U.S. Announces Restrictions on Some India Travel Agencies
The United States has announced a ban on some travel agencies in India after also instituting a visa overstay crackdown.
"The Department of State is taking steps today to impose visa restrictions on owners, executives, and senior officials of travel agencies based and operating in India for knowingly facilitating illegal immigration to the United States," the U.S. Department of State announced on May 19.
The move comes shortly after the U.S. Embassy in India announced that people who overstay their visas in the U.S. could face a "permanent" ban on travel to the U.S.
"Mission India's Consular Affairs and Diplomatic Security Service work every day across our Embassy and Consulates to actively identify and target those engaged in facilitating illegal immigration and human smuggling and trafficking operations," the May 19 release says.
"We will continue to take steps to impose visa restrictions against owners, executives, and senior officials of travel agencies to cut off alien smuggling networks. Our immigration policy aims not only to inform foreign nationals about the dangers of illegal immigration to the United States but also to hold accountable individuals who violate our laws, including facilitators of illegal immigration," it adds.
"Enforcing U.S. immigration laws and policies is critical to upholding the rule of law and protecting Americans. This visa restriction policy is global and even applies to individuals who otherwise qualify for the Visa Waiver Program. These actions are taken pursuant to section 212(a)(3)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act," the statement reads.
NPR reported that the desire to migrate to the U.S. is so strong among some Indians that they pray at "visa temples" for the chance to do so.
According to Pew Research, "An estimated 5.2 million people in the United States identified as Indian in 2023."
Related: U.S. Embassy Warns of 'Permanent Ban' on Travel
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump targeting of Mahmoud Khalil is baseless and has caused extreme psychological harm, lawyers say
NEW YORK — Attorneys for detained Columbia graduate student Mahmoud Khalil in new filings say the Trump administration has damaged his reputation and severely undermined his ability to pursue a career in international diplomacy and human rights 'by baselessly identifying him as a risk to the foreign policy of the United States' based on his advocacy for Palestinians and criticism of Israel, 'marking him and his family as targets for harassment and notoriety.' '(The) longer the determination stands, the more reputational damage it does,' Khalil's legal team wrote. The New Jersey federal court filing came in support of Khalil's motion for a preliminary injunction in his habeas corpus case, which seeks his immediate release from custody. Lawyers are also calling for the vacating of Secretary of State Marco Rubio's determination as to why he should be deported, and — more broadly — an injunction stopping the federal government from enforcing a policy of arresting, detaining, and removing noncitizens who engage in speech supporting Palestinian rights or criticizing Israel. The Trump administration has not alleged Khalil broke any laws. It has sought to revoke his green card and deport him based on a rarely-used provision of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, which empowers Rubio to expel someone from the country if their activities and beliefs are considered adverse to U.S. foreign policy interests, which in Khalil's case, pertains to U.S. support for Israel. Khalil's case in New Jersey challenging the legality of his detention is playing out separately from his immigration case in Louisiana. In April, the immigration judge ordered his deportation in finding the government had met its burden, a decision he intends to appeal. The federal New Jersey judge, Michael Farbiarz, has said he cannot be deported while his habeas corpus matter plays out. Agents from the Department of Homeland Security took Khalil into custody on March 8 as he arrived home to his Columbia-owned apartment with his wife, Dr. Noor Abdalla, from an iftar dinner. He was brought to lower Manhattan's 26 Federal Plaza for processing, driven to a facility in Elizabeth, New Jersey, overnight, and transported more than 1,000 miles away to Jena, Louisiana, the next morning, a Sunday, where he has since remained incarcerated at a detention center. In a ruling last week, Farbiarz, who is yet to rule on the legality of Khalil's detention, said the government's reasoning for seeking to deport him is likely unconstitutional. 'Our law asks about an 'ordinary person.' Would he know that [the rarely-used provision] could be used against him based on his speech inside the United States, however odious it might allegedly have been — speech that has not been affirmatively determined by the Secretary to have an impact on U.S. relations with other countries? The Court's answer is no,' Farbiarz wrote. In Khalil's parallel immigration case, the judge, Jamee Comans, last month heard testimony from the student activist and several experts who said his deportation could result in his kidnapping, torture, or even death due to his prominent criticism of Israel. Comans denied a renewed motion to end the deportation proceedings based on agents' failure to provide a warrant upon his arrest, The New York Times reported, and reserved issuing a decision on his bid for asylum. In the filings made public Thursday, Khalil's lawyers asked for permission to file under seal an expert declaration outlining the extreme psychological harm he's endured from the 'shock of unjust arrest and continued detention and family separation,' which they say 'will inevitably severely worsen absent release.' A judge gave government lawyers until Friday to object to filing the assessment under seal. 'These harms include the loss of Mr. Khalil's liberty; the chilling of his First Amendment protected activities; the separation from his family, particularly his wife and newborn child; and psychological harm specific to his arrest and detention,' Khalil's lawyers wrote. A Palestinian who was raised in a refugee camp in Syria, Khalil came to the U.S. in December 2022 on a student visa, married Abdalla, who's from the Midwest, in November 2023, and became a lawful permanent resident in 2024. He completed his Master's degree at Columbia's School of International and Public Affairs in December and would have graduated last month. Abdalla accepted his diploma on his behalf a month after giving birth to their first child, a baby boy. With experience working for a British embassy and interning with the United Nations in New York, Khalil was selected to play the role of a mediator and negotiator between the university's administration and students during campus protests last year against Israel's war on Gaza and Columbia's ties to the Israeli regime. Donald Trump and his Cabinet members have repeatedly characterized Khalil's advocacy and criticism of Israel in general as antisemitic and inherently supportive of Hamas. The Trump administration has since targeted hundreds of international students for their advocacy for Gazans and criticism of Israeli military activity. Khalil has denounced antisemitism, and in his public-facing role speaking to media on behalf of protesters before his arrest, he repeatedly maintained that the movement should advocate for justice and equality for all groups, telling CNN in April 2024, 'As a Palestinian student, I believe that the liberation of the Palestinian people and the Jewish people are intertwined and go hand-by-hand and you cannot achieve one without the other.' _____
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How many abomination-supporting Arizona congressmen will Elon pay to defeat?
Donald Trump and Republicans loved it when Elon Musk pumped what analysists say was at least $288 million into the 2024 election campaigns of Trump and others. I wonder if Arizona Republican U.S. Reps. David Schweikert, Eli Crane, Paul Gosar, Abe Hamadeh and Juan Ciscomani are worried that he might spend something close to that amount going after them and others in 2026. Because if Elon is a guy who still puts his money where his mouth is, he will. Musk got bamboozled into believing the Republicans he bankrolled actually wanted to cut federal spending and reduce the deficit. HA! Instead, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reports that Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' will hand out trillions in tax cuts (to people like Elon) while raising the federal deficit by $2.4 trillion over the decade and leaving nearly 11 million more Americans without health insurance. The 215 House Republicans who voted to advance the bill thought a billionaire like Elon would love the idea that he'll be getting to keep even more of his billions. Instead, Elon came out on social media and said, 'I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore. This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.' He kept going, saying the bill would saddle Americans with 'crushingly unsustainable debt.' House Speaker Mike Johnson said Musk's criticism was 'very disappointing.' It must have really spooked him when Musk also said, 'In November next year, we fire all politicians who betrayed the American people.' Yes! The big bill passed the House with Republican support only. In our case, it was supported by all of Arizona's GOP congressmen. Although, Rep. David Schweikert actually said that, while he supported the bill, he was so tired he 'slept' through the vote. (Not sure which is worse. Supporting the bill or sleeping through a monumental vote.) Opinion: Biggs' coronation rally wasn't really about him One of only three Republicans who didn't support the bill, Rep. Thomas Massie from Kentucky, is encouraging Musk to spend money defeating the bill's supporters. He said, 'I just think he made one mistake — he said take them out in November. I would take them out in primaries if I were Elon Musk.' Arizona Rep. Andy Biggs need not worry. He is getting out of Dodge by running for governor. But his GOP cohorts in Congress — Schweikert, Crane, Gosar, Hamadeh and Ciscomani — are still there, still giving tax breaks to billionaires, raising the debt and tossing people off insurance rolls. They loved Musk when he was shoveling mounds of cash into Trump's campaign. How will they feel, I wonder, if he starts shoveling cash onto their political graves? Reach Montini at Like this column? Get more opinions in your email inbox by signing up for our free opinions newsletter, which publishes Monday through Friday. This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Elon Musk's new 'kill the bill' target: Arizona congressmen | Opinion
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Congress can deal a blow to government union bosses
Congress can use the budget reconciliation bill to save taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars by refusing to pay the salaries of government employees who, instead of doing their jobs, are doing business for their unions. Through a practice known as 'official time,' union agents can draw a government salary even when they are off lobbying Congress, or spending 100 percent of their time working for a labor union. In 2019, the year before President Joe Biden ordered the Office of Personnel Management to stop tracking and reporting official time, employees across the federal government were paid $135 million to do 2.6 million hours of union work while 'on the clock' at their government jobs. These are the last people who deserve taxpayer money. Despite being paid with tax dollars, these government union bosses are blatantly partisan. They're so used to being above the law that they see no reason to represent the views of most Americans. That's why their contributions to candidates favor Democrats 20 to 1. And of course, government employee unions have staged massive protests in Washington to combat the Trump administration's efforts to reform the federal bureaucracy. Even though unions are third-party, nongovernmental organizations with strong political biases, federal officials are required by law to negotiate with them over their agencies' staffing policies. Public policy should be made by representatives elected by the American people. It is undemocratic for those policies to instead be made through forced 'negotiations' between elected officials and unelected union bosses. Union officials should never have been given control over the government workforce. So it's good that President Trump signed an executive order ending union bargaining at several federal agencies. If Congress won't ban federal unions altogether, it can deal a significant blow to these groups by taking away the massive taxpayer subsidies that help fund their operations. The Protecting Taxpayers' Wallets Act, sponsored by Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) and Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.), forces unions to pay back the official time they consume, plus the value of other perks they receive, such as free government office space. If union bosses want to set up shop in government buildings, and use government employees as union organizers and lobbyists, they should do it on their own dime. Reversing the flow of taxpayer money into union coffers is a revenue decision, making Ernst and Perry's language eligible for the budget reconciliation bill, which, unlike most legislation, can pass the Senate with just 51 votes. The language should be included in the reconciliation bill, but union bosses have allies in government, so its inclusion is in jeopardy. It suffered an early defeat after Rep. Perry introduced an amendment in the House Oversight Committee that would have placed his language in the budget. A majority of the committee's members joined with Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas), who said that she opposed Perry's amendment because she believes that campaigning for candidates like herself is an appropriate activity for government workers. 'Making sure that you are going to get somebody who is going to serve in a seat that is going to make sure that you can be protected … as far as I'm concerned, that is agency business,' she explained. Crockett is wrong. Government employees should not be in the business of deciding who should serve in a congressional seat and campaigning to elect that person. House and Senate leaders should insist that the language in the Protecting Taxpayer Wallets Act be added to the budget reconciliation bill, so that the public no longer has to fund the political activity of union bosses. Jace White is the director of federal affairs at the National Right to Work Committee. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
