NEW YORK: The administration of US President Donald Trump opposed opening the door to grandparents from six Muslim-majority countries on Monday, arguing in a court filing that the government’s interpretation of how to implement its temporary travel ban is based on US immigration law.
The US Supreme Court in a ruling last Monday revived parts of Trump’s March 6 executive order that banned people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days, which had been blocked by lower courts. The highest court let the ban go forward with a limited scope, saying that it cannot apply to anyone with a credible “bona fide relationship” with a US person or entity.
Trump said the measure was necessary to prevent terrorist attacks. But opponents, including states and refugee advocacy groups, sued to stop it, disputing its security rationale and saying it discriminates against Muslims.
After the Supreme Court ruling, the government said that a “bona fide relationship” means close family members only: Parents, spouses, siblings and children. Grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews and cousins from the six countries would still be banned.
The government’s definition, “hews closely to the categorical determinations articulated by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act,” Department of Justice lawyers argued in court papers on Monday.
The government’s filing came after the State of Hawaii last week went to US District Judge Derrick Watson in Honolulu, who originally ruled to block the ban, to seek clarification of the Supreme Court’s ruling, arguing the government’s definition of “bona fide relationship” was too narrow.
The government said Hawaii, and refugee organizations that filed a “friend of the court” brief in support of the state, were seeking to apply “broader, free-hand rules.”
The refugee organizations had argued that their work to resettle refugees, a process that can take years of work in coordination with the US government, qualifies as a “bona fide” relationship with a US entity. Any refugees with such a relationship should be exempt from the three-month ban on refugees included in the executive order, according to the Supreme Court ruling.
But the government said workers with offers of employment with a US company and international students are fundamentally different than refugees receiving help from US resettlement agencies.
“A refugee’s relationship with the agency flows from the government, not from an independent relationship between the refugee and the resettlement agency,” the government said in its brief. “Indeed, resettlement agencies typically do not have any direct contact with the refugees they assure before their arrival in the United States.”
Using the organization’s interpretation would make the refugee provisions in the executive order “largely meaningless,” the government said.
US refugee resettlement is continuing as normal until July 6, the State Department has said, around when the 50,000 cap for the fiscal year set by Trump’s executive order is likely to be reached.
Late on Thursday, before the ban went into effect, the government reversed its position on fiancés, saying they could also qualify for exceptions. The court filing described a 72-hour scramble to “coordinate among multiple government agencies, and issue detailed guidance” on how to implement the Supreme Court’s ruling.
The roll out of the narrowed version of the ban was more subdued on Friday compared to in January when Trump first signed a more expansive version of the order, sparking protests and chaos at airports around the country and the world.
White House defends interpretation of travel ban ruling
White House defends interpretation of travel ban ruling
Elon Musk joined Trump’s call with Ukraine’s Zelensky, media reports say
- Ukraine's President Zelensky called Trump on Wednesday to congratulate him on his election win, Axios reported
- Trump reportedly said he would support Ukraine, without providing details, and Musk reportedly said he would continue supplying Starlink satellites
WASHINGTON: When Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky called Donald Trump to congratulate him on his presidential election victory, Tesla CEO and Trump supporter Elon Musk joined the call, according to media reports on Friday. During the 25-minute call on Wednesday, the day after the election, Trump told Zelensky he would support Ukraine, without providing details, and Musk said he would continue supplying Starlink satellites, Axios reported, citing unidentified sources.
Musk owns SpaceX, which provides Starlink satellite communication services that are vital for Ukraine’s defense effort, but his statements have sometimes angered Kyiv since Russia invaded its neighbor in 2022.
Zelensky was telling Trump how important the satellites had been for Internet service during the war when Trump said Musk was with him and put the billionaire on the line, the Washington Post reported.
Trump and Musk were at Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s Palm Beach residence and club, when the call took place, according to the New York Times.
Musk gave millions of dollars to support Trump’s presidential campaign and made public appearances with him. Trump has said he would offer Musk, the world’s richest person, a role in his administration promoting government efficiency.
Musk did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Trump campaign said it did not comment on private meetings.
Zelensky was among the first leaders to congratulate Trump, who has been critical of US military and financial support for Ukraine in its war with Russia.
Zelensky said in a post on social media platform X on Wednesday that his conversations with Trump should continue.
“We agreed to maintain close dialogue and advance our cooperation. Strong and unwavering US leadership is vital for the world and for a just peace,” the Ukrainian president said.
UK’s Met Police refers itself to watchdog over Al-Fayed probes
- Two women have complained about the police's handling of investigations into alleged sexual abuse by the late Harrods owner Mohamed Al-Fayed
LONDON: The UK’s Metropolitan Police on Friday referred itself to the police watchdog following complaints from two women over its handling of investigations into alleged sexual abuse by late Harrods owner Mohamed Al-Fayed.
The complaints, referred to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), involve investigations from 2008 and 2013.
They revolve around the quality of the police response and, in the case of the 2013 probe, how details came to be disclosed publicly.
“In recent weeks, two victims-survivors have come forward with concerns about how their allegations were handled when first reported, and it is only appropriate that the IOPC assess these complaints,” said Stephen Clayman, from the Met’s Specialist Crime team.
“Although we cannot change the past, we are resolute in our goal to offer every individual who contacts us the highest standard of service and support,” he added.
More than 400 women and witnesses have come forward in the past six weeks alleging sexual misconduct by Fayed, who died in August last year aged 94.
The allegations follow the airing of a BBC documentary in September that detailed multiple claims of rape and sexual assault by the former owner of the upmarket London department store.
The Justice for Harrods Survivors group said it had received 421 inquiries, mainly related to the store but also regarding Fulham football club, the Ritz Hotel in Paris and other Fayed entities.
The Met said Friday that it was “actively reviewing 21 allegations reported to the Metropolitan Police prior to Mohamed Al-Fayed’s passing... to determine if any additional investigative steps are available or there are things we could have done better.”
India’s Naga separatists threaten to resume violence after decades-long truce
- “The violent confrontation between India and Nagalim shall be purely on account of the deliberate betrayal and breach of commitment by India and its leadership to honor the letter and spirit of Framework Agreement of 2015,” he said
GUWAHATI, India: An armed separatist group in a remote northeast Indian state on Friday threatened to “resume violent armed resistance” after nearly three decades of ceasefire, accusing New Delhi of failing to honor promises in earlier agreements.
The Naga insurgency, India’s oldest, is aimed at creating a separate homeland of Nagalim that unites parts of India’s mountainous northeast with areas of neighboring Myanmar for ethnic Naga people. About 20,000 people have died in the conflict since it began in 1947.
A ceasefire between the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (Isak-Muivah), a leading separatist group, and Indian security forces has held since it was enforced in 1997 and the group signed an agreement with New Delhi in 2015 toward striking a resolution on their demands.
BACKGROUND
A ceasefire between the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (Isak-Muivah), a leading separatist group, and Indian security forces has held since it was enforced in 1997.
But talks have stagnated since and in a statement Friday, the group’s chief, Thuingaleng Muivah, accused India of “betrayal of the letter and spirit” of the 2015 agreement.
India’s Interior Ministry did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Muivah’s remarks.
In a statement, Muivah urged Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s federal government to “respect and honor” the 2015 agreement, which he said “officially recognized and acknowledged” the right to a sovereign flag and constitution for the separatists.
Muivah proposed a “third party intervention” to resolve the impasse, threatening that it would resume violence if “such a political initiative was rejected.”
“The violent confrontation between India and Nagalim shall be purely on account of the deliberate betrayal and breach of commitment by India and its leadership to honor the letter and spirit of Framework Agreement of 2015,” he said.
“India and its leadership shall be held responsible for the catastrophic and adverse situation that will arise out of the violent armed conflict between India and Nagalim,” he said.
Comoros arrests suspected key smuggler
- The International Organization for Migration said on Monday that at least 25 people died after the boat was “deliberately capsized by traffickers”
MORONI, Comoros: Police in the Comoros said on Friday they had arrested the alleged leader of a smuggling network involved in the capsizing of a migrant boat that claimed around two dozen lives.
The boat sank on a well-known smuggling route between the Comoros island of Anjouan and the French Indian Ocean archipelago of Mayotte on Nov. 1.
“The smuggling ringleader who owned the capsized boat was arrested on Thursday in Anjouan,” Col. Tachfine Ahmed said.
“He admitted that he owned the boat and bought all the material needed for the trip,” he added, saying the 37-year-old suspect was a resident of Mayotte.
The International Organization for Migration said on Monday that at least 25 people died after the boat was “deliberately capsized by traffickers.”
The Comoros police said they knew of 17 deaths.
Fishermen rescued five survivors who said the boat was carrying around 30 people, including women and young children, the IOM said.
A survivor said the smugglers sank the vessel before fleeing on a speedboat.
Police confirmed the survivor’s account, saying the two smugglers escaped.
“We are actively looking for the two smugglers who got on another boat,” the colonel added.
In addition to homicide charges, the arrested suspect faces up to 10 years imprisonment for belonging to an organized criminal group as well as three years for illegal transport of passengers.
Anjouan is one of three islands in the nation of Comoros, located around 70 km northwest of Mayotte, which became a department of France in 2011.
Despite being France’s poorest department, Mayotte has French infrastructure and welfare, which makes it attractive to migrants from Comoros seeking a better life.
Many pay smugglers to make the dangerous sea crossing in rickety fishing boats known as “kwassa-kwassa.”
UK court awards Manchester bomb victims £45,000 over hoax claims
- Martin Hibbert and his daughter Eve sued Richard Hall over claims made in videos and a book that they were “crisis actors“
- Judge Karen Steyn called Hall’s behavior “a negligent, indeed reckless, abuse of media freedom”
LONDON: Two survivors of the 2017 bomb attack at an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, England, on Friday won £45,000 ($58,000) in damages from a former TV producer who claimed the attack was a hoax.
Martin Hibbert and his daughter Eve sued Richard Hall over claims made in videos and a book that they were “crisis actors” employed by the state as part of an elaborate deception.
Hibbert sustained a spinal cord injury in the attack, and his daughter suffered severe brain damage.
Hall argued that he was acting in the public interest by filming Hibbert’s daughter outside her home, but the High Court in London agreed with Hibbert’s claim for harassment.
Judge Karen Steyn called Hall’s behavior “a negligent, indeed reckless, abuse of media freedom” and on Friday ordered him to pay Hibbert and his daughter each £22,500 in damages.
Hall must also pay 90 percent of their legal costs, currently estimated at £260,000.
“The claimants are both vulnerable. The allegations are serious and distressing,” said the judge.
Jonathan Price, lawyer for the claimants, said that Hall “insisted that the terrorist attack in which the claimants were catastrophically injured did not happen and that the claimants were participants or ‘crisis actors’ in a state-orchestrated hoax, who had repeatedly, publicly and egregiously lied to the public for monetary gain.”
Hibbert welcomed the ruling, adding: “I want this case to open up the door for change, and for it to protect others from what we have been put through.
“It proves and has highlighted... that there is protection within the law, and it sends out a message to conspiracy theorists that you cannot ignore all acceptable evidence and harass innocent people.”
Islamic extremist Salman Abedi, aided by his brother, Hashem Abedi, killed 22 people and injured 1,017 during the suicide bombing at the end of the concert by the US singer.
