India intensifies expulsion of suspected foreigners to Bangladesh
GUWAHATI, India (Reuters) -India has started to push people it considers illegal immigrants into neighbouring Bangladesh, but human rights activists say authorities are arbitrarily throwing people out of the country.
Since May, the northeastern Indian state of Assam has "pushed back" 303 people into Bangladesh out of 30,000 declared as foreigners by various tribunals over the years, a top official said this week.
Such people in Assam are typically long-term residents with families and land in the state, which is home to tens of thousands of families tracing their roots to Muslim-majority Bangladesh.
Activists say many of them and their families are often wrongly classified as foreigners in mainly Hindu India and are too poor to challenge tribunal judgements in higher courts.
Some activists, who did not want to be named for fear of reprisal, said only Muslims had been targeted in the expulsion drive. An Assam government spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Assam, which has a 260 km (160 mile) border with Bangladesh, started sending back people last month who had been declared as foreigners by its Foreigners Tribunals. Such a move is politically popular in Assam, where Bengali language speakers with possible roots in Bangladesh compete for jobs and resources with local Assamese speakers.
"There is pressure from the Supreme Court to act on the expulsion of foreigners," Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma told the state assembly on Monday. "We have pushed back 303 people. These pushbacks will be intensified. We have to be more active and proactive to save the state."
He was referring to the Supreme Court asking Assam in February why it had not moved on deporting declared foreigners.
Bangladesh's foreign affairs adviser, Touhid Hossain, did not immediately reply to an email seeking comment. Last week, he told reporters that people were being sent to his country from India and that the government was in touch with New Delhi over it.
Aman Wadud, an Assam-based lawyer who routinely fights citizenship cases and is now a member of the main opposition Congress party, said the government was "arbitrarily throwing people out of the country".
"There is a lot of panic on the ground - more than ever before," he said.
SOME BROUGHT BACK
Sarma said no genuine Indian citizens will be expelled. But he added that up to four of the people deported were brought back to India because appeals challenging their non-Indian status were being heard in court.
One of them was Khairul Islam, a 51-year-old former government school teacher who was declared a foreigner by a tribunal in 2016. He spent two years in an Assam detention centre and was released on bail in August 2020.
He said police picked him up on May 23 from his home and took him to a detention centre, from where he and 31 others were rounded up by Indian border guards and loaded into a van, blindfolded and hands tied.
"Then, 14 of us were put onto another truck. We were taken to a spot along the border and pushed into Bangladesh," he said. "It was terrifying. I've never experienced anything like it. It was late at night. There was a straight road, and we all started walking along it."
Islam said residents of a Bangladeshi village then called the Border Guard Bangladesh, who then pushed the group of 14 into the "no man's land between the two countries".
"All day we stood there in the open field under the harsh sun," he said.
Later, the group was taken to a Bangladesh guards camp while Islam's wife told police in Assam that as his case was still pending in court, he should be brought back.
"After a few days, I was suddenly handed back to Indian police," he said. "That's how I made my way back home. I have no idea what happened to the others who were with me, or where they are."
It is not only Assam that is acting against people deemed to be living illegally in the country.
Police in the western city of Ahmedabad said they have identified more than 250 people "confirmed to be Bangladeshi immigrants living illegally here".
"The process to deport them is in progress," said senior police officer Ajit Rajian.
(Writing by Krishna N. Das; Additional reporting by Ruma Paul in Dhaka and Sumit Khanna in Ahmedabad; Editing by Raju Gopalakrishnan)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Liz Warren Says Crypto Bill Creates a ‘Superhighway' for Trump Corruption
The Senate is set to pass the GENIUS Act early next week, a controversial piece of cryptocurrency legislation that critics say will hand an undue amount of financial power to the tech industry. On its face the bill, which has advanced with bipartisan support, purports to offer a regulatory framework for the expansion of 'stablecoins,' a form of crypto pegged to an existing, recognized asset — in many cases the U.S. dollar. In reality, it could enable corruption, screw over taxpayers, and potentially destabilize the economy. The GENIUS Act would allow banks and private companies to issue stablecoins, essentially their own currencies, with light oversight from regulators. It mandates that issuers of stablecoins hold a reserve of the stable asset backing their cryptocurrency at all times, and that firms abide by certain anti-money laundering laws, as well as U.S. sanctions against foreign entities. It sounds like a step in the right direction, but this piece of legislation is working its way through Congress as sitting President Donald Trump and his family build a cryptocurrency empire that steamrolls anti-corruption laws and ethical norms — one they hope will flourish under the industry-friendly policies and laws created by the administration of the Trump patriarch. One of Trump's priorities has been the normalization of these so-called stablecoins — a type of asset that his family is now hawking. Despite the moniker, stablecoins can be extremely unstable. A 2023 study published by the Bank for International Settlements found that of 60 stablecoins analyzed in their review, all of them had become de-pegged from their underlying asset at least once. The 2022 crypto crash was triggered by the failure of Terraform Lab's Terra/Luna 'algorithmic' stablecoin — the collapse of which saw $45 billion erased in the span of a week. The stablecoin bill comes as the government reorients its approach to crypto. Under the Biden administration, crypto kingpins began to feel the sting of consequences for schemes gone wrong. FTX crypto exchange founder Sam Bankman-Fried was sentenced to 25 years in prison after carrying out one of the largest financial scams since Enron. Tether, the largest stablecoin in crypto, settled a lawsuit brought against it by New York Attorney General Letitia James in 2021. Changpeng Zhao, the founder of the global crypto exchange Binance, pleaded guilty to money laundering in 2023. Trump pledged a new, friendlier regulatory environment in Washington — and the crypto industry poured many millions into Super PACs to elect allies throughout Congress. Now, the industry has its moment to push through a public smokescreen of barely-there regulation, while continuing to rake in the cash. No one has been more outspoken on the failings of the GENIUS Act than Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who told Rolling Stone ahead of key votes that the bill would 'create a superhighway for Donald Trump's corruption.' The Trump family's cryptocurrency venture, World Liberty Financial — which is currently being operated by his sons and Zach Witkoff, the son of Trump's Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff — recently launched its own stablecoin, designated USD1, which is pegged to the U.S. dollar and backed by treasury bonds. The GENIUS Act would allow major tech companies, banks, and other financial institutions to issue their own stablecoins, and many are poised to buy Treasury bonds so they can back the digital currency with real assets, as is required. According to a report issued last week by ARK Invest, the stablecoin market may become one of the largest holders of U.S. debt in the coming years — potentially tying large swaths of U.S. debt to a dubiously regulated and often unstable asset. (For example, if Tether — the largest stablecoins in the market — was a country, it would be the 18th-largest holder of U.S. debt in the world.) The lines grow even murkier when considering Trump's habit of using his position in the White House to enrich himself, as well as to tip market scales. World Liberty Financial already landed a $2 billion transaction deal to help an Abu Dhabi-state backed company purchase a stake in the Binance crypto exchange using the USD1 stablecoin. 'As soon as the players understand that Trump's intervention is a real possibility, then the stablecoin market is no longer about a careful review of whether there are adequate dollars to back up a particular stablecoin, or whether the stable coin issuer has an AAA rating,' Warren says. 'Instead, the whole game becomes one of trying to engage the president to weigh the end and make one set of coins more valuable, and therefore another set of coins less valuable. It's corruption, but it's also a market manipulation that ultimately drains away any development. … It undermines all the markets at that point.' Warren compares the development of the GENIUS Act to efforts to regulate derivatives and the feverish rise of money market mutual funds in the early 2000s, both of which were major factors in the 2008 financial crisis: 'The derivatives industry came to the Congress and said, 'Regulate us,' and they wrote a sample. They wrote the regulation, and Congress — not knowing much about that world — passed it.' The consequence was, in Warren's view, that lay people believed the industry to be effectively regulated, when in reality investors essentially tailored legislation to their own priorities. 'The risk kept building in the system until in 2008 it blew up the entire economy and required a $700 billion bailout from taxpayers,' Warren says. 'So think about why an industry comes to Congress and says, 'Regulate us.' They want the imprimatur, they want the gold seal of the United States government. … They don't actually want the government to oversee the activities of the industry.' Warren is not alone in her concerns, and has found an unexpected ally in Republican Sen. John Hawley of Missouri. Last week, Hawley described the GENIUS Act as a 'huge giveaway to Big Tech' that would effectively allow private tech companies to create their own currencies that compete with the dollar. 'The U.S. dollar is the reserve currency,' Warren says. 'The United States does not gain from creating a competing electronic currency. Getting more people to hold stable coins rather than dollars during their investment transactions, does not serve us interests, but it injects risk into the U.S.' 'Anyone who thinks that when a financial crash hits [the value of stablecoins] will translate one to one into dollars is fooling themselves,' she adds. The ripple effects can be catastrophic when a stablecoin collapses. Existing stablecoins are already buying up billions in Treasury bonds, and in the event of a run on a coin, or any type of collapse within stablecoin, the issuer would sell off their own holdings — in this case Treasury bonds — to pay back their customers. Economists warn that such a scenario could destabilize the underlying treasury securities market that serves as the foundation of the U.S. economy. As Warren and Hawley point out, the risks of economic destabilization increase significantly if legislation like the GENIUS Act passes. PayPal has already launched its own cryptocurrency, and Apple, Facebook, X, and Airbnb have all explored releasing their own stablecoins for customers to conduct on-platform transactions in crypto. If, for example, Elon Musk 'is controlling a significant portion of cash-light money moving through our economy and X gets in trouble, the federal government will face the possibility of bailing out not just the coin, but the underlying business, because they're so deeply intertwined,' Warren explains. 'There's a reason why there has always been a wall between banking and commerce,' Warren says. 'This GENIUS Act, for the first time, destroys that wall.' Nothing is too big to fail. Seemingly secure, lucrative schemes have left the U.S. and global economy in ruins. In a way, the GENIUS Act has already built in a bailout fund for crypto traders should the bubble pop: your deposits. A provision in the bill mandates that financial institutions issuing the coins prioritize reimbursing stablecoin holders over other checking and savings depositors in the event that the bank or financial institution becomes insolvent. Essentially, as Georgetown Law professor Adam Levitin wrote last month, 'Congress is about to put the claims of stablecoin investors ahead of ma and pa's bank deposits.' Because most standard bank deposits are insured under the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the result is that depositors' checking and savings would be used to pay off lost crypto holdings and everyone else can file for an insurance claim. 'Which means,' Warren warns, 'the U.S. taxpayer is right in the crosshairs.' More from Rolling Stone 'No Fat Soldiers': Ft. Bragg Troops Were Carefully Screened for Trump's Stunt Visit Katy Perry Supports Migrants Amid ICE Raids: 'Deep Injustice' Los Angeles ICE Raids Are Driving Immigrants - And Citizens - Underground Best of Rolling Stone The Useful Idiots New Guide to the Most Stoned Moments of the 2020 Presidential Campaign Anatomy of a Fake News Scandal The Radical Crusade of Mike Pence
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Italy says it needs at least 10 years to raise defence spending
ROME (Reuters) -Italy's Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani on Thursday said his country needs at least 10 years to raise defence spending and comply with new targets due to be agreed by NATO, adding that a deal on them could soon be reached. Italy is one of the defence spending laggards within the Western military alliance, having spent just 1.49% of gross domestic product last year against a current target of 2%, according to NATO data. Rome has said it would respect the 2% target in 2025, but mainly through a series of accounting changes which add to defence budget calculations items that were previously not included. "I believe that we can do good work with NATO and arrive at The Hague summit with an agreement ready beforehand, so that NATO can demonstrate its unity," Tajani said speaking alongside NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte. The alliance leaders will meet in The Hague on June 24-25. Defence Minister Guido Crosetto, speaking in parliament, said it "is not possible" for Italy to meet U.S. requests for NATO allies to hike their defence budgets to 5% of GDP, and said an intermediate target of 3.5% "is not easy". Italy has limited room for spending, with its massive public debt projected to rise to almost 138% of GDP in 2026 before edging down the following year. "We are maintaining a conservative stance on the matter because we do not want other key investments, such as those on public health or social spending, to be affected", Crosetto said, adding that every government within NATO would need to discuss defence spending commitments with national parliaments.
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The Supreme Court's Inconsistency Is Very Revealing
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. One of the most vital components of the rule of law is a commitment to neutral, principled analysis in which standards are adhered to and similar cases lead to similar conclusions. Such neutrality lies at the core of the courts' promise to be 'bulwarks of a limited Constitution,' as Alexander Hamilton put it in 'Federalist No. 78.' That is why the Supreme Court's seeming abandonment of the neutrality principle is so distressing. The most recent example came in the Court's decision last month to allow President Donald Trump to fire members of two boards—the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board—whom Congress had attempted to protect against removal through legislative declarations of independence. In doing so, the Court carved out an arbitrary and unjustified exception to the logic it had otherwise adopted, demonstrating the capricious, politicized nature of its decision making. To understand the extent of the problems here, begin by considering one of those neutral principles that is, theoretically, to be applied without regard for result: the 'unitary executive' doctrine. According to this doctrine, the Constitution says that all officials who exercise executive power in the U.S. government are answerable to the president. It derives its force from both constitutional text and a view that unelected, independent agency bureaucrats are able to obstruct a president's power, and some recourse must be available. Consistent with that view, legal scholars and practitioners who adhere to this theory believe that a president should be able to remove any officer of the United States who exercises executive authority—with good reason or, in their view, without any reason at all (what we lawyers call 'removal without cause'). The debate over the limits on a president's removal authority is not an academic exercise about theoretical independence. To the contrary, it can have a very real, practical impact. The 19th-century lawyer and statesman Daniel Webster warned that unlimited removal power 'tends to turn the whole body of public officers into partisans, dependents, favorites, sycophants, and man-worshippers.' Or as Judge Joseph Story put it in his famous commentary on the Constitution, such a power 'may be made, in the hands of a bold and designing man of high ambition and feeble principles, into an instrument of the worst oppression and most vindictive vengeance.' The constitutional authority for independent agencies was first addressed nearly a century ago, in the New Deal era, when the Court carved out an area of executive activity that Congress could permissibly invest with some degree of independence. The oldest of these cases, Humphrey's Executor v. United States, allowed Congress to enact limits on the president's removal power for commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission—providing that they be removed only for 'good cause,' by which Congress meant some deliberate act of misfeasance. Notably, from a historical perspective, Congress imposed the limits (which the Court held were constitutional) in part to prevent President Franklin D. Roosevelt from firing holdovers from the previous Republican administration who were allegedly thwarting his more liberal policies. [Adam Serwer: Trump is tired of courts telling him he's breaking the law] The Court's Trump v. Wilcox decision last month, permitting Trump to remove the two senior board members, invoked the unitary-executive doctrine. Even though the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board are structurally indistinguishable from the FTC (at issue in Humphrey's Executor), the majority concluded that Trump may 'remove without cause executive officers who exercise power on his behalf.' And so 90 years of law meets its end. Many conservative legal scholars will approve of this conclusion. Other commentators will think that it too casually discards nearly a century of precedent. But whatever one may think of the underlying principle, both groups could and should hope for its unbiased application. If this is the new rule, then it should apply to all executive agencies. The specter of that possibility is why one of the strongest arguments against the unitary-executive principle has always been that if it were neutrally applied, it would necessarily allow the president plenary authority over every officer currently considered independent—including, most relevantly, the members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the Federal Open Market Committee. Because the Fed's core task of setting monetary policy is an executive act (for it surely is not legislative), the Fed, in theory, ought to be subject to presidential control. Such a result would be so disruptive that it is unthinkable. The independence of the Federal Reserve is considered a cornerstone of global economic stability. Multiple times in the past few months, the mere suggestion that Trump might fire the chair, Jerome Powell, has sent the markets into a tailspin. That is not because Powell himself is so beloved (though he has proved a very steady leader), but because markets cannot tolerate the uncertainty and disruption that his dismissal would portend. Critics have long made a simple counterargument: The unitary-executive doctrine cannot be valid, because it leads to unacceptable results. No principled way of distinguishing the NLRB and the MSPB (as well as a host of other independent agencies) from the Federal Reserve exists. If the loss of independence at the Fed is unthinkable, it can only be because the unitary executive is itself unthinkable. [Quinta Jurecic: What recourse does the Supreme Court actually have?] In an ideal legal world, this sort of argument would be persuasive. For the current Supreme Court, rejecting it required nothing more than inventing a new standard. In a single sentence, the Court tossed off the argument for equivalence, saying, 'The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States.' This is a remarkably weak argument. Neither of the original banks was a significant executive actor. They were not, for example, authorized to set monetary policy, as is now the Fed's job. And, disturbingly for those who value judicial precision, the authority the Court cited said no such thing. It is almost as if the citation was made up by a hallucinating artificial intelligence. So the historical analogy breaks down on the merits. It also requires answering this question: How old is old enough? One is left to wonder why the historical tradition of the first two banks (respectively, 240 and 190 years old) is sufficient, but the NLRB's history (it is now 90 years old) and, presumably, the FTC's age (now 110) are not. There is, sadly, only one plausible conclusion: The Court wanted to endorse the unitary-executive theory, but it created an exception for the Federal Reserve because the implications of its reasoning were too severe to tolerate. Call it the 'our theory can't create market catastrophe, so we will arbitrarily carve out the markets' principle, which is no principle at all. It's just artificial line drawing to avoid the consequences of one's own logic. This is not the only recent instance of the Court ruling by ipse dixit—making law based on unsupported dogmatic assertion rather than judgment. The capricious rejection of principle in the service of conservative political desires has become a habit with this Court. [Adam Serwer: The Supreme Court's 'selective proceduralism' would suffocate the Constitution] Consider, as another example, the Supreme Court's decision overturning 50 years of precedent in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. The decision rested on the Court's conclusion that the Constitution contains no substantive text protecting a woman's right to an abortion, and that such unenumerated rights should not be recognized if they are not 'deeply rooted in the Nation's history.' Again, one may agree with that principle (and with the Court's history regarding abortion rights), or one may not. But either way, one would expect that the Court would apply the principle neutrally. And if one thinks that the text of the Constitution has no protection for abortion, then, as Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his concurring opinion, all of the jurisprudential developments that protect sexual intimacy are wrong. In his view, not just abortion but also contraception and same-sex marriage are constitutionally unprotected. Fair enough, and at least Thomas has the virtue of intellectual consistency. But the implications of his views were so severe that at least one member of the Court felt the need to disavow them. Justice Brett Kavanaugh's concurrence assured the nation that the rule Dobbs created was unique to the abortion context. Trust me, he told us, gay marriage is not at risk. But that assurance is no more than another instance of making up the rules to suit the situation. If, as Dobbs says, the test is whether a practice is 'deeply rooted in the Nation's history,' then gay marriage is, if anything, on far thinner ice than abortion, and contraception is not too far behind. [Stephen I. Vladeck: What the courts can still do to constrain Trump] Again, if the impartial application of a new rule of law seems to have unacceptable results, the proper answer is to jettison the new rule as untenable, not to adopt it and then artificially carve out an exception. The promise of unbiased application of the law is why, even if you don't believe he meant it, Chief Justice John Roberts's famous characterization of judges as umpires calling 'balls and strikes' was so powerful. Americans don't expect perfection in judges' application of that principle. But the rule of law is, at bottom, a promise to minimize variations when possible. To be sure, the mitigation of harms is welcomed—I certainly don't want Trump to have the power to fire the Fed chair. But the intellectual dishonesty necessary to reach this result is stunning. Were the justices truly committed to calling balls and strikes, they would recognize that the horrific consequences of their reasoning suggest fault in that reasoning. It's all a bit reminiscent of Bang the Drum Slowly, a Robert De Niro and Michael Moriarty movie in which the pair play together on a baseball team. They welcome rookies by hazing them in a number of ways, one of which is to introduce them to the card game TEGWAR—'the exciting game without any rules.' The pair make up the rules as they go along, reinforcing each other's absurdities ('I just got a double krankle') and confounding the uncomprehending rookies. As a delightful vignette, TEGWAR is a comedic moment in a somber character study. When TEGWAR becomes the analytical methodology for the Supreme Court, it is a tragedy—for the rule of law and for the nation. Article originally published at The Atlantic
