Trump to Dismiss Asylum Claims, Speed Up Deportations
The Trump administration is preparing to dismiss asylum claims for potentially hundreds of thousands of migrants—primarily those who crossed the southern or northern borders illegally and later applied for protection—according to CNN, citing two sources. Once dismissed, these migrants would become immediately deportable under fast-track removal procedures, bypassing immigration court.
Migrants who entered the U.S. unlawfully and sought asylum through U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) would be impacted if the new policy goes into effect. This could result in up to 250,000 migrants—out of the 1.45 million pending asylum cases—being slated for removal.
Here's more from the report:
The people being targeted in this case are those who entered the U.S. unlawfully and later applied for asylum, the sources said. Their cases are expected to be closed, therefore leaving them at risk of deportation. It could affect hundreds of thousands of asylum applicants.
According to a memo obtained by CNN, USCIS, which falls under the control of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, will place those migrants in fast-track deportation proceedings as well as 'take additional actions to enforce civil and criminal violations of the immigration laws.'
USCIS spokesperson Matthew Tragesser told the outlet that no agency changes have been 'announced at this time,' adding that its 'top priority remains the screening and vetting of all aliens seeking to come, live, or work in the United States. President Trump and Secretary Noem have given USCIS the ability to use all tools in our toolbox to ensure that the integrity of the immigration system is upheld, fraud is uncovered and expeditiously addressed, and illegal aliens are removed from the country.'
Earlier this month, President Trump directed Immigration and Customs Enforcement to ramp up operations in chaotic sanctuary cities run by far-left politicians working with dark money-funded NGOs to shield criminal illegal aliens from deportations. In one extreme case, a Los Angeles official reportedly called for Mexican gangs to mobilize against ICE agents.
Meanwhile, the Democratic Party's nominee for New York City mayor, 33-year-old Marxist Zohran Mamdani, is campaigning on a platform of free stuff paid for by the government (taxpayers)—even promoting his campaign in at least one foreign language. Keep in mind NYC is the mecca of sanctuary cities in America.
Foreign language ads with promises of free stuff is how you win now in New York City. Realize where we are.pic.twitter.com/froHgOK4b8 — End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) June 25, 2025
Also Read: Iran-Israel Conflict: US President Donald Trump Receives Nobel Peace Prize Nomination For Ceasefire Deal
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gulf Insider
2 hours ago
- Gulf Insider
Europe's LNG Gamble Exposed By Middle East War
The Israel-Iran conflict has driven up diesel, jet fuel, and gas prices. With 20% of global LNG flowing through the Strait of Hormuz, even threats of disruption have raised EU gas prices by 20%. Europe's refusal to sign long-term LNG deals or develop local hydrocarbon resources is backfiring. Oil and the security of its supply have stolen the media spotlight in the context of the new Middle East war, and with good reason. Ever since Israel first bombed Iran, diesel prices have soared, jet fuel prices have soared, and importers have been troubled. For Europe, the situation is even worse due to natural gas. Europe has been hurt more than others by the diesel price surge because it has boosted its imports considerably over the past years. About 20% of the diesel Europe consumes comes from imports, and a lot of these imports come from the Middle East. The situation is not much different in jet fuel. Europe depends on imports and a solid chunk of these imports comes from the Middle East. What's true of these essential fuels is doubly true of natural gas—even though direct imports of gas from the Middle East constitute a modest 10% of total imports. Yet they constitute a substantial portion of global gas exports, so any suggestion of disrupted supply affects gas prices in exactly the same way it has affected oil prices—and makes a vital commodity less affordable for Europeans. The latest import figures from the European Commission, for 2024, show that Norway was the EU's biggest supplier of natural gas via pipeline, and the United States was its biggest supplier of liquefied natural gas. Other large suppliers of LNG included—awkwardly—Russia, with 17.5% of the total inflows of LNG, and Algeria, with 10.7%. Qatar's share in EU LNG imports stood at 10.4%, largely because Qatar prefers to deal in long-term contracts, and European Union planners don't. Yet it is not these 10.4% that matter. It is the fact that around 20% of global LNG trade passes through the Strait of Hormuz and Iran threatened to close the waterway in response to Israeli and U.S. attacks. This prompted a jump in European natural gas prices by a fitting 20% per the Financial Times, which highlighted the dangers of import dependence in energy commodities. To be fair, the European leadership is aware of these dangers. They are one reason for many European leaders' near-obsession with the energy transition, on the assumption that wind and solar would be able to provide local energy—which is true—and that this energy can replace that provided by gas—which is not true. The latter was proven rather conclusively by the April 28 events in Spain, although it will be a while before the facts become accepted. In the meantime, Europe is in for more suffering, even if Iran doesn't close the Strait of Hormuz, which for the time being seems to have been taken off the table amid ceasefire efforts. The reason is that Europe needs to refill its gas storage caverns for next winter. Even if it cancels the 90% refill rate requirement, it still needs to buy a lot of gas, most of it on the spot market because of that aversion to long-term gas commitments it believes is part and parcel of the transition effort. And geopolitics has made LNG costlier—which will add billions to the refill bill. Earlier this year, it became clear that Europe's bill for natural gas would be higher this year than last because the winter of 2024-25 was colder and storage levels fell lower than in the previous two years. So, this year, Europe needs to buy more gas, adding some $11.2 billion to its total tab. But that was before the latest Middle Eastern war broke out. Now, the tab has gone further up—and Europe is already struggling with high energy costs, not least because of its dependence on LNG imports. Once again, then, Europe would need to rely on luck. If it is lucky, demand for liquefied natural gas from Asia will remain tepid, as it has been over the first half of the year. If it is lucky, the war between Israel and Iran will be over within the month, removing the supply disruption premium from LNG prices. If it is lucky, finally, winter 2025-26 will be as mild as winter 2023-24 and gas demand will be lower. Even if Europe gets lucky on all three, however, the cost of its energy will remain elevated compared to places such as China and the United States—its main business rivals. The reason is as simple as it is unpalatable for European political decision-makers: local supply. Both the U.S. and China are putting their local natural gas resources to good use. Europe isn't, although in all fairness, it doesn't have as much of an easily accessible gas resource abundance as either the U.S. or even China. The staunch refusal to develop any hydrocarbon resources locally, however, is as counterproductive as the refusal to make long-term LNG supply commitments. It is a refusal to acknowledge the reality of energy demand and supply. The sooner Europe gets over this, the better for energy supply security.
Gulf Insider
2 hours ago
- Gulf Insider
Who Counts? Trump Poised To Try To Remove Noncitizens From Census
Following a years-long surge in illegal immigration, the Trump administration is poised to challenge a longstanding but legally fraught practice: counting illegal aliens in the U.S. census. President Trump tried to end the practice during his first term, but President Biden overturned his predecessor's policy before it was implemented. Now, buoyed by red state attorneys general and Republican legislators, the second Trump administration is determined 'to clean up the census and make sure that illegal aliens are not counted,' White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Stephen Miller said last month. What Miller didn't mention are the political implications of the administration's move. It could have significant political implications because the census count is used to apportion House seats, determine the number of votes each state gets in the Electoral College for selecting the president, and drive the flow of trillions of dollars in government funds. Some immigration researchers project that including noncitizens in the census count disproportionately benefits Democratic states with large illegal alien populations. A recent study counters that, based on 2020 census figures, there would have been a negligible shift to the political map had the U.S. government excluded noncitizens from that count. But looking backward, those researchers found, red states would have benefited under the administration's desired census counting shift. Had authorities excluded such migrants from the 2010 census, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Ohio and North Carolina all would have gained one seat in the House, while California would have lost three seats, and Texas and Florida would have each lost one seat – with the total number of Electoral College votes allotted each state changing accordingly. Click here to read more…
Gulf Insider
3 hours ago
- Gulf Insider
US Reportedly Mulls Easing Iran Sanctions, Assisting Non-Enrichment Nuclear Program
In an entirely bizarre and unexpected pivot, and following yesterday's Trump statements suggesting that a new Iran nuclear deal might not even be necessary (given the narrative that its enriched uranium and nuclear capability has been fullly destroyed), the White House is already in discussions for a deal both to ease Iran sanctions and potentially help the Islamic Republic build a civilian-energy-producing nuclear program, but importantly without domestic enrichment. 'The Trump administration has discussed possibly helping Iran access as much as $30 billion to build a civilian-energy-producing nuclear program, easing sanctions, and freeing up billions of dollars in restricted Iranian funds – all part of an intensifying attempt to bring Tehran back to the negotiating table, four sources familiar with the matter said,' a fresh Thursday CNN report says. 'Key players from the US and the Middle East have talked with the Iranians behind the scenes even amid the flurry of military strikes in Iran and Israel over the past two weeks, the sources said,' the report continues. 'Those discussions have continued this week after a ceasefire deal was struck, the sources said.' The report says multiple early-stage proposals are under discussion, but all based on a key non-negotiable: that Iran must halt all uranium enrichment. However, this is one red line that Tehran has been insistent it won't give in to, as a matter of national sovereignty. According to more from the CNN claims: Among the terms being discussed, which have not been previously reported, is an estimated $20-30 billion investment in a new Iranian non-enrichment nuclear program that would be used for civilian energy purposes, Trump administration officials and sources familiar with the proposal told CNN. One official insisted that money would not come directly from the US, which prefers its Arab partners foot the bill. Investment in Iran's nuclear energy facilities has been discussed in previous rounds of nuclear talks in recent months. 'The US is willing to lead these talks,' a Trump admin source said. 'And someone is going to need to pay for the nuclear program to be built, but we will not make that commitment.' Arab partners would be pressured to foot the bill, the report emphasizes, also at a moment there's a new push to expand the Abraham Accords. Thursday afternoon WH press briefing hinted at the accuracy of the CNN report: ▶️ The White House Spokeswoman says Steve Witkoff and his team are talking to Iran as well as the US' Arab partners to come to agreement with IranLeavitt suggests that perhaps more Persian Gulf States could potentially sign on to the Abraham Accords. — SpeakWithDeeDee (@SpeakWithDeeDee) June 26, 2025 If true, this would constitute quite a drastic – almost total 180 shift – even as the dust still settles in the wake of the massive weekend US B-2 strikes on Iran this weekend. At this point it has yet to be proven that Iran's nuclear development capability has been truly destroyed and halted (WH assertions notwithstanding). Yet now suddenly, the US could be mulling a 'truly peaceful nuclear energy program' method of assistance for Tehran. But the White House might at any moment deny the contents of this new CNN report and the claims therein. As expected Hegseth during the Thursday morning Pentagon press conference excoriated the mainstream media for its coverage of the Trump-ordered attacks on Iran's nuclear sites. This after repeatedly praising Trump's leadership at yesterday's NATO summit. 'I hope, with all the ink spilled, all of your outlets find the time to properly recognize this historic change in continental security that other presidents tried to do, other presidents talked about,' Hegseth said. 'President Trump accomplished it. It's a huge deal.' He strongly pushed back especially against CNN reporting that the strikes merely set back Iran's nuclear program by months, again, framing the avalanche of MSM skepticism as supposedly due merely to anti-Trump bias and not wanting to give him a 'win'. 'Again, it was preliminary, a day and a half after the actual strike, when it admits itself in writing that it requires weeks to accumulate the necessary data to make such an assessment,' the defense secretary said. The president 'created the conditions to end the war, decimating – choose your word – obliterating, destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities,' he asserted, before reading aloud the assessments of various US and foreign intelligence heads. Much of the press conference consisted of a highly detailed narrative of what it was like for troops – from officers to enlisted privates – in the Middle East as Iran's very brief retaliatory missile strike rained down on Qatar, and US-manned anti-air batteries intercepted the inbound projectiles. There was also a lot of focus on the pilots and crew of the B-2s and their marathon 37-hour bombing run all the way from Missouri to Tehran and back. The presser, especially while Hegseth was speaking, was charged with patriotism and emotion – much more than is normal for a Pentagon press briefing. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine emphasized in a detailed way the specs of the 30,000 pound bombs dropped on the Iranian sites, and they 'functioned as designed, meaning they exploded.' Gen. Dan "Razin" Caine demonstrates how GBU-57 MOPs work: "Unlike a normal surface bomb, you won't see an impact crater because they're designed to deeply bury and then function … All six weapons at each vent at Fordow went exactly where they were intended to go." — Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) June 26, 2025 'A point that I want to make here: the Joint Force does not do [battle damage assessments],' Caine told the press pool. 'By design, we don't grade our own homework. The intelligence community does. But here's what we know following the attacks and the strikes on Fordow: First, that the weapons were built, tested and loaded properly. Two, the weapons were released on speed and on parameters. Three, the weapons all guided to their intended targets and to their intended aim points. Four, the weapons functioned as designed, meaning they exploded. We know this through other means intelligence means that we have that were visibly, we were visibly able to see them. And we know that the trailing jets saw the first weapons function.' He actually cited one pilot's eyewitness account as saying the blast from the initial bombs was so big as it was like an overwhelming flash of daylight. Among the more interesting assertions and revelations was that the Pentagon has been working intensely on the operation, particularly to take out the Fordow site, for-15 years . While the US military often spends a lot of time on various 'contingency' options to present to the Commander-in-Chief, Gen. Caine's description of two Pentagon analysts who devoted a decade-and-a-half of their lives to studying just Fordow strongly suggests the US long ago knew it would pull the trigger at some point. 'In the days preceding the attack against Fordow, the Iranians attempted to cover the shafts with concrete to try to prevent an attack. I won't share the specific dimensions of the concrete cap, but you should know that we know what the dimensions of those concrete caps were,' Caine said. 'The planners had to account for this, they accounted for everything. The cap was forcibly removed by the first weapon, and the main shaft was uncovered.' At Pentagon, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Dan Caine, explained 15 years of planning for disabling Fordo nuclear facility.A team focused on deeply buried, underground targets were briefed on a construction project in Iran in 2009."They knew from the very first days what… — Jennifer Jacobs (@JenniferJJacobs) June 26, 2025 And President Trump soon after the Pentagon briefing ended, wrote the following on Truth Social: Meanwhile, Fox is reporting that the Senate has finally received a delayed Iran briefing. This seems to continue a long GWOT era tradition of presidents across administrations bombing first, and then notifying Congress later. Meanwhile, the international debate over just where Iran's enriched uranium stockpile is now located (if it's not destroyed) continues to intensify, despite the Trump denials that it remains: TRUMP: NOTHING WAS TAKEN OUT OF THE FACILITY IRAN LAW SUSPENDING IAEA COOPERATION COMES INTO EFFECT Simultaneous to Trump issuing another statement rejecting the thesis that the uranium has been moved and hidden, Financial Times reports in a strangely worded headline ('Iran moved uranium from Fordow before US strikes, EU capitals believe' ) the following: Iran's highly enriched uranium stockpile remains largely intact following US strikes on its main nuclear sites, European capitals believe, calling into question President Donald Trump's assertion that the bombing 'obliterated' the Islamic republic's nuclear programme. Two people briefed on preliminary intelligence assessments said European capitals believe Iran's stockpile of 408kg of uranium enriched close to weapons-grade levels was not concentrated in Fordow, one of its two main enrichment sites, at the time of last weekend's attack. It had been distributed to various other locations, the capitals believe. This would indeed be an interesting twist – that the bulk of enriched uranium stockpiles were not even located at Fordow, which appeared to be the heaviest hit in the US operation. According to more: The people said EU capitals were still awaiting a full intelligence report on the extent of the damage to Fordow — which was built deep beneath a mountain near the holy city of Qom — and that one initial report suggested 'extensive damages, but not full structural destruction'. Iranian officials have suggested the enriched uranium stockpile was moved before the US bombing of the plant, which came after days of Israeli strikes on the country. But again, the White House as well as Thursday Pentagon presser is sticking by the Trump claim of total and utter obliteration. Perhaps the world will learn the truth in the coming days and weeks, or possibly not at all, pending 'proof' and data from the ground, which the Iranians will likely not be willing to give. For some of our prior coverage on this pressing coverage, see– Where Is Iran's Uranium? Top Secret Leaked US Intel Says Core Nuclear Components 'Intact' * * * After blasting the 'fake news' and mainstream outlets NY Times and CNN in particular in Wednesday comments at the NATO summit, President Trump will continue 'setting the record straight' on the Iran bombings, as the Pentagon is set to hold an 'irrefutable' press conference on Thursday morning, providing more details on last weekend's B-2 bomber raids on the Iranian nuclear sites of (per AI summary)– Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant: A heavily fortified, deeply buried uranium enrichment site near the northern city of Qom. A heavily fortified, deeply buried uranium enrichment site near the northern city of Qom. Natanz Nuclear Facility: Iran's main uranium-enrichment complex, located near Isfahan in central Iran. Iran's main uranium-enrichment complex, located near Isfahan in central Iran. Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center: A key conversion and research facility south of Isfahan city. Very unusually, the US President claimed that 'fake news' reports upset the pilots who flew the bombs over Iran, by claiming that Iran's nuclear capability was not in fact completely destroyed. 'Secretary of Defense (War!) Pete Hegseth, together with Military Representatives, will be holding a Major News Conference tomorrow morning at 8 A.M. EST at The Pentagon, in order to fight for the Dignity of our Great American Pilots,' Trump posted to Truth Social. 'These Patriots were very upset! After 36 hours of dangerously flying through Enemy Territory, they landed, they knew the Success was LEGENDARY, and then, two days later, they started reading Fake News by CNN and The Failing New York Times. They felt terribly,' he continued. Hegseth is also expected to address a controversial leaked Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report, first revealed by CNN, which strongly suggested that the US strikes did not destroy Iran's nuclear capability: Two of the people familiar with the assessment said Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium was not destroyed. One of the people said the centrifuges are largely 'intact.' Another source said that the intelligence assessed enriched uranium was moved out of the sites prior to the US strikes. 'So the (DIA) assessment is that the US set them back maybe a few months, tops,' this person added. Most recently the CIA has since backed the Trump admin's claims, with CIA Director John Ratcliffe on Wednesday having sought to clarify in a statement that the agency had obtained 'a body of credible evidence [that] indicates Iran's Nuclear Program has been severely damaged' by recent strikes. But then this too includes somewhat ambiguous language.
