US Embassy warns govts of ‘serious consequences' – 'won't tolerate those who facilitate illegal immigration'
The United States Embassy in India has reiterated that the US will not tolerate those who facilitate illegal and mass immigration.
The Embassy, in a statement shared on its X handle, also said the United States has "established new visa restrictions" targeting foreign government officials and others who do so.
The statement comes against the backdrop of an immigration crackdown by the Trump administration in California's Los Angeles recently. "We will not tolerate those who facilitate illegal and mass immigration to the United States," reads the embassy statement.
The US has established "new visa restrictions targeting foreign government officials and others who do so, and the Trump Administration has designated as Foreign Terrorist Organizations several criminal cartels that facilitate illegal immigration and alien smuggling," it added.
"Also, governments that do not facilitate the repatriation of their nationals from the United States face serious consequences, including broad restrictions on entry to the United States for their nationals," it said.
The US Embassy on June 10 had also issued a statement, saying, the United States continues to welcome legitimate travellers to the country, but it "cannot and will not tolerate" illegal entry and abuse of visas or violation of US law.
The Embassy's June 10 statement comes a day after a shocking video of an Indian student, pinned to the floor at an US airport before being deported, went viral on social media.
The person who posted the video, Kunal Jain, who is also a Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) alumni, claimed that the student was 'treated like a criminal.' As per his post, the harrowing scene unfolded at Newark Airport, New Jersey. Tagging the Indian Embassy and External Affairs Minister Dr S Jaishankar, Jain made an urgent appeal for intervention.
The Donald Trump's administration, since assuming power in January 2025, has deported as many as 1,080 Indian nationals from the US, As per the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA)
Among the students deported was Ranjani Srinivasan, a 37-year-old Indian PhD student from Columbia University, who self-deported in March to Canada after her student visa was revoked for allegedly being a "terror sympathiser."
As many as 1.1 million international students, including 3,32 lakh Indians, studied in the US in 2023-24, according to the latest Open Doors report.
The United States has established new visa restrictions targeting foreign government officials and others who facilitate illegal immigration.
Key Takeaways The Trump administration has intensified immigration enforcement, leading to the deportation of many Indian nationals.
Governments that do not assist in repatriating their citizens from the US face significant entry restrictions.
The US Embassy emphasizes a zero-tolerance policy towards illegal entry and visa abuse.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
27 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump asked for 2 weeks to decide, struck in 2 days: US ditches diplomacy, hits Iran's nuke sites; MAGA rift grows
President Donald Trump said he would wait two weeks to decide whether to launch a military strike on Iran. Instead, he acted within 48 hours, plunging the United States into direct participation in Israel's war against Iran and setting off fears of a broader regional conflict. Speaking from the White House on early Sunday, just hours after American forces struck Iran's nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, Trump declared the mission a 'spectacular success.' But the decision to strike came fast, two days after the President told reporters on Thursday he would wait: 'I'm giving them (Iran) a period of time and I would say two weeks would be the maximum.' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt had reinforced the point, saying, 'Based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, the President will make his decision… within the next two weeks.' Instead, on Saturday evening, Trump confirmed a full military operation was underway. 'We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran,' he wrote online. 'All planes are now outside of Iran air space… All planes are safely on their way home.' He added: 'This is an HISTORIC MOMENT FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ISRAEL, AND THE WORLD. IRAN MUST NOW AGREE TO END THIS WAR.' A familiar 'two-week' promise Trump's abrupt pivot is not unprecedented. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Buy Brass Laxmi Ji Idol For Wealth, Peace & Happiness Luxeartisanship Shop Now Undo Over the years, he has routinely invoked a two-week timeline when faced with difficult decisions or contentious announcements. From tax reform and healthcare to Russia and North Korea, the former and current president has repeatedly promised action 'in two weeks' often without follow-through. In recent months, he has used the same line in reference to trade deals, tariffs, and foreign policy decisions, including his response to the Russia-Ukraine war. Eight weeks ago, when asked if he trusted Russian President Vladimir Putin, he responded, 'I'll let you know in about two weeks.' This recurring pattern has raised questions about whether the 'two-week' window is meant as a negotiating tactic or a delay mechanism. In this case, it appears to have served as a smokescreen. No longer peacemaker? Trump once campaigned as the man who would bring America out of endless foreign entanglements. But six months into his second term, he has now led the United States directly into Israel's military campaign against Iran, ordering the strikes on three key nuclear sites. Speaking from the White House, flanked by Vice-President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, Trump warned Iran of more attacks if it failed to abandon its nuclear ambitions. 'There will either be peace or there will be tragedy for Iran,' he declared, moments after confirming that American forces had targeted Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan with bunker-buster bombs and Tomahawk missiles. Trump's move marks a dramatic shift from his long-standing rhetoric. On the campaign trail and throughout his first term, he had vowed to end 'ridiculous endless wars' and reject the interventionism of past administrations. His 2024 campaign platform, dubbed 'Agenda 47', touted him as 'the only president who rejected the catastrophic advice of Washington's generals.' MAGA backlash, Israeli praise The decision has drawn sharp criticism from key figures in Trump's own 'America First' movement. Many accuse him of abandoning his non-interventionist roots. Steve Bannon said Israel had 'essentially forced President Trump's hand,' while right-wing podcaster Theo Von expressed disillusionment: 'It just feels like we're working for Israel.' Tucker Carlson said there was 'zero credible intelligence' justifying an attack on Iran's nuclear programme. Critics also pointed to the political inconsistency. Trump had repeatedly pledged to end 'endless wars' and called himself 'the only president in generations who didn't start a war.' As a candidate and in office, he derided America's foreign entanglements and claimed 'great nations do not fight endless wars.' But with US B-2 bombers and submarines now involved, and Iran promising retaliation, his position as a 'peacemaker' is under strain. 'President Trump has clearly signalled, as he has all along, that he opposes a regime change war in Iran,' said media personality Jack Posobiec, attempting to frame the strike as narrowly targeted. Yet many observers fear it may spark further escalation. The White House has not ruled out additional military action if Iran retaliates. Fallout and what's next? In his address, Trump warned that if Iran struck back, it would face 'force far greater than what was witnessed tonight.' Hours later, Iranian missiles were reported to have struck areas in Israel. Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi vowed the US attacks 'will have everlasting consequences.' Meanwhile, the International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed no radiation leaks at the sites and said assessments were ongoing. UN Secretary-General António Guterres said he was 'gravely alarmed' and warned of 'catastrophic consequences for civilians, the region and the world.' The Israeli military, too, announced it was preparing for a protracted war. Trump, who left the G7 summit early to consult with advisers in Washington, now faces the challenge of containing the fallout. His swift decision has exposed deep divides within his base, invited international condemnation, and risked American lives in a volatile theatre.
Mint
29 minutes ago
- Mint
Trump gave final go-ahead for Iran attack hours before bombs fell
President Trump had been saying he would give Tehran up to two weeks to yield to U.S. demands before ordering an attack. Then Saturday afternoon at his private club in New Jersey, he gave the final go-ahead to strike in a few hours. 'The goal was to create a situation when everyone wasn't expecting it," said a senior administration official. His order to the military to proceed unleashed a military operation that has been the focus of top-secret planning. Within hours U.S. B-2 bombers penetrated Iranian airspace and dropped half a dozen bunker bombs on Iran's underground nuclear facility at Fordow. U.S. attack submarines launched Tomahawk cruise missiles against sites in Isfahan and Natanz. In a White House address Saturday night, Trump called the attacks 'a spectacular military success" that left Iran's nuclear sites 'completely and totally obliterated." But key questions remain unknown, including whether the Iranian program was fully destroyed and whether Iran will respond with its own attacks on the U.S. or its allies—or possibly try to shut down oil exports through the Strait of Hormuz. The Atomic Energy Organization of Iran vowed Saturday not to give up its efforts. The organization 'won't allow the progress of this national industry—built on the blood of nuclear martyrs—to be halted," it said in a statement. The Fordow fuel enrichment facility in Iran. U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff has been authorized to talk with the Iranians, as Trump tried to keep open the long-shot possibility of some sort of diplomatic understanding that could quiet the region. A U.S. official said the Trump administration had reached out to Iran to make clear the attack was a one-off assault, not the start of a regime-change war. The decision to attack came after weeks of White House deliberations, closely held military preparations and direct coordination with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who had launched a similar sudden attack on Iran a week earlier. But Trump seemed conflicted about whether to proceed with the operation over the past week. His advisers also worried about getting pulled into a Middle East conflict despite the frustrations with the diplomatic track aimed at getting Iran to halt its uranium enrichment. In a Tuesday meeting in the Situation Room, Trump approved of plans to strike Iran but withheld a final order, giving time to assess once more if Iran would be willing to entirely end its enrichment of nuclear fuel. 'There was real debate earlier in the week about what we should do," said the senior official. 'But Trump signaled on Tuesday he was leaning toward going forward, so that changed everything." Trump also wanted to create uncertainty about his intentions—and his timeline. The White House said Thursday Trump would give Iran up to two weeks to show its interest in a diplomatic resolution to the crisis. Only a day later he hinted that his patience was wearing out. 'We're going to see what that period of time is, but I'm giving them a period of time, and I would say two weeks would be the maximum," he told reporters, adding that he still viewed himself as a peacemaker. Trump made the decision to go ahead with the operation after Iran continued to rebuff his demand to give up its uranium enrichment and Israel paved the way with more than a week's worth of strikes on Iran's nuclear infrastructure and air defenses. In his Saturday night address, Trump said that his target was Iran's three principal nuclear sites—Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan—and wasn't aimed at Iran's leaders. President Trump holding a meeting in the Situation Room Saturday, in this photo released by the White House. The White House released photos of Trump wearing a red Make America Great Again hat with his national-security team in the Situation Room Saturday, where they received updates on the attack as it unfolded. Air Force Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was among those flanking the president around the table. Caine was a leading architect of the plans to strike Iran, U.S. officials and people familiar with the deliberations said. Trump spoke with Netanyahu just after the operation, and the Israeli leader was 'incredibly grateful," the senior official said. Trump vowed to carry out additional strikes if Iran lashed out at U.S. forces in the region and balked at diplomatic efforts to establish a peace. 'Future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier," he warned. 'There will be either peace or there will be tragedy for Iran far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days." The Israeli Air Force attacked Iranian warships and weapons storage facilities at the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas on Saturday, a military action that appeared to have been intended to blunt Tehran's ability to retaliate in the Persian Gulf. Trump said Saturday that the strikes had been closely coordinated with Israel. But the U.S. role changed dramatically over the following weeks. On June 9, Netanyahu said he was preparing strikes and intended to move forward with an assault. Trump replied he wanted to see diplomacy with Tehran play out a little longer, according to U.S. officials. Three days later, Trump and Netanyahu spoke again, only this time the Israeli leader made clear he was going to launch a campaign against Iran imminently. The 60-day deadline Trump had initially set for a diplomatic accord had passed, and Israel could wait no longer, Netanyahu said, according to officials familiar with the call. Trump responded that the U.S. wouldn't stand in the way, according to administration officials, but emphasized that the U.S. military wouldn't assist with any offensive operations. As the bombs started falling that June 12 evening in Washington, Secretary of State Marco Rubio released a statement confirming the U.S. played no role in Israel's unilateral attack. The initial U.S. military role was defensive and focusing on protecting Israel against Iranian drone and missile attacks. As the success of Israel's opening salvos became clear, Trump started to claim credit for enabling the operation with U.S. weapons and saying the strikes could ultimately help compel Iran to make a deal. Over the following days, Trump held lengthy discussions with key aides about his options, ranging from leveraging Israeli strikes to compel Iran to negotiate its nuclear program away to authorizing American attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities. After Trump made the final call Saturday in New Jersey, B-2 stealth bombers dropped six 30,000 pound bunker busting bombs on Fordow. More than two dozen cruise missiles were fired by U.S. submarines at Natanz and Isfahan, two other sites where Iran has carried out nuclear work and enriched uranium. 'We won't know for sure until the morning what was taken out, but our belief is that we took out everything we wanted to," said the senior official. Write to Michael R. Gordon at Josh Dawsey at and Alexander Ward at
India Today
31 minutes ago
- India Today
Aandhi: A cinematic storm that echoed Indira's era
In this week's Retro Review, we dive into 'Aandhi', a bold political satire that stirred controversy for its striking parallels to Indira Gandhi. A timeless tale of ambition, love, and sacrifice, it remains a cinematic Review: Aandhi (1975)Cast: Sanjeev Kumar, Suchitra Sen, Om Prakash, AK Hangal, Om ShivpuriDirector: GulzarMusic/Lyrics: RD Burman, GulzarBox-Office Status: HitWhere to Watch: YouTubeWhy to Watch: For its poignant portrayal of politics' toll on personal livesMoral of the Story: Kuch toh log kahenge, logon ka kaam hai kehnaadvertisementFormer Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi devoted an hour every morning to yoga. She spent almost an equivalent amount of time with her stylist every week. The combination of the two gave her a distinct personality, highlighted by a slender physique, brisk walk, crisp sarees, and a hairstyle with a signature streak of the 1970s, Mrs Gandhi (as she was known worldwide) was at the peak of her popularity. The victory over Bangladesh, and her 'garibi hatao' campaign had endeared her to the masses and the classes. Even the opposition hailed her as an avatar of Durga. Photo: IMDb advertisement Film-maker Gulzar saw in Indira's unique persona and soaring popularity an opportunity to craft a political satire. The outcome was 'Aandhi', a film that suffered the highs and lows of the character that inspired has said many times the film was not based on Indira Gandhi's life. Only the lead character, Aarti Devi, was inspired by her, and Tarkeshwari Sinha, a popular Parliamentarian from Patna. But at the time of 'Aandhi's' release, the film was marketed as an Indira Gandhi biopic, with posters exhorting the audience to come and watch 'their PM on the screen.'The strategy, initially successful, backfired when Mrs Gandhi's opponents started screening some of the scenes in 'Aandhi' to tarnish her image during elections for the Gujarat assembly, fought in the heat of the Navnirman on a complaint filed by the Congress, the Election Commission banned 'Aandhi', 24 weeks after its initial release. Soon after, on June 26, 1975, Indira Gandhi's firm voice crackled through All India Radio, announcing the imposition of the Emergency. The film, thus, was indelibly linked with Mrs Gandhi, and the excesses of the Emergency that coincided with the PLOT'Aandhi's' narrative unfolds with a delicate balance of personal drama and political intrigue, centred on Aarti Devi (Suchitra Sen), a charismatic yet embattled politician whose chance reunion with her estranged husband, JK (Sanjeev Kumar), forces her to confront the sacrifices her ambition has demanded. Sanjeev Kumar and Suchitra Sen in a still from 'Aandhi'. (Photo: Facebook/FilmHistoryPic) While Aarti navigates the deluge of emotions from the past, an election unfolds, with all its trickery and subterfuge. Unable to match her aura and sharp moves, the opposition attacks Aarti's personal tongues, like they always do, begin to wag with rumours, snide remarks and salacious gossip. But, with a bold move at the end, Aarti stuns her critics, stealing the show, literally, from their own narrative similarities with Indira Gandhi are hard to miss. Her father, India's first PM Jawaharlal Nehru, wasn't happy with her marriage to Feroze Gandhi, a Parsi. The marriage was solemnised with Vedic rituals, at Nehru's Gandhi, a dynamic politician and journalist, maintained an independent identity. Elected to the Lok Sabha from Rae Bareli in 1952 and 1957, he often sparred with the government. In 1958, he famously uncovered the LIC scandal, which implicated the relationship with Indira was complex, marked by periods of strain. Burdened with contradictions, the alliance didn't last long. Indira Gandhi soon shifted to her father's home with her sons Rajiv and 'Aandhi', Aarti's complex marriage with JK, who has an independent spirit, mirrors the Indira-Feroze dynamics. But, unlike Feroze Gandhi's tragic end - he died young after a heart attack - the film ends on a happy another scene, Aarti is pelted with stones. This happens after she delivers a speech and is confronted by an angry crowd. A journalist then asks her if violence is a part of politics, to which she replies that it is a part of bad incident has an uncanny similarity with a political rally where a stone hit Indira Gandhi's nose, requiring minor surgery. Photo: IMDb THE GOOD, BAD AND UGLYThe film's brilliance lies in Gulzar's ability to craft a story that is both intimate and universal, exploring the toll of public life on personal relationships. Sen's portrayal of Aarti is magnetic. She channels the poise and steely resolve of a leader while revealing the quiet loneliness beneath her polished as JK, matches her with a performance that is understated yet deeply affecting, his character's stoic demeanour masking years of unresolved film's non-linear storytelling, a Gulzar trademark, weaves past and present seamlessly, showing how Aarti's rise in politics strained her marriage and distanced her from her daughter. This personal conflict is juxtaposed with her public persona, where she navigates a world of sycophants, rivals, and moral compromises.'Aandhi' doesn't shy away from showing the gritty realities of politics - bribery, manipulation, and public scrutiny - but it does so with a poetic restraint that avoids Burman's music, paired with Gulzar's evocative lyrics, is the film's emotional heartbeat. Songs like 'Tere Bina Zindagi Se' and 'Is Mod Se Jaate Hain' are not mere interludes but narrative pillars, amplifying the themes of longing and chemistry between Sen and Kumar is most palpable in these musical moments, where their unspoken emotions speak louder than words. The supporting cast - Om Prakash, AK Hangal, and Om Shivpuri - adds depth, portraying the loyalists and sceptics who orbit Aarti's problem with the film is its climax. It starts with a problem that looks like a pointless 'Aandhi', a storm in a teacup, and ends with a dramatic solution. The subplot feels forced, relying on exaggerated gossip to dramatise Aarti's marriage, which clashes with the film's nuanced VERDICTDespite this flaw, the film's depiction of a strong, flawed female leader was groundbreaking for its time, challenging stereotypes in a male-dominated industry. The human story at its core - a love tested by ambition and time - makes 'Aandhi' timeless. The formula has been copied many times, almost verbatim in later films like 'Pyar Jhukta Nahin', underlining its evergreen Gandhi lost the 1977 election. When 'Aandhi' was re-released by the Moraraji Desai government, the audiences embraced its nuanced take on power and vulnerability. The film's success was a reminder that Indira Gandhi may have been defeated, but she wasn't forgotten. Like 'Aandhi', Indira Gandhi also got a second chance at redemption.'Aandhi' remains a must-watch for its bold storytelling, unforgettable performances, and its unflinching look at the personal costs of political life. It's a reminder that behind every public figure lies a private struggle, and that art, even when banned, has the power to endure and provoke. Watch it to witness a masterclass in filmmaking, music composition, and to reflect on the timeless truth: kuch toh log kahenge, but the heart knows its own story.P.S.: In 'Aandhi', Suchitra Sen is styled after Indira Gandhi. She wears crisp sarees, and has her trademark streak of grey. Habib Ahmed, the famous stylist, once revealed Indira's hair was 99 per cent except that grey streak, the rest had to be dyed black. 'She had it done first in France, and then I took over,' Habib revealed, adding that he saw the PM once or twice a week to help her maintain her iconic look.
