
Trump administration returns Guatemalan man to U.S. after judge says he was wrongly deported
The Trump administration has returned a Guatemalan man to the United States after a judge determined he was wrongly deported without due process, his legal team told CBS News.
The man, who has gone by O.C.G. in court proceedings, landed in the United States today and made contact with lawyers representing him after he landed, said Trina Realmuto, one of his attorneys and the executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance.
Last month, the Trump administration said in court filings it was working to secure a charter flight to return him, after U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy of Boston said he must be returned. This was the first high-profile case in which the Trump administration has brought back someone who was removed from the country after a judge ordered their return.
Realmuto said that she expects the man will be taken into government custody as he seeks protection from persecution via due process proceedings.
She said the man is "nervous, scared and thankful to be returned to the United States."
O.C.G.'s attorneys argued that he has no criminal history and sought asylum in the United States after multiple violent attacks against him in his native country of Guatemala.
In March 2024, O.C.G. entered the United States illegally and was deported, according to court filings. After making it back to the United States again last year, he presented himself to Border Patrol for asylum proceedings. An immigration judge found in February 2025 that O.C.G. would face serious harm if he were sent back to Guatemala and ordered a "withholding of removal" that barred deportation back to his home country.
Two days after the immigration judge's February decision, O.C.G. says he was placed on a bus and removed without due process to Mexico, where his attorneys said he was previously held for ransom and raped during his second attempt to get to the United States. He submitted evidence at his immigration hearing of his experiences in Mexico, and as a result the immigration judge said that O.C.G. could not be removed to a country other than Guatemala without additional due process.
After O.C.G. was sent to Mexico by the United States, Mexican authorities removed him to Guatemala, where he had to remain in hiding until his return, according to court documents.
"[The] immigration judge told O.C.G.— consistent with this Court's understanding of the law—that he could not be removed to a country other than his native Guatemala, at least not without some additional steps in the process," Murphy wrote in an order requiring his return. "Those necessary steps, and O.C.G.'s pleas for help, were ignored."
Murphy had previously ordered additional fact-finding in the case, after the Trump administration submitted a declaration under oath that O.C.G. told government officials that he had no fear of being sent to Mexico. O.C.G had previously submitted a declaration to the court stating that he was told at the last minute before his removal that he was being sent to Mexico, and that he was denied a request to speak to his attorneys beforehand.
The Justice Department admitted to Murphy that there was no witness who could verify the government's account of O.C.G.'s removal under oath and the declaration was made in error.
"The only evidence before the Court therefore is O.C.G.'s uncontroverted assertion that he was given no notice of his transfer to Mexico and no opportunity to explain why it would be dangerous to send him there," Murphy wrote in his order mandating the man's return.
"Defendants' retraction of their prior sworn statement makes inexorable the already-strong conclusion that O.C.G. is likely to succeed in showing that his removal lacked any semblance of due process," the judge added.
Realmuto said that her legal team was still working to get in touch with eight defendants in the same case who were allegedly flown without due process to East Africa, with a final destination of South Sudan. They are still currently being held in Djibouti after Murphy ordered the government to "maintain custody and control" of the migrants as they are given "reasonable fear" interviews to screen them for concerns about being harmed in a third country.
If they do not satisfy the reasonable fear standard, the government must give them at least 15 days to challenge their removal. Murphy says the men can be held either in the U.S. or abroad, as long as the government maintains custody over them.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Patents and economies of scale support Pfizer's wide moat
Pfizer's innovative business should grow faster after it divests its off-patent division Upjohn in 2020 to create Viatris and Mylan. With fewer older medications and fewer patent losses, Pfizer is well-positioned for consistent growth, excluding the erratic sales of Covid-19-related products. The company is less vulnerable to any one patent loss thanks to its wide range of medications. Because of its more complex manufacturing process and more affordable prices, Pfizer's stronger position in the vaccine marketwhich includes the pneumococcal vaccine Prevnarmakes it more resilient to generic competition. Warning! GuruFocus has detected 6 Warning Signs with PFE. With a 30% to 80% reduction, Trump's executive order would establish a "most favored nation" policy in which the US would pay the same amount for prescription medications as the nation with the lowest price. It is anticipated that this policy, which was previously blocked by courts, will reduce the US's annual drug spending of over $400 billion, saving taxpayers over a seven-year period. Given that drug prices in the United States are high when compared to other countries, Pfizer's U.S. revenue could be drastically impacted by the 30% to 80% price cut, especially for high-margin medications. International reference pricing policies have long been opposed by the pharmaceutical industry, which claims they could hinder innovation and limit access to new companies anticipate that the order will target Medicare and may have an impact on medications not covered by Biden's Inflation Reduction Act. President Trump has said that significant tariffs on pharmaceutical products will probably be announced soon. He has also put a 90-day hold on broader tariffs for the majority of his trading partners to give them time to negotiate. Despite being mostly exempt from tariffs, the biopharma industry is preparing for a possible pharma-specific announcement that might affect global manufacturing strategies. Products made in Europe and imported into the US may be subject to the rumored 25% tariff, necessitating the construction of new facilities that will take years to complete. Due to home country manufacturing, tax benefits, lower production costs, and exposure to currency fluctuations, businesses based in the US and Europe are heavily exposed to European manufacturing. Because drug spending is not cyclical, the direct effect of tariffs on earnings is probably going to be minimal, and the indirect effect of a possible recession should also be minimal. With the exception of small-scale US capacity expansions, biopharma is unlikely to completely reevaluate its manufacturing footprint if pharmaceutical tariffs are implemented but are lifted after 2026 as a result of political pressure from the midterm elections. Leadership in Vaccines Pfizer stands out with its dominant position in vaccines, most notably its highly successful COVID-19 vaccine developed in partnership with BioNTech. This vaccine not only generated significant revenue but also established Pfizer as a leader in mRNA technology, a platform with potential applications in oncology, rare diseases, and beyond. Johnson & Johnson (J&J): J&J also developed a COVID-19 vaccine, but it was less widely adopted due to lower efficacy rates and safety concerns, giving Pfizer a clear advantage in this high-impact area. GlaxoSmithKline (GSK): GSK has a strong vaccine portfolio (e.g., shingles and meningitis vaccines) but did not independently develop a COVID-19 vaccine, relying on partnerships like Sanofi, which delayed its entry and diminished its competitive stance. Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS): BMS has no significant presence in vaccines, focusing instead on oncology and immunology, making Pfizer's vaccine leadership a unique strength. R&D Capabilities and Pipeline Focus Pfizer's R&D efforts are concentrated on high-growth therapeutic areas such as oncology, vaccines, and rare diseases. Its ability to leverage mRNA technology and rapidly develop innovative therapies underscores its R&D prowess. J&J: J&J's R&D spans pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and consumer health. While this diversification provides stability, it may dilute J&J's focus on cutting-edge pharmaceutical innovation compared to Pfizer's targeted approach. GSK: GSK excels in respiratory diseases and HIV research, but its pipeline is less broad and lacks the same level of innovation in emerging technologies like mRNA that Pfizer is advancing. BMS: BMS has a strong oncology pipeline, particularly in immuno-oncology, but its narrower focus limits its competitiveness in other high-growth areas where Pfizer thrives, such as vaccines and rare diseases. Global Reach and Market Presence Pfizer operates in over 150 countries, giving it a vast global footprint that enhances its ability to distribute products and capture market share across both developed and emerging markets. J&J: J&J also has a global presence, but its focus is split across pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and consumer health, potentially reducing its pharmaceutical market penetration compared to Pfizer. GSK: GSK is strong in Europe and emerging markets but less dominant in the U.S., the world's largest pharmaceutical market, where Pfizer has a significant advantage. BMS: BMS focuses heavily on the U.S. and Europe, with less presence in emerging markets, limiting its global scale compared to Pfizer. Brand Reputation and Trust The success of Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine has significantly boosted its brand recognition and trust among consumers, healthcare providers, and governments, reinforcing its market position. J&J: J&J enjoys a strong reputation in consumer health, but its pharmaceutical division lacks the same level of visibility and trust as Pfizer's, particularly after COVID-19 vaccine challenges. GSK: GSK is well-regarded in respiratory and HIV treatments but does not have the broad public recognition that Pfizer has achieved. BMS: BMS is respected in oncology but lacks the widespread brand prominence that Pfizer has cultivated. Innovation in Emerging Technologies Pfizer's investment in mRNA technology positions it as a pioneer in pharmaceutical innovation, with potential applications in vaccines, cancer treatments, and more, giving it a forward-looking edge. J&J: J&J innovates in medical devices and consumer health but trails Pfizer in adopting next-generation pharmaceutical technologies like mRNA. GSK: GSK focuses on innovation in respiratory and HIV treatments but has not made significant advances in mRNA or other emerging platforms. BMS: BMS drives innovation in immuno-oncology but lacks Pfizer's breadth and leadership in cutting-edge technologies. Pfizer's competitive edge over Johnson & Johnson, GlaxoSmithKline, and Bristol Myers Squibb lies in its unmatched leadership in vaccines, particularly through mRNA technology, combined with a robust R&D pipeline, extensive global reach, substantial financial resources, strong brand reputation, and a focus on innovation. While J&J benefits from diversification, GSK from efficiency, and BMS from oncology expertise, none rival Pfizer's comprehensive strengths across these critical areas, ensuring its dominance in the pharmaceutical landscape. Pfizer's broad moat is supported by patents, economies of scale, and a strong distribution network. Strong pricing power derived from Pfizer's patent-protected medications allows the company to produce returns on investment that exceed its cost of capital. The company can develop the next generation of drugs before generic competition appears thanks to the patents. Furthermore, even though Pfizer has a wide range of products, there is some product concentration, as Prevnar accounts for slightly more than 10% of total sales (not including sales of the COVID-19 vaccine).However, because of the vaccine's complicated manufacturing process and comparatively low cost, we don't anticipate typical generic competition. Ibrance and Eliquis each account for nearly 10% of sales. On the other hand, we anticipate that new products will eventually lessen the competition from generic versions of important medications. In order to lessen the pressure on margins from lost sales of high-margin drugs, Pfizer's operating structure permits cost-cutting after patent losses. All things considered, Pfizer's well-established product line generates the massive cash flows required to cover the typical $800 million in development expenses for each new medication. For smaller pharmaceutical companies without Pfizer's resources, the company's robust distribution network positions it as a solid partner. On April 15, President Donald Trump issued an executive order outlining possible policy changes intended to reduce the cost of pharmaceuticals in the United States. The biopharma industry is looking forward to these changes because they have the potential to either help or hurt innovation. In the worst situation, international price benchmarks have the potential to drastically cut US drug prices and lessen financial incentives for international drug development. On the plus side, eliminating the "pill penalty" that only grants small molecule medications nine years of Medicare negotiation protection may promote innovation across all treatment modalities. Trump's executive order may have a positive or negative impact on the industry, but it has no effect on valuations or uncertainty ratings. The protection period is not specified in Trump's request that US Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. collaborate with Congress to address the pill penalty, which is contingent upon Congressional action. Since innovation and a favorable mergers and acquisitions climate support long-term pricing power and offset possible short-term tariff pressure, rising tax rates, and approval delays, the biopharma industry seems undervalued. Due to liver damage in a clinical trial, Pfizer has announced the discontinuation of danuglipron, an oral small molecule GLP-1 agonist. In the anticipated $200 billion global GLP-1 market by 2031, the company sought to provide a potential second-to-market oral small molecule GLP-1 agonist, behind Lilly's orforglipron. Clinical trial failures and declining demand for Pfizer's COVID vaccine and antiviral medication have hurt the company's growth. Because of its diverse pipeline and portfolio, Pfizer is expected to have a wide-moat case, protecting it from the effects of individual program failures, especially those involving high-risk programs like danuglipron. Other medication candidates might benefit from Pfizer's objective of turning danuglipron into a once-daily business could use its $15 billion acquisition budget to fund the development of more sophisticated medication candidates. Efforts in Genetic Engineering: A solid growth driver for Pfizer is the strong pipeline of innovative treatment options, especially in oncology and immunology, which take the leap with cutting-edge scientific technology. To be more specific, Pfizer's resource allocation to immuno-oncology is evident, developing of checkpoint inhibitors (e.g., PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors) and chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapies. For instance, this method of treatment mitigates the immune system's ability to detect and destroy the specified cancer cells by varying the immune system response or, in some cases, by using specially modified T-cells that can identify the particular antigens on tumors that are solely expressed in those particular tumors, which are in question. This is the area of advancement where Pfizer has outdone the rest as they are perfecting monoclonal antibody formatsdesigning them in a way that they will bind more tightly and specifically to targets using protein engineeringand they are also testing out bispecific antibodies that trigger switches at two targets, therefore enhancing healing by more than one method. The pipeline is further supported by vast R&D investment in gene therapy and precision medicine, which utilize adeno-associated virus (AAV) vector platforms for gene delivery and next-generation sequencing for actionable mutation identification respectively. These endeavors are aimed at enhancing the overall patient health and market potential of the drugs by changing the treatment convention from testing a wide spectrum to one that is genotype-driven. Clinical trials are usually designed in a way to be fast-tracked so that they can move quickly to the next stage of development. By focusing on such advanced technologies, Pfizer is embarking on capturing a large section of the market with high-growth therapeutic branches, thus gaining revenue through innovation guided by complex disease biology. Revenue Growth: The launching of these high-value treatments is expected to increase revenue as well as drive down costs for Pfizer. Most of the drugs that are released in the onco-immunology field possess a technical edge and therapeutic effectiveness, therefore, these new treatements often demand high price. These drugs are capable of pumping up profits significantly once they clear regulatory hurdles and find their way onto the market. take the example of just-above successful immuno-oncology drug sales, which always have brisk selling and marvelous sales. In addition, Pfizer can speed-up the whole clinical process with something like adaptive trial designs, this process will be quicker and thus benefits are obtained faster from the new products. Impact on profitability The weight on profitability depends on the ratio of costs and returns. What is actually known is that lamas like the checkpoint inhibitors and CAR-T treatments that are so good require a lot of investment in R&D. But there is an inherent advantage for these drugs thanks to their patent protection that comes with market exclusivity, which in turn, allows Pfizer to keep its pricing strategy stick and generate very high profits. Success in the selling of the product along the lines of this new dimension along with the efficiency of producing more could prove to be the road to better profitability. However, there are barriers such as competition from other drug companies plus the worry of the price cuts from payers that can erode this success. So if Pfizer is able to eliminate the competition and stays ahead in the game by reducing costs as well, these high markups brought about by the introduction of such innovative drugs should positively affect the total profitability of the company. Generic competition, possible changes to government drug pricing policies, the more stringent FDA, and more powerful managed-care and pharmacy benefit managers present Pfizer with difficulties in drug development. In some disease areas, developing new drugs is getting harder, and pharmacy benefit managers and managed-care organizations have grown to be strong players with the ability to bargain for cheaper drug costs. Nearly one-fourth of the company's total sales are generated by its medications, Eliquis, Ibrance, and Xtandi, and they are heavily exposed to the Medicare channel. Given that Pfizer's product portfolio is less vulnerable to potential litigation, the company's base-case annual legal costs, assuming a 50% probability of future costs associated with product governance ESG risks, come close to 1% of non-GAAP net income. Pfizer's valuation multiples highlights their strong financial position and potential undervaluation. Their P/E Non-GAAP ratios7.61 (FY1), 7.42 (FY2), and 7.44 (FY3)are lower than JNJ's 14.00 (FY1) and SNY's 10.80 (FY1), suggesting investors may undervalue our earnings potential. The PEG Non-GAAP (FWD) of 1.49 is competitive, higher than SNY's 0.76 but below JNJ's 1.70, reflecting moderate growth prospects. Pfizer's EV/Sales (TTM) of 2.81 is more conservative than JNJ's 4.21, while the EV/EBITDA (FWD) of 7.13 compares favorably to JNJ's 11.45, indicating operational efficiency. The Price to Book (TTM) of 1.44 is significantly lower than JNJ's 5.23, and our Price to Cash Flow (TTM) of 9.29 beats JNJ's 15.67, underscoring robust cash flow generation. These metrics position Pfizer as a value opportunity among peers After the Seagen acquisition, Pfizer released its 2024 guidance, which included a $8 billion COVID-19 product guidance$5 billion less than anticipated. The business admitted that, excluding sales of COVID-19 products, it would not meet the prior growth-rate projection of 6% from 2020 to 2025. Pfizer reaffirmed its support for the dividend, which is regarded as safe and likely to boost stock valuation, despite the deteriorating outlook. Over the next ten years, the company anticipates steady sales as new products counteract older medications that are losing their patent protection. From the middle of 2023 to the end of 2024, Pfizer is anticipated to reduce operating expenses by $4 billion, which will aid the company in adjusting to the waning pandemic and declining sales of COVID-19 products. Growth could be accelerated through acquisitions, and future margin pressure could be reduced through restructuring initiatives. It is estimated that Pfizer's weighted average cost of capital is 7% and its cost of equity is 7.5%. Activist investor Jeffrey Smith's recent stake worth $407 million could presage the much needed turnarounds at Pfizer. Investors and shareholders can reasonably expect further cost-cuts and an efficient use of capital, leading to higher margins and free cashflow. This case could follow the path of Walt Disney, albeit with less drama, where Jeff Ubben of ValueAct had a pivotal role in Disney's turnaround campaign. The large-cap biopharma company Pfizer's debt size, business cyclicality, and debt maturity outlook all contribute to its sound balance sheet and low risk levels. To support opportunistic acquisitions and handle product litigation issues with little market concern, the company should have a strong enough balance sheet. Pfizer spends slightly less on R&D than the industry average, with a mid- to high-teens percentage of sales. Patent losses are offset by the company's robust pipeline of next-generation medications. The company's investment in cutting-edge new medications, mostly aimed at immunology and oncology, improves its standing and increases returns on capital. For biopharma companies in the sector, this balance sheet strength is essential. This article first appeared on GuruFocus. Sign in to access your portfolio


CNET
an hour ago
- CNET
ACP Alternatives: Explore These Discounted Internet Plans for Low-Income Households
It's been one year since the Affordable Connectivity Program ended, leaving an estimated 5 million households disconnected from the internet. The internet subsidy for low-income households provided more than 23 million homes in the US with $30 to $75 per month off their internet bills. With the ACP gone, some low-cost internet options still exist for households nationwide. The ACP was available to anyone who made less than or equal to 200% of the federal poverty guidelines, which is $64,300 for a family of four. Nearly half of ACP subscribers were military families. Older Americans, African Americans and Latinos also relied on the ACP at higher rates. Several bills to extend the program were proposed in Congress last year but none have been brought to a vote. "The big issue with the ACP is that the longer we go without it, the harder it is to reauthorize it," Joel Thayer, president of the Digital Progress Institute, told me near the end of 2024. "In general, I don't see a political will for it." Experts vary on how Republicans' election wins could impact an ACP revival. While the party has generally supported tightening the income requirements for the ACP, some high-profile Republicans -- including Vice President JD Vance -- have sponsored ACP extension bills. President Donald Trump signed the COVID-19 relief package, including the Emergency Broadband Benefit, which later became the ACP, in 2020. Locating local internet providers That's a glimmer of hope for former ACP recipients who've had to cancel their internet or find extra money in their budgets in the past year. "It's been the difference between choosing to have a roof over my head, whether to eat or whether to pay for the internet, which has things like virtual appointments with my psychiatrist," Kenneth Sigler, a small-business owner from Hernando, Mississippi, who used the ACP, told CNET. "It basically helps me to keep from having to choose what bills I'm going to pay." Cheapest ACP alternatives While no single resource can replace the $14.2 billion ACP, various discounted plans from internet providers can help ease the transition. Here are some of our top picks: Astound Broadband: This cable ISP offers low-income households discounted internet starting at $20 per month with Internet First. You can expect download speeds of up to 150 megabits per second, unlimited data and a contract-free service. Cox Communications: Families can sign up for internet starting at $10 a month for speeds of 100Mbps with Connect2Compete. For $20 more and for similar speeds, the ConnectAssist plan is also available for individuals. Both plans include free equipment and installation at no extra cost. Starry Internet: If this fixed wireless ISP is available at your address, you may be eligible for Starry Connect, its low-cost internet plan, which costs $15 a month for 30Mbps. As with all Starry internet plans, the equipment is free and there are no data caps. WOW Internet: For $10 monthly, families with students in qualifying school districts can sign up for WOW's Internet Select 50. You can expect download speeds of up to 30Mbps, free equipment and a free self-installation kit. Xfinity: For download speeds of 75Mbps starting at $15 per month, Xfinity has Internet Essentials for eligible households in certain areas. If you want more speed, the 100Mbps tier will cost you $30 monthly. What are other ACP alternatives for low-income households? If discounted plans from your internet provider are not available, you canexplore other options from many local and state subsidies and nonprofits. Let's dig deeper into the details. Lifeline Lifeline is a federal subsidy that provides $9.25 per month to low-income households for home internet or cellphone plans. Its eligibility requirements are a little stricter than those of the ACP. Your income must be 135% or less than the Federal Poverty Guidelines, or $43,403 for a family of four. Am I eligible for Lifeline? Household size 48 contiguous states, DC and territories Alaska Hawaii 1 $21,128 $26,393 $24,287 2 $28,553 $35,681 $32,832 3 $35,978 $44,969 $41,378 4 $43,403 $54,257 $49,923 5 $50,828 $63,545 $58,469 6 $58,253 $72,833 $67,041 7 $65,678 $82,121 $75,560 8 $73,103 $91,409 $84,105 For each additional person, add: $7,425 $9,288 $8,546 Show more (4 items) Shop providers at my address Source: USAC Lifeline Support You can also get Lifeline if you (or someone who lives with you) participates in any of the following programs: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly known as Food Stamps) Medicaid Supplemental Security Income, or SSI Federal Public Housing Assistance, or FPHA Veterans Pension and Survivors Benefit If you live in California, Oregon or Texas, you must check with your internet provider or visit your state's website to apply for the program. State and local resources Some states and cities across the country offer their own local versions of the ACP to help low-income households pay for internet service. California, for example, has a website that allows you to search affordable options in your ZIP code based on various eligibility criteria and Oregon provides an enhanced Lifeline benefit of $19.25 monthly. Some cities, like Chicago, offer free internet to families in Chicago public schools and eligible city colleges through its Chicago Connected program. The best way to find these resources is to go to Google and search for "[location] internet resources." Read more: Check out the low-cost internet available in your state Low-income programs from internet providers Many internet providers, including AT&T, Spectrum and Xfinity, offer discounted plans for low-income households. Requirements vary but they're usually similar to the ACP: You must meet certain income requirements or participate in a federal program like SNAP or the National School Lunch Program. To help consumers navigate these discounted plans, the National Digital Inclusion Alliance created a scoring system called Grading Internet for Good, based on cost, transparency and plan performance. I've included the NDIA ratings below, along with some basic information about each plan. Internet provider discounts To determine which providers are available in your area, enter your address on the Federal Communication Commission's broadband map. Nonprofit organizations There are several nonprofits around the country that strive to close the digital divide. Some help with monthly internet costs, while others provide devices that connect to the internet. These organizations all received nonprofit status from the IRS and were vetted by watchdogs Charity Navigator and Explore other internet plans in your area If your bill's going up dramatically with the end of the ACP, another option is to search for other internet providers in your area. Most ISPs offer plans below $50 monthly. You can find cheap internet plans starting at about $20 to $40 a month with Xfinity, Astound and Frontier Fiber. Purchasing your own equipment can also save you some extra money each month. It usually costs around $15 to rent a modem and router from your internet provider, while you can buy your own for as little as $100, especially if you go with refurbished equipment. That said, you'll need to ensure your modem is compatible with your provider before you purchase. Digital Heroes: Connecting New Yorkers to Affordable, High-Speed Internet Access Digital Heroes: Connecting New Yorkers to Affordable, High-Speed Internet Access Click to unmute Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Skip Backward Skip Forward Next playlist item Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration 8:00 Loaded : 7.43% 0:00 Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 8:00 Share Fullscreen This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Opacity Opaque Semi-Transparent Text Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Opacity Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Caption Area Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Opacity Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Drop shadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Close Modal Dialog This is a modal window. This modal can be closed by pressing the Escape key or activating the close button. Close Modal Dialog This is a modal window. This modal can be closed by pressing the Escape key or activating the close button. Digital Heroes: Connecting New Yorkers to Affordable, High-Speed Internet Access Other ways to save money on home internet According to a recent CNET broadband survey, on average, US adults paid $195 more for their home internet than the year prior. In addition, 63% saw their prices increase in 2024. While your ISP increasing its prices is virtually unavoidable, there are ways for you to save money on your home internet. Start by determining how much speed you actually need. While the speediest plans might be enticing, your household may not need that much. Your household's speed needs will vary based on many factors, such as the number of connected devices and whether you stream or game frequently. As I mentioned earlier, another way to save money is by using your own equipment instead of renting from your ISP. In addition, bundling your home internet with a TV or mobile plan can bring monthly discounts. However, be mindful not to fall into pricing traps when considering this option. You can also try negotiating with your ISP for a better deal that works for you.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Call for German coalition talks to resolve legal limbo over asylum
Germany's new coalition government needs to start negotiations to respond to a court ruling that prohibits rejecting asylum seekers at the country's borders, a senior member of parliament told reporters. "In my view, there can no longer be blanket rejections because the courts will stop them," said Matthias Miersch, head of the parliamentary group of the Social Democrats (SPD), which is the junior member of the conservative-led coalition. The Berlin Administrative Court ruled on Monday that the rejection of three Somalis during a check on the border with Poland was unlawful. Without clarification as to which EU state is responsible for the asylum application of those affected, they should not be turned away, according to the ruling. The three Somalis are now back in Berlin. Miersch told the weekend edition of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung newspaper that the court's decision raised fundamental questions that the government should address. "Incidentally, the Chancellor [Friedrich Merz] also stated this very clearly when he said that the practice must be reviewed again in light of this court decision," said Miersch. "And I expect this to happen now, because otherwise we will see further proceedings being lost in the coming months." Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt introduced more intensive border controls on May 7, and ordered that asylum seekers should also be able to be turned back at the border in future. Merz, who belongs to the conservative Christian Democrats (CDU), recently said he would continue to refuse asylum seekers at the border even after the administrative court ruling. Monday's decision may narrow the government's room for manoeuvre on the issue, although at the current time authorities can effectively still turn back asylum seekers at the border.