&w=3840&q=100)
Migrants deported from US to Salvadoran prison under US control: Officials
The revelation was contained in court filings Monday by lawyers for more than 100 migrants who are seeking to challenge their deportations to El Salvador's mega-prison known as the Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECOT.
The case is among several challenging President Donald Trump's immigration crackdown.
In this context, the jurisdiction and legal responsibility for these persons lie exclusively with the competent foreign authorities, Salvadoran officials wrote in response to queries from the unit of the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The UN group has been looking into the fate of the men who were sent to El Salvador from the United States in mid-March, even after a US judge had ordered the planes that were carrying them to be turned around.
The Trump administration has argued that it is powerless to return the men, noting that they are beyond the reach of US courts and no longer have access to due process rights or other US constitutional guarantees.
But lawyers for the migrants said the UN report shows otherwise.
El Salvador has confirmed what we and everyone else understood: it is the United States that controls what happens to the Venezuelans languishing at CECOT. Remarkably the US government didn't provide this information to us or the court, American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Lee Gelerent said in an email.
Skye Perryman, CEO and president of Democracy Forward, said the documents show that the administration has not been honest with the court or the American people. The ACLU and Democracy Forward are both representing the migrants.
Administration officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The administration in March agreed to pay $ 6 million for El Salvador to house 300 migrants. The deal sparked immediate controversy when Trump invoked an 18th century wartime law, the Alien Enemies Act, to quickly remove men it has accused of being members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua.
In a related case, the administration mistakenly sent Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the same prison, despite a judge's order prohibiting the Maryland man from being sent to El Salvador.
The administration initially resisted court orders to bring him back to the US, saying he was no longer in American custody. Eventually, Abrego Garcia was returned to the US, where he now faces criminal charges of human smuggling while legal battles continue.
Last month, a coalition of immigrant rights groups sued to invalidate the prison deal with El Salvador, arguing that the arrangement to move migrant detainees outside the reach of US courts violates the Constitution.
(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
14 minutes ago
- News18
'They'll Have To Pay': Trump Warns India, Other BRICS Members Of Extra 10% Tariff
Last Updated: Donald Trump said White House tariff letters represent trade deals as he warned BRICS of a 10% tariff. US President Donald Trump said that the tariff letters sent by the White House to various countries effectively represent trade deals. During a cabinet meeting, Donald Trump said, 'A letter means a deal because it is a better way- because we have 200 countries." The comment comes amid Donald Trump's sweeping trade overhaul, under which more than a dozen countries received formal notices of tariff hikes, with rates ranging from 25% to 40%. The White House said these moves are aimed at correcting long-standing trade imbalances and pressuring countries to engage on more favorable terms. Donald Trump's Warning To BRICS Nations Donald Trump issued a clear warning to BRICS nations- Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa- which has been expanding and exploring alternatives to US-dollar-dominated trade systems. Donald Trump said, 'BRICS was set up to undermine the dollar. If they are a member of BRICS, they have to pay a 10% tariff." Reaffirming his commitment to defending the dollar's dominance in global finance, Donald Trump said bluntly, 'The dollar is king. We are going to keep it that way. If people want to challenge it, they can. But they will have to pay a big price. I don't think any of them are going to pay that price." The 10% surcharge, he suggested, would apply broadly to nations formally joining or actively aligning themselves with BRICS, adding another layer to his administration's confrontational economic posture. He reiterated that the letters function as non-negotiable offers- signaling that compliance, not prolonged talks, is his preferred path to economic alignment. Donald Trump's Tariffs Under Donald Trump's new tariff regime, the United States imposed sharply increased rates on 14 countries, with the highest levies targeting Laos and Myanmar at 40 percent, followed by Thailand and Cambodia at 36 percent and Bangladesh and Serbia at 35 percent. Indonesia faces a 32 percent rate while South Africa and Bosnia and Herzegovina are hit with 30 percent tariffs. A 25 percent tariff has been applied to Malaysia, Tunisia, Japan, South Korea and Kazakhstan. These tariffs are set to take effect on August 1. Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from geopolitics to diplomacy and global trends. Stay informed with the latest world news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! view comments First Published: July 08, 2025, 23:06 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Economic Times
16 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Mass job cuts, layoffs soon in U.S? Check who will be fired?
Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads FAQs U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way on Tuesday for President Donald Trump's administration to resume carrying out mass job cuts and the restructuring of agencies, elements of his campaign to downsize and reshape the federal government. The justices lifted San Francisco-based U.S. District Judge Susan Illston's May 22 order that had blocked large-scale federal layoffs called "reductions in force" affecting potentially hundreds of thousands of jobs, while litigation in the case proceeds. Trump in February announced "a critical transformation of the federal bureaucracy" in an executive order directing agencies to prepare for a government overhaul aimed at significantly reducing the federal workforce and gutting offices and programs opposed by the administration. Workforce reductions were planned at the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, State, Treasury, Veterans Affairs and more than a dozen other wrote in her ruling that Trump had exceeded his authority in ordering the downsizing, siding with a group of unions, non-profits and local governments that challenged the administration. "As history demonstrates, the president may broadly restructure federal agencies only when authorized by Congress," Illston judge blocked the agencies from carrying out mass layoffs and limited their ability to cut or overhaul federal programs. Illston also ordered the reinstatement of workers who had lost their jobs, though she delayed implementing this portion of her ruling while the appeals process plays ruling was the broadest of its kind against the government overhaul being pursued by Trump and the Department of Government Efficiency, a key player in the Republican president's drive to slash the federal spearheaded by billionaire Elon Musk, DOGE has sought to eliminate federal jobs, shrink and reshape the U.S. government and root out what they see as wasteful spending. Musk formally ended his government work on May 30 and subsequently had a public falling out with San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 ruling on May 30 denied the administration's request to halt the judge's 9th Circuit said the administration had not shown that it would suffer an irreparable injury if the judge's order remained in place and that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail in their lawsuit."The executive order at issue here far exceeds the president's supervisory powers under the Constitution," the 9th Circuit wrote, calling the administration's actions "an unprecedented attempted restructuring of the federal government and its operations."The 9th Circuit's ruling prompted the Justice Department's June 2 emergency request to the Supreme Court to halt Illston's the personnel of federal agencies "lies at the heartland" of the president's executive branch authority, the Justice Department said in its filing to the Supreme Court."The Constitution does not erect a presumption against presidential control of agency staffing, and the president does not need special permission from Congress to exercise core Article II powers," the filing said, referring to the constitution's section delineating presidential plaintiffs urged the Supreme Court to deny the Justice Department's request. Allowing the Trump administration to move forward with its "breakneck reorganization," they wrote, would mean that "programs, offices and functions across the federal government will be abolished, agencies will be radically downsized from what Congress authorized, critical government services will be lost and hundreds of thousands of federal employees will lose their jobs."The Supreme Court in recent months has sided with Trump in some major cases that were acted upon on an emergency basis since he returned to office in cleared the way for Trump's administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face. In two cases, it let the administration end temporary legal status previously granted on humanitarian grounds to hundreds of thousands of also allowed Trump to implement his ban on transgender people in the U.S. military, blocked a judge's order for the administration to rehire thousands of fired employees and twice sided with his Department of Government Efficiency.A1. The full form of DOGE is Department of Government Efficiency.A2. President of USA is Donald Trump.
Time of India
24 minutes ago
- Time of India
India abstains as UN votes for end to ‘repressive' Taliban policies
P Harish, India's permanent representative to the UN NEW DELHI: India and China were among 12 countries that abstained in UN General Assembly from voting on a resolution on Afghanistan, seeking political inclusion and urging Taliban to reverse its repressive policies resulting in the "grave, worsening, widespread and systematic oppression" of all women and girls. The 193-member UNGA adopted the draft resolution introduced by Germany with 116 votes in favour, two against (US and Israel) and 12 abstentions. Explaining its abstention, India cited Kabul's strong condemnation of the Pahalgam attack, and said a coherent policy to address a post-conflict situation must be a mix of policy instruments: incentivising positive behaviour and disincentivising harmful actions. Pakistan, which has had a turbulent relationship with Taliban in recent times, voted in favour. On the contrary, India's ties with the Taliban have improved dramatically even in the absence of a formal recognition by New Delhi of the regime in Kabul, as evident from foreign minister S Jaishankar's recent contact over phone with Afghan acting foreign minister Amir Khan Muttaqi. "An approach focused only on punitive measures, in our view, is unlikely to succeed. The United Nations and the broader international community have adopted more balanced and nuanced approaches in other post-conflict contexts. However, no new policy instruments have been introduced to address the worsening humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan since Aug 2021," said P Harish, India's permanent representative to the UN. "A 'business as usual' approach, without new and targeted initiatives, is unlikely to deliver the outcomes the international community envisions for the Afghan people," he added. "While we remain committed to continued engagement with all relevant stakeholders and broadly support the international community's efforts towards a stable, peaceful and prosperous Afghanistan, India has decided to abstain on this resolution," said Harish in his statement, while calling upon the international community to work together for an Afghanistan free of terrorist activities. "The international community must direct its coordinated efforts towards ensuring that entities and individuals designated by the UN Security Council, the Al Qaeda and their affiliates, ISIL and their affiliates, including Lashkar-e-Tayyiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed, along with their regional sponsors who facilitate their operations, no longer exploit the Afghan territory for terrorist activities," said the ambassador. According to a UN News report, the UNGA resolution called on Taliban to swiftly reverse policies that exclude women from education, employment and public life. It also demanded that Afghanistan not be used as a safe haven for terrorist activity.
