Eight migrants deported from Djibouti to South Sudan: US Homeland Security
South Sudan has long been dangerous even for local residents. The US state department advises citizens not to travel there due to violent crime and armed conflict. The UN has said the African country's political crisis could reignite a brutal civil war that ended in 2018.
The eight men — who according to their lawyers are from Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar, Sudan and Vietnam — had argued their deportations to South Sudan would violate the US constitution, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. They had been held in US custody in Djibouti since a federal judge in Boston in May blocked the Trump administration from immediately moving them to South Sudan over due process concerns.
Following additional litigation, the Supreme Court on Thursday sided with the administration, lifting those limits.
Two courts considered requests from the migrants' lawyers on an emergency basis on Friday, when courts are otherwise closed for the holiday, but ultimately US district judge Brian Murphy in Boston said the Supreme Court order required him to deny their bid, clearing the way for their deportation.
The location of the men in South Sudan after their arrival was not immediately known.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
eNCA
an hour ago
- eNCA
SA scrambles as US slaps 30% tariff on imports
JOHANNESBURG - President Donald Trump's decision to impose a 30% tariff on South African imports has sent shockwaves through key export sectors particularly agriculture. The citrus industry, which exports significant volumes to the US market, is especially concerned about the looming impact. South Africa is now scrambling to negotiate a better trade deal ahead of the tariff implementation deadline on 1 August. But the pressure doesn't stop there Trump has also threatened an additional 10% tariff on BRICS countries, raising broader concerns about South Africa's trade future.
The South African
2 hours ago
- The South African
'No extensions' to August tariff deadline, Trump warns South Africa
President Donald Trump said Tuesday that he would not extend an August 1 deadline for higher US tariffs to take effect on South Africa's and other countries' economies, while announcing plans for a 50% duty on copper imports. The copper levy would come after a probe into imports of the metal, broadening a slate of sector-specific tariffs Trump has imposed since returning to the White House. 'Today we're doing copper,' he told a cabinet meeting Tuesday. 'I believe the tariff on copper, we're going to make it 50%.' Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told CNBC shortly afterward that the rate will likely be implemented at the end of July or on August 1. Trump also said Washington would soon make an announcement on pharmaceuticals, but officials would allow manufacturers time to relocate their operations into the country. 'We're going to give people about a year, a year and a half to come in, and after that, they're going to be tariffed,' he said. 'They're going to be tariffed at a very, very high rate, like 200%.' Apart from copper and pharmaceuticals, Trump has ordered probes into imports of lumber, semiconductors and critical minerals that could lead to further levies. Lutnick told CNBC that US studies on pharmaceuticals and semiconductors would be completed by the end of the month, with Trump to set policies thereafter. Beyond tariffs impacting sectors, Trump separately slapped a sweeping 10% tariff on goods from almost all trading partners in April. These would have swiftly risen to steeper levels for dozens of economies including the European Union and Japan, but Trump paused their implementation until July 9. The president this week again delayed their reimposition, pushing it to August 1 while insisting there would be no further delay. 'No extensions will be granted,' Trump posted on Truth Social. 'There will be no change.' The clarification came after Trump told reporters Monday night that the August 1 deadline was 'firm, but not 100% firm.' In a push for further trade deals, Trump also sent letters to more than a dozen partners on Monday, including key US allies Japan and South Korea. Products from both countries would be hit with 25% duties, Trump wrote in near-identical documents to leaders in Tokyo and Seoul. Indonesia, Bangladesh, Thailand, South Africa and Malaysia were among other countries facing duties between 25% and 40%. Most countries receiving the letters so far saw US tariffs at similar or unchanged rates from those threatened in April, although some like Laos and Cambodia received notably lower levels. In his messages to foreign leaders, Trump warned of further escalation if there was retaliation against his levies. Lutnick said 15 to 20 more letters could go out in the next two days. Trump insisted Tuesday that 'big money will start coming in on August 1.' US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent added at the cabinet meeting that tariff income could exceed $300 billion by year-end. The Trump administration is under pressure to show results after promising a flurry of deals following its tariff threats. Trump said Washington was 'probably two days off' from sending the EU a letter setting out an updated tariff rate for the bloc. 'They're very tough, but now they're being very nice to us,' he said. 'We are talking to them.' So far Washington has only struck two pacts, with Britain and Vietnam, besides an agreement to dial back staggeringly high tit-for-tat levies with China. Lutnick said he expects to start a 'bigger trade conversation' between Washington and Beijing in early August, alongside Bessent and US trade envoy Jamieson Greer. And US talks with Britain are ongoing over steel and aluminum. Trump recently doubled US tariffs on imports of both metals to 50% while exempting the UK from this increase. But Washington could double the levy on UK steel and aluminum too starting Wednesday, if it determined that London had not complied with the terms of their deal. In threatening tariff hikes on various countries, Trump cited in his letters a lack of reciprocity in trading ties. Let us know your thoughts by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 0211. Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news. © Agence France-Presse
Daily Maverick
2 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
President Ramaphosa's National Dialogue is out of touch with African grassroots
President Cyril Ramaphosa's announcement of a National Dialogue, intended to forge consensus around a new 30-year National Development Plan (NDP), is yet another reminder of how disconnected our leadership has become from the realities South Africans face daily. While our communities grapple with gender-based violence, crime, corruption, inequality and social fragmentation, what we are being offered is not the opportunity to confront these urgent crises head-on, but rather a carefully curated event, far removed from the daily struggles of ordinary citizens. This disconnect becomes even more glaring when we consider the lessons of the past. Back in 2009, when the original NDP process began, the National Planning Commission, chaired by then Minister Trevor Manuel, was clear about the distinction between lofty ideals and actionable plans. 'Visions are visions. They are broad, frequently general. They are aspirations,' Manuel warned. 'But plans have to be detailed, supported by numbers.' Ramaphosa's proposed dialogue feels like yet another broad, aspirational exercise disconnected from practical, measurable action. The missing first step: returning to our roots of authentic dialogue Growing up in an African community, Ramaphosa would have been shaped by traditions that prioritised meaningful, grassroots engagement. Justice under the tree, gathering around the fire and community problem-solving were never abstract ideals; they were lived, practical realities that anchored decision-making in language, culture and shared understanding. Our Constitutional Court itself reflects these principles, embodying restorative justice rooted in African traditions. We saw the same values during the Mont Fleur Scenarios of 1991, where South African leaders, activists, economists, ANC officials, academics and business leaders came together to confront the harsh realities of apartheid and imagine a different future. Importantly, they engaged with humility, urgency and a willingness to hear uncomfortable truths – not in corporate boardrooms, but through inclusive dialogue grounded in real experiences. Somewhere along the way, Ramaphosa seems to have lost sight of these foundational principles. The fundamental flaw in Ramaphosa's National Dialogue is that it skips the most crucial first step: genuine engagement with the communities most affected by South Africa's challenges. This is not merely a matter of consultation; it is about ensuring any national conversation is grounded in real data, authentic voices, and the uncomfortable truths that emerge from township streets, rural villages and community halls. Without this foundation, dialogue among elites becomes premature, uninformed and, ultimately, disconnected from the problems it claims to address. The reality on the ground: excluded frontline voices In my recent experience of engaging with three police stations on their approach to gender-based violence (GBV), it became clear that the very people tasked with delivering justice are underprepared, unsupported and excluded from meaningful conversations about solutions. Officers openly expressed frustration at their lack of training and resources, especially when dealing with GBV cases. Some even asked, 'How do we begin to report and deal with GBV cases?' It was deeply concerning to hear officers say that they don't know how to deal with one of the biggest issues the country is facing. If Ramaphosa spent time listening to those on the front lines – police officers, community workers, survivors – his policies would be shaped by reality, not disconnected visions. But right now, these critical voices are excluded from shaping national solutions. This concern reflects a broader problem: the people working on the front lines are systematically excluded from meaningful conversations about solutions. Many operate within broken systems, with little institutional support, resulting in failed justice for survivors and growing public distrust. These are the voices and experiences that should inform any national dialogue. Building an informed foundation: the path forward Before any national dialogue proceeds, we need to start where the real South African story is being lived – around fires, in community halls, on street corners – speaking directly to those affected by these challenges. Language, culture and context matter. Social consensus cannot be built in luxury venues when trust, understanding and practical solutions have yet to be built at the grassroots level. This means conducting proper research, gathering credible data and creating space for diverse communities across South Africa to share their lived experiences. We don't need to reinvent solutions – South Africans already know what works: authentic, community-driven engagement, leadership grounded in reality, and a willingness to hear hard truths. Return to roots Ramaphosa must return to the spaces where he once witnessed genuine, grassroots dialogue. We need honest, uncomfortable, face-to-face conversations with those carrying the daily weight of South Africa's hardships. The president would do well to take cues from his own comrades, notably Trevor Manuel, whose original NDP process recognised that vision alone is meaningless without measurable action rooted in lived experience. Likewise, the lessons of Mont Fleur show that during times of deep division, bold, inclusive conversations driven by ordinary people, not staged events, can help reshape South Africa's future. The president faces a clear choice: continue with another sanitised, media-friendly gathering that delivers little beyond soundbites, or embrace the messy, uncomfortable, yet potentially transformative work of authentic, community-based engagement. Until that first critical step is taken, this so-called dialogue remains premature, disconnected and destined to miss the very voices it claims to elevate. Anything less is performative politics – a detached exercise in optics, wasting state resources that should be directed towards solving the very crises this dialogue claims to address. DM
