Ex-Yale student released from immigration jail; U.S. judges limit ICE arrest authority in CT courts
Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents released Afghan refugee Saifullah Khan on bond Friday evening, nearly a month after they immobilized him with Taser fire and detained him as he and his wife left an immigration hearing in Hartford's federal building.
In a related development, Connecticut's U.S. District Court judges issued an order less than a month after Khan's arrest limiting the authority of federal immigration agents to make arrests and detain people in buildings that house the state's three federal courts.
Khan, who was born in a Pakistani refugee camp after his family was forced by the Taliban to flee Afghanistan, came to the United States to study at Yale University. He has applied for asylum and the application had been pending for nine years when he was detained on May 9.
Witnesses said plain clothes ICE agents confronted Khan without identifying themselves as he left an immigration hearing. When he tried to return to the courtroom to seek assistance from the judge, he was hit seven times with Tasers and required medical attention.
Immigration Judge Theodore Doolittle tried to intervene in the arrest, but was not allowed to do so by immigration agents, the witnesses said.
The arrest took place on the sixth floor of a secure Ribicoff Federal Building on Main Street.
Khan was held at immigration detention centers in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania since his arrest — including the three days since Tuesday when an immigration judge in Massachusetts issued an order releasing him on a $7,500 bond.
During a brief conversation after his release in Pennsylvania Friday night, as he was driven to a meeting with family members, Khan said he has not been given an explanation as to what led to his arrest, why he was not immediately allowed to post a court-ordered bond and why he ultimately was released.
Immigration authorities did not respond to questions about the case.
'While I was hospitalized, they told me: 'We were in hot pursuit. We were going to get you. You shouldn't have run,'' Khan said.
'I was at court,' he said. 'I am law abiding. I was presenting myself to the judge. Even if it is a final order for removal, I am very grateful for the time I have been in the United States. I have been here for 14 years. I am very lucky to have spent so much time here and been given the opportunity to assimilate. And I would like to have that opportunity and privilege in the future as well. I would love to be an American citizen. I would love to be able to call myself an American.'
Khan's arrest followed his decision to sue in an effort to compel a decision on his asylum application after years of what his lawyers characterized as government inaction. The suit names senior Trump administration figures, including Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem.
Within weeks of naming Noem and the others, Khan received a notice that ICE had begun proceedings to deport him and he was ordered to appear at the hearing, after which he was detained.
He has no criminal record, but was accused by a Yale classmate of sexually assaulting her after a date in 2015. He was acquitted of all charges after a trial in criminal court. When Yale expelled him in spite of the acquittal, he sued the school for defamation and related rights violations. The suit is pending.
The order Thursday by the federal judges concerning arrests in federal court buildings prevents immigration agents from making arrests and detaining people in areas of the buildings occupied by the federal courts and restricts authority to do so to the U.S. Marshal Service.
In Hartford's Ribicoff Federal Building, which is larger than federal court buildings in New Haven and Bridgeport and houses federal agencies other than the courts on upper floors, Department of Homeland Security agents can continue to make arrests on non-judicial floors, according to the order.
The order appears to be limited to judicial areas of the Ribicoff building because of questions about whether the security authority of the federal judiciary extends to areas of federal buildings that house operations of executive branch agencies, such as Homeland Security and its subsidiary agencies such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Immigration courts are not part of the federal judiciary, but are operated by executive branch appointees for the purpose of adjudicating immigration questions.
Increasingly aggressive efforts by federal immigration authorities to arrest non citizens — including decisions to target courts for enforcement efforts — has led to concerns about safety and other issues among some court administrators.
The federal judiciary said its order limiting arrest authority in Connecticut's U.S. District Court is based on a commitment to ensure 'the orderly conduct of court proceedings and the safety of litigants, witnesses, attorneys, the public, and court personnel.'
Similar questions are being analyzed by officials working in the state judiciary, which has a far greater case volume than the federal courts. Among other things, there have been discussions in both court systems about whether immigration agents should be allowed to enter courtrooms while proceedings are underway in order to detain suspected non-citizens.
Among other things, prosecutors warn that such detentions could lead eventually to dismissal of charges against criminal defendants who have been the subject of protracted criminal investigation and prosecution.
The federal court order makes certain exceptions, including for circumstances in which suspects turn themselves in for arrest and agents transport people arrested elsewhere to court.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How Trump's Tariffs and Immigration Policies Could Make Housing Even More Expensive
President Donald Trump owes his second electoral victory, in no small part, to voter frustration over the rising cost of living. Over the course of Joe Biden's presidency, the price of a typical American house increased by nearly 40 percent, and rents followed a similar trajectory. As of 2024, approximately 771,480 Americans lack reliable shelter—at once a new high and a new low. All of these issues are most acute in states governed by Biden's fellow Democrats. In California, the median home price is now more than 10 times the median household income. Economists generally view three to five as a healthy ratio. Polling data suggest that many key voting blocs in the 2024 presidential election were primarily motivated by the rising cost of living and by out-of-control housing costs in particular. For all the network news preoccupation with transgender athletes and campus protests, it was mortgages and rents—the single largest line items in a typical household's budget—that moved voters to toss out incumbents. On April 2, after months of empty threats and false starts, the administration finally launched its global trade war, including a 25 percent tariff on various goods from Canada and Mexico. But Canadian softwood lumber and Mexican gypsum used for drywall—the (literal) pillars of a typical American single-family home—would be exempt. The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) was quick to celebrate it as a win: Canada accounts for 85 percent of all U.S. lumber imports. If the tariffs had taken effect as planned, the per-unit cost of a home might have increased by as much as $29,000. In a sector characterized by thin margins, that would have meant a lot of idle construction sites. And yet the partial rollback will offer only a temporary reprieve. Tariffs already in effect will increase the cost of a new home by $10,900 on average, according to an April 2025 estimate by the NAHB—an increase of $1,700 over its March estimate. This is on top of a 41.6 percent increase in building materials since 2020, brought on by pandemic-related supply chain disruptions. Those cost increases could hit renters hardest. After a decade of underbuilding in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, America is short roughly 5 million homes—most of them apartments. Perhaps the most robust finding in urban economics is that when vacancy rates increase, rents fall. But driving up vacancy rates requires cities to build more housing. Thanks to the YIMBY ("yes in my backyard") movement, a handful of cities—including Austin and Minneapolis—have recently had building booms that have brought prices back down. But those cities have been the exception. Meanwhile, a new wave of tariffs is about to make it a lot more expensive to build. On February 11, the administration imposed a 25 percent tariff on steel and aluminum—much of it imported from allies such as Brazil and Germany. On February 25, the administration announced an investigation into copper imports, presumably with future tariffs in the works. Depending on their country of origin, other key inputs like iron and cement are also now subject to steep tariffs. Even if you can get new housing built, the appliances needed to make all these new homes livable could soon cost hundreds of dollars more. Not only are microwaves, refrigerators, and air conditioners now more expensive to import, but tariffs on key inputs mean they are also more expensive to produce domestically. Uncertainty around tariffs has put many construction projects on pause, sending homebuilder stocks plummeting. Many small, local developers are exiting the market altogether. Following in the mold of autarkic Cuba—where international trade is strictly limited and medical doctors drive taxis for a living—your next Uber driver could very well be an out-of-work former developer. Never mind that the typical American city desperately needs them to build. If tariffs weren't bad enough, the administration's program of mass deportations could kick the housing crisis into overdrive. As things stand, the construction industry is already short 250,000 workers. This is partly a legacy of Trump's first term, in which an immigration clampdown suppressed what might have been an overdue housing construction boom. Even today, approximately 30 percent of construction workers are immigrants, many of them undocumented. In California, which is already a basket case on housing affordability, immigrants make up 41 percent of all construction labor. In Texas—one of the few bright spots for housing affordability in recent years, thanks to an ongoing construction boom—nearly 60 percent of all immigrant construction workers are undocumented. If 2024 was any indication, expecting voters to put up with all this in 2026 is a risky gamble. On some level, the Trump administration must appreciate that this is an existential threat. And yet its current proposals are out of sync with the scale of the housing crisis: Releasing more federally owned lands for housing development remains the only proposal the administration has seriously offered up to address the housing shortage. It's a fine enough idea if properly designed. But it would, at best, provide only modest relief to a handful of Western cities. Worse yet, the administration seems to have regressed to the implicitly regulatory "protect the suburbs" rhetoric that so failed Trump in the 2020 election. In February, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) chief Scott Turner announced that he would be scrapping the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) rule in order to "cut red tape" and "advance market-driven development." Except the rule was essentially just a reporting exercise that required local governments to disclose—and ideally remove—local red tape standing in the way of housing. In 2018, then–HUD Secretary Ben Carson embraced the AFFH rule as a way of nudging cities to remove regulatory barriers to housing production, as part of his brief flirtation with YIMBYism. In a move that would make Orwell blush, Carson joined Trump in a Wall Street Journal op-ed two years later announcing that they would "protect America's suburbs" and scrap the rule if reelected. Trump lost that election. It's all a very strange state of affairs—a developer in chief with evidently little interest in getting America building again. It didn't need to be this way. Over the course of the first Trump administration, housing production recovered at a steady clip, with a muted increase in housing costs as a result. The administration's deregulating zeal could have been focused on unnecessary federal mandates that increase costs. Instead, the United States is poised to experience a run-up in housing prices through 2028 that could make the pandemic-era increases like a minor blip. So what could the federal government do? From a constitutional perspective, not much. The bulk of the blame for America's housing crisis lies with local governments that maintain onerous zoning regulations and unpredictable permitting processes—and the state governments that control them. The federal government has little role to play in zoning, even if it once did a lot of the heavy lifting to promote it. But that isn't to imply there is nothing the federal government could do. In recent years, the idea of tying federal dollars to local deregulation has gained acceptance within the Beltway. Bills with unsubtle names like the "Build More Housing Near Transit Act" or the "Yes In My Backyard Act" would variously condition money for transit or other public facilities on local jurisdictions cutting back on red tape. At the same time, the federal government could turn up the tax pressure. If homeowners in cities with high costs and low production were suddenly ineligible for benefits like the mortgage interest deduction or the state and local tax credit, it would transform the local politics of housing. Homeowners who might otherwise be fully bought into government constraints on housing production could flip their script. More likely, however, the onus will fall on state and local legislators to pull out all the stops on housing production. State and local elected officials can't control tariffs or immigration policy. But they can control "make or break" factors such as zoning regulations, permitting timelines, and impact fees. According to a recent RAND study, variations in these policies explain why it's nearly twice as expensive to build housing in California as in Texas. At least some state legislators are rising to the occasion. In recent months, states as diverse as Republican-supermajority Montana and Democratic-supermajority Washington have moved forward legislation restricting the right of local governments to block housing. Even California is starting to see the light. All these bills will help to get more housing built, no matter what's happening at the federal level. The Trump administration had better hope those state-level efforts are successful—and scrap the trade and immigration policies that could plunge America into another housing crisis. The post How Trump's Tariffs and Immigration Policies Could Make Housing Even More Expensive appeared first on
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
British businessman ‘spied for Beijing and tried to smuggle weapons into China'
A British businessman tried to smuggle missiles and drones into China and attempted to silence critics of Xi Jinping, according to an indictment. John Miller is accused of spying for the Chinese Communist Party and faces extradition to the US after his arrest in Serbia. The 63-year-old allegedly referred to Xi Jinping, the Chinese president, as 'The Boss' in intercepted phone calls and conducted surveillance on an artist who created statues mocking the country's leader. In April, Mr Miller was arrested along with 43-year-old Chinese national Cui Guanghai, in Belgrade, Serbia, on the orders of the FBI and is now awaiting extradition to the US where he could be jailed for 20 years. Over two and a half years, Mr Miller and Mr Cui allegedly employed a wide range of tactics to harass, intimidate, stalk and threaten a Los Angeles resident, known only as 'the victim', who is a public critic of President Xi. 'As alleged, the defendants targeted a US resident for exercising his constitutional right to free speech and conspired to traffic sensitive American military technology to the Chinese regime,' said Todd Blanche, the US deputy attorney Miller is a long-time resident of the US, but also owns a £1.5 million home in Tunbridge Wells in Kent. Companies House records show Mr Miller has held roles in at least five UK companies, including TEFL Jobs China Ltd, which seemed to facilitate English language teaching jobs, but is now dissolved. A few months before the case began in June 2023, Mr Miller went to China where he met with Chinese government officials in Beijing and Liaoning, a province in north-east China that borders North Korea. He also met someone who works for the governor of Liaoning. During the trip, Mr Cui reportedly introduced Mr Miller to two people, who Mr Miller later referred to as 'big mother------s.' Upon his return, he reportedly boasted that 'the trip couldn't have gone better'. The first incident referred to in the indictment occurred shortly after he returned. In October 2023, Mr Miller and Mr Cui approached two individuals who, unbeknownst to them, were working for the FBI. They enlisted the undercover agents to stop 'the victim' from protesting against Xi's appearance at the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit the following month. Mr Miller and Mr Cui allegedly installed tracking devices on 'the victim's' car and paid the undercover agents to slash their tires. Mr Miller and Mr Cui also devised a complex plan to destroy a set of statues created by 'the victim'. These depicted President Xi and his wife bare-chested, kneeling with their hands tied behind their backs, and were potentially going to be displayed at a protest. The 'victim' had previously displayed the statues in Times Square electronic billboards and broadcast the display on X, according to court documents. Initially, Mr Miller had wanted to steal the statues and 'remove the heads' as evidence, but later decided to pay the undercover FBI agents to 'smash up' them up. In 2025, Mr Miller paid the agents $36,500 (£27,100) to convince 'the victim' to desist from showcasing the new statues at an upcoming protest, after 'the victim' had displayed the statues on a 24-hour live feed online. Beyond the intimidation schemes, Mr Miller also allegedly tried to purchase millions of pounds worth of military equipment on behalf of the Chinese military. Mr Miller reportedly tried to buy a £37,000 Stinger portable missile launcher, two military drones valued at £148,000, a £668,000 AGM-88E anti-radiation missile system and a £1.5 million air-defence radar system. He also allegedly tried to procure a cryptographic device, which is used for secure communication of classified and sensitive information. At one point, the Briton suggested that the device be smuggled from the US to China by hiding it inside a food blender or a motor starter, having shipped it first via DHL or FedEx to Hong Kong, according to court documents. Several times in Mr Miller's conversations, he mentions a 'boss' or at times a 'big boss' that seems to be the one giving orders. According to the special FBI agent who submitted the affidavit, Mr Miller's use of the phrase 'boss' 'refer[s] to President Xi' and 'demonstrates [Miller's] awareness that he was acting at the direction and control of the [Chinese] government.' Mr Blanche said: 'This is a blatant assault on both our national security and our democratic values. This Justice Department will not tolerate foreign repression on US soil, nor will we allow hostile nations to infiltrate or exploit our defence systems. 'We will act decisively to expose and dismantle these threats wherever they emerge.' Bill Essayli, attorney for the Central District of California, said: 'The indictment alleges that Chinese foreign actors targeted a victim in our nation because [they] criticised the Chinese government and its president. 'My office will continue to use all legal methods available to hold accountable foreign nationals engaging in criminal activity on our soil.' Akil Davis, the assistant director in charge of the FBI's Los Angeles field office, said: 'The FBI will not tolerate transnational repression targeting those in the United States who express dissenting opinions about foreign leaders. 'Both defendants face serious stalking charges in Los Angeles and my office intends to hold them accountable for bullying a victim, a critic of the PRC [People's Republic of China], and targeting him with violence.' If convicted, Mr Miller could also face the maximum penalties of five years in prison for conspiracy, five years in prison for interstate stalking, and 10 years in prison for smuggling. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Photos reveal scenes of everyday life in Hamtramck
Over the past year, Detroit Free Press columnist John Carlisle and photojournalist Ryan Garza have immersed themselves in Hamtramck, a town of about 2 square miles, that sits like an island in the middle of Detroit. Hamtramck: Two square miles: The evolution of Hamtramck They've told the stories of its people and the dramatic evolution of the city's cultural landscape. Once a predominantly Polish-American city, Hamtramck has blossomed into one of the most diverse communities in the United States. In this photo gallery, you'll walk the streets of Hamtramck, getting a window into the daily rhythms of life in the vibrant enclave. Read the entire series here. This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Photos reveal scenes of everyday life in Hamtramck
