and work together to ensure that Liberians who visit the United States return within the timeframe stipulated during their visa interviews as overstay is marked against the duration of the visit that the applicant stated during the interview or request for visa. We will be providing more information to the public to ensure that Liberians understand the meaning of overstay and the implications of presentation of fake documents and information to the United States government.
Distributed by APO Group on behalf of Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Liberia.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gulf Today
an hour ago
- Gulf Today
Battles over public lands loom after sell-off proposal fails
Alex Brown, Tribune News Service Hunters, hikers and outdoors lovers of all stripes mounted a campaign in June against a Republican proposal to sell off millions of acres of federal public land. a. But even though the land sales proposal was defeated, experts say federal lands face a slew of other threats from President Donald Trump's administration. Agency leaders have proposed rolling back the 'Roadless Rule' that protects 58 million acres from logging and other uses. Trump's Justice Department has issued a legal opinion that the president is allowed to abolish national monuments. Regulators have moved to slash environmental rules to ramp up logging and oil and gas production. And Trump's cuts to the federal workforce have gutted the ranks of the agencies that manage federal lands. 'This is not over even if the sell-off proposal doesn't make it,' said John Leshy, who served as solicitor for the US Department of the Interior during the Clinton administration. 'The whole thing about leasing or selling timber or throwing them open to mining claims, that's a form of partial privatization. It's pretty much a giveaway.' Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum has repeatedly described public lands as America's 'balance sheet.' He has argued that some lands could be used to provide housing, while calling for an expansion of mining and oil and gas drilling to increase their economic output. 'President Trump's energy dominance vision will end those wars abroad, will make life more affordable for every family in America by driving down inflation,' Burgum said before his confirmation hearing. Public lands advocates are bracing for ongoing battles for the rest of Trump's term in office. They expect Republicans to add last-minute public lands amendments to other bills moving through Congress, and for land management agencies to attempt to strip protections from other federal lands. Given the vocal backlash to the initial sell-off plan, advocates expect future attempts to be shaped behind closed doors and advanced with little time for opponents to mount a defense. Meanwhile, they expect states to play a key role in shaping those battles. In Western states, where most federally owned lands are located, many leaders from both parties view public lands as special places open to all Americans and critical for clean water, wildlife and tourism. But some conservatives resent the fact that large portions of their states are managed by officials in Washington, DC, limiting development and private enterprise. Officials in some states, including Idaho, Utah and Wyoming, have pushed lawsuits or resolutions seeking to force the feds to hand over huge amounts of land. Public land experts say the lawmakers behind those efforts will likely press harder now that Trump is in the White House. Such state-level takeover attempts could shape the proposals that emerge from Trump's allies in Washington. The firestorm over federal lands exploded when US Sen. Mike Lee, a Utah Republican, introduced legislation that would force the US Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management to sell up to 3.3 million acres of land. The measure also would direct the agencies to make more than 250 million additional acres eligible for sale. 'We've never seen a threat on this magnitude ever,' said Devin O'Dea, Western policy and conservation manager with Backcountry Hunters & Anglers. 'There's been an overwhelming amount of opposition. We've seen record-breaking engagement on this issue.' Lee, a longtime federal lands opponent, claimed the lands were needed for housing and argued the government has been a poor manager of its land. 'Washington has proven time and again it can't manage this land,' Lee said in June when announcing the proposal. 'This bill puts it in better hands.' But a wide-ranging coalition of opponents argued that the proposal had no protections to ensure the lands would be used for affordable housing, and that many of the parcels eligible for sale had little housing potential. A furious social media campaign highlighted cherished hiking trails, fishing lakes and ski slopes that were in danger of being sold, urging people to call their lawmakers to oppose the measure. In recent days, Montana Republican US Sens. Steve Daines and Tim Sheehy, as well as Idaho Republican US Sens. Mike Crapo and Jim Risch, came out in opposition to the land sale proposal. That put into question whether Lee's legislation could earn even a simple majority. Then the Senate parliamentarian ruled the sell-off could not be included in the reconciliation bill without a 60-vote majority. That ruling came a day after Lee posted on social media that he would be making changes to the bill in response to concerns from Hunter Nation, a nonprofit whose board includes Donald Trump Jr. Lee released a scaled-back measure last week that would exempt national forest lands but would direct the Bureau of Land Management to sell up to 1.2 million acres. It would require land for sale to be within five miles of a population center and developed to provide housing. Public land advocates say Lee's changes did little to assuage their concerns. They argue that federal land sales or transfers should happen through the current, long-standing process, which requires local stakeholder input and directs the proceeds from land sales to be reinvested into conservation and public access on other parcels. 'It's the overwhelming belief of hunters and anglers that the budget reconciliation process is not the appropriate vehicle for public land sales,' said O'Dea, with the hunting and fishing group. On Saturday evening, Lee announced that he was withdrawing the proposal, saying that Senate rules did not allow him to include protections that land would not be sold to foreign interests. But he pledged to continue the battle over federal land ownership, working with Trump to 'put underutilised federal land to work for American families.' While the sell-off proposal aligned with some state officials' goal of taking over federal lands, some lands experts say private developers would have been the real winner. 'If the lands are transferred to the states without money, the states lose,' said Leshy, the former Interior Department official. 'It's a hit on their budget, which means they're gonna have to sell them off. If states got a significant amount of public lands, a lot of that would end up in private hands.' In Utah, where leaders have made the most aggressive push to take over federal lands, lawmakers argue that they could raise lease prices for oil and gas operations, bringing in enough revenue to cover the state's management costs. 'The policy of the state is to keep these lands open and available to the public,' Speaker Mike Schultz, a Republican, told Stateline. O'Dea pointed to an economic analysis of what it would cost Montana to take over federal lands. The report found it would cost the state $8 billion over 20 years to take on wildfire management, deferred maintenance and mine reclamation. He noted that many Western states have sold off a majority of the 'trust lands' they were granted at statehood, undermining claims that a state takeover would leave lands in the public domain. While Lee's land sales proposal has gotten the biggest headlines, public land advocates are fighting a multifront battle against the Trump administration's moves to roll back the protected status of certain lands, slash environmental rules, and expand logging, mining and drilling operations.
Gulf Today
an hour ago
- Gulf Today
Trump's ‘Bill' just put the Senate in play for Democrats
On Sunday, Sen. Thom Tillis, a North Carolina Republican, announced that he would not seek re-election. This came after numerous threats from President Donald Trump because of Tillis' opposition to the so-called "One Big, Beautiful" bill. Trump had even floated the idea of endorsing a primary challenger against Tillis. But when The Independent caught up with Tillis, he seemed sanguine about the whole affair. "I respect President Trump, I support the majority of his agenda, but I don't bow to anybody when the people of North Carolina are at risk and this bill puts them at risk," he told The Independent. Trump's decision to bash a senator from a state he won and Republicans need to keep could be seen as reckless. But it also jeopardised Republicans' chances of holding onto a Senate seat Tillis consistently won by narrow margins. Tillis simply recognised a political truth: it's nearly impossible to take away an entitlement once it is embedded in federal law and people have benefited from it. Voters tend to punish the party they see as trying to take away a benefit, particularly something as intensely personal as health care. Trump should have learned this in 2017 after he failed to pass a repeal of the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, when the late Arizona Sen. John McCain delivered his dramatic thumbs down. But Trump's bulldozing style and demand for absolute fealty from Republicans means he might be jeopardising the future of the Republican majority in the Senate. Democrats already had Tillis in their crosshairs after he had voted to confirm Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and he shepherded Kash Patel's confirmation for FBI director. With an open seat, they have an even greater opportunity. A few months ago, Inside Washington listed North Carolina as the Senate seat most likely to flip. That prospect is much more likely with Tillis' departure. But Tillis is not the only swing-state Republican who faces a bind because of the bill. Inside Washington listed Susan Collins' seat in Maine as the No. 3 Senate seat most likely to flip. Collins faces a major challenge considering the bill caps the taxes on healthcare providers that states use to raise matching funds for Medicaid. As a result, Collins has put forward an amendment to increase the amount of money to shore up rural hospitals from $25 billion to $50 billion. That will certainly anger fiscal conservatives, to say nothing of Trump, despite the fact that many of his most die-hard supporters live in areas that depend on rural hospitals. Collins seems poised to run for re-election, especially after she defied gravity and beat back a Democratic challenger in 2020. But she faces a bind: if she votes yes on the bill, she will have hurt her most vulnerable voters after wringing her hands for weeks. If she opposes it, she will have crossed Trump. At age 72, choosing not to run next year is always a viable option. Republicans have 53 seats at the moment. So two seats flipping will not lose them the majority. But they also face the prospect of a bloody primary between incumbent Sen. John Cornyn and Attorney General Ken Paxton in Texas, which could create an opening for a Democrat to win in the Lone Star State. And just like how the passage of Obamacare and its ensuing aftermath led to Republicans winning Ted Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts, as well as Democratic-held seats in Arkansas, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, the vote on this piece of legislation could easily put Republicans on the defensive in states previously considered safe like Iowa, Kansas and Nebraska. A perfect example comes from recent Democratic history. When The Independent spoke with Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, the 2024 Democratic nominee for vice president, last month, he compared it to the election that sent him to Washington. "I believe in most part, in 2006 that one of the reasons I got elected to Congress in a tough district was over Social Security," Walz told The Independent. Just the year before, George W. Bush had floated an idea to gradually replace Social Security with private retirements accounts.
Middle East Eye
2 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
Trump moves to revoke US citizenships from naturalised Americans
The Trump administration is making it a priority to strip US citizenship from certain groups of immigrants. A memo dictated by the White House to the Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Division has ordered staff to begin "prioritizing denaturalisation" of US citizens who "engaged in the commission of war crimes, extrajudicial killings, or other serious human rights abuses", or who have been convicted of crimes that are deemed a "threat" to the country. The memo also cites gang membership as a reason to revoke citizenship status. Although the instructions are dated 11 June 2025, they were only made public recently. "Those who obtained [citizenship] through fraud or concealment of material information, do not maintain the benefits of the unlawful procurement," the memo also said. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters " The Civil Division shall prioritise and maximally pursue denaturalisation proceedings in all cases permitted by law and supported by the evidence," the text instructed. Chief among the targeted individuals would be those who "pose a potential danger to national security," a designation that this administration has decided Secretary of State Marco Rubio alone has the discretion to make. He is still trying to deport former Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil, who is now out on bail, by deeming him a threat to US foreign policy for his pro-Palestine activism. Khalil's permanent resident status, known as a green card, remains revoked. A person with a green card has long-held similar rights to citizenship, except for the ability to vote in elections. Other targeted categories include those who "committed felonies that were not disclosed during the naturalisation process" and anyone involved in sex offences or financial fraud - not just against the government, but also against other individuals. "The Civil Division retains the discretion to pursue cases outside of these categories as it determines appropriate," the memo concluded. The Trump administration's plan to deport undocumented immigrants began in a similar fashion, when on the campaign trail, the president said he would target "violent criminals". But since then, the White House has redefined the crime to be the undocumented status itself, leading to nationwide arrests by masked Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. Several videos posted to social media by relatives or bystanders show agonised mothers and children being abruptly separated, with one or the other placed into prison trucks to be taken away for deportation. The violent and public nature of the arrests, as well as a string of mistaken arrests of US citizens of Hispanic origin, has created a chilling effect across immigrant communities, as well as among US visa holders, given Rubio's pledge to revoke as many temporary statuses as he can. Birthright According to the Migration Policy Institute, some seven percent of the 340 million people in the US are naturalised citizens. A naturalised citizen is someone who immigrated to the US and obtained citizenship via a legal process, as opposed to obtaining it through birthright. But now, even being born in the US may no longer include a guarantee of citizenship. US Supreme Court limits judges from blocking Trump order on birthright citizenship Read More » Under the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, all children born in the US - with some exceptions for diplomats, among others - automatically become US citizens. But the Trump administration has sought to abolish that right since he assumed office in January. Trump signed an executive order on 20 January to end automatic citizenship rights. His order decrees that children born to parents in the US illegally or on temporary visas would not automatically become citizens. The highly controversial move was met with a series of lawsuits, which ultimately led to judges in district courts in three states issuing nationwide injunctions that blocked the order from taking effect. The DOJ responded by taking the case to the Supreme Court. The case was not about birthright citizenship directly, but whether a single federal district court judge has the right to issue a nationwide block to a presidential decree through a universal injunction. On Friday, Trump claimed victory after the Supreme Court decided in a 6-3 ruling that nationwide injunctions or pauses issued by district court judges "likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts". On Monday, a lawyer for the government said children who do not have at least one US citizen or green card holder parent would not be considered deportable until at least 27 July, when the Trump birthright order would come into effect. It's unclear whether the law will be applied retroactively. Between now and then, multiple class action lawsuits are being put together at the state level to challenge the order, given that the Supreme Court has made room for reprieve via class action rather than singular decisions by a federal judge. National database Last week, National Public Radio (NPR) revealed that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), along with the Department of Government Efficiency (Doge), has built, for the very first time, a database where it can check if an individual is a US citizen or not. The programme is meant to help local and state officials weed out any fraudulent votes in their elections, but privacy and civil liberties advocates said there are far too few irregular ballots to make any real difference in US elections. Their concerns, they said, are about the other ways in which the software can be used. While having a roster of citizens is both normal and expected in many countries around the world, this has not been the case in the US because of its design as a settler colony since its inception. Republicans in particular, NPR noted, have always been critical of mass data consolidation by the government. But perhaps not anymore, given their majority backing of Trump. Legal experts told NPR that there may be a litany of issues with the database, beginning with the lack of a public notification process. Typically, for the government to collect so much information on US residents, it needs to provide public notice and receive feedback first. There's also the question of whether reliable data security measures are being taken. During the first Trump administration, some states refused to hand over their voter data to the federal government, given that each state handles its own ballots every election cycle, including those for the US president. Others argue that it could be a positive development across the board, allowing citizens to participate in elections more efficiently, as they would not have to produce identification documents to prove their identity.
