Latest news with #TemporaryProtectedStatus
Miami Herald
11 hours ago
- Business
- Miami Herald
Trump's Iran strike could boost — or ruin — his troubled presidency
President Trump's decision to bomb Iran's nuclear sites is a high-stakes gamble that could either breathe new life into or irreparably damage his troubled second term in the White House. Yet for the world at large, it may well prove to be a welcome development. Before we get into why Trump's decision aligns with the consensus among the world's biggest democracies — that Iran should not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons — let's remember that Trump's popularity was falling fast before the strike. Only 42% of Americans approve of Trump's job performance, while 54% disapprove of it, according to a large-sample Reuters-IPSOS poll conducted June 11-16. Most Americans view Trump negatively, not only on the economy, which was once his strong point, but also on immigration, according to polls. The U.S. economy has slowed dramatically since Trump took office and launched his erratic tariff wars. According to the latest World Bank projections, the U.S. economy will only grow by 1.4% this year, which would be half of its 2.8% growth last year, in part because of the uncertainty created by Trump's on-and-off threats to impose huge import taxes on foreign goods. Likewise, many Trump voters in states with large immigrant communities, like Florida, are disappointed by Trump's decision to deport hundreds of thousands of immigrants without criminal records, including more than 350,000 Venezuelan Temporary Protected Status (TPS) holders who entered the country legally. During the 2024 campaign, Republicans claimed that Trump would focus on deporting violent criminals. Before his Iran strike, Trump was also haunted by his growing image as a wavering leader. His repeated reversals of his own tariff ultimatums — first vowing to impose 145% tariffs on China, then reducing them to 30% — made him an object of mockery in European capitals and among U.S. critics. A Financial Times columnist popularized the acronym TACO — Trump Always Chickens out — to describe the U.S. president's trade strategy. Trump got visibly upset when he was asked about the TACO reference at a recent press conference. His fear of being perceived as an indecisive leader may have pushed him — after weeks of reportedly telling Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu he would not get dragged into the conflict — to join Israel's military offensive against Iran's nuclear sites. But if Trump's Iran gamble turns out well and Iran's theocratic dictatorship either crumbles or gives up its uranium enrichment program through diplomatic negotiations — a big if — Trump will be credited with having done something four previous presidents contemplated but ultimately failed to do. Internationally, virtually all major Western democracies agrees that Iran is a threat to Israel, and to the world. In a statement at the end of the June 16 summit of the G-7 group of Western democracies in Alberta, Canada, the leaders of the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Japan, Italy and Canada said that 'We have been consistently clear that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon.' The G-7 bloc's statement added that 'Iran is the principal source of regional instability and terror in the Middle East,' and that 'We affirm that Israel has a right to defend itself.' Days earlier, on June 12, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for the first time in 20 years issued a statement warning that Iran was not complying with its nuclear nonproliferation agreements. Translation: Iran was enriching uranium at levels only justified to build nuclear weapons. Skeptics who don't follow Iran's political history may ask themselves why the world doesn't allow Iran to have nuclear weapons like India, Pakistan and other countries. The answer is simple: Unlike other countries, Iran has a state policy of trying to 'eliminate' a nearby sovereign country — Israel— that has been recognized by the United Nations since 1948. This is not about Western countries being against Iran's Jurassic theocracy for imprisoning women for failing to cover their heads with a hijab, or for executing gays, or any of its other abhorrent internal policies. The reason is that if we allow a country that calls for the destruction of another nation to have a nuclear bomb, it will set a precedent that makes the world even more dangerous. In Iran's case, it's not just Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's crazy rhetoric, but his actions. Iran has long provided financial aid to terrorist groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. Iran's proxies have carried out terrorist attacks as far away as Argentina, where Hezbollah was found responsible for the bombing that killed 85 people and wounded hundreds at the AMIA Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires in 1994. There are many ways in which Trump's political gamble may go wrong, especially if Iran moved some of its enriched uranium into a secret location outside Fordo, or if it unifies Iranians behind their decrepit regime. But if Iran's regime falls, or agrees to a serious international nuclear monitoring agreement, Trump's faltering second term will get a second wind. Don't miss the 'Oppenheimer Presenta' TV show on Sundays at 9 pm E.T. on CNN en Español. Blog:
Forbes
4 days ago
- Business
- Forbes
What Employers Should Know As The Immigration Crackdown Escalates
Law enforcement walk with Leonardo Fabian Cando Juntamay as he was detained in the Bronx during ... More ICE-led operations on January 28, 2025, in New York. Employers must navigate a perilous legal landscape if employees lose legal status or encounter Immigration and Customs Enforcement.(Photo by Matt McClain/The Washington Post via Getty Images) Employers must navigate a perilous legal landscape if employees lose legal status or encounter Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The Trump administration ended humanitarian parole for over 500,000 people and has terminated Temporary Protected Status for several hundred thousand individuals. That loss of authorized workers combined with raids on businesses and arresting people at courthouses leaves many employers and employees in legal danger. On June 12, 2025, the Trump administration ended the CHNV humanitarian parole program for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans, removing work authorization for up to 528,000 people. Workers with Temporary Protected Status from Haiti, Venezuela, Afghanistan and other countries are also seeing their employment authorization terminated. Employers may not realize workers previously authorized are now unable to work legally. In guidance to clients, Chris Thomas of Holland & Hart recommends that businesses check their records to know if their employees have lost employment authorization. 'The government's recent publication could be construed as placing employers on notice that employees from the four affected countries, with CHNV parole, may no longer have employment authorization.' He advises employers to meet with employees and inquire if they received a government notice revoking work authorization and, if that's the case, ask for other evidence of the ability to work lawfully. Thomas notes that if an employee in a parole program applied for asylum, they may have an employment authorization document via that route. If an employee does not have an alternative form of work authorization, they should be informed their employment with the company may end on June 23, 2025. 'The approach is to offer 10 days in which to act once an employer has been placed on notice of a problem with an employee's status,' according to Thomas. 'Because the Department of Homeland Security typically allows employers 10 days to resolve issues identified during I-9 audits, applying the same time frame here offers a reasonable and practical approach to addressing this unexpected and sudden development.' If ICE comes to the workplace, a manager may feel a need to respond quickly, which could be a mistake. 'If there is any encounter with ICE or other form of immigration enforcement at a worksite, the employer should immediately reach out to an immigration attorney,' said Allen Orr of the Orr Immigration Law Firm. 'There can be a formal statement, such as 'It is our company policy that only our attorney can speak with federal agents. We will get them on the phone for you right now.'' Orr notes that employers can check employee records to see who will be affected by TPS or parole programs ending. 'Of course, it is unlawful for any employer to knowingly hire or employ any undocumented worker, so any action taken by employers that could reveal, expose or educate them to such knowledge, is a business decision,' he said. Orr recommends businesses have contingency plans that include what happens if ICE shows up at a worksite, if an employee is unexpectedly missing from a work site, recruitment they may need to backfill if a problem presents itself and the proactive steps the company wishes to take on their employment verification process and audit procedures. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller speaks to reporters outside the West Wing of the ... More White House on April 18, 2025. (Photo by) Businesses should be under no illusions that they will be immune to immigration enforcement. After hearing from company executives alarmed at the negative labor market impacts of the administration's immigration policy, Donald Trump announced on social media, 'Our great Farmers and people in the Hotel and Leisure business have been stating that our very aggressive policy on immigration is taking very good, long time workers away from them, with those jobs being almost impossible to replace.' Reuters reported, 'ICE issued guidance that day pausing most immigration enforcement at agricultural, hospitality and food processing businesses.' A few days later, DHS reversed the policy, stating, 'Worksite enforcement remains a cornerstone of our efforts to safeguard public safety, national security and economic stability.' Stephen Miller ordered ICE to arrest 3,000 people a day to achieve one million deportations a year and to go to Home Depot and other businesses rather than focus on criminals. That helped precipitate the ICE arrests in Los Angeles and the protests that followed. The reversal from Trump's statement leaves many believing Stephen Miller is the most powerful person in the administration on immigration policy. When employees lose employment authorization, it places workers and employers in jeopardy. According to Chris Thomas, 'Failure to take affirmative steps to address such a situation could lead to significant legal consequences.'
Miami Herald
4 days ago
- Business
- Miami Herald
Trump move to tax money sent abroad could devastate Latin America, Caribbean economies
A proposed tax on the money sent by immigrants in the United States to friends and families back in their home countries could have unintended devastating consequences for US. national security and for receiving countries, especially those in Latin America and the Caribbean that have come to heavily rely on the funds, experts warn. The 3.5% tax on remittances, which are not currently taxed, is among several provisions tucked inside President Donald Trump's 'One, Big, Beautiful Bill' tax and spending plan that House Republicans narrowly passed last month. Senate Republicans are now trying to agree on a version before sending it to the floor for a vote ahead of July 4, the deadline Trump has set for it to hit his desk. While there are some notable differences between what the House passed and what the Senate Finance Committee published on Monday, the proposed tax on remittances still risks pushing migrants to use unregulated and unlicensed networks to send money to their home countries and plunging countries like Haiti, where the money represents a key source of family income, deeper into economic hardship. It also requires U.S. citizens, green-card holders and anyone with a Social Security number to provide that information before they can send money abroad. 'We did a conservative estimate of the impact of these flows and it will have an effect of reducing transfers by at least 5% in the next year,' said Manuel Orozco, director of Migration, Remittances and Development Program at the Inter-American Dialogue in Washington. Orozco said that will have a devastating effect for countries in Central America along with the four nations — Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela — that were recently part of a Biden-era humanitarian parole program now being targeted by the Trump administration. Earlier this month the Supreme Court ruled that the Department of Homeland Security can deport beneficiaries of the program that had allowed them to temporarily stay and work in the U.S. for up to two years, while Trump's decision to end the program is being litigated in the courts. Last week, the administration began sending revocation letters to about 500,000 recipients of the program, urging them to leave the U.S. on their own. Many of those targeted are also enrolled in Temporary Protected Status, another benefit that the administration is seeking to end after rolling back their end dates. 'On the one hand, the Temporary Protected Status and the humanitarian parole is being discontinued for people from these four nationalities,' Orozco said. 'On the other hand, you have the tax increase for those nationalities who happen to be much less likely to have a social security number because they arrived recently, they escaped their home country for political reasons or due to state fragility or state failure as in the case of Haiti.' In the case of Haiti, which has become highly dependent on remittances, 'you're dealing with a time bomb,' said Orozco, who found that for every $10 dollars remitted to Haiti in 2020 — when the country received $3.8 billion from abroad — at least $8 came from the U.S. 'The impact of this tax on Haiti will be devastating because there are 500,000 Haitians' at risk of losing their legal right to stay in the U.S. in August., Orozco said. 'Haiti's dependence on remittances is significant in a moment where … the state has already collapsed, and income basically depends on remittance flows. So the implications of these are far more complex.' But Haiti's remittance flows, which surpassed $4 billion last year according to its central bank, are not the only ones that risk taking a hit should the tax provision pass. Central American nations with economies weakened by years of instability and insecurity also will be hurt. Orozco cites the case of Guatemala, where he recently examined 15 years' worth of data through 2024. A 1% increase in remittances, Orozco said, led to a 15% increase in the country's GDP. 'Remittances have increased an average of 13% for the past 15 years,' he said. 'If remittances were to fall 10%, you will have an economic recession in Guatemala, because a 1% decrease will decelerate the Guatemalan economy substantially for more than four months.' The decline, he said, would be much more severe in Honduras, where a 1% increase in remittances increased the GDP by 33%. In both Central American nations, remittance income accounts for 30% of private consumption and any decline will have a direct effect on gross domestic product, GDP, Orozco said. 'You will have a big blow in these countries' economies,' he said. On Wednesday, Orozco was part of a conversation about the effects of the legislation on family remittances. Fellow panelists Kathy Tomasofsky, the executive director of Money Services Business Association, and Marina Olman-Pal, chair of the Legal & Regulatory Affairs Committee of the Financial & International Business Association, said many questions that remain about the legislation. The Senate version appears to focus on cross-border transfers that are initiated in cash and being sent to family members, Olman-Pal said. Transfers funded with debit or credit cards appear to be excluded in the Senate version. The original tax got scaled back from 5% to 3.5%. While the House version required senders to be U.S. citizens, the Senate version expands the universe to include those with social security numbers that allow them to work. It also offers more exemptions ,such as individuals using debit and credit cards to transfer money abroad. In the version released by the Senate Finance Committee on Monday, the tax must be collected by the remittance company and paid quarterly to the Treasury Department. 'For an American citizen, a green card holder that has that Social Security information, you are going to now have to complete a form and hand over that information to your cashier in order to affect the transfer,' said Tomasofsky. 'The business company, that small business, is going to have to set up a procedure to collect the information, to store that information. There are concerns about privacy.' Tomasofsky said the industry has made significant strides in the last 20 years, but the new reporting system could have an adverse effect on small grocery stores and businesses. For example, a company that only does 500 transactions a month may opt to get out of the business after deciding it's not worth the extra compliance. 'I'm not certain that it's going to provide any benefit to anyone in the long run because of it,' she said. Olman-Pal said while social security numbers are protected under federal and state law, there is a risk associated with increased collection. She agrees with Tomasofsky that the cost of banking could also go up as a result of the legislation's new requirements. 29 bills on taxing remittances The motivation for such legislation varies depending on the proponent. Some say it's intended to discourage unauthorized migration. Some others say it's a means to raise revenue, while some proponents accuse migrants of not paying taxes and say it's a way to tax them indirectly. Orozco and the others caution against all of these assumptions, noting that studies show that migrants, regardless of immigration status, do file taxes and in some cases the money they send home has discouraged migration to the U.S. Still, this past year, 18 states have proposed 29 different bills on taxing remittances, Tomasofsky said. In all but one instance, Tomasofsky said, the industry was able to push back 'by demonstrating how many unintended consequences there are in this bill, and the states have not moved those bills forward.' But this is the first time that the push to tax remittances, which already come with high fees, has reached a level where there appears to be political appetite for approving it. 'The motivations may be political, but everything is about the fine print, the content of what you try to come up with, and the adverse effect that it can have, the backfiring effect,' Orozco said. To underscore his point, he brought up the case of Ghanaians living in Europe and an analysis of the global money transfer market and the relationship between stiff regulations and higher transaction costs. As a result of the stiffer controls on the origination and destination of remittances, nationals of Ghana in Europe, for example, turned to informal channels, Orozco said. 'Statistically, for a 1% increase in the transaction cost the use of informal fund transfers will increase by 6% but also, there is a cost element to it,' he said. 'Immigrants don't have an infinite amount of resources. They have a very limited income capacity that in the U.S. averages to about $3,300 a month.' 'If your transaction cost goes from 3 to 6% or 6.5%, you're actually spending 1% of your monthly income just to pay those costs. And what typically people do is send less money,' Orozco added. 'So you will see one side going informal, and another side who may pay the tax but send less money.'
Newsweek
5 days ago
- Politics
- Newsweek
He Helped American Soldiers in Afghanistan. Now He's in ICE Detention
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Federal agents detained a former U.S. Army interpreter from Afghanistan, forced to flee his home country because of the Taliban, at his asylum hearing in California last week. The arrest at an immigration court in San Diego on Thursday was caught on video, with Sayed Naser heard calmly telling the masked agents detaining him that he worked as an interpreter in his home country. Newsweek reached out to Naser's attorney and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for comment via contact form and email Wednesday morning. Why It Matters Afghans who worked with the U.S. military during its 20-year stretch in the country were welcomed to the U.S. as refugees, on Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs) following the U.S. withdrawal in 2021, but some have had TPS withdrawn by the Trump administration, opening them up to the prospect of deportation. Sayed Naser is arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents at a courthouse in San Diego on June 12, 2025. Sayed Naser is arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents at a courthouse in San Diego on June 12, 2025. AfghanEvac What To Know Naser was legally paroled into the U.S. in 2024, per immigration documents shared with Newsweek, having applied for asylum using the Biden-era CBP One app and entering via the San Ysidro port of entry on the southwest border. The interpreter, who worked with the U.S. military for about three years, had a pending SIV application, wanting to stay in the U.S. out of fear he would be detained, tortured and killed should he return to Afghanistan. His brother was killed by the Taliban in 2023, while his father was abducted. "While collaborating with U.S. forces, I faced numerous threats and attacks," Naser wrote in his declaration to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS). "Several times, I narrowly escaped harm, but over seven of our vehicles were burned by the Taliban. "To them, anyone or any company working with foreign forces is considered an infidel and a legitimate target for killing. For this reason, after the fall [of the] government, it became impossible for us to live in Afghanistan. We had to leave the country by any means necessary." Naser's story is similar to many who had helped American troops and were left behind during the chaotic U.S. withdrawal in 2021. He first traveled to Brazil before making the journey north to the U.S.-Mexico border via the notorious Darien Gap. On Thursday, Naser had his immigration court hearing in San Diego, but the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) attorney reportedly said that his case was "'improvidently issued," giving Naser and his attorney, Brian McGoldrick, 10 days to respond. McGoldrick said at a briefing Tuesday that an asylum hearing was set for September and court was adjourned. Outside the courtroom, ICE agents were waiting and demanded to know Naser's name. When agents asked McGoldrick for documents, he said in the video that he had none for them. Agents then moved to take Naser, placing him in handcuffs as he turned to the camera. "I worked with the U.S. military back in my home country, I have all the documents, I didn't have a credible-fear interview," Naser said, repeatedly saying he worked with the U.S. military before agents took him away to the Otay Mesa Detention Center. Naser's arrest was denounced by the group Unite for Veterans, which said that the U.S. had a responsibility to protect Afghan allies. The advocacy group #AfghanEvac also called out the federal government for breaking its promise to those who served alongside U.S. troops. ICE has increased its detention efforts at immigration courts across the country, amid pressure from the White House to reach a daily arrest target of 3,000 immigrants. What People Are Saying Brian McGoldrick, Naser's attorney, at a press briefing Tuesday: "It's really shocking what's happening in the courthouse in San Diego and around the country. You walk down the hall and it's like you're walking down executioner's just so intimidating. The clients are terrorized." #AfghanEvac, in a statement shared with Newsweek: "Let's be clear: "Improvidently issued" is being abused. It has no standard meaning, no transparency, and no accountability. It is being weaponized to short-circuit due process and to meet quiet enforcement quotas. And Sayed is not alone. This is part of a broader pattern: quietly shutting doors, denying pathways, and undermining the very mechanisms we created to keep our promises to our allies." Unite for Veterans, in a press release: "Our Afghan allies protected us when we needed them. They shared our humvees. They were wounded with us. They gave their lives to protect us. Now it is our turn to look after them. We owe them. They are our teammates, our fellow soldiers, patriots. We cannot let those who risked their lives for our shared values be denied the safety and opportunity they deserve and that we promised them." What Happens Next Naser remains in custody and is awaiting further hearings. ICE has not commented on the case.
The Hill
5 days ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Abandoning our Afghan allies is a moral and strategic mistake
It is a bad time for thousands of Afghans who risked their lives helping the U.S. over the past two decades. On June 2, it was announced that the office that helps with relocation of Afghans who helped America will close on July 1. Last month, the Department of Homeland Security formally ended Temporary Protected Status for roughly 10,000 Afghans who fled their country after the Taliban's return to power in 2021. Under the new directive, Afghan nationals currently residing in the U.S. under Temporary Protected Status have just under six weeks to leave, setting a deadline of July 14. Most of these Afghans are waiting for the backlog to clear to get the Special Immigrant Visa that was promised to them because of the help they provided the U.S. since its 2001 invasion. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem stated that 'Afghanistan has had an improved security situation, and its stabilizing economy no longer prevent them from returning to their home country.' Yet, only days later, the State Department included Afghan citizens on a new 'travel ban' list due to deteriorating security situation and threat of terrorism from that country, contradicting what Noem and her department had claimed. Anyone paying attention to Afghanistan since the Taliban's return knows that it is not safe. The country has collapsed into an economic and humanitarian crisis. Al Qaeda has reestablished its position, operating training camps and safe houses across the country. According to a recent U.N. report, Afghanistan is now a 'permissive environment' for al Qaeda consolidation. Meanwhile, the Afghan branch of the so-called Islamic State has never been stronger. Girls cannot attend school beyond grade six. Women cannot work or even leave their homes without permission from a male relative. Ethnic and religious minorities continue to face persecution. The Taliban are hunting down Afghans who worked with the U.S. and its allies — often with deadly consequences. The claim that Afghanistan is now 'safe' is false. This issue is tricky for the Trump administration. In February 2020, President Trump reached a deal with the Taliban that planted the seed for the withdrawal of U.S. forces by May 2021. That agreement set in motion the Taliban's return to power. When President Joe Biden took office in 2021, he had the chance to cancel the deal, but he did not. By July, most U.S. and allied troops had left. On August 15, the Taliban seized Kabul. By Sept. 11, 2021 — the 20th anniversary of 9/11 — they controlled more of Afghanistan than they had on that tragic day in 2001. Both presidents share the blame. In the chaotic withdrawal, the U.S. left behind an estimated $7 billion in military equipment — most of which is now in Taliban hands or circulating on the regional black market. But the greater cost has been moral: the abandonment of tens of thousands of Afghans who served alongside American forces. Many of these men and women risked their lives for U.S. forces as interpreters, engineers, medics and contractors. For them, the Taliban's return is not just a change of government — it's a death sentence. Given the chaos the Biden administration allowed at America's southern border, it might be tempting to fold the Afghan resettlement issue into the broader immigration debate. But that approach would be both lazy and strategically short-sighted. Afghanistan and the broader regions of Central and South Asia will remain central to U.S. counterterrorism and foreign policy for the foreseeable future, and pretending otherwise is naive. There are four clear strategic reasons why helping Afghans who aided the U.S. is not only just but smart. First, honoring our commitment to Afghan partners sends a powerful message to future allies. In every modern conflict, American forces have relied on local partners for on-the-ground support. That pattern will almost certainly continue. If local partners believe the U.S. won't protect them when the fight is over, they will be far less willing to take that risk, which would weaken America's global reach and credibility. Second, Afghans already in the U.S. represent a critical talent pool. Many are trained linguists and cultural experts. During the two-decade U.S. mission in Afghanistan, they filled roles that no one else could. Yet in November 2023, Defense Language Institute ceased instruction in Pashto, one of Afghanistan's national languages. Should the U.S. again need Pashto speakers or regional experts, the Afghan American community will be indispensable. Third, these Afghans could help shape a post-Taliban Afghanistan. After 2001, the Afghan American diaspora was key to rebuilding the country. The current Taliban regime is fractured and unlikely to maintain control indefinitely. Offering refuge to educated, professionally trained Afghans bolsters U.S. capacity now and supports future stabilization efforts. Fourth, Afghan immigrants provide indirect humanitarian aid via remittances. In 2019, remittances made up 4.4 percent of Afghanistan's GDP. Since late 2021, the U.S. Treasury has allowed Afghans here to send money home despite sanctions. These remittances reduce the burden on American taxpayers and support Afghan families in crisis. Beyond these strategic benefits, there is the moral argument. Doing right by those who stood with America is a matter of national honor. The way a nation treats its allies — especially when they are vulnerable — says everything about its values. These Afghans risked everything for us. Abandoning them now is a betrayal. Trump began the withdrawal process. Biden finished it. Now, Trump has a rare second chance to do the right thing. His administration can correct a serious moral and strategic failure by reversing the decision to revoke Temporary Protected Status for Afghan nationals and instead prioritizing their protection. Rather than forcing them to leave, the U.S. should expedite visa processing and safe relocation for Afghan allies. This isn't just about compassion — it's about keeping our word, protecting our interests and preparing for the future. Luke Coffey is a senior fellow at Hudson Institute.
