Threat to revoke visas puts Chinese students in US in limbo
Fu Ting, Kanis Leung and Huizhong Wu
©Associated Press
Today at 21:30
Chinese students studying in the US are scrambling to figure out their futures after secretary of state Marco Rubio announced on Wednesday that some of them would have their visas revoked.
The US will begin revoking the visas of some Chinese students, including those studying in 'critical fields' and 'those with connections to the Chinese Communist Party', according to the announcement.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RTÉ News
31 minutes ago
- RTÉ News
Mood shifts on Israel-Gaza, but will it bring change?
There's no doubt the mood has shifted on the Israel-Gaza war. In the past week, three powerful G7 nations - France, the UK and Canada – announced their intention to recognise the State of Palestine at the United Nations General Assembly in September. That means four of the five permanent members of the Security Council - the UN's highest decision-making body - will join the more than 140 member states that already recognise Palestine, leaving the United States diplomatically isolated on the issue. With pressure mounting over starvation in Gaza, the United Nations held a major conference this week aimed at reviving the "two-state solution" for Israel and Palestine, a decades-old idea favoured by most of the world, but largely written off as dead in the water - until now. Boycotting the two-day event, the Israeli ambassador called it "a circus" while the US State Department said it was "unproductive and untimely". But even here, in the US, where support for Israel has been an unshakeable article of faith across the political spectrum, but especially in the Republican Party, key allies of President Donald Trump have begun to dissent. Marjorie Taylor Greene, the MAGA congresswoman from Georgia, took to X to voice her opposition to American policy on Israel. "It's the most truthful and easiest thing to say that Oct 7th in Israel was horrific and all hostages must be returned, but so is the genocide, humanitarian crisis, and starvation happening in Gaza," she wrote. That made her the first Republican in Congress to call Israel's actions in Gaza a genocide. A handful of Democrats have already used that term. Previously, Ms Taylor Greene introduced an amendment to cut funding for Israel's missile defence system – although that failed to garner any real support in Washington. But outside of Congress, fellow MAGA leaders - including the former White House strategist Steve Bannon and the right-wing podcaster Tucker Carlson - have been damning of US policy in the Middle East, seeing it at odds with their "America First" doctrine. Mr Bannon – though still a staunch supporter of Israel – has little time for the current prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whom he once called a "bald-faced liar". Mr Carlson criticised US aid to Israel, arguing the money would be better spent at home to tackle the opioid epidemic, among other domestic crises. He also slammed the recent Israeli airstrike on a Catholic Church in Gaza City. "They're not allowed to use my tax dollars to bomb churches," he told a US podcast. "I'll put up with a lot of stuff, but I don't understand how any Christian leader in the United States can sit by and not say something about that," he said. Scepticism of American involvement in "forever wars" is certainly a hallmark of the MAGA movement. Indeed, last year, ahead of the election that returned Mr Trump to power, I reported from his rally at New York's iconic Madison Square Gardens. During an Israel-focused speech beamed onto the giant outdoor screen, a man in the crowd shouted, "why are you talking about Israel – what about America?". In another post on X this week, Ms Greene pressed that case. "Most Americans that I know don't hate Israel and we are not antisemitic at all," she wrote. "We are beyond fed up with being told that we have to fix the world's problems, pay for the world's problems, and fight all the world's wars while Americans are struggling to survive even though they work every day". Then there is President Trump himself, who this week made headlines when he contradicted Mr Netanyahu's denial of starvation in Gaza. Asked if he agreed with Mr Netanyahu's assessment, Mr Trump said: "Based on television, I would say not particularly, because those children look very hungry". "They have to get food and safety right now," he added. The following day, a UN-backed report found that the "worst-case" famine scenario was unfolding across Gaza. Mr Trump dispatched his Middle East special envoy Steve Witkoff and Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee to inspect aid distribution sites run by American contractors under the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF). The GHF sites, set up to replace UN aid distribution networks which the US and Israel said were hijacked by Hamas, have become the scene of near-daily mass killings of starving Palestinians, prompting international outrage. The French Foreign Minister, Jean-Noel Barrot, co-chairing this week's conference, called it a "bloodbath". Last weekend, a group of Democratic senators wrote to the US Secretary of State Marc Rubio urging him to "immediately cease" all US funding for GHF and resume support for UN-led operations, with increased oversight. Adding to the pressure, a former US contractor with GHF gave an interview to the BBC saying that in his entire career, he had "never witnessed the level of brutality and use of indiscriminate and unnecessary force against a civilian population, an unarmed, starving population". Anthony Aguilar, a United States Army veteran, dismissed by the GHF as a disgruntled ex-employee, continued to speak out on US and international media platforms. Gaza aid today, he said, was like The Hunger Games. 'Turning point' With the mood apparently shifting in Washington and across the world, diplomats gathered for the UN's two-state solution conference this week feeling like the momentum was behind them. "It can and must serve as a decisive turning point," the UN Secretary General António Guterres said in his opening remarks. "One that catalyses irreversible progress towards ending the occupation and realising our shared aspiration for a viable two-state solution," he said. The sentiment was echoed over the following two days and the conference's final declaration won more support than diplomats initially expected. The ambitious seven-page document called for an immediate ceasefire, the release of Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners, recognition of Palestine by countries that have not yet done so, normalisation of relations with Israel, the disarmament of Hamas, and a commitment to a political solution with the Palestinian Authority, subject to major reforms in control of Gaza and the West Bank. Significantly, it was the first time a UN document, signed by Arab nations, officially condemned the Hamas-led attacks on Israel on 7 October, 2023. But two critical players – Israel and the United States – were not there. In their absence, was this a case of the UN shouting into the void? I asked Mary Robinson, former president and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights at a news conference on Monday. She said that she felt real pressure in the conference room that the world had to move forward. "I think that can't be ignored, even by a powerful United States supporting Israel, the current Israeli government," she said, adding, "they particularly can't ignore the widespread sense now of an unfolding genocide and the starvation of children, of women, pregnant women". This could be the point of realisation, she said, that the US "is becoming complicit in a genocide". "That could be enough," she said. It is certainly true that Americans' support for Israel's military campaign has waned. A recent Gallup poll showed just a third of US citizens polled backed Israel's actions in Gaza – the lowest since November 2023. It is also worth noting, as an aside, that New York could be on the brink of electing as mayor Zohran Mamdani – an outspoken critic of Israel's military assault on Gaza, who has said he would arrest Mr Netanyahu were he to come to the city. On Monday, the UN conference's co-chair Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud, Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia, was upbeat about the prospects of finding common ground with the White House. After all, it was Mr Trump who brokered the Abraham Accords during his first term – a deal to normalise relations between Israel and the Arab states of United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Morocco. "I think we've all heard President Trump statements on many occasions that he is a man of peace, that he is someone who opposes war, and he is a humanitarian," Mr bin Farhan Al Saud told reporters at the conference. He said he believed US engagement, especially the engagement of President Trump, could be a "catalyst for an end to the immediate crisis in Gaza and potentially a resolution of the Palestinian Israeli conflict In the long term". Saudi Arabia's eventual sign-up to the accords was always the big prize for Mr Trump. But the Saudi foreign minister made it clear this week that there would be no negotiation on the matter, without an end to the war and the establishment of a Palestinian State. The Saudis certainly have a good deal of leverage in Washington. But then, so does Mr Netanyahu. Some experts remain sceptical that the shift in mood will yield any real change. "I think we've reached a turning point in terms of perceptions of the war, and I think a tipping point in the coverage of the catastrophe," Michael Hanna, US Programme Director at the International Crisis Group, an NGO aimed at conflict prevention. "I'm not yet sure that that is going to fully translate into a change in policy," he added. He said there was always a gulf between public opinion and the political class in the US. "That gap is shrinking in some respects - we see a rise in criticism," he said. "Again, criticism is not the same as policy shift". Ms Greene, for example, was largely alone in Congress on the Republican side, he said. Indeed, while the week started with Mr Trump sympathising with the plight of hungry Palestinians, by Thursday, he was issuing barely veiled threats against Canada over its intention to recognise a Palestinian State. The State Department also announced sanctions against the Palestinian Authority and Palestinian Liberation Organisation on Thursday, which means members will be unable to travel to the US for the UN General Assembly in September. As for diplomatic isolation at the UN, that is something the US is prepared to bear, Mr Hanna told RTÉ News. "It is notable when the isolation also encompasses other Western members of the permanent five, UK and France, so maybe it's magnified isolation. "But the US has been willing to endure that isolation for a very long time, so it's not clear that that is particularly uncomfortable," he said. A lot hinges on President Trump's own views of course, and it is anyone's guess what he will decide next. His approach to the Middle East has been "all over the map," Mr Hanna said. There have been moments of tension between Mr Trump and Mr Netanyahu, he added. "There were direct contacts with Hamas, which I think shocked the Israelis," he said, "then the U-turn on the Yemen campaign". Mr Trump abruptly declared an end to the bombing of Houthi rebel group positions in May. "And then, of course, then another big shift on intervention in Iran," he said in reference to the US joining Israel's bombing campaign of Iran's nuclear sites in a surprise move in June. The flip-flopping continued this week, when President Trump initially said he had "no view" on the matter, when the British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced the UK's intention to recognise the State of Palestine. But within hours, Mr Trump had labelled recognition "a reward for Hamas". Amid all the rhetoric and noise, Mr Hanna said, the point is that there is "still no ceasefire in Gaza".
Irish Times
2 hours ago
- Irish Times
Maga versus the EU: are European regulators a target in Trump's war on online ‘censorship'?
A fortnight ago, US secretary of state Marco Rubio revoked visas and thus blocked a judge and members of his family from entering the United States. Accusing the judge of a 'political witch hunt' against former Brazilian leader Jair Bolsonaro – a far-right populist with close links to Donald Trump 's 'Maga' movement – Rubio maintained that this involved 'a persecution and censorship complex so sweeping that it not only violates basic rights of Brazilians, but also extends beyond Brazil's shores to target Americans'. 'President Trump made clear that his administration will hold accountable foreign nationals who are responsible for censorship of protected expression in the United States', he said. Censorship of free speech has become a very important issue for the Trump administration, particularly on restrictions on what is said online. READ MORE Some on the right in the US are concerned that regulations imposed on Big Tech in Europe are blowing back across the Atlantic and targeting conservatives. In Washington, where Republicans control the White House and Congress, this is a politically explosive charge. Rubio had announced in late May a new policy that would impose visa bans on foreign nationals the administration deemed to be censoring Americans and suggested this could include officials regulating US tech companies. He said it was unacceptable for foreign officials to demand American tech platforms adopt global content moderation policies or engage in censorship activity that reached into the United States. Rubio's visa ban on the Brazilian judge may not have been headline news internationally, but it was noticed in Brussels and among those regulating Big Tech. It is understood that following Rubio's policy announcement in May some figures in Ireland's media regulatory body, Coimisiún na Meán , made enquiries to the Department of Foreign Affairs as to what this could mean. No one was really sure. Coimisiún na Meán is responsible for the application and enforcement of the European Union's Digital Services Act (DSA) in Ireland. But the European Commission also monitors areas such as ensuring very large online platforms conduct regular risk assessments on illegal content or material that could negatively affect elections, security or public health. The visa ban on the Brazilian judge showed Washington's policy shift in May was not just rhetoric; regulators, officials and their families could be banned from entering the United States. Musk and Zuckerberg In early July a Christian advocacy group called ADF International argued online that the EU's DSA represented a threat to free speech 'and must be repealed'. Shortly afterward Elon Musk , owner of social media platform X, replied: 'Yes'. It was an indication of the concern among US tech companies at what they saw as unfair overseas taxation and regulation. In January Meta chief Mark Zuckerberg argued that Europe had 'an ever-increasing number of laws institutionalising censorship'. These comments were rejected by politicians in Europe who, in turn, were alarmed by Musk urging Germans on his social media platform to vote for the far right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party in elections. Ideological and financial concerns There was a time when many on the right in the US viewed the tech industry as a bastion of Silicon Valley liberals. In more recent times, the US tech sector has forged close links with Trump. The Wall Street Journal reported last month that after Trump's election last November, tech chiefs including Zuckerberg and Google's Sundar Pichai met the incoming president at his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida and that the need to curb 'harmful policies' overseas consistently came up in their conversations. The concerns of Big Tech and Trump's Maga movement appeared to be aligning to a degree. Dubliner Ian Plunkett, a tech policy analyst in Washington, DC, told The Irish Times that Big Tech companies had adopted a pragmatic approach under the new Trump administration. Those companies that stood by Trump at his inauguration in January were following the power, he said. Many in Trump's Maga base considered regulatory enforcement in Europe as an attack on American innovation, he said; in the eyes of those in Trump's base, US companies had developed this global technology but other countries then had the temerity to impose taxes through the enforcement of regulations that they regarded contrary to their interpretation of the freedom of speech provisions in the US constitution. Trump supporters may have ideological concerns about European regulators curtailing their free speech, but the US tech sector is also looking at the potential financial impact of European regulations. It was widely reported in the US in recent months that Musk's X social media network faced potential fines of up to €1 billion for violations of the EU's DSA, although this has been denied by the European Commission . Over recent months the House of Representatives committee on the judiciary, chaired by republican Jim Jordan, has been carrying out an investigation into 'how and to what extent foreign laws, regulations and judicial orders compel, coerce or influence companies to censor speech in the United States'. Last week in an interim staff report, the committee strongly criticised the DSA as 'the EU's comprehensive digital censorship law'. The report argued that this legislation stemmed originally from claims of Russian interference in elections in the US and in France. In the theology of Maga, this is considered heresy, as it implies that Trump did not win the White House fairly in 2016. The report describes as 'inaccurate' EU claims that the DSA applies only to Europe and that it targets only what is harmful or illegal. 'Non-public documents reveal that European regulators use the DSA to target core political speech that is neither harmful nor illegal and to pressure platforms, primarily American social media companies, to change their global content moderation policies in response to European demands,' the report said. 'Put simply, the DSA infringes on American online speech.' The report points to an EU Commission workshop last May where, it maintains, a hypothetical social media post stating: 'We need to take back our country' was categorised as 'illegal hate speech' that platforms were required to censor under the DSA. The committee described the term as 'a common, anodyne political statement'. 'The DSA incentivises social media companies to comply with the EU's censorship demands because the penalties for failing to do so are large, including fines up to 6 per cent of their global revenue,' the report said. 'If 'extraordinary circumstances lead to a serious threat to public security or public health in the Union', regulators are even empowered to temporarily shut down platforms within the EU.' Ireland 'unusually exposed' Members of the House committee that drew up the report were in Ireland this week and held meetings with tech companies and Coimisiún na Meán. The delegation's visit also came in the week that X lost a legal challenge to aspects of Ireland's online safety code that are viewed by the Irish Government as crucial in protecting children. But it was not the first time that visitors from Washington had travelled to Dublin to discuss online regulation. Staff at Coimisiún na Meán met representatives from the US state department on May 30th 'following a request from the US embassy to better understand its functions and international collaboration'. On May 19th, state department officials told Coimisiún na Meán the visitors from Washington would 'like to understand how Ireland navigates balancing the protection of freedom of expression with the need to address and mitigate hate speech and online harms. 'They would like to understand how the Media Commission approaches implementation of the DSA and domestic hate speech laws, including their impact on American companies.' A note prepared by Coimisiún na Meán after the meeting said it had provided an introduction to fundamental rights, 'including on empowering users who can see if and why their content has been removed or restricted online under the Digital Services Act'. 'Some general discussion on freedom of expression and the differences between US law and European and member state law followed.' Coimisiún na Meán told The Irish Times in June that the US officials 'did not seek any changes to any aspect of An Coimisiún's regulatory work at this meeting, nor did they express any concerns in relation to it'. The US state department said officials from the bureau of democracy, human rights and labour had visited Ireland 'to underscore the administration's support for freedom of expression and the ability of all voices to be heard in the political process and to learn more about the Irish government's approach to protecting human rights'. Dr TJ McIntyre, associate professor at the Sutherland School of Law in UCD and chair of civil liberties group Digital Rights Ireland, said the fact that so many big tech companies have headquarters in this country meant Ireland was 'unusually exposed' in the arguments over regulation and censorship. The extent to which Irish law affected some of the right-wing agenda being promoted by some firms and their owners meant 'you can expect further interference in the Irish democratic process' to try to enable them to continue with that agenda, he said.
Irish Examiner
7 hours ago
- Irish Examiner
Book review: Downfall of last shah of Iran
Written with the galloping pace of a cliff-edge political thriller and the intimacy of a memoir, Scott Anderson's King of Kings is a wonderful, engaging history. It is a tremendous summation of the clichés that can attend the end, benign or otherwise, of a regime that imagined itself loved and secure. It is also a warning to those prepared today to see our own times through the prism offered by a resonating episode from the past. Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the last shah of Iran, was, through American and British skullduggery, imposed on Iran in 1953. His ennoblement came after then prime minister Mohammad Mosaddegh had the temerity to champion workers' rights and nationalise the country's huge oil reserves, undermining the Anglo-American exploitation — piracy dressed as international business — established by Winston Churchill on the eve of the First World War. The British and Americans hoped he might be as assertive in protecting their interests as his father was. Hardly a humanitarian, army officer Reza Shah Pahlavi brought a Tehran bakers' strike to an end by roasting the workers' leader alive in one of his ovens. That kind of decisiveness was alien to his son, who was incapable of making any decision unless he could identify someone to blame should his judgement prove inappropriate. Time and time again, as the noose of change tightened, his prevarications lost the day and cost his festering courtiers ground. It would be unfair to blame the King of Kings, a title he generously assumed in 1967, for the challenges facing his utterly corrupt country. He was supported by an American diplomatic service utterly delusional and imperceptive. The US ambassador for a lot of the Shah's reign — William Sullivan — was more interested in sustaining the lucrative circle of buying Iranian oil and encouraging the inept and insecure Shah to use a vast proportion of those revenues to buy arms from America. So detached was the American legation that fewer than a dozen of the hundreds stationed in the country could speak Farsi. This vulnerability was exacerbated by a communications process more like one from 1825. One of the often-universal themes in this wonderful book is how autocracies that outstay their welcome are often replaced by usurpers far worse than they were. Just as Russia's and China's pressure-cooker revolutions unseated rotten dynasties but replaced them with even more malignant administrations, Iran's determination to depose the Shah mixed nationalism and a medieval religious fanaticism in the person of the vile, hateful Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. The legacy of that calamitous intervention remains centre stage in our volatile world. Anderson is a wonderful writer, one who winnows substance from the imagined in a way that must remind all politicians that the opportunity to resolve critical issues is not open-ended. Whether our housing crisis can gather the velocity that turned Iran rogue is an open question but it is also an increasingly pressing one. How reassuring it would be if Anderson's warning had the impact it deserves.
