logo
U.S. Bill Named for Iranian Deported to Panama Aims to Shield Asylum Seekers

U.S. Bill Named for Iranian Deported to Panama Aims to Shield Asylum Seekers

New York Times20-05-2025
Four months after the Trump administration deported Artemis Ghasemzadeh, a 27-year-old Iranian Christian convert, to Panama before she could seek asylum for fear of religious persecution, she is still living in limbo.
A 90-day humanitarian visa granted by the Panamanian government will run out in two weeks. Every day, she says, she wonders which country will provide her permanent refuge. Iran considers converting from Islam to any other religion a crime punishable by death.
On Tuesday, new U.S. legislation inspired by Ms. Ghasemzadeh will be introduced in Congress by Representative Yassamin Ansari, an Iranian-American Democratic lawmaker from Arizona. Called the Artemis Act, the bill seeks to prohibit the expedited removal of individuals fleeing countries that the State Department says persecute religious minorities — and ensure they have the chance to claim asylum in a U.S. immigration court.
Though Ms. Ansari says she expects widespread support from Democrats and has reached out to Republican in hopes of generating bipartisan support, experts acknowledge that the bill has little chance of passing given that Republicans hold the majority of votes in the chamber.
Mr. Trump campaigned on the promise to reverse the flow of migrants crossing the southern border and to carry out widespread deportations. Republican lawmakers would not be inclined to endorse any move to restrict Mr. Trump's immigration policy.
Still, the symbolism is significant for Ms. Ghasemzadeh and 10 other Iranian Christians deported to Panama in February and eventually released from a detention camp on the outskirts of the Darién jungle. They said in interviews on Monday that they feel 'seen and heard' at the highest level of American politics, though still trapped in Panama. Christian advocacy groups have taken up their cause.
'I am not sure I will ever see America again, but I want to know this won't happen to anyone else,' Ms. Ghasemzadeh said in an interview on Monday from a hotel in Panama City. 'This would a bigger win for me.'
Ms. Ansari said she was inspired by Ms. Ghasemzadeh's courage and story. She became the de facto face of about a hundred migrants that the United States sent to Panama this year — shackled, forced onto a military plane, held in a hotel and then detained in a jungle camp. She spoke up out about their plight in a viral social media post and to the international news media.
'Without Artemis herself being so apt with social media and sharing her story with the world and the reporting around it, this would not exist,' Ms. Ansari said in an interview on Thursday. .
The bill, Ms. Ansari said, seeks to uphold laws that the Trump administration has ignored in its deportations. Ms. Ansari plans to share a video of a recent virtual conversation with Ms. Ghasemzadeh so that other lawmakers can hear directly from her.
Immigration lawyers say the law requires immigration official to give migrants a 'fear interview' — a process in which they present their cases and provide evidence about why they fear being deported to their home countries. If they pass the interview, they would be referred to an immigration judge for a full asylum hearing.
'Artemis and the majority of people sent to Panama and Costa Rica were expelled without the fear interview and essentially with no process at all,' said Ian Kysel, an associate clinical professor of law at Cornell Law School and one of the lawyers representing the group for free. He said on Monday the bill was 'a refreshing pro-asylum act.'
In the months since the deportation flight to Panama, the Trump administration sent Venezuelan migrants to a notorious prison in El Salvador. The Trump administration planned to fly migrants to Libya, but lawyers for some detained immigrants claimed that people from countries like Vietnam were targeted for potential deportation and asked a federal court to block the effort. The Supreme Court also ruled after one challenge that the U.S. government needed to allow migrants time to fight their deportations under the wartime law known as the Alien Enemies Act.
As for those sent to Panama, Silvia Serna, a Mexican immigration lawyer involved in the case, said that about half of the hundred or so migrants had left Panama, most of them for Mexico. She said 32 were still in a gymnasium turned shelter outside Panama City; 21 — mostly families with children — were living in a hotel provided by UNICEF; and six women were housed in a church shelter.
Mohammand Hanifi, an Iranian Christian convert who along with his wife, Mona, and 8-year-old son was deported to Panama on the same flight as Ms. Ghasemzadeh, said he had considered leaving for Mexico or Brazil, but that the hardest part was not knowing what would happen next. For now, their son is attending an American school on a scholarship in Panama and learning to speak English and Spanish.
Ms. Ghasemzadeh said that if Panama extended the humanitarian visa for the group, with permission to work, she wanted to start building her life. Her biggest worry is being deported to Iran.
One option, her lawyer told her, is to apply for asylum in Panama.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

I Asked ChatGPT What Would Happen If Billionaires Paid Taxes at the Same Rate as the Upper Middle Class
I Asked ChatGPT What Would Happen If Billionaires Paid Taxes at the Same Rate as the Upper Middle Class

Yahoo

time4 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

I Asked ChatGPT What Would Happen If Billionaires Paid Taxes at the Same Rate as the Upper Middle Class

There are many questions that don't have simple answers, either because they're too complex or they're hypothetical. One such question is what it might mean for billionaires to pay taxes at the same rate as the upper middle class, whose income starts, on average, at around $168,000, depending on where you live. Find Out: Read Next: ChatGPT may not be an oracle, but it can analyze information and offer trends and patterns, so I asked it what would happen if billionaires were required to pay anywhere near as much as the upper middle class. Here's what it said. A Fatter Government Larder For starters, ChatGPT said that if billionaires paid taxes like the upper middle class, the government would bring in a lot more money — potentially hundreds of billions of dollars more every year. 'That's because most billionaires don't make their money from salaries like upper-middle-class workers do. Instead, they grow their wealth through investments–stocks, real estate, and businesses–which are often taxed at much lower rates or not taxed at all until the assets are sold,' ChatGPT told me. Billionaire income is largely derived from capital appreciation, not wages. In other words, they make money on their money through interest. And as of yet, the U.S. tax code doesn't tax 'unrealized capital gains' so until you sell your assets, you could amass millions in appreciation and not pay a dime on it, ChatGPT shared. Learn More: What Do Billionaires Pay in Taxes? Right now, many billionaires pay an effective tax rate of around 8% or less, thanks to loopholes and tax strategies. Meanwhile, upper-middle-class households earning, say, $250,000 might pay around 20% to 24% of their income in taxes. (Keep in mind that the government doesn't apply one tax bracket to all income. You pay tax in layers, according to the IRS. As your income goes up, the tax rate on the next layer of income is higher. So you pay 12% on the first $47,150, then 22% on $47,151 to $100,525 and so on). So, if billionaires were taxed at the same rate as those upper-middle-class wage earners, 'it would level the playing field–and raise a ton of revenue that could be used for things like infrastructure, education or healthcare,' ChatGPT said. The Impact on Wealth Equality I wondered if taxing billionaires could have any kind of impact on wealth equality, as well. While it wouldn't put more money in other people's pockets, 'it could increase trust in the tax system, showing that the wealthiest aren't playing by a different set of rules,' ChatGPT said. It would also help curb 'the accumulation of dynastic wealth,' where the richest families essentially hoard wealth for generations without contributing proportionally to the system. But it's not a magic bullet. 'Wealth inequality is rooted in more than just taxes–wages, education access, housing costs, and corporate ownership all play a role,' ChatGPT said. Billionaires paying taxes doesn't stop them from being billionaires, either, it pointed out. Taxing Billionaires Is Not That Simple While in theory billionaires paying higher taxes 'would shift a much bigger share of the tax burden onto the very wealthy,' ChatGPT wrote, billionaires are not as liquid as they may seem. 'A lot of billionaire wealth is tied up in things like stocks they don't sell, so taxing that would require big changes to how the tax code works.' Also, billionaires are good at finding loopholes and account strategies — it might be hard to enforce. What's a Good Middle Ground? We don't live in a black and white world, however. There's got to be a middle ground, so I asked ChatGPT if there is a way to tax billionaires more, even if it's not quite how the upper middle class are taxed. A likely compromise would come from a policy decision, which isn't likely to be forthcoming anytime soon. President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill only offered more tax breaks to the wealthiest. However, policy proposals that have been floated, include: A minimum tax on billionaires where they might pay around 20% of their overall income Limiting deductions and closing tax loopholes that allow them to significantly reduce taxable income Tax unrealized gains (those assets that have only earned but not yet been sold), gradually. ChatGPT agreed that billionaires could pay more than they currently do, even if they don't pay exactly what upper-middle-class workers pay in percentage terms. 'The key is to design policies that are fair, enforceable, and politically feasible.' I asked how realistic such policy proposals are, and ChatGPT told me what I already knew: They're 'moderately realistic' but only with the 'right political alignment.' More From GOBankingRates 9 Downsizing Tips for the Middle Class To Save on Monthly Expenses This article originally appeared on I Asked ChatGPT What Would Happen If Billionaires Paid Taxes at the Same Rate as the Upper Middle Class Se produjo un error al recuperar la información Inicia sesión para acceder a tu portafolio Se produjo un error al recuperar la información Se produjo un error al recuperar la información Se produjo un error al recuperar la información Se produjo un error al recuperar la información

New poll finds 96% Idaho voters say public lands should remain in public hands
New poll finds 96% Idaho voters say public lands should remain in public hands

Yahoo

time4 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

New poll finds 96% Idaho voters say public lands should remain in public hands

More than 60% of the land in Idaho is public land, including this high altitude lake at the base of Thompson Peak in the Sawtooth Wilderness. (Photo by Clark Corbin/Idaho Capital Sun) Ninety-six percent of all registered voters in Idaho believe that public lands should remain in public hands, according to a new poll paid for by Conservation Voters for Idaho. The poll was conducted in the aftermath of a federal proposal from U.S. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, to make millions of acres of public land in the U.S., including in Idaho, available to be sold off. The poll specifically asked Idaho voters questions about Idaho public lands and who they support in Idaho's 2026 U.S. Senate race. Alexis Pickering, executive director of Conservation Voters for Idaho, said she has never in her career seen Idahoans from all sides of the political spectrum unite behind a single issue like they have behind public lands this year. 'It really is clear that voters are unified in keeping public lands in public hands,' Pickering said in a phone interview Wednesday. 'It demonstrates that Idaho voters are very cognizant of this fight right now,' Pickering said. 'They are very engaged, and they are not going to sit this out.' More than 60% of the land in Idaho is public land of some form. The polling firm Change Research conducted the poll among 1,027 registered Idaho voters from July 15-17. The margin of error was 3.2%, according to Change Research. One poll question asked voters, 'Did you support or oppose the amendment to sell off over 3 million acres of public land across 11 Western states, including Idaho?' – with 87% of respondents saying they opposed it. Battles over public lands loom even after sell-off proposal fails Another poll question asked voters which statement came closest to their opinion: Public lands in Idaho, where people enjoy outdoor activities such as fishing, hunting, hiking, camping, and biking, should remain public and be protected so that everyone can keep enjoying them. Public lands in Idaho, where people enjoy outdoor activities such as fishing, hunting, hiking, camping, and biking, should be made available for purchase and private ownership. Ninety-six percent of Idaho registered voters said public lands should remain public, including 97% of registered Democrats and 95% of registered Republicans, the poll found. Lee withdrew his amendment to sell public lands after a public backlash and three of Idaho's four members of Congress provided public opposition from within the Republican Party to selling public lands. Even though the public lands amendment was withdrawn, Pickering said the issue isn't going away. She said Conservation Voters for Idaho plans to highlight public lands as a central issue and continue to hold elected officials accountable for keeping public lands public. Pickering also said the public is deeply invested in the issue and knows Lee could file another proposal to sell public lands. She compared the proposal to sell public lands to waking a sleeping bear. 'Now that they have woken the bear, it will be really hard to get that bear back in hibernation mode,' Pickering said. Three of Idaho's four members of Congress, U.S. Sens. Jim Risch and Mike Crapo and U.S. Rep. Mike Simpson, all R-Idaho, provided public Republican opposition to the proposal to sell off public lands, the Sun previously reported. On June 20, Risch and Crapo, both announced they were opposed to the provision in the budget reconciliation process to sell off public lands. Simpson co-sponsored the Public Lands in Public Hands Act. Meanwhile, U.S. Rep. Russ Fulcher, R-Idaho, opposed the Public Lands in Public Hands Act, the Utah News Dispatch reported. In a phone interview with the Idaho Capital Sun earlier this month, Fulcher said, 'public land should remain public, but the control, management should be local stakeholders, not the federal government.' Polling data shows that Risch received a 10% bump in support among all registered voters after they learned Risch provided opposition to the proposal to sell off public lands, up from 41% to 51%. Among registered Republican voters only, Risch's support increased from 60% to 72% after voters learned Risch provided opposition to the proposal to sell off public lands. The poll only asked voters about Risch's upcoming U.S. Senate race, where he faces re-election in 2026. The poll did not ask about Crapo, Simpson or Fulcher, Pickering said. Idaho Capital Sun is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Idaho Capital Sun maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Christina Lords for questions: info@ Solve the daily Crossword

Vinay Prasad Is a Bernie Sanders Acolyte in MAHA Drag
Vinay Prasad Is a Bernie Sanders Acolyte in MAHA Drag

Wall Street Journal

time6 minutes ago

  • Wall Street Journal

Vinay Prasad Is a Bernie Sanders Acolyte in MAHA Drag

Meet Vinay Prasad, a young disciple of Bernie Sanders who ranks as one of the most powerful officials in the federal government. He determines whether patients get access to many life-saving medicines. Or not. Think of him as a one-man death panel. Dr. Prasad was named by Marty Makary, the Food and Drug Administration commissioner, as head of the agency's biologics division in May, and last month as its chief medical and scientific officer. More on why he was tapped to these posts later. But it isn't an exaggeration to say that Dr. Prasad wields more power than Anthony Fauci ever did at the National Institutes of Health.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store