U.S. to issue visa bans for foreign nationals who ‘censor' Americans, Marco Rubio says
WASHINGTON -- The United States will impose visa bans on foreign nationals it deems to be censoring Americans, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Wednesday, unveiling a new policy Rubio suggested could target officials regulating U.S. tech companies.
Rubio said in a statement that a new visa restriction policy would apply to foreign nationals responsible for censorship of protected expression in the United States and said it was unacceptable for foreign officials to issue or threaten arrest warrants for social media posts made on U.S. soil.
'It is similarly unacceptable for foreign officials to demand that American tech platforms adopt global content moderation policies or engage in censorship activity that reaches beyond their authority and into the United States,' Rubio said.
Rubio's statement did not name specific countries or individuals that would be targeted, but noted that some foreign officials have taken 'flagrant censorship actions against U.S. tech companies and U.S. citizens and residents when they have no authority to do so.'
Reporting by Simon Lewis, Brendan O'Brien and Katharine Jackson; Editing by Doina Chiacu and Mark Porter, Reuters
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CTV News
19 minutes ago
- CTV News
StatCan releases Q1 GDP data amid U.S. tariff pressures
Statistics Canada unveils first-quarter economic performance, highlighting real GDP figures and the impact of U.S. tariffs on early 2025 growth.
Globe and Mail
21 minutes ago
- Globe and Mail
U.S. Supreme Court lets Trump revoke temporary legal status of more than 500,000 migrants
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday let President Donald Trump's administration revoke the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan, Cuban, Haitian and Nicaraguan migrants living in the United States, bolstering the Republican President's drive to step up deportations. The court put on hold a federal judge's order halting the administration's move to end the immigration 'parole' granted to 532,000 of these migrants by Trump's predecessor Joe Biden, potentially exposing many of them to rapid removal, while the case plays out in lower courts. Two of the court's three liberal justices, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor, dissented from the decision. Immigration parole is a form of temporary permission under American law to be in the country for 'urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit,' allowing recipients to live and work in the United States. Biden, a Democrat, used parole as part of his administration's approach by to deter illegal immigration at the U.S.-Mexican border. The real goal of Trump's mass detention centres? Unlimited power Trump called for ending humanitarian parole programs in an executive order signed on Jan. 20, his first day back in office. The Department of Homeland Security subsequently moved to terminate them in March, cutting short the two-year parole grants. The administration said revoking the parole status would make it easier to place migrants in a fast-track deportation process called 'expedited removal.' The case is one of many that Trump's administration has brought in an emergency fashion to the nation's highest judicial body seeking to undo decisions by judges impeding his sweeping policies, including several targeting immigrants. The Supreme Court on May 19 let Trump end a deportation protection called temporary protected status that had been granted under Biden to about 350,000 Venezuelans living in the United States, while that legal dispute plays out. In a bid to reduce illegal border crossings, Biden starting in 2022 allowed Venezuelans who entered the United States by air to request a two-year parole if they passed security checks and had a U.S. financial sponsor. Biden expanded that process to Cubans, Haitians and Nicaraguans in 2023 as his administration grappled with high levels of illegal immigration from those nationalities. Robyn Urback: Trump's policies will send asylum seekers to Canada's border. What's our plan? The plaintiffs, a group of migrants granted parole and Americans who serve as their sponsors, sued administration officials claiming the administration violated federal law governing the actions of government agencies. Boston-based U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in April found that the law governing such parole did not allow for the program's blanket termination, instead requiring a case-by-case review. The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to put Talwani's decision on hold. In its filing, the Justice Department told the Supreme Court that Talwani's order had upended 'critical immigration policies that are carefully calibrated to deter illegal entry,' effectively 'undoing democratically approved policies that featured heavily in the November election' that returned Trump to the presidency. The plaintiffs told the Supreme Court they would face grave harm if their parole is cut short given that the administration has indefinitely suspended processing their pending applications for asylum and other immigration relief. They said they would be separated from their families and immediately subject to expedited deportation 'to the same despotic and unstable countries from which they fled, where many will face serious risks of danger, persecution and even death.'
CTV News
26 minutes ago
- CTV News
U.S. Supreme Court lets Trump end humanitarian parole for 500,000 people from 4 countries
U.S. Supreme Court is seen on Capitol Hill in Washington, April 25, 2024. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File) The Supreme Court on Friday again cleared the way for the Trump administration to strip temporary legal protections from hundreds of thousands of immigrants for now, pushing the total number of people who could be newly exposed to deportation to nearly 1 million. The justices lifted a lower-court order that kept humanitarian parole protections in place for more than 500,000 migrants from four countries: Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela. The court has also allowed the administration to revoke temporary legal status from about 350,000 Venezuelan migrants in another case. Republican President Donald Trump promised on the campaign trail to deport millions of people, and in office has sought to dismantle Biden administration polices that created ways for migrants to live legally in the U.S. Trump amplified false rumours that Haitian immigrants in Ohio, including those with legal status under the humanitarian parole program, were abducting and eating pets during a debate with then-President Joe Biden, according to court documents. His administration filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court after a federal judge in Boston blocked the administration's push to end the program. Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson wrote in dissent that the effect of the high court's order is 'to have the lives of half a million migrants unravel all around us before the courts decide their legal claims.' Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined the dissent. Jackson echoed what U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani wrote in ruling that ending the legal protections early would leave people with a stark choice: flee the country or risk losing everything. Talwani, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, found that revocations of parole can be done, but on a case-by-case basis. Her ruling came in mid-April, shortly before permits were due to be cancelled. An appeals court refused to lift her order. The Supreme Court's order is not a final ruling, but it means the protections will not be in place while the case proceeds. It now returns to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston. The Justice Department argues that the protections were always meant to be temporary, and the Department of Homeland Security has the power to revoke them without court interference. The administration says Biden granted the parole en masse, and the law doesn't require ending it on an individual basis. Taking on each case individually would be a 'gargantuan task,' and slow the government's efforts to press for their removal, Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued. Biden used humanitarian parole more than any other president, employing a special presidential authority in effect since 1952. Beneficiaries included the 532,000 people who have come to the United States with financial sponsors since late 2022, leaving home countries fraught with 'instability, dangers and deprivations,' as attorneys for the migrants said. They had to fly to the U.S. at their own expense and have a financial sponsor to qualify for the designation, which lasts for two years. The Trump administration's decision was the first-ever mass revocation of humanitarian parole, attorneys for the migrants said. They called the Trump administration's moves 'the largest mass illegalization event in modern American history.' The case is the latest in a string of emergency appeals the administration has made to the Supreme Court, many of them related to immigration. The court has sided against Trump in other cases, including slowing his efforts to swiftly deport Venezuelans accused of being gang members to a prison in El Salvador under an 18th century wartime law called the Alien Enemies Act. By Lindsay Whitehurst
