ຜູ້ພິພາກສາ ເລື່ອນຄຳສັ່ງຫ້າມເນລະເທດ ນັກສຶກສາ ມະຫາວິທະຍາໄລ ໂຄລຳເບຍ ອອກຈາກສະຫະລັດ
ຜູ້ພິພາສາສະຫະລັດ ໃນວັນພຸດວານນີ້ ໄດ້ເລື່ອນເວລາຄຳສັ່ງຂອງທ່ານ ວ່າດ້ວຍການກີດກັນເຈົ້າໜ້າທີ່ຂອງລັດຖະບານບໍ່ໃຫ້ເນລະເທດນັກສຶກສາມະຫາວິທະຍາໄລ ໂຄລຳເບຍ ທີ່ໄດ້ຖືກຄຸມຕົວຢູ່ນັ້ນ ໃນຄະດີທີ່ກາຍມາເປັນຈຸດຮ້ອນແຮງຂອງລັດຖະບານທ່ານທຣຳ ທີ່ໄດ້ປະຕິຍານຈະເນລະເທດພວກນັກເຄື່ອນໄຫວສະໜັບສະໜູນປາແລັນໄຕນ໌ ທີ່ເປັນນັກສຶກສາມະຫາວິທະຍາໄລ ຈຳນວນນຶ່ງ ອີງຕາມລາຍງານຂອງອົງການຂ່າວຣອຍເຕີສ.
ຜູ້ພິພາກສາສານເມືອງ ທ່ານເຈສຊີ ເຟີຣແມນ ໄດ້ຫ້າມການເນລະເທດ ທ້າວມາມູດ ຄາລີລ ໄວ້ເປັນການຊົ່ວຄາ ເມື່ອຕົ້ນອາທິດນີ້ ແລະໄດ້ເລື່ນເວລາການຫ້າມດັ່ງກ່າວນັ້ນອອກໄປ ໃນວັນພຸດວານນີ້ ໃນຄຳສັ່ງທີ່ໄດ້ຂຽນອອກມາ ພາຍຫຼັງຈາກໄດ້ພິຈາລະນາຄະດີໃນສານນະຄອນແມນແຮັດທັນຂອງລັດຖະບານ ເພື່ອໃຫ້ທ່ານເອງ ມີເວລາຕື່ມໃນການພິຈາລະນາການຈັບກຸມນັກສຶກສານັ້ນ ບໍ່ຂັດກັບລັດຖະທຳມະນູນ ຫຼືບໍ່.
ກະຊວງຮັກສາຄວາມປອດໄພພາຍໃນ ຫຼື DHS ກ່າວວ່າ ທ້າວຄາລີລ ອາຍຸ 30 ປີ ເປັນຜູ້ຕ້ອງຫາຖືກຄຸມຕົວ ພາຍໃຕ້ກົດໝາຍວ່າດ້ວຍການເນລະເທດ ທີ່ວ່າ ຊາວອົບພະຍົຍ ຜູ້ອາໄສຢູ່ໃນປະເທດ ເຊິ່ງລັດຖະມົນຕີກະຊວງການຕ່າງປະເທດ ເຫັນວ່າ ບໍ່ສອດຄ່ອງກັບນະໂຍບາຍການຕ່າງປະເທດນັ້ນ ອາດຖືກຂັບໄລ່ອອກໄປໄດ້ ອີງຕາມເອກະສານທີ່ອົງການຂ່າວຣອຍເຕີສ ໄດ້ເຫັນ.
ເອກະສານຂອງ DHS ດັ່ງກ່າວ ລົງວັນທີ 9 ມີນາ ນີ້ ອ່ານວ່າ 'ລັດຖະມົນຕີກະຊວງການຕ່າງປະເທດ ໄດ້ກຳນົດວ່າ ການໄປມີໜ້າ ຫຼື ເຄື່ອນໄຫວໃດໆໃນສະຫະລັດ ຈະມີຜົນກະທົບທີ່ຮ້າຍແຮງຕໍ່ນະໂຍບາຍການຕ່າງປະເທດສຳລັບສະຫະລັດ' ຈຶ່ງສັ່ງໃຫ້ທ້າວ ຄາລີລ ໄປປາກົດຕົວຕໍ່ຜູ້ພິພາກສາຄົນເຂົ້າເມືອງໃນວັນທີ 27 ມີນາ.
ເອກະສານດັ່ງກ່າວ ບໍ່ໄດ້ໃຫ້ລາຍລະອຽດຕື່ມອີກ. ກະຊວງ DHS ກໍ່ບໍ່ໄດ້ຕອບໃນທັນທີ ຕໍ່ການຂໍໃຫ້ມີຄວາມເຫັນກ່ຽວກັບເລື້ອງນີ້. ທະນາຍຄວາມຂອງທ້າວຄາລີລ ກ່າວວ່າ ການຈັບກຸ່ມລາວ ໃນວັນເສົາຜ່ານມາ ໂດຍເຈົ້າໜ້າທີ່ຂອງ DHS ຢູ່ດ້ານນອກສະຖານທີ່ພັກຂອງລາວ ໃນມະຫາວິທະຍາໄລ ທີ່ນະຄອນແມນແຮັດທັນ ນັ້ນ ເປັນການຕອບໂຕ້ຕໍ່ການເປັນກະບອກສຽງໃນການຕໍ່ຕ້ານການບຸກໂຈມຕີຂອງກອງທັບອິສຣາແອລ ຢູ່ເຂດກາຊາ ພາຍຫຼັງເກີດເຫດການໂຈມຕີຕໍ່ອິສຣາແອລ ໂດຍກຸ່ມຮາມາສ ໃນເດືອນຕຸລາ ປີ 2023, ເຊິ່ງສະຫະລັດ ໄດ້ລະບຸໃຫ້ກຸ່ມດັ່ງກ່າວ ເປັນກຸ່ມກໍ່ການຮ້າຍ, ແລະດັ່ງນັ້ນ ເປັນການລະເມີດສິດເສລີພາບໃນການປາກເວົ້າຂອງທ້າວຄາລີລ ພາຍໃຕ້ ມາດຕາດັດແກ້ທີນຶ່ງຂອງລັດຖະທຳມະນູນສະຫະລັດ.
ທະນາຍຄວາມຂອງທ້າວຄາລີລ ທ່ານນາງ ຣາມຊີ ຄາສເຊມ ໄດ້ກ່າວຢູ່ໃນສານ ວ່າ 'ທ່ານຄາລີລ ໄດ້ຖືກລະບຸໂຕ, ໄດ້ຖືກຕົກເປັນເປົ້າໝາຍ, ໄດ້ຖືກຄຸມຕົວ ແລະກຳລັງຖືກດຳເນີນການເພື່ອເນລະເທດ ຍ້ອນວ່າ ລາວເຄື່ອນໄຫວເພື່ອສິດທິຂອງຊາວປາແລັສໄຕ.'
ອ່ານຂ່າວນີ້ໃນພາສາອັງກິດ
A U.S. judge on Wednesday extended his order blocking federal authorities from deporting a detained Columbia University student, in a case that has become a flashpoint of the Trump administration's pledge to deport some pro-Palestinian college activists.
U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman had temporarily blocked Mahmoud Khalil's deportation earlier this week and extended the prohibition on Wednesday in a written order following a hearing in Manhattan federal court to allow himself more time to consider whether the arrest was unconstitutional.
The Department of Homeland Security says Khalil, 30, is subject to deportation under a legal provision holding that migrants whose presence in the country are deemed by the U.S. Secretary of State to be incompatible with foreign policy may be removed, according to a document seen by Reuters.
"The Secretary of State has determined that your presence or activities in the United States would have serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States," read the DHS document, dated March 9, ordering Khalil to appear before an immigration judge on March 27.
The document did not provide additional detail. The DHS did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Khalil's lawyers say his arrest on Saturday by DHS agents outside his university residence in Manhattan was in retaliation for his outspoken advocacy against Israel's military assault on Gaza following the October 2023 attack on Israel by Hamas, a U.S.- designated terrorist group, and thus violated Khalil's right to free speech under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.
"Mr. Khalil was identified, targeted, detained and is being processed for deportation on account of his advocacy for Palestinian rights," Khalil's lawyer, Ramzi Kassem, said in court.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Voice of America
14-03-2025
- Voice of America
ລັດຖະບານ ທ່ານທຣຳ ແລະບັນດາກຸ່ມສິດທິມະນຸດ ພວມມຸ້ງໜ້າໄປສານ ກ່ຽວກັບເລື້ອງການເນລະເທດຂະໜາດໃຫຍ່
ບັນດາທະນາຍຄວາມ ຂອງລັດຖະບານສະຫະລັດ ຄາດໝາຍວ່າ ຈະປະເຊີນກັບບັນດາທະນາຄວາມສຳລັບຝ່າຍພົນລະເຮືອນແລະບັນດາກຸ່ມສິດທິດ້ານຄົນເຂົ້າເມືອງ ກ່ຽວກັບການນຳໃຊ້ຖານທັບເຮືອຂອງສະຫະລັດໃນປະເທດເກາະຄິວບາ ເພື່ອຄຸມຂັງຊາວຍົກຍ້າຍຖິ່ນຖານທີ່ລໍຖ້າການເນລະເທດ. ການໂຕ້ແຍ້ງກັນໃນສອງຄະດີຄວາມດັ່ງກ່າວ ກ່ຽວກັບປະຕິບັດການຕ່າງໆຢູ່ທີ່ຖານທັບເຮືອ ອ່າວ ກວນຕານາໂມ ນັ້ນ ເປັນການຟ້ອງຮ້ອງຕໍ່ ກະຊວງຮັກສາຄວາມປອດໄພພາຍໃນສະຫະລັດ ຫຼື DHS ແລະ ລັດຖະມົນຕີຕີຂອງກະຊວງ ທ່ານນາງ ຄຣິສຕີ ໂນມ ແມ່ນພ້ອມທີ່ຈະດຳເນີນຄະດີ ຢູ່ທີ່ສານເມືອງສະຫະລັດ ໃນນະຄອນຫຼວງວໍຊິງຕັນ ໃນວັນສຸກມື້ນີ້. ຂໍ້ກ່າວຫາໃນຄະດີດັ່ງກ່າວ ກໍຄືວ່າ ລັດຖະບານສະຫະລັດ ໄດ້ລະເມີດຂອບເຂດຂອງຕົນເອງ ໂດຍປະຕິເສດບໍ່ໃຫ້ພວກຍົກຍ້າຍຖິ່ນຖານທີ່ຖືກສົ່ງໄປອ່າວ ກວນຕານາໂມ ເຂົ້າເຖິງບັນດາຜູ້ຕາງໜ້າທາງດ້ານກົດໝາຍ ແລະທັງຍັງພະຍາຍາມທີ່ຈະສົ່ງພວກເຂົາ ໄປຍັງສະຖານທີ່ແຫ່ງຕ່າງໆຂອງຖານທັບ ໂດຍບໍ່ມີອຳນາດທາງດ້ານກົດໝາຍທີ່ຖືກຕ້ອງ ເຊິ່ງເປັນການລະເມີດຕໍ່ລັດຖະທຳມະນູນຂອງສະຫະລັດ. ເຈົ້າໜ້າທີ່ ກະຊວງ DHS ບໍ່ໄດ້ຕອບໃນທັນທີຕໍ່ຄຳຂໍຮ້ອງໃຫ້ມີຄວາມເຫັນ ກ່ຽວກັບການພິຈາລະນາຄະດີ ທີ່ໃກ້ຈະເກີດຂຶ້ນ ແຕ່ພວກເຂົາເຈົ້າ ໄດ້ປະຕິເສດຊ້ຳແລ້ວຊ້ຳອີກຕໍ່ຂໍ້ກ່າວຫາທັງຫຼາຍ ໃນຂະນະດຽວກັນ ກໍໄດ້ຕຳໜິບັນດາກຸ່ມຕ່າງໆ ທີ່ໄດ້ນຳເອົາການຟ້ອງຮ້ອງຂຶ້ນສານ. ໂຄສົກຂອງກະຊວງ DHS ຜູ້ທີ່ປະຕິເສດຈະບອກຊື່ ກ່າວຕໍ່ວີໂອເອ ໃນຖະແຫລງການສະບັບນຶ່ງເມື່ອຕົ້ນເດືອນນີ້ ວ່າ 'ກຸ່ມ American Civil Liberties Union ປາກົດວ່າ ສົນໃຈໃນເລື້ອງການໂຄສະນາສົ່ງເສີມໃຫ້ເປີດຊາຍແດນ ແລະລົບກວນພາລະກິດດ້ານຄວາມປອດໄພຂອງມວນຊົນ ຫຼາຍກວ່າການປ້ອງກັນສິດເສລີພາບຂອງຊາວອາເມຣິກັນທັງຫຼາຍ.' ໂຄສົກທ່ານນີ້ ກ່າວຕື່ມວ່າ 'ພວກເຂົາເຈົ້າ ຄວນພິຈາລານາປ່ຽນຊື່ຂອງກຸ່ມເຂົາເຈົ້າ' ແລ້ວອະທິບາຍຕໍ່ໄປເຖິງຂໍ້ຂັດແຍ້ງທາງດ້ານກົດໝາຍນັ້ນວ່າ 'ບໍ່ມີມູນຄວາມຈິງ.' ປະທານາທິບໍດີ ດໍໂນລ ທຣຳ ເປັນຜູ້ທຳອິດທີ່ໄດ້ຍົກເອົາແນວຄິດຂອງການນຳໃຊ້ຖານທັບເຮືອ ໃນຄິວບາ ເປັນສ່ວນນຶ່ງຂອງແຜນການລັດຖະບານທ່ານ ສຳລັບການເນລະເທດຂະໜາດໃຫຍ່ ບໍ່ດົນຫຼັງຈາກໄດ້ເຂົ້າດຳລົງຕຳແໜ່ງ ໃນເດືອນມັງກອນ. ສ່ວນລັດຖະມົນຕີກະຊວງ DHS ທ່ານນາງ ໂນມ ໄດ້ກ່າວວ່າ ຖານທັບດັ່ງກ່າວ ເຊິ່ງມີຄຸກທີີ່ໝັ້ນຄົງ ເພື່ອຄຸມຂັງພວກຜູ້ກໍ່ການຮ້າຍທີ່ຖືກຈັບມາໄດ້ນັ້ນ ຄວນຖືກນຳໃຊ້ເປັນສະຖານທີ່ຄຸມຕົວ 'ພວກຂີ້ຮ້າຍຂອງຂີ້ຮ້າຍສຸດ.' ທ່ານທຣຳ ແລະບັນດາເຈົ້າໜ້າທີ່ຄົນອື່ນໆ ຍັງໄດ້ສະເໜີແນະວ່າ ຖານທັບດັ່ງກ່າວອາດຖືກນຳໃຊ້ເພື່ອຄຸມຕົວພວກຍົກຍ້າຍຖິ່ນຖານໄດ້ເຖິງ 30,000 ຄົນ ໃນຂະນະທີ່ ພວກເຂົາລໍຖ້າການເນລະເທດ. ເຖິງຢ່າງນັ້ນກໍຕາມ ແຜນການທັງຫຼາຍເຫຼົ່ານັ້ນ ບໍ່ເຄີຍເປັນຮູບປະທຳຢ່າງເຕັມສ່ວນເລີຍ. ອ່ານຂ່າວໃນພາສາອັງກິດ U.S. government lawyers are expected to face off with attorneys for civil and immigration rights groups over the use of a U.S. naval base in Cuba to hold migrants slated for deportation. Arguments in the two lawsuits over operations at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, filed against the Department of Homeland Security and Secretary Kristi Noem, are set for a U.S. District Court in Washington on Friday. The suits allege that the U.S. government has overstepped its bounds by denying migrants sent to Guantanamo Bay access to legal representation and also by attempting to send migrants to the base's facilities without the proper legal authority in violation of the U.S. Constitution. DHS officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the upcoming hearing, but they have repeatedly denied the allegations while criticizing the groups bringing the lawsuits. "The American Civil Liberties Union appears far more interested in promoting open borders and disrupting public safety missions than in protecting the civil liberties of Americans," a DHS spokesperson told VOA in a statement earlier this month, declining to be named. "They should consider changing their name," the spokesperson added, further describing the legal challenges as "baseless." President Donald Trump first raised the idea of using the U.S. naval base in Cuba as part of his administration's plans for mass deportations shortly after taking office in January. Homeland Security's Noem said the base, which features a secure prison to hold captured terrorists, would be used to house "the worst of the worst." Trump and other U.S. officials also suggested the base could be used to hold up to 30,000 migrants while they awaited deportation. Those plans, however, never fully materialized.
Voice of America
14-03-2025
- Voice of America
Homeland Security, rights group to meet in court over migrants at Guantanamo Bay
U.S. government lawyers are expected to face off with attorneys for civil and immigration rights groups over the use of a U.S. naval base in Cuba to hold migrants slated for deportation. Arguments in the two lawsuits over operations at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, filed against the Department of Homeland Security and Secretary Kristi Noem, are set for a U.S. District Court in Washington on Friday. The suits allege that the U.S. government has overstepped its bounds by denying migrants sent to Guantanamo Bay access to legal representation and also by attempting to send migrants to the base's facilities without the proper legal authority in violation of the U.S. Constitution. DHS officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the upcoming hearing, but they have repeatedly denied the allegations while criticizing the groups bringing the lawsuits. "The American Civil Liberties Union appears far more interested in promoting open borders and disrupting public safety missions than in protecting the civil liberties of Americans," a DHS spokesperson told VOA in a statement earlier this month, declining to be named. "They should consider changing their name," the spokesperson added, further describing the legal challenges as "baseless." President Donald Trump first raised the idea of using the U.S. naval base in Cuba as part of his administration's plans for mass deportations shortly after taking office in January. Homeland Security's Noem said the base, which features a secure prison to hold captured terrorists, would be used to house "the worst of the worst." Trump and other U.S. officials also suggested the base could be used to hold up to 30,000 migrants while they awaited deportation. Those plans, however, never fully materialized. The U.S. began sending what officials described as "high threat illegal aliens" to Guantanamo Bay's detention center in early February, followed by other nonviolent migrants, who stayed at other facilities. At times, the facilities held close to 200 detainees, many of whom were deported to Honduras, Venezuela or other countries. But despite efforts to prepare the facilities for more migrants, capacity has been limited. According to a U.S. defense official, who spoke to VOA on the condition of anonymity, the prison as currently configured can hold only 130 detainees, while the base's Migrant Operations Center and a temporary tent city can hold, at most, 550 people. As VOA first reported, DHS officials decided to remove all 40 remaining migrants from the prison and other facilities at Guantanamo Bay this past Tuesday, flying them instead to the U.S. southern state of Louisiana. Neither DHS nor its subagency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, have responded to requests for comment on the decision to evacuate migrants from the naval base or on their status or whereabouts since being returned to the U.S. mainland. The move — and lack of communication — has drawn criticism from immigrants' rights groups, including some of those involved in the current litigation. "The arbitrary and secret shuttling of people between Guantanamo and the U.S. demonstrates a complete disregard for human dignity, an affront to the rule of law, and a waste of public resources," said the International Refugee Assistance Project's Pedro Sepulveda. "No one should be detained at Guantanamo," Sepulveda added. "The Trump administration must stop these ill-conceived and cruel transfers and stop detaining immigrants at Guantanamo once and for all."
Voice of America
13-03-2025
- Voice of America
Under what circumstances can a US green card be revoked?
The recent arrest of Palestinian activist and U.S. legal permanent resident Mahmoud Khalil, who played a prominent role in last year's Columbia University protests over the war in Gaza, has prompted questions about the limits of a green card. A green card holder since 2024, Khalil was granted lawful permanent residency status in the U.S. But green card holders can lose their status and face deportation if they violate immigration law. A federal judge on Wednesday extended efforts to halt Khalil's deportation, and the New York resident remains in detention in Louisiana although he has not been charged with any crime. It is not a criminal offense to disagree, even openly, with the U.S. government's policy or actions, and the Bill of Rights protects free speech and the right to assemble. The why Green cards can be revoked, New York-based immigration lawyer Linda Dakin-Grimm told VOA. 'It's not that common, but it also isn't rare. People lose their green cards most often when they're convicted of crimes. … A green card is not citizenship. It's seen as a privilege that you earn, but you can also lose it if you engage in conduct that is contrary to the conditions that green card holders live under,' she said. Examples of crimes that can cause a green card holder can lose their status include aggravated felonies, drug offenses, fraud, or national security concerns such as ties to a terrorist group. Green card holders can also lose their status and lawful permanent residency status for being deemed a threat to national security. If a green card holder is accused of a crime, their criminal case will go through the justice system. But the process to revoke their permanent status takes place in immigration court, where officials must present evidence to justify revoking a green card. The how Revoking a green card is a legal process that starts when the U.S. government determines that an individual has violated immigration laws. The case can come to the government's attention in different ways, either through a routine immigration check, law enforcement investigation, or whistleblower. 'It could theoretically be a whistleblower. Someone who has some information. … Could they call the State Department? Maybe. Could they call the ICE hotline? Maybe,' Dakin-Grimm said. The Department of Homeland Security usually initiates the process. The green card holder will receive a document known as a Notice to Appear in immigration court or, in serious cases, they may be arrested and detained. White House officials said Wednesday that Secretary of State Marco Rubio has the authority to revoke a green card or any visa if an individual's activities in the United States 'would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences' to the country. Rubio has said that Khalil's case is not about free speech. 'No one has a right to a green card, by the way. … If you told us that's what you intended to do when you came to America, we would have never let you in,' Rubio said on Wednesday. 'If you do it once you get in, we're going to revoke it and kick you out.' The authority for the secretary of state to intervene in a case like Khalil's stems from the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. A provision in the law allows the secretary of state to deem a non-citizen deportable if their presence or activities are believed to significantly harm U.S. foreign policy interests. According to Khalil's NTA, Rubio has made that determination. Khalil has been ordered to appear in front of an immigration judge on March 27 at the Lasalle Detention Facility in Louisiana. The court In immigration court, the burden of proof is on the government; it must show the person violated immigration laws. In a case like Khalil's, ICE attorneys will ask for deportation, but they will have to prove he is a threat to national security. The green card holder can also present a defense. In the criminal justice system, if a person cannot afford an attorney, the government must provide a public defender. In immigration court, however, immigrants have the right to their own attorney, but the government does not have to provide one. If immigrants cannot afford an attorney or cannot find one to represent them pro bono, they do will not have access to legal representation. Dakin-Grimm says the process can sometimes go fast, but it is also complex. In the immigration court system, the decision to revoke a green card is an administrative procedure conducted by the Department of Justice, under an office known as the Executive Office for Immigration Review. 'It's kind of like the government is prosecuting a case, and the judge is also the government,' Dakin-Grimm said. The outcome If the immigration judge rules against the green card holder, they can appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). And if the BIA agrees with the government, the green card holder can appeal to a Federal Court of Appeals. Although the case can end up at the U.S. Supreme Court, Dakin-Grimm says that rarely happens, mostly because the Supreme Court has complete discretion over the cases it chooses. 'Most people can't afford to do this kind of legal work themselves. It's just very, very expensive — you know, hundreds of thousands of dollars to take a case from the trial court level all the way to the Supreme Court,' she said. 'But in the immigration space, you tend to see nonprofit agencies, law school clinics, working pro bono, working for free in significant cases like this.' A final decision If the green card is revoked and all appeals fail, the person is usually deported from the U.S. If the appeal is successful, the person keeps their green card and is allowed to stay in the country. Dakin-Grimm said many green card holders think because it is called 'permanent residency,' the status is actually permanent. 'But it's only permanent as long as you follow the rules,' she said. VOA White House correspondent Anita Powell contributed to this report.
