Trump fires labor statistics boss hours after the release of weak jobs reportNew Foto - Trump fires labor statistics boss hours after the release of weak jobs report

President Donald Trump on Friday ordered the firing of the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, hours after a stunning government report showed thathiring had slowed down significantlyover the past three months. Taking to Truth Social, he attacked Erika McEntarfer, the commissioner of the BLS. He claimed that the country's jobs reports "are being produced by Biden appointee" and ordered his administration to terminate her. "We need accurate Jobs Numbers," Trump wrote. "She will be replaced with someone much more competent and qualified. Important numbers like this must be fair and accurate, they can't be manipulated for political purposes." He intensified his attack in a later post, writing: "In my opinion, today's Jobs Numbers were RIGGED in order to make the Republicans, and ME, look bad." He didn't cite any evidence for his claim. The BLS on Friday morning reported that the U.S. economy added just 73,000 jobs in July, well below estimates. It also said it had revised the May and June numbers and they turned out to be lower than previously announced by more than 200,000 jobs. An administration official told NBC News that McEntarfer had indeed been fired. The firing sent shockwaves through Washington, which has already been rattled by waves of terminations through the nearly seven months of Trump's second administration. "President Trump is once again destroying the credibility of our government by firing expert and nonpartisan officials because he does not like the facts that they present," said Max Stier, the CEO of the non-partisan Partnership for Public Service. "Governments that go down this path find themselves in ugly territory very quickly." The deputy commissioner of BLS, Bill Wiatrowski, who took up the role during the Obama administration, will become the acting chief "during the search for a replacement," Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemersaid. Julie Hatch Maxfield, the official who oversees the office that produces the employment report, joined the agency during Trump's first term. McEntarfer didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. President Joe Biden nominated McEntarfer in July 2023 and was confirmed by the Senate in an 86-to-8 vote (with six members not voting) in January 2024. She receivedoverwhelming bipartisan supportin the vote. Vice President JD Vance was among the Republicans who voted to confirm her. William Martin, communications director to Vance, said the vice president stands by the president's decision. "Vice President Vance is completely aligned with President Trump and was glad to see him dismiss the BLS commissioner," Martin said. "The only thing his confirmation vote indicates is that he was at times willing to let nominations move forward even when he disagreed with them. President Trump has the right to hire and fire the people he wants to staff the government he was elected in a landslide to run, and it's high time the leftwing activists in the mainstream media recognize that simple fact." McEntarfer has spent much of her career in the federal government. Throughout the last 20 years, she has worked in the Census Bureau, Treasury Department and on the White House's Council of Economic Advisers. Trump claimed without evidence that the commissioner "faked the Jobs Numbers before the Election to try and boost Kamala's chances of Victory." Former Labor Department officials slammed Trump's decision to fire McEntarfer. "The work is done largely by expert career staff who do their jobs with care and pride," Julie Su, who worked as Labor secretary during the Biden administration, told NBC News. "Career staff who have also been attacked and vilified by this president." The BLS routinely revises economic data such as the jobs report, GDP figures and inflation data. Due to the scale of the U.S. economy and response rates to BLS surveys, there can often be lags in data collection. But that lag does not imply any wrongdoing or manipulation. "Nobody is faking numbers," former Labor Department chief of staff Daniel Koh wrote on X. "Revisions happen all the time." Trump has previously praised the BLS reports, when they were favorable to his administration in April, May and June. In May, the White Housesaidthat April's jobs report "proved" that Trump was "revitalizing" the economy. In June, Trump posted, "GREAT JOBS NUMBERS"on Truth Social. In March, standing in the Oval Office, Trump brought up "how good some of these numbers are." The politicization of economic data and potential interference with it by political appointees is something that's typically seen in nondemocratic countries like Russia, Venezuela or China. Labor Secretary Chavez-DeRemersaidafter the firing, "our jobs numbers must be fair, accurate, and never manipulated for political purposes." Any erosion of trustworthy data can impact businesses, consumers, lending and policymakers. Historically, the United States' economic data has been considered the gold standard due to the independence typically given to agencies that collect it. The agency surveys U.S. businesses and consumers by contacting them online, by mail, through phone calls and in-person visits. It uses responses received through those methods to generate reports for the public and government decision-makers. The Bureau of Labor Statistics is the primary agency that collects information about the nation's labor markets and economy. In its mission statement, the agency says that it "measures labor market activity, working conditions, price changes, and productivity in the U.S. economy to support public and private decision making." The accuracy of government data collection has also been in question due to sweeping government job cuts. Last August, the BLS said818,000 fewer jobs had been createdover a 12-month period than initially thought. At the same time, Trump, who recently resumed attacking Fed Chair Jerome Powell, said that the central bank chief "should also be put 'out to pasture.'" Trump has repeatedly pressured Powell to lower interest rates. But the Fed chair has said there's still "a long way to go to really understand" what the effects of the president's tariffs will be. "If you move too soon, you wind up maybe not getting inflation all the way fixed and you have to come back. That's inefficient. If you move too late, you might do unnecessary damage to the labor market," Powell said on Wednesday.

Trump fires labor statistics boss hours after the release of weak jobs report

Trump fires labor statistics boss hours after the release of weak jobs report President Donald Trump on Friday ordered the firing of the hea...
Smithsonian explains why a Trump reference was removed from impeachment exhibitNew Foto - Smithsonian explains why a Trump reference was removed from impeachment exhibit

The Smithsonian's National Museum of American History in Washington, D.C., has removed references to PresidentDonald Trumpin a display about impeachments, despite Trump being the first and only president in American history to be impeached twice. But the museum says the move is temporary. The Washington Post first reported the changeon Thursday, July 31. On Friday, Aug. 1, the Smithsonian clarified the museum's removal. Here's what we know. The "impeachment" display is housed within the larger, permanent gallery called "The American Presidency," which opened in 2000, according to an emailed statement from the Smithsonian. It features information and artifacts about Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon,according to the display's companion website. Nixon resigned before he could be formally impeached. In September 2021, a "temporary label on content concerning the impeachments of Donald J. Trump" was added, according to the Smithsonian's statement. "It was intended to be a short-term measure to address current events at the time, however, the label remained in place until July 2025." The display has since been returned to how it appeared nearly 20 years ago, according to the Smithsonian statement and the Washington Post's report, which also noted that the exhibit now says, "only three presidents have seriously faced removal," omitting Trump. "In reviewing our legacy content recently, it became clear that the 'Limits of Presidential Power' section in 'The American Presidency: A Glorious Burden' exhibition needed to be addressed," the museum's statement said. "Because the other topics in this section had not been updated since 2008, the decision was made to restore the 'Impeachment' case back to its 2008 appearance." The companion website for the display does not include a dedicated section for the Trump impeachments but notes in an introductory sentence, "The House of Representatives impeached Andrew Johnson in 1868, William J. Clinton in 1998, and Donald Trump in 2019 and again in 2021. In all four cases the Senate voted to acquit." It includes sections about Johnson's impeachment, including tickets and newspaper clips from the time; Nixon's Senate hearing and resignation, including testimony papers and photos from the proceedings; and Clinton's trial, with tickets and Senate question cards. "A future and updated exhibit will include all impeachments," the Smithsonian statement said, noting that updating and renewing permanent galleries"requires a significant amount of time and funding." The Smithsonian declined to answer further questions about the change and the timeline for an updated exhibit. The controversy around the Smithsonian's change to the display comes after the White House in May pushed forthe removal of art director Kim Sajetfrom her role as director of the Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery, citing her "strong support" of "DEI." In March, Trump alsosigned an executive orderdemanding the removal of "anti-American ideology" from the Smithsonian and other cultural institutions. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY:Smithsonian responds after Trump removed from impeachment exhibit

Smithsonian explains why a Trump reference was removed from impeachment exhibit

Smithsonian explains why a Trump reference was removed from impeachment exhibit The Smithsonian's National Museum of American History in...
Republican senators raise concerns about Trump's firing of Labor Dept. officialNew Foto - Republican senators raise concerns about Trump's firing of Labor Dept. official

Some Republican senators have expressed concern about President Donald Trump's decision Friday tofire the head of the Bureau of Labor Statisticshours after the release of the July jobs report. Several Republicans told NBC News that they would take issue with the firing of Erika McEntarfer, the commissioner of the BLS, if it is the result of Trump dislikingthe jobs report numbers, which showed the U.S. job market in the past months has been considerably weaker than previously thought. Trumpdefended his decision Friday, saying without evidence that the report's numbers were "phony" and accused McEntarfer of releasing favorable jobs numbers before the election to give former Vice President Kamala Harris an edge. Follow live politics coverage here Sen. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wy., said if the data is untrustworthy, the public should find out, but firing the commissioner before knowing whether the numbers are inaccurate is "kind of impetuous." "If the president is firing the statistician because he doesn't like the numbers but they are accurate, then that's a problem," Lummis said. "It's not the statistician's fault if the numbers are accurate and that they're not what the president had hoped for." Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., blasted Trump's decision to fire McEntarfer as well. "If she was just fired because the president or whoever decided to fire the director just did it because they didn't like the numbers, they ought to grow up," Tillis said. Tillis announced in June that hedoes not intend to run for re-election, a day after opposing Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill," and subsequently drawing the president's ire, including a threat to back a primary challenge against the senator. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who found out about the commissioner's firing from NBC News' question to him about it, said he did not know much about the topic but proceeded to question whether the move would be effective in improving the numbers. "We have to look somewhere for objective statistics. When the people providing the statistics are fired, it makes it much harder to make judgments that you know, the statistics won't be politicized," Paul said. "I'm going to look into it, but first impression is that you can't really make the numbers different or better by firing the people doing the counting," he added. Paul also opposed Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" in June. The senator said in June that due to his vocal opposition, he wasuninvited from an annual White House picnicin the weeks leading up to the vote on the sweeping domestic policy package. However, Trump later said Paul and his family were invited. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said she cannot trust the job numbers — and "that's the problem." "And when you fire people, then it makes people trust them even less," she said. Democratic senators have spoken out against McEntarfer's firing, too, with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.,accusing Trump of actinglike "someone who imitates authoritarian leaders" during remarks on the Senate floor Friday. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., called the move "the sign of an authoritarian type" and added, "what that means is, I think the American people are going to find it hard to believe the information that comes out of the government, because Trump will always want it to be great news, and when that happens, it's hard for us to deal with the problems, because we don't know what is going on." Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, went a step further, calling McEntarfer's dismissal "the stuff of fascist dictatorships." Former BLS Commissioner William Beach, whom Trump appointed to the position and was confirmed by the Senate in 2019,made a post on Xcalling McEntarfer's firing "totally groundless," "a dangerous precedent," and undermining "the statistical mission of the Bureau." Astatementby "The Friends of the Bureau of Labor Statistics," co-signed by Beach, affirmed the accuracy of the bureau's work and of McEntarfer specifically. "The process of obtaining the numbers is decentralized by design to avoid opportunities for interference. The BLS uses the same proven, transparent, reliable process to produce estimates every month. Every month, BLS revises the prior two months' employment estimates to reflect slower-arriving, more-accurate information," the statement read. "BLS operates as a federal statistical agency and is afforded autonomy to ensure the data it releases are as accurate as possible," it added.

Republican senators raise concerns about Trump's firing of Labor Dept. official

Republican senators raise concerns about Trump's firing of Labor Dept. official Some Republican senators have expressed concern about Pr...
How Pakistan shot down India's cutting-edge fighter using Chinese gearNew Foto - How Pakistan shot down India's cutting-edge fighter using Chinese gear

By Saeed Shah and Shivam Patel ISLAMABAD/NEW DELHI, August 2 (Reuters) -Just after midnight on May 7, the screen in the Pakistan Air Force's operations room lit up in red with the positions of dozens of active enemy planes across the border in India. Air Chief Mshl. Zaheer Sidhu had been sleeping on a mattress just off that room for days in anticipation of an Indian assault. New Delhi had blamed Islamabad for backing militants who carried out an attack the previous month in Indian Kashmir, which killed 26 civilians. Despite Islamabad denying any involvement, India had vowed a response, which came in the early hours of May 7 with air strikes on Pakistan. Sidhu ordered Pakistan's prized Chinese-made J-10C jets to scramble. A senior Pakistani Air Force (PAF) official, who was present in the operations room, said Sidhu instructed his staff to target Rafales, a French-made fighter that is the jewel of India's fleet and had never been downed in battle. "He wanted Rafales," said the official. The hour-long fight, which took place in darkness, involved some 110 aircraft, experts estimate, making it the world's largest air battle in decades. The J-10s shot down at least one Rafale, Reuters reported in May, citing U.S. officials. Its downing surprised many in the military community and raised questions about the effectiveness of Western military hardware against untested Chinese alternatives. Shares of Dassault, which makes the Rafale, dipped after reports the fighter had been shot down. Indonesia, which has outstanding Rafale orders, has said it is now considering purchasing J-10s – a major boost to China's efforts to sell the aircraft overseas. But Reuters interviews with two Indian officials and three of their Pakistani counterparts found that the performance of the Rafale wasn't the key problem: Central to its downing was an Indian intelligence failure concerning the range of the China-made PL-15 missile fired by the J-10 fighter. China and Pakistan are the only countries to operate both J-10s, known as Vigorous Dragons, and PL-15s. The faulty intelligence gave the Rafale pilots a false sense of confidence they were out of Pakistani firing distance, which they believed was only around 150 km, the Indian officials said, referring to the widely cited range of PL-15's export variant. "We ambushed them," the PAF official said, adding that Islamabad conducted an electronic warfare assault on Delhi's systems in an attempt to confuse Indian pilots. Indian officials dispute the effectiveness of those efforts. "The Indians were not expecting to be shot at," said Justin Bronk, air warfare expert at London's Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) think-tank. "And the PL-15 is clearly very capable at long range." The PL-15 that hit the Rafale was fired from around 200km (124.27 mi) away, according to Pakistani officials, and even farther according to Indian officials. That would make it among the longest-range air-to-air strikes recorded. India's defense and foreign ministries did not return requests for comment about the intelligence mistakes. Delhi hasn't acknowledged a Rafale being shot down, but France's air chief told reporters in June that he had seen evidence of the loss of that fighter and two other aircraft flown by India, including a Russian-made Sukhoi. A top Dassault executive also told French lawmakers that month that India had lost a Rafale in operations, though he didn't have specific details. Pakistan's military referred to past comments by a spokesperson who said that its professional preparedness and resolve was more important than the weaponry it had deployed. China's defense ministry did not respond to Reuters' questions. Dassault and UAC, the manufacturer of the Sukhoi, also did not return requests for comment. "SITUATIONAL AWARENESS" Reuters spoke to eight Pakistani and two Indian officials to piece together an account of the aerial battle, which marked the start of four days of fighting between the two nuclear-armed neighbors that caused alarm in Washington. The officials all spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss national security matters. Not only did Islamabad have the element of surprise with its missiles' range, the Pakistani and Indian officials said, but it managed to more efficiently connect its military hardware to surveillance on the ground and in the air, providing it with a clearer picture of the battlefield. Such networks, known as "kill chains," have become a crucial element of modern warfare. Four Pakistani officials said they created a "kill chain," or a multi-domain operation, by linking air, land and space sensors. The network included a Pakistani-developed system, Data Link 17, which connected Chinese military hardware with other equipment, including a Swedish-made surveillance plane, two Pakistani officials said. The system allowed the J-10s flying closer to India to obtain radar feeds from the surveillance plane cruising further away, meaning the Chinese-made fighters could turn their radars off and fly undetected, according to experts. Pakistan's military did not respond to requests for comment on this point. Delhi is trying to set up a similar network, the Indian officials said, adding that their process was more complicated because the country sourced aircraft from a wide range of exporters. Retired U.K. Air Mshl. Greg Bagwell, now a fellow at RUSI, said the episode didn't conclusively prove the superiority of either Chinese or Western air assets but it showed the importance of having the right information and using it. "The winner in this was the side that had the best situational awareness," said Bagwell. CHANGE IN TACTICS After India in the early hours of May 7 struck targets in Pakistan that it called terrorist infrastructure, Sidhu ordered his squadrons to switch from defense to attack. Five PAF officials said India had deployed some 70 planes, which was more than they had expected and provided Islamabad's PL-15s with a target-rich environment. India has not said how many planes were used. The May 7 battle marked the first big air contest of the modern era in which weaponry is used to strike targets beyond visual range, said Bagwell, noting both India and Pakistan's planes remained well within their airspaces across the duration of the fight. Five Pakistani officials said an electronic assault on Indian sensors and communications systems reduced the situational awareness of the Rafale's pilots. The two Indian officials said the Rafales were not blinded during the skirmishes and that Indian satellites were not jammed. But they acknowledged that Pakistan appeared to have disrupted the Sukhoi, whose systems Delhi is now upgrading. Other Indian security officials have deflected questions away from the Rafale, a centerpiece of India's military modernization, to the orders given to the air force. India's defense attaché in Jakarta told a university seminar that Delhi had lost some aircraft "only because of the constraint given by the political leadership to not attack (Pakistan's) military establishments and their air defenses." India's chief of defense staff Gen. Anil Chauhan previously told Reuters that Delhi quickly "rectified tactics" after the initial losses. After the May 7 air battle, India began targeting Pakistani military infrastructure and asserting its strength in the skies. Its Indian-made BrahMos supersonic cruise missile repeatedly sliced through Pakistan's air defenses, according to officials on both sides. On May 10, India said it struck at least nine air bases and radar sites in Pakistan. It also hit a surveillance plane parked in a hangar in southern Pakistan, according to Indian and Pakistani officials. A ceasefire was agreed later that day, after U.S. officials held talks with both sides. 'LIVE INPUTS' In the aftermath of the episode, India's deputy army chief Lt. Gen. Rahul Singh accused Pakistan of receiving "live inputs" from China during the battles, implying radar and satellite feeds. He did not provide evidence and Islamabad denies the allegation. When asked at a July briefing about Beijing's military partnership with Pakistan, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning told reporters the work was "part of the normal cooperation between the two countries and does not target any third party." Beijing's air chief Lt. Gen. Wang Gang visited Pakistan in July to discuss how Islamabad had used Chinese equipment to put together the "kill chain" for the Rafale, two PAF officials said. China did not respond when asked about that interaction. The Pakistani military said in a statement in July that Wang had expressed "keen interest in learning from PAF's battle-proven experience in Multi Domain Operations." (Additional reporting by John Irish in Paris, Idrees Ali in Washington, Nur-Azna Sanusi in Singapore and the Beijing newsroom; Editing by Katerina Ang)

How Pakistan shot down India's cutting-edge fighter using Chinese gear

How Pakistan shot down India's cutting-edge fighter using Chinese gear By Saeed Shah and Shivam Patel ISLAMABAD/NEW DELHI, August 2 (Reu...
The US said it had no choice but to deport them to a third country. Then it sent them homeNew Foto - The US said it had no choice but to deport them to a third country. Then it sent them home

By Kristina Cooke and Ted Hesson WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The Trump administration says that some serious criminals need to be deported to third countries because even their home countries won't accept them. But a review of recent cases shows that at least five men threatened with such a fate were sent to their native countries within weeks. President Donald Trump aims to deport millions of immigrants in the U.S. illegally and his administration has sought to ramp up removals to third countries, including sending convicted criminals to South Sudan and Eswatini, formerly known as Swaziland, two sub-Saharan African nations. Immigrants convicted of crimes typically first serve their U.S. sentences before being deported. This appeared to be the case with the eight men deported to South Sudan and five to Eswatini, although some had been released years earlier. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security said in June that third-country deportations allow them to deport people "so uniquely barbaric that their own countries won't take them back." Critics have countered that it's not clear the U.S. tried to return the men deported to South Sudan and Eswatini to their home countries and that the deportations were unnecessarily cruel. Reuters found that at least five men threatened with deportation to Libya in May were sent to their home countries weeks later, according to interviews with two of the men, a family member and attorneys. After a U.S. judge blocked the Trump administration from sending them to Libya, two men from Vietnam, two men from Laos and a man from Mexico were all deported to their home nations. The deportations have not previously been reported. DHS did not comment on the removals. Reuters could not determine if their home countries initially refused to take them or why the U.S. tried to send them to Libya. DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin contested that the home countries of criminals deported to third countries were willing to take them back, but did not provide details on any attempts to return the five men home before they were threatened with deportation to Libya. "If you come to our country illegally and break our laws, you could end up in CECOT, Alligator Alcatraz, Guantanamo Bay, or South Sudan or another third country," McLaughlin said in a statement, referencing El Salvador's maximum-security prison and a detention center in the subtropical Florida Everglades. FAR FROM HOME DHS did not respond to a request for the number of third-country deportations since Trump took office on January 20, although there have been thousands to Mexico and hundreds to other countries. The eight men sent to South Sudan were from Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar, South Sudan and Vietnam, according to DHS. The man DHS said was from South Sudan had a deportation order to Sudan, according to a court filing. The five men sent to Eswatini were from Cuba, Jamaica, Laos, Vietnam and Yemen, according to DHS. White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said the men deported to South Sudan and Eswatini were "the worst of the worst" and included people convicted in the United States of child sex abuse and murder. "American communities are safer with these heinous illegal criminals gone," Jackson said in a statement. The Laos government did not respond to requests for comment regarding the men threatened with deportation to Libya and those deported to South Sudan and Eswatini. Vietnam's foreign ministry spokesperson said on July 17 that the government was verifying information regarding the South Sudan deportation but did not provide additional comment to Reuters. The government of Mexico did not comment. The Trump administration acknowledged in a May 22 court filing that the man from Myanmar had valid travel documents to return to his home country but he was deported to South Sudan anyway. DHS said the man had been convicted of sexual assault involving a victim mentally and physically incapable of resisting. Eswatini's government said on Tuesday that it was still holding the five migrants sent there in isolated prison units under the deal with the Trump administration. 'A VERY RANDOM OUTCOME' The Supreme Court in June allowed the Trump administration to deport migrants to third countries without giving them a chance to show they could be harmed. But the legality of the removals is still being contested in a federal lawsuit in Boston, a case that could potentially wind its way back to the conservative-leaning high court. Critics say the removals aim to stoke fear among migrants and encourage them to "self deport" to their home countries rather than be sent to distant countries they have no connection with. "This is a message that you may end up with a very random outcome that you're going to like a lot less than if you elect to leave under your own steam," said Michelle Mittelstadt, communications director for the non-partisan Migration Policy Institute. Internal U.S. immigration enforcement guidance issued in July said migrants could be deported to countries that had not provided diplomatic assurances of their safety in as little as six hours. While the administration has highlighted the deportations of convicted criminals to African countries, it has also sent asylum-seeking Afghans, Russians and others to Panama and Costa Rica. The Trump administration deported more than 200 Venezuelans accused of being gang members to El Salvador in March, where they were held in the country's CECOT prison without access to attorneys until they were released in a prisoner swap last month. More than 5,700 non-Mexican migrants have been deported to Mexico since Trump took office, according to Mexican government data, continuing a policy that began under former President Joe Biden. The fact that one Mexican man was deported to South Sudan and another threatened with deportation to Libya suggests that the Trump administration did not try to send them to their home countries, according to Trina Realmuto, executive director at the pro-immigrant National Immigration Litigation Alliance. "Mexico historically accepts back its own citizens," said Realmuto, one of the attorneys representing migrants in the lawsuit contesting third-country deportations. The eight men deported to South Sudan included Mexican national Jesus Munoz Gutierrez, who had served a sentence in the U.S. for second-degree murder and was directly taken into federal immigration custody afterward, according to Realmuto. Court records show Munoz stabbed and killed a roommate during a fight in 2004. When the Trump administration first initiated the deportation in late May, Mexico's President Claudia Sheinbaum said her government had not been informed. "If he does want to be repatriated, then the United States would have to bring him to Mexico," Sheinbaum said at the time. His sister, Guadalupe Gutierrez, said in an interview that she didn't understand why he was sent to South Sudan, where he is currently in custody. She said Mexico is trying to get her brother home. "Mexico never rejected my brother," Gutierrez said. 'USING US AS A PAWN' Immigration hardliners see the third-country removals as a way to deal with immigration offenders who can't easily be deported and could pose a threat to the U.S. public. "The Trump administration is prioritizing the safety of American communities over the comfort of these deportees," said Jessica Vaughan, policy director at the Center for Immigration Studies, which supports lower levels of immigration. The Trump administration in July pressed other African nations to take migrants and has asked the Pacific Islands nation of Palau, among others. Under U.S. law, federal immigration officials can deport someone to a country other than their place of citizenship when all other efforts are "impracticable, inadvisable or impossible." Immigration officials must first try to send an immigrant back to their home country, and if they fail, then to a country with which they have a connection, such as where they lived or were born. For a Lao man who was almost deported to Libya in early May, hearing about the renewed third-country deportations took him back to his own close call. In an interview from Laos granted on condition of anonymity because of fears for his safety, he asked why the U.S. was "using us as a pawn?" His attorney said the man had served a prison sentence for a felony. Reuters could not establish what he was convicted of. He recalled officials telling him to sign his deportation order to Libya, which he refused, telling them he wanted to be sent to Laos instead. They told him he would be deported to Libya regardless of whether he signed or not, he said. DHS did not comment on the allegations. The man, who came to the United States in the early 1980s as a refugee when he was four years old, said he was now trying to learn the Lao language and adapt to his new life, "taking it day by day." (Reporting by Kristina Cooke in San Francisco and Ted Hesson in Washington; Additional reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston, Brendan O'Boyle and Lizbeth Diaz in Mexico City, Marc Frank in Havana, Phuong Nguyen and Khanh Vu in Hanoi, Panu Wongcha-um in Bangkok, Kirsty Neeham in Sydney; Editing by Mary Milliken and Claudia Parsons)

The US said it had no choice but to deport them to a third country. Then it sent them home

The US said it had no choice but to deport them to a third country. Then it sent them home By Kristina Cooke and Ted Hesson WASHINGTON (Reut...

 

VS POLITICS © 2015 | Distributed By My Blogger Themes | Designed By Templateism.com