Deportation Actions Against US Legal Permanent Residents Affiliated With Haitian FTO Viv Ansanm
I am pleased to announce the latest U.S. actions against individuals whose presence and activities in our country have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.
Specifically, the Department of State has determined that certain individuals with U.S. lawful permanent resident status have supported and collaborated with Haitian gang leaders connected to Viv Ansanm, a Haitian Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO). Viv Ansanm is a driver of the violence and criminality in Haiti contributing to the island's instability. The United States will not allow individuals to enjoy the benefits of legal status in our country while they are facilitating the actions of violent organisations or supporting criminal terrorist organisations.
With this determination, the Department of Homeland Security can pursue the removal of these individuals under section 237(a)(4)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. These new actions demonstrate the Trump Administration's firm commitment to protecting the American people, advancing our national security interests, and promoting regional security and stability.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
2 hours ago
- RNZ News
New Trump tariffs: early modelling shows most economies lose - the US more than many
By Niven Winchester of President Trump announced tariffs on 2 April, pauses them a week later, and on 31 July reinstated and expanded the policy. Photo: CHIP SOMODEVILLA / Getty Images via AFP President Donald Trump's 2 April "Liberation Day" announcement placed reciprocal tariffs on all countries. A week later, amid financial market turmoil, these tariffs were paused and replaced by a 10 percent baseline tariff on most goods. On 31 July, however, the Trump Administration and expanded the reciprocal tariff policy. Most of these updated tariffs are scheduled to take effect on August 7. To evaluate the impact of these latest tariffs , we also need to take into account recently negotiated free trade agreements (such as the US-European Union deal), the 50 percent tariffs imposed on steel and aluminium imports, and tariff exemptions for imports of smartphones, computers and other electronics. For selected countries, the reciprocal tariffs announced on 2 April and the revised values of these tariffs are shown in the table below. The revised additional tariffs are highest for Brazil (50 percent) and Switzerland (39 percent), and lowest for Australia and the United Kingdom (10 percent). For most countries, the revised tariffs are lower than the original ones. But Brazil, Switzerland and New Zealand are subject to higher tariffs than those announced in April. In addition to the tariffs displayed above, Canadian and Mexican goods not registered as compliant with the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement are subject to tariffs of 35 percent and 25 percent respectively. Economic impacts The economic impacts of the revised tariffs are examined using a global model of goods and services markets, covering production, trade and consumption. A similar model was used to assess the impacts of the original reciprocal tariffs and the outcome of a US-China trade war. GDP impacts of the tariffs are displayed in the table below. The impacts of the additional tariffs are evaluated relative to trade measures in place before Trump's second term. Retaliatory tariffs are not considered in the analysis. The tariffs reduce US annual GDP by 0.36 percent. This equates to US$108.2 billion or $861 per household per year (all amounts in this article are in US dollars). The change in US GDP is an aggregate of impacts involving several factors. The tariffs will compel foreign producers to lower their prices. But these price decreases only partially offset the cost of the tariffs, so US consumers pay higher prices. Businesses also pay more for parts and materials. Ultimately, these higher prices hurt the US economy. The tariffs decrease US merchandise imports by $486.7 billion. But as they drive up the cost of US supply chains and shift more workers and resources into industries that compete with imports, away from other parts of the economy, they also decrease US merchandise exports by $451.1 billion. For most other countries, the additional tariffs reduce GDP. Switzerland's GDP decreases by 0.47 percent, equivalent to $1,215 per household per year. Proportional GDP decreases are also relatively large for Thailand (0.44 percent) and Taiwan (0.38 percent). In dollar terms, GDP decreases are relatively large for China ($66.9 billion) and the European Union ($26.6 billion). Australia and the United Kingdom gain from the tariffs ($0.1 billion and $0.07 billion respectively), primarily due to the relatively low tariffs levied on these countries. Despite facing relatively low additional tariffs, New Zealand's GDP decreases by 0.15 percent ($204 per household) as many of its agricultural exports compete with Australian commodities, which are subject to an even lower tariff. Although the revised reciprocal tariffs are, on average, lower than those announced on 2 April, they are still a substantial shock to the global trading system. Financial markets have been buoyant since Trump paused reciprocal tariffs on 9 April, partly on the hope that the tariffs would never be imposed. US tariffs of at least 10 percent to 15 percent now appear to be the new norm. As US warehouses run down inventories and stockpiles, there could be a rocky road ahead. * Niven Winchester is Professor of Economics, Auckland University of Technology This story was first published by The Conversation
1News
2 hours ago
- 1News
China hits back at FBI director's 'groundless assertions' in Wellington
China says it strongly opposes any "groundless assertions" after comments made by the head of the FBI at its new office in Wellington. The US Federal Bureau of Investigation is opening a dedicated attaché office in the capital to investigate threats, including terrorism, cyber crime, money laundering and child exploitation. Director Kash Patel also said it would counter China's influence in the Pacific. Jose Sousa-Santos from the University of Canterbury said the move will bring New Zealand law enforcement up to speed with modern threats. (Source: Breakfast) The Chinese Embassy hit back, saying it took note of the comments and described them as part of a "Cold War mentality". ADVERTISEMENT "Transnational crime is a common challenge encountered by all countries requiring cooperation to tackle," a spokesperson said. "On the opening of a new FBI office in Wellington with a permanent Legat (legal attaché) position, we have taken note of the assertions by the American side, as well as the remarks by relevant New Zealand ministers in response to the media. "We believe that relevant cooperation should not target any third party. And we strongly oppose any attempt to make groundless assertions or vilification against China out of the Cold War mentality. Such acts are against people's will and are doomed to fail." The government has pushed back on suggestions that the FBI's new office in Wellington aimed to counter China. Foreign Minister Winston Peters said China was not raised in his meeting with Patel, and the minister responsible for the spy agencies GCSB and NZSIS, Judith Collins, said it was up to Patel what he wanted to say. A Chinese national flag is raised at the Chinese embassy in London. (Source: Associated Press) "When we were talking, we never had raised that issue," Peters said. "We talked about the Pacific, what we could do to improve the law and order situation and the great concern that Pacific countries had and that they needed help, and that we need to be part of the solution." ADVERTISEMENT Collins said the US was "very focused on fentanyl" and knew New Zealand was focused on disrupting the methamphetamine trade. "We know that we do have international criminals ... let's just understand that our security agency is also involved in this. We're not going to single out any particular country." The morning's headlines in 90 seconds, including fleeing driver hits house, severe turbulence hits US flight, and massive new bug found in Australia. (Source: 1News) University of Otago lecturer Dr Peter Grace said drug and human trafficking was "spiralling out of control" in the region, and New Zealand had limited resources to fight it. "New Zealand is a small state, and we just don't have the kind of resources that are going to help solve these problems… So the fact that you've got somebody with much deeper pockets coming down and cooperating can be a particularly good thing." Opposition parties expressed surprise at the announcement, Labour saying it had come without explanation and Greens saying the office should not exist and New Zealand should exit the Five Eyes arrangement altogether.
NZ Herald
3 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Aaron Smale: Why politicians don't take the Māori vote seriously
Listening to articles is free for open-access content—explore other articles or learn more about text-to-speech. Christopher Luxon's indifference reflects the larger issue of the major parties ignoring Māori as a voting bloc. Photo / Getty Images Whoever the press secretary is for Christopher Luxon these days, they might want to have a weekend bootcamp teaching him how to keep his foot out of his mouth. Apart from when he uses corporate gibberish to masquarade as an answer, on the rare occasion Luxon says something pithy, it often turns out to be an absolute clanger. Luxon tossed off one such clanger when he questioned whether the September 6 by-election for the Māori electorate seat of Tāmaki Makaurau would be a real fight or 'a pillow fight'. (Kind of ironic given the real pillow fight is in the Epsom seat, which National hands to Act every three years.) A by-election will be held in Tāmaki Makaurau because the person who held the seat, Takutai Tarsh Kemp, recently died. And she held the seat because the voters of that electorate put her there, unlike some party list mediocrity like, well, take your pick. Luxon's comment was flippant at best and disrespectful to both the late MP and her constituents. So, no, it's not a pillow fight, it's a vote in the largest Polynesian city in the world. But Luxon's indifference to Māori voters in the coming by-election reflects the larger issue of the major parties mostly ignoring Māori as a voting bloc. One of the underlying reasons for this was first pointed out to me by my sixth form history teacher at Edgecumbe College, Gerry Rowlands, an American originally from Florida, a southern state with all the history that entails. Mr Rowlands posed a hypothetical idea that Māori would be better off all going on the general roll and getting rid of the Māori seats altogether. His rationale was that the electorate we were in was often held by National because of the high number of Pākehā farmers. But if Māori all went on the general roll, then National – and Labour, for that matter – would actually have to compete for the Māori vote to win. The then-named Eastern Māori seat went from the Bay of Plenty all the way around the East Coast and down to Wairarapa and Wellington. This area has one of the highest Māori populations in the country and the election campaigns in the general electorate seats would look completely different if all Māori went on the general roll. Mr Rowlands didn't say this but I don't think he'd disagree – the Māori seats are acting as a passive version of what Americans call gerrymandering. That is, Māori are being electorally contained – or at least split – and thereby robbed of their actual voting power by the Māori seats. The Māori vote has been ghettoised; every Māori who goes on the Māori roll is a Māori the candidates and the elected MPs in the general seats can ignore. And they do. Back to Auckland and the present day. One of Luxon's long catalogue of gaffes since taking up National's leadership was encouraging women to have babies to boost the flagging population. He quickly backtracked. Women have fought long and hard to have control over their fertility and some male politician telling them to start banging out babies for the national cause wasn't landing well. But what Luxon dimly recognised was that Pākehā numbers are in the early stages of decline, and this decline will only accelerate as the 34% of the Pākehā population that is over the age of 55 falls off the perch at an increasing rate. Luxon doesn't seem to recognise, even dimly, that Māori and Polynesian populations are rising steadily. Listen to Luxon's political messaging and it's as if Māori don't exist in his calculations. Labour's Chris Hipkins isn't any better, and in some respects he's worse. When Māori became a political target, he, like Helen Clark before him, dropped them like a hot hāngī rock so he could appear non-threatening to old, white people. The coalition government has had a free run in its attack on Māori because Hipkins does little to stand up for them, or articulate in any coherent way why what's good for Māori is good for everyone. He'd rather let Te Pāti Māori take the flak. Te Pāti Māori has become a convenient – and, it must be said, easy – political target. But those who bear the brunt of the political attack are actually their voters. Their interests get drowned out in all the posturing from across the political spectrum. The merits of the Tāmaki Makaurau candidates – Peeni Henare for Labour, Oriini Kaipara for Te Pāti Māori and Hannah Tamaki for Vision New Zealand – are open to serious question. But National, NZ First, Act, and even the Greens, have disqualified themselves from any part in the conversation, because they haven't bothered to put up candidates. Māori are at the pointy end of issues that concern everyone, particularly those of a younger generation: the cost of housing, the cost of living, the environment and the future of employment. The economic and social direction of South Auckland and other regions of the country with high Māori populations is the direction of the country as a whole. It's a bare-knuckle fight for the future of the nation. Mr Luxon is just too scared to even get in the ring.
