Corrections: July 4, 2025
Because of an editing error, a picture caption with an article on Thursday about a federal judge's ruling that the Trump administration cannot categorically deny asylum claims from people crossing the southern border referred incorrectly to immigrant processing in Tapachula, Mexico. The city is in the south of Mexico, not near a U.S. port of entry.
Errors are corrected during the press run whenever possible, so some errors noted here may not have appeared in all editions.
To contact the newsroom regarding correction requests, please email nytnews@nytimes.com. To share feedback, please visit nytimes.com/readerfeedback.
Comments on opinion articles may be emailed to letters@nytimes.com.
For newspaper delivery questions: 1-800-NYTIMES (1-800-698-4637) or email customercare@nytimes.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
an hour ago
- CBS News
U.S. deports men from Asia and Latin America with criminal records to South Sudan after legal saga
The Trump administration said it deported a group of eight men convicted of serious crimes in the United States to the conflict-ridden African country of South Sudan, following a weeks-long legal saga that had kept the deportees in a military base in Djibouti for weeks. Assistant Department of Homeland Security Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said the deportation flight carrying the deportees landed in South Sudan just before midnight EST on Friday. A photo provided by the department showed the deportees, with their hands and feet shackled, sitting inside an aircraft, guarded by U.S. service members. Eight men from Asia and Latin America were deported from the United States to South Sudan after a weeks-long legal fight. U.S. Department of Homeland Security The deportations to South Sudan — a country plagued by armed conflict and political instability that the U.S. government warns Americans not to visit — mark an unprecedented new frontier in President Trump's government-wide crackdown on illegal immigration. None of the deportees is from South Sudan. They hail from Cuba, Mexico, Laos, Myanmar, Sudan and Vietnam, and were ordered deported from the U.S. after being convicted of crimes, including murder, homicide, sexual assault, lascivious acts with a child and robbery. The high-profile legal battle over the fate of the men culminated when two federal judges on Friday denied a last-ditch attempt by immigration rights advocates to halt the deportations, saying their hands were tied by recent orders from the U.S. Supreme Court. The deportations signify a major political victory for the Trump administration, which has sought to convince countries around the world — irrespective of their human rights record — to accept deportees who are not their citizens, including those convicted of serious crimes. "A district judge cannot dictate the national security and foreign policy of the United States of America," said McLaughlin, the DHS spokeswoman. "This Independence Day marks another victory for the safety and security of the American people." The deportations have also alarmed human rights advocates, who fear the men could face jail time, torture or other harms in South Sudan. They've argued the deportations to South Sudan are designed to punish the men for their crimes, even though they have already served criminal sentences in the U.S. "The U.S. State Department warns Americans against all travel to South Sudan, yet deported these men there without any due process," said Trina Realmuto, an attorney for the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, which tried to halt the deportations. "Make no mistake about it, these deportations were punitive and unconstitutional." It's unclear exactly how the deportees will be treated in South Sudan. A Justice Department attorney told a federal judge Friday that South Sudan informed the U.S. it would offer the men a temporary immigration status, but the lawyer could not confirm whether they would be detained. The Trump administration has said in court filings that South Sudanese officials have made assurances that the deportees will not face torture. The men's deportation was made possible by a Supreme Court order earlier this week. At the request of the Trump administration, the Supreme Court on Thursday clarified the scope of an earlier order it had issued to pause a lower court ruling barring deportations to third-party countries without a degree of due process and notice. That April lower court ruling by U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Massachusetts had required the Trump administration to give detainees sufficient notice and a chance to be interviewed by a U.S. asylum officer before any deportation to a country where they did not hail from. That case thwarted several deportation efforts, including a plan to send detainees to Libya. When he learned of the administration's plan to deport the eight men to South Sudan in May, Murphy blocked that effort, mandating the U.S. to retain custody of the detainees and to offer them a chance to contest their deportation. The administration transferred the detainees to the Camp Lemonnier naval base in Djibouti, where U.S. officials described dangerous conditions, including concerns about malaria, rocket attacks, inadequate security protocols and triple-digit outdoor temperatures. But the Supreme Court last month suspended Murphy's ruling from April. And on Thursday, it said Murphy could no longer require the government to allow the detainees in Djibouti to contest their deportation, since the order underpinning that requirement had been paused. Hours later, immigrant rights advocates asked a different federal judge, Randolph Moss in Washington, D.C., to halt the deportations to South Sudan. He did so on Friday, but only briefly before saying the request should be handled by Murphy. Moss expressed concern about risks to the men's "physical safety" and said the U.S. government should not be in the business of inflicting "pain and suffering" on people who have already served their sentence, even for "terrible crimes." But he said his hands were tied, telling the advocates they needed to ask Murphy for any intervention. Later on Friday, Murphy denied the advocates' request, saying the Supreme Court orders were "binding."
Wall Street Journal
an hour ago
- Wall Street Journal
How Trump's Anti-DEI Push Is Unraveling College Scholarships
Colleges, companies and philanthropic organizations are retooling millions of dollars in scholarships that for years supported minority students. Under threat from the Trump administration and activist groups over diversity programs, some are scrapping scholarships entirely. Others are broadening the programs to focus on low-income students in general or tweaking applications to try to keep their original missions.
Time Business News
2 hours ago
- Time Business News
Bihar's Economy Under Nitish Kumar: Growth Amidst Challenges as BJP-JD(U), RJD, and Jan Suraaj Gear Up for High-Stakes 2025 Elections
New Delhi- Bihar, one of India's most politically dynamic states, is heading towards a crucial Assembly election in 2025 where the performance of the economy under Chief Minister Nitish Kumar has become a key talking point. Since Nitish Kumar took office in 2005, the state's economy has witnessed remarkable transformation with its Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP) growing nearly six-fold—from ₹71,000 crore to over ₹6 lakh crore. Massive investments in infrastructure, road networks, rural development, and social welfare schemes have been credited with driving this economic rise. Despite these developments, Bihar continues to face significant challenges. The state remains at the bottom in terms of per capita income, which is still just one-third of the national average. Unemployment is a major concern, with rates soaring to nearly 19% in recent years. Industrial development has lagged behind, and many youth are forced to migrate to other states for better employment opportunities. These economic shortcomings are at the center of political debates as the state heads to the polls. The ruling BJP-JD(U) alliance, led by Nitish Kumar, is banking on its record of consistent economic growth, improved infrastructure, better healthcare, and education reforms. Government schemes such as Jeevika, improved minimum support prices for farmers, and better connectivity in rural areas are being showcased as achievements. The alliance hopes to replicate past electoral successes by highlighting 'double-engine' development under the central and state governments. On the other hand, the INDIA bloc led by Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), Congress, and Left parties is focusing on issues of unemployment, poverty, inflation, and inequality. Opposition leaders have accused the Nitish government of neglecting job creation and industrial development, despite impressive GDP numbers. They argue that the so-called 'Sushasan' (good governance) has failed to transform the lives of common people, especially in rural and backward regions. Adding a new twist to Bihar's political landscape is Prashant Kishor's Jan Suraaj party, which is steadily gaining ground. Positioning itself as an alternative to both the NDA and RJD, Jan Suraaj is appealing to voters who are disillusioned with traditional caste-based politics and the status quo. The party has focused its campaign on governance reforms, job creation, quality education, and anti-corruption measures. Kishor has promised a new vision for Bihar, one that moves beyond the past two decades of political rivalry. As Bihar approaches the 2025 Assembly elections, the state stands at a political crossroads. While Nitish Kumar's long-standing leadership is marked by undeniable economic growth and social development, deep-rooted issues like joblessness and low income remain unresolved. The outcome of this election will depend not only on past performance but also on which political force can inspire confidence among Bihar's youth, its large migrant population, and rural voters looking for real change. TIME BUSINESS NEWS
