He Fell Behind on His Taxes. So the Government Seized His Home, Sold It, and Kept the $258,000 Profit.
First the government seized Kenneth Michael Sikorsky's home and all of its equity over a tax debt worth far less than what it took. Now a federal court has ruled that Sikorsky has successfully stated a claim for a taking—an early sign that the legal landscape is shifting since the Supreme Court weighed in on these sorts of seizures two years ago.
In 2012, the city of Newburgh, New York, foreclosed on Sikorsky's house after he fell behind on his property taxes. The parties were later able to broker an agreement that allowed him to repurchase the home for the price of his outstanding debt. But he was unable to satisfy those regular installments, prompting the city to cancel the sale.
The government later found another buyer who could pay much more than the value of Sikorsky's debt, which with penalties, interest, and fees stood at $92,786.24. The sale went through in June 2021 for $350,500.
The city then pocketed the profit: $257,713.76.
Sikorsky is far from the first person to experience this nightmare scenario. But his case coincided with a petition that would upend the practice nationwide. Geraldine Tyler argued that the practice was unconstitutional after Hennepin County, Minnesota, seized her Minneapolis condo over a modest tax debt, sold it, and kept the profit. This worked its way through the court system until 2023, when the Supreme Court sided with Tyler.
"A taxpayer who loses her $40,000 house to the State to fulfill a $15,000 tax debt has made a far greater contribution to the public fisc than she owed," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts for the unanimous Court. "The taxpayer must render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, but no more." The decision centered around the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment, which says the government cannot take private property without providing "just compensation." So foreclosing on a property to collect a debt is constitutional, but pocketing the profit is not.
Sikorsky's suit made it to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York shortly after that ruling. Sounds like perfect timing, yet the court ruled against him. But now the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has ruled that he can, in fact, sue for his equity under the Takings Clause, resuscitating his suit and sending it back to the district court for review.
While the high court ruled the practice unconstitutional, several states—including Arizona, Alabama, New Jersey, and Sikorsky's home of New York—responded by passing labyrinthine debt collection statutes that seek to technically comply with the law while simultaneously making it difficult for property owners to collect their surplus equity. Michigander Chelsea Koetter, for example, lost her house in 2021 over a $3,863.40 tax debt. Manistee County, Michigan, then auctioned it off and kept the $102,636 profit. But the state's supreme court had already ruled the practice illegal in 2020—after which the Legislature approved a debt-collection law that sends owners on an obstacle course should they want to get their leftover equity back. Koetter, according to her complaint, submitted a form 8 days late, which the government said justified its decision to keep her six figures of equity.
In Sikorsky's case, New York's new statute applies only to people whose properties were sold on or after May 25, 2023, so he will get to proceed under the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution instead. But future plaintiffs who lose everything after falling on hard times may find it much harder to recover their money.
The post He Fell Behind on His Taxes. So the Government Seized His Home, Sold It, and Kept the $258,000 Profit. appeared first on Reason.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNET
30 minutes ago
- CNET
Tariffs Explained: What to Expect as Trump Confirms Increase in China Rates
As Donald Trump's wide-ranging taxes on imports face scrutiny in court, rates on steel and aluminum have been doubled. James Martin/CNET President Donald Trump's second-term economic plan can be summed up in one word: tariffs. When his barrage of import taxes went into overdrive a month ago, markets trembled and business leaders sounded alarms about the economic damage they would cause. Despite recent uncertainties, Trump has continued to barrel forward, doubling the tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, and announcing a new deal that would see the rate against China increase to 55%. That all came after Trump's plans hit their biggest roadblock yet in court, when late last month the US Court of International Trade ruled that Trump had overstepped his authority when he imposed tariffs, effectively nullifying the tariffs, after concluding that Congress has the sole authority to issue tariffs and decide other foreign trade matters, and that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 -- which Trump has used to justify his ability to impose them -- doesn't grant the president "unlimited" authority on tariffs. The next day, an appeals court allowed the tariffs to go back into effect for the time being, while the administration calls for the Supreme Court to overturn the trade court ruling altogether. Should You Buy Now or Wait? Our Experts Weigh In on Tariffs Should You Buy Now or Wait? Our Experts Weigh In on Tariffs Click to unmute Video Player is loading. Play Video Pause Skip Backward Skip Forward Next playlist item Unmute Current Time 0:01 / Duration 9:42 Loaded : 1.04% 0:01 Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 9:41 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. Should You Buy Now or Wait? Our Experts Weigh In on Tariffs However, things shake out in the end, the initial ruling certainly came as a relief to many, given the chaos and uncertainty that Trump's tariffs how caused thus far. For his part, Trump has recently lashed out against companies -- like Apple and Walmart -- that have reacted to the tariffs or discussed their impacts in ways he dislikes. Apple has been working to move manufacturing for the US market from China to relatively less-tariffed India, to which Trump has threatened them with a 25% penalty rate if they don't bring manufacturing to the US instead. Experts have predicted that a US-made iPhone, for example, would cost consumers about $3,500. During a recent earnings call, Walmart warned that prices would rise on things like toys, tech and food at some point in the summer, which prompted Trump to demand the chain eat the costs themselves, another unlikely scenario. Amid all this noise, you might still be wondering: What exactly are tariffs and what will they mean for me? The short answer: Expect to pay more for at least some goods and services. For the long answer, keep reading, and for more, check out CNET's price tracker for 11 popular and tariff-vulnerable products. What are tariffs? Put simply, a tariff is a tax on the cost of importing or exporting goods by a particular country. So, for example, a "60% tariff" on Chinese imports would be a 60% tax on the price of importing, say, computer components from China. Trump has been fixated on imports as the centerpiece of his economic plans, often claiming that the money collected from taxes on imported goods would help finance other parts of his agenda. The US imports $3 trillion of goods from other countries annually. The president has also, more recently, shown a particular fixation on trade deficits, claiming that the US having a trade deficit with any country means that country is ripping the US off. This is a flawed understanding of the matter, as a lot of economists have said, deficits are often a simple case of resource realities: Wealthy nations like the US buy specific things from nations that have them, while those nations might in turn not be wealthy enough to buy much of anything from the US. While Trump deployed tariffs in his first term, notably against China, he ramped up his plans more significantly for the 2024 campaign, promising 60% tariffs against China and a universal 20% tariff on all imports into the US. Now, tariffs against China are more than double that amount and a universal tariff on all exports is a reality. "Tariffs are the greatest thing ever invented," Trump said at a campaign stop in Michigan last year. At one point, he called himself "Tariff Man" in a post on Truth Social. Who pays the cost of tariffs? Trump repeatedly claimed, before and immediately after returning to the White House, that the country of origin for an imported good pays the cost of the tariffs and that Americans would not see any price increases from them. However, as economists and fact-checkers stressed, this is not the case. The companies importing the tariffed goods -- American companies or organizations in this case -- pay the higher costs. To compensate, companies can raise their prices or absorb the additional costs themselves. So, who ends up paying the price for tariffs? In the end, usually you, the consumer. For instance, a universal tariff on goods from Canada would increase Canadian lumber prices, which would have the knock-on effect of making construction and home renovations more expensive for US consumers. While it is possible for a company to absorb the costs of tariffs without increasing prices, this is not at all likely, at least for now. Speaking with CNET, Ryan Reith, vice president of International Data's worldwide mobile device tracking programs, explained that price hikes from tariffs, especially on technology and hardware, are inevitable in the short term. He estimated that the full amount imposed on imports by Trump's tariffs would be passed on to consumers, which he called the "cost pass-through." Any potential efforts for companies to absorb the new costs themselves would come in the future, once they have a better understanding of the tariffs, if at all. Which Trump tariffs have gone into effect? Following Trump's "Liberation Day" announcements on April 2, the following tariffs are in effect: A 50% tariff on all steel and aluminum imports, doubled from 25% as of June 4. A 30% tariff on all Chinese imports until the new deal touted by Trump takes effect, after which it will purportedly go up to 55%. China, being a major focus of Trump's trade agenda, this rate has had a rate notably higher than others and has steadily increased as Beijing returned fire with tariffs of its own, peaking at 145% before trade talks commenced. 25% tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico are not covered under the 2018 USMCA trade agreement brokered during Trump's first term. The deal covers roughly half of all imports from Canada and about a third of those from Mexico, so the rest are subject to the new tariffs. Energy imports not covered by USMCA will be taxed at only 10%. A 25% tariff on all foreign-made cars and auto parts. A sweeping overall 10% tariff on all imported goods. For certain countries that Trump said were more responsible for the US trade deficit, Trump imposed what he called "reciprocal" tariffs that exceed the 10% level: 20% for the 27 nations that make up the European Union, 26% for India, 24% for Japan and so on. These were meant to take effect on April 9 but were delayed by 90 days due to historic stock market volatility, which makes the new effective date July 8. Trump's claim that these reciprocal tariffs are based on high tariffs imposed against the US by the targeted countries has drawn intense pushback from experts and economists, who have argued that some of these numbers are false or potentially inflated. For example, the above chart says a 39% tariff from the EU, despite its average tariff for US goods being around 3%. Some of the tariffs are against places that are not countries but tiny territories of other nations. The Heard and McDonald Islands, for example, are uninhabited. We'll dig into the confusion around these calculations below. Notably, that minimum 10% tariff will not be on top of those steel, aluminum and auto tariffs. Canada and Mexico were also spared from the 10% minimum additional tariff imposed on all countries the US trades with. On April 11, the administration said smartphones, laptops and other consumer electronics, along with flat panel displays, memory chips and semiconductors, were exempt from reciprocal tariffs. But it wasn't clear whether that would remain the case or whether such products might face different fees later. How were the Trump reciprocal tariffs calculated? The numbers released by the Trump administration for its barrage of "reciprocal" tariffs led to widespread confusion among experts. Trump's own claim that these new rates were derived by halving the tariffs already imposed against the US by certain countries was widely disputed, with critics noting that some of the numbers listed for certain countries were much higher than the actual rates and some countries had tariff rates listed despite not specifically having tariffs against the US at all. In a post to X that spread fast across social media, finance journalist James Surowiecki said that the new reciprocal rates appeared to have been reached by taking the trade deficit the US has with each country and dividing it by the amount the country exports to the US. This, he explained, consistently produced the reciprocal tariff percentages revealed by the White House across the board. "What extraordinary nonsense this is," Surowiecki wrote about the finding. The White House later attempted to debunk this idea, releasing what it claimed was the real formula, though it was quickly determined that this formula was arguably just a more complex version of the one Surowiecki deduced. What will the Trump tariffs do to prices? In short: Prices are almost certainly going up, if not now, then eventually. That is, if the products even make it to US shelves at all, as some tariffs will simply be too high for companies to bother dealing with. While the effects of a lot of tariffs might not be felt straight away, some potential real-world examples have already emerged. Microsoft has increased prices across the board for its Xbox gaming brand, with its flagship Xbox Series X console jumping 20% from $500 to $600. Elsewhere, Kent International, one of the main suppliers of bicycles to Walmart, announced that it would be stopping imports from China, which account for 90% of its stock. Speaking about Trump's tariff plans just before they were announced, White House trade adviser Peter Navarro said that they would generate $6 trillion in revenue over the next decade. Given that tariffs are most often paid by consumers, CNN characterized this as potentially "the largest tax hike in US history." New estimates from the Yale Budget Lab, cited by Axios, predict that Trump's new tariffs will cause a 2.3% increase in inflation throughout 2025. This translates to about a $3,800 increase in expenses for the average American household. Reith, the IDC analyst, told CNET that Chinese-based tech companies, like PC makers Acer, Asus and Lenovo, have "100% exposure" to these import taxes as they currently stand, with products like phones and computers the most likely to take a hit. He also said that the companies best positioned to weather the tariff impacts are those that have moved some of their operations out of China to places like India, Thailand and Vietnam, singling out the likes of Apple, Dell and HP. Samsung, based in South Korea, is also likely to avoid the full force of Trump's tariffs. In an effort to minimize its tariff vulnerability, Apple has begun to move the production of goods for the US market from China to India. Will tariffs impact prices immediately? In the short term -- the first days or weeks after a tariff takes effect -- maybe not. There are still a lot of products in the US imported pre-tariffs and on store shelves, meaning the businesses don't need a price hike to recoup import taxes. Once new products need to be brought in from overseas, that's when you'll see prices start to climb because of tariffs or you'll see them become unavailable. That uncertainty has made consumers anxious. CNET's survey revealed that about 38% of shoppers feel pressured to make certain purchases before tariffs make them more expensive. About 10% say they have already made certain purchases in hopes of getting them in before the price hikes, while 27% said they have delayed purchases for products that cost more than $500. Generally, this worry is the most acute concerning smartphones, laptops and home appliances. Mark Cuban, the billionaire businessman and Trump critic, voiced concerns about when to buy certain things in a post on Bluesky just after Trump's "Liberation Day" announcements. In it, he suggested that consumers might want to stock up on certain items before tariff inflation hits. "It's not a bad idea to go to the local Walmart or big box retailer and buy lots of consumables now," Cuban wrote. "From toothpaste to soap, anything you can find storage space for, buy before they have to replenish inventory. Even if it's made in the USA, they will jack up the price and blame it on tariffs." CNET's Money team recommends that before you make any purchase, especially a high-ticket item, be sure that the expenditure fits within your budget and your spending plans. Buying something you can't afford now because it might be less affordable later can be burdensome, to say the least. What is the goal of the White House tariff plan? The typical goal behind tariffs is to discourage consumers and businesses from buying the tariffed, foreign-sourced goods and encourage them to buy domestically produced goods instead. When implemented in the right way, tariffs are generally seen as a useful way to protect domestic industries. One of the stated intentions for Trump's tariffs is along those lines: to restore American manufacturing and production. However, the White House also claims to be having negotiations with numerous countries looking for tariff exemptions, and some officials have also floated the idea that the tariffs will help finance Trump's tax cuts. You don't have to think about those goals for too long before you realize that they're contradictory: If manufacturing moves to the US or if a bunch of countries are exempt from tariffs, then tariffs aren't actually being collected and can't be used to finance anything. This and many other points have led a lot of economists to allege that Trump's plans are misguided. In terms of returning -- or "reshoring" -- manufacturing in the US, tariffs are a better tool for protecting industries that already exist because importers can fall back on them right away. Building up the factories and plants needed for this in the US could take years, leaving Americans to suffer under higher prices in the interim. That problem is worsened by the fact that the materials needed to build those factories will also be tariffed, making the costs of "reshoring" production in the US too heavy for companies to stomach. These issues, and the general instability of American economic policies under Trump, are part of why experts warn that Trump's tariffs could have the opposite effect: keeping manufacturing out of the US and leaving consumers stuck with inflated prices. Any factories that do get built in the US because of tariffs also have a high chance of being automated, canceling out a lot of job creation potential. To give you one real-world example of this: When warning customers of future price hikes, toy maker Mattel also noted that it had no plans to move manufacturing to the US. Trump has reportedly been fixated on the notion that Apple's iPhone -- the most popular smartphone in the US market -- can be manufactured entirely in the US. This has been broadly dismissed by experts, for a lot of the same reasons mentioned above, but also because an American-made iPhone could cost upward of $3,500. One report from 404 Media dubbed the idea "a pure fantasy." The overall sophistication and breadth of China's manufacturing sector have also been cited, with CEO Tim Cook stating in 2017 that the US lacks the number of tooling engineers to make its products. For more, see how tariffs might raise the prices of Apple products and find some expert tips for saving money.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Parents of Millsap ISD students file lawsuit over abuse of special-needs kids
Three parents of students who were enrolled in the Millsap Independent School District filed a lawsuit in federal court this week against the district, two former teachers and two administrators. The parents, Carissa Cornelius, Vanessa Garcia and Whitney Price, are suing Millsap ISD over alleged physical and mental abuse their children endured in their school's special education classrooms, according to the lawsuit filed Tuesday in the Northern Texas U.S. District Court. Named as defendants along with the school district are former superintendent Mari Edith Martin, Millsap Elementary School principal Roxie Carter, and Jennifer Dale and Paxton Bean, the two educators who were accused of abusing the kids. Martin, Dale and Bean also face criminal charges and were arrested earlier this year. The parents are suing on a total of nine counts. Against the school district, these include: Failure to train Failure to supervise Violation of the right to bodily integrity Discrimination and other violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act Violation of the Rehabilitation Act Dale and Bean are also being sued on five counts, including: Violation of the right to bodily integrity Discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act Assault Battery Negligent discipline The parents claim that the school district did not provide Bean and Dale with training on proper discipline, crisis prevention or positive behavioral techniques specific to children with special needs. They were still assigned to work in a special education classroom, the lawsuit says. The parents also say that the school did not supervise how its teachers interacted with and disciplined students with special needs. The lawsuit alleges that Millsap ISD, Bean and Dale violated the children's right to bodily integrity 'as they were subject to physical and mental assault by state actors.' It also states that all three discriminated against the students for their disabilities. Finally, the two teachers are accused of assault, battery and negligent discipline, according to the lawsuit. 'By all accounts, these children are beautiful, bright, and deserved the world. Instead, they were treated like animals; physically and verbally abused, and subject to sexual denigration by their teachers,' the lawsuit states. Millsap ISD has not yet responded to a request for comment on the lawsuit. Attorneys for the other defendants are not listed in the court documents and could not immediately be reached for comment. The school came under fire after a video showing Dale and Bean appearing to hit a child went viral, the Star-Telegram previously reported. The video, taken on Feb. 19, shows Dale swinging at Alex Cornelius, a 10-year-old boy who has autism and is non-verbal, and Bean yelling and throwing a toy at him, according to court documents. A teaching assistant filmed the incident without the two teachers' knowledge and reported it to Martin the same day, according to the complaint. Cornelius shared the allegations and the video on Facebook on March 10. Along with the alleged abuse displayed in the video, Cornelius also told the Star-Telegram that her son was showered at the school without her consent and that the teachers called him names and made comments about his genitalia. Martin, according to her arrest warrant, contacted a law firm for an external investigation. She did not file a report with the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services or the Parker County Sheriff's Office, both of which are required by state law. Martin reported allegations involving Dale to the Texas Education Agency on Feb. 28. A report including allegations against Bean was filed on March 3. Texas state law requires that suspected abuse be reported within 48 hours. Cornelius said she was not made aware of the allegations until the teaching assistant brought the video to her. The Sheriff's Office told the Star-Telegram that it first became aware of the allegations on March 4, when Cornelius reported the abuse to them. The Parker County Sheriff's Office discovered at least two other students — the children of the other plaintiffs — who experienced abuse from Bean and Dale, according to arrest warrant affidavits. Whitney Price, another plaintiff in the lawsuit, told police that on Jan. 16, school staff told her that her 8-year-old son had gotten a bloody nose from running into a wall. When police read the nurse's log, Bean had said that the boy threw a fit and hit his nose on either a wall or her arm. Price said her son told her that Bean had punched him in the nose. Victoria Garcia, the third plaintiff in the lawsuit, said that her 6-year-old daughter was another victim. According to the affidavits, a teacher's aide heard Dale call the girl a vulgar name and tell her that she wanted to 'put her hands around the child's neck and squeeze.' Both teachers and Martin were arrested in March. Martin was charged with a felony of failure to report with the intent to conceal. Dale was charged with official oppression, a Class A misdemeanor, and Bean was charged with official oppression and injury to a child with intentional bodily injury, a third-degree felony. Martin resigned from her position as superintendent without severance pay in March. All three women were released on bond, the Star-Telegram reported. The initial TEA report from Martin did not include Bean's name, according to the lawsuit. Bean is the daughter of Carter, the Millsap Elementary principal. Bean is now working at another school in Waxahachie, according to the lawsuit. Carter wrote a recommendation letter for her position there. Millsap ISD has since approved a policy disallowing employees from evaluating, hiring or working with immediate family members on the same campus. The parents are asking for a jury trial and compensation for medical expenses, physical impairment and pain, and mental anguish, leaving it up to a jury to decide the exact amount of damages, the complaint stated. Cornelius told the Star-Telegram on Wednesday that she is now permanently homeschooling her son, Alex. 'We now have no trust in anyone when it comes to our children,' Cornelius said. She described how her son now experiences a lot of anxiety, and he will wake up in the morning afraid that he will go back to school. She said both she and her son are now in therapy. 'It's not about the money,' Cornelius said about the lawsuit. 'It's about holding them accountable for what they did.' Cornelius believes that more laws need to be passed for the safety of students, including having cameras in every special needs classroom and requiring that teachers undergo a psychiatric evaluation during the hiring process. 'I think that until that, and until we start holding teachers accountable for their actions, then nothing is ever going to change,' she said. Cornelius said she hopes that this lawsuit gets the children justice and shows Millsap ISD, as well as other schools, that they can not mess with their children. 'Our kids may not be able to talk, but we sure can,' Cornelius said.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Travel ban raises fears across Maine's immigrant communities
Jun. 12—Maine's immigrant communities are afraid, confused and saddened by the latest restrictions and foreign travel bans imposed by the Trump administration. The crackdown on 19 countries — primarily in Africa and the Middle East — is having a profound chilling effect, whether the immigrants are registered asylum seekers, legal residents with official green cards or naturalized U.S. citizens who have lived here for decades. They are canceling travel plans, curbing social media activity and struggling to understand how the restrictions, which took effect, will affect them and their loved ones in the weeks and months ahead. Many are fearful for family members snared by sudden policy changes that are shattering long-standing reunification plans. Universities and private schools are monitoring the situation to see how it might impact foreign student travel and recruitment in the future. One Maine family that has been granted asylum and has been planning to bring other family members to the U.S. tried but failed to purchase plane tickets so they could travel before the ban took effect Monday, said Mufalo Chitam, executive director of the Maine Immigrants' Rights Coalition. "Their plans are being blown up," Chitam said. "It's devastating when you have people who have worked so hard to have asylum granted, and they have prepared for family members to come and now they are in limbo." TRAVEL BAN A full ban on entering the U.S. applies to foreign nationals from Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. Heightened restrictions apply to people from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela. On the advice of Cabinet members, Trump issued a proclamation on the travel ban last week after a firebombing attack in Boulder, Colorado. It stated that some foreign nationals "pose significant risks of overstaying their visas in the United States," increasing immigration enforcement challenges and risks to national security and public safety. "We don't want them," Trump said. The man charged in the Boulder attack is from Egypt, which is not on the restricted list. Trump has said countries may be added or deleted at any time. The current action revisits Trump's first travel ban, enacted in January 2017 at the start of his first term, which targeted seven mostly Muslim countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court, it was repeatedly revised to include additional countries, such as North Korea and Venezuela, while others were dropped. Chitam, who came to the U.S. from Zambia in 2000, said the sudden and open-ended aspects of the current ban are stoking fear and confusion, in part because the language and reasons for each country are unclear. For instance, the list includes the Republic of the Congo, a small central African country beside the much bigger Democratic Republic of the Congo, which has a large immigrant community in Maine. "There's still confusion over which Congo it is," Chitam said. "When you put out information like this, it is difficult for people to interpret and understand." DOUBLE WHAMMY The travel ban is a double whammy for immigrants from Afghanistan because, effective mid-July, the Trump administration also has terminated Temporary Protected Status for Afghans who served alongside America's military, some of whom have settled in Maine. Fazel Qaney, president of the Afghan Community of Maine, said the restrictions are having a negative impact on community members. "The U.S. was stationed in Afghanistan for 20 years," Qaney said in an emailed statement. "During that time, there were thousands of Afghans who were working with the U.S. Army, U.S. Embassy and U.S. contractors directly or indirectly." About 60,000 Afghan evacuees were airlifted out of Kabul and flown to the U.S. in the wake of the war. As many as 225 were resettled in Maine, which already had about 400 Afghan-American residents. Thousands of Afghans are still waiting to come to the U.S. Now, some who are already here won't be able to bring their spouses, he said. "There are still thousands of them waiting in a third country for their cases to get processed and finally come to the country," Qaney said. "They feel really upset about it." WIDE-REACHING EFFECTS Reza Jalali, an author, educator and human rights activist who was born in Iran and came to Maine in 1985, said the immigration and travel restrictions will have far-reaching and long-lasting impacts, including on immigrants from other countries who fear being targeted in the current climate. "Who wants to be stopped at the airport and asked questions and have your devices examined — all for no reason at all?" Jalali asked. Jalali predicted the travel restrictions will hurt Maine's economy, making it harder for businesses to fill jobs, labs to fill research positions, and universities and private schools to attract students whose tuition payments and spending habits benefit many communities. "It's sending shock waves across the world," Jalali said. "It will affect companies that need foreign workers and are already dealing with tariffs. It will have a chilling effect on where foreign students choose to go." The University of Maine System enrolled 939 foreign students among just over 19,000 students systemwide during the spring semester, with nearly two-thirds coming from Canada, Ghana, Nepal, China, India, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Jamaica, Iran and Japan, according to spokesperson Samantha Warren. "That data is the extent of what the university (system) is providing to the press at this time," Warren said in an emailed statement. "We continue to communicate and provide support to all of our international students, including those impacted by this and other federal directives." The University of New England, with campuses in Portland and Biddeford, has yet to see any impact of travel bans on its students, said spokesperson Sarah Delage. "But we are closely monitoring the situation," Delage said in an emailed statement. "We are in close contact with our continuing and new, incoming international students, as well as with student groups traveling abroad for academic purposes." HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS At North Yarmouth Academy in Yarmouth, head of school Ben Jackson said they are "cautiously optimistic" that the current pause in scheduling visa interviews will be lifted in time to support student travel for the upcoming school year. In May, the Trump administration paused new student visa interviews while it considers requiring all foreigners applying to study in the U.S. to undergo social media vetting. Recognizing the situation is a real concern for families, the academy has assured all enrolled students that they will receive a full refund if they are unable to obtain a visa due to these circumstances, Jackson said in a emailed statement. The school's goal is to enroll 20 international students for fall 2025, representing countries such as South Korea, Vietnam, Brazil, Ukraine and Canada, he said. It currently has 13 enrolled, with several applications in process. "As long as visa processing resumes in the coming weeks, we remain confident in reaching our goal," Jackson said. "International students are an important part of the NYA community, and we value the contribution they make to our school." The potential repercussions trouble Jalali, who consults with companies that want to increase their workforce diversity. It affects him on a personal level. "I no longer recognize this country that I came to 40 years ago this month," Jalali said. "It really is so different from the America that lured me back then. I worry about the young people in different parts of the world who won't come here to start a company or work in research or teach or build or even to die for this country." In the meantime, Jalali counts himself among those who won't be traveling anytime soon. "I'm going to stay put, as many immigrants plan to do," he said. Copy the Story Link We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others. We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion. You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs. Show less
