US deports criminals to African nation where political parties banned
The US has already deported eight men to another African country, South Sudan, after the Supreme Court lifted restrictions on sending people to countries where they have no ties.
The South Sudanese government has declined to say where those men, also described as violent criminals, are after it took custody of them nearly two weeks ago.
In a late-night post on X, homeland security assistant secretary Tricia McLaughlin said the men sent to Eswatini, who are citizens of Vietnam, Jamaica, Cuba, Yemen and Laos, had arrived on a plane but did not say when or where.
She said they were all convicted criminals and 'individuals so uniquely barbaric that their home countries refused to take them back'.
The men 'have been terrorising American communities' but were now 'off of American soil', McLaughlin claimed.
She said they had been convicted of crimes including murder and child rape and one was a 'confirmed' gang member. Her social media posts included mug shots of the men and what she said were their criminal records. They were not named.
Like in South Sudan, there was no immediate comment from Eswatini authorities over any deal to accept third-country deportees or what would happen to them in that country.
Civic groups there raised concerns over the secrecy from a government long accused of clamping down on human rights.
'There has been a notable lack of official communication from the Eswatini government regarding any agreement or understanding with the US to accept these deportees,' Ingiphile Dlamini, a spokesperson for the pro-democracy group SWALIMO, said in a statement sent to The Associated Press.
'This opacity makes it difficult for civic society to understand the implications.'
It was not clear if they were being held in a detention centre, what their legal status was or what Eswatini's plans were for the deported men, he said.
Eswatini, previously called Swaziland, is a country of about 1.2 million people between South Africa and Mozambique. It is one of the world's last remaining absolute monarchies and the last in Africa. King Mswati III has ruled by decree since 1986.
Political parties are effectively banned and pro-democracy groups have said for years that Mswati III has crushed political dissent, sometimes violently. Groups like SWALIMO have called for democratic reforms.
Pro-democracy protests erupted in Eswatini in 2021, when dozens were killed, allegedly by security forces. Eswatini authorities have been accused of conducting political assassinations of pro-democracy activists and imprisoning others.
Because Eswatini is a poor country with a relative lack of resources, it 'may face significant strain in accommodating and managing individuals with complex backgrounds, particularly those with serious criminal convictions', Mr Dlamini said.
While the US administration has hailed deportations as a victory for the safety and security of the American people, Mr Dlamini said his organization wanted to know the plans for the five men sent to Eswatini and 'any potential risks to the local population'.
The Trump administration has said it is seeking more deals with African nations to take deportees from the US.
Leaders from some of the five West African nations who met President Donald Trump at the White House last week said the issue of migration and their countries possibly taking deportees from the US was discussed.
Some nations have pushed back. Nigeria, which was not part of that White House summit, said it has rejected pressure from the US to take deportees who are citizens of other countries.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Buzz Feed
a minute ago
- Buzz Feed
Toxic American Behaviors That Are "Glorified"
As we all know, Americans do A LOT of weird stuff. While some of it might seem harmless, there are many toxic ideas and behaviors that have become popularized and in some cases, even glorified in the US... That's why when Redditor u/imwith2 asked, "What's something we glorify in American culture that's actually extremely toxic?" thousands of both Americans and non-Americans shared the most bizarre things that have been normalized in the US. Without further ado, here are 17 of their most enlightening examples: "Absurd and excessive consumerism that only serves to represent status." "The notion that everyone's opinion is equally valid." "Perfect attendance, at work or school. Please stay home if you're sick." "At least in the South: Big, intimidating, and expensive weddings. It hurts everyone when something is that expensive, including the people traveling. They have to pay for their hotel bookings, dry cleaning, dog sitters, etc. Just make weddings chill." "Instant gratification. Not many people actually wait and save up for things anymore; instead, they buy on credit and ultimately wind up paying far more in the long run." "Individualism: We have gotten so individualistic that our communities have almost completely fallen apart. Millions of Americans are hostile to the very idea that they even need to get along with others." "Treating political leaders like gods." "Being positive at all times." "Gun ownership culture: I was raised as a hunter and was on the rifle team in college; however, gun culture is out of hand, including the glorification of firearms in movies and media." "Hustle culture: People are more important than money. A person doing an honest day's work should earn enough to have access to a decent life and there should be no need for side hustles, aka second or third jobs." "High school and college athletics: It's extremely toxic that 26 percent of high schoolers' parents want their children to become professional athletes one day, and some greater percent of kids push themselves to play three seasons." "Celebrity obsession.'" "Competition: A little competition is good, fun, and aids productivity. But we Americans take it way too far." "Being prudes about nudity/human bodies." "Cars/car-centric life: You have toxic fumes from the engines, toxic debris from the tires and brakes, and toxic fluids leaking everywhere, as well as the vast amount of concrete and pollution that is associated. All of these issues are known to affect the health of humans nearby. When we got rid of lead in gas, the population at large became less violent." "The obsession with group identity: Democrat, Giants fan, blue collar, college-educated, Christian, etc." "'The American dream.'" Did any of these examples surprise you? What are some other toxic aspects of American culture that have been glorified? Tell us about it in the comments or answer anonymously using the form below!
New York Post
31 minutes ago
- New York Post
Tulsi Gabbard explains why Russia must have thought Hillary Clinton win was ‘inevitable'
The Russians privately felt it was 'inevitable' that Hillary Clinton would triumph in the 2016 election, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said on Miranda Devine's 'Pod Force One' podcast. Despite widespread narratives that Russia was in President Trump's corner, Moscow's objective was to sow chaos in the American political process and brace itself for a Clinton presidency, Gabbard claimed, citing the trove of intelligence documents her team has released. 'It surprised me that all of these documents still existed, quite frankly,' Gabbard said in an episode set for release Wednesday. 'As we've learned in later documents that we've reviewed throughout that campaign, Russia believed that Hillary Clinton would win the election. Advertisement 'They felt it was inevitable.' Last month, Gabbard's team began disclosing a trove of documents that gave a behind-the-scenes look at the intelligence community's machinations during the 2016 election cycle regarding the probe of Russian interference. 4 Tulsi Gabbard accused the Obama administration of mounting a campaign to subvert President Trump. Ron Sachs – CNP for NY Post Advertisement 4 Hillary Clinton once implied that Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian asset. Getty Images This included a House Intelligence Committee report from 2020 that claimed the Russians may have had intelligence that Clinton was 'placed on a daily regimen of 'heavy tranquilizers' and while afraid of losing.' That was supposedly due to her alleged 'psycho-emotional problems, including uncontrolled fits of anger, aggression, and cheerfulness.' Gabbard pondered why that supposed Russian intelligence wasn't leaked to the public if Moscow's chief objective was to prop up Trump and undermine Clinton. Advertisement 'If Russia aspired to help Trump get elected, which is what the manufactured January 2017 intelligence community assessment says with high confidence, according to Brennan and Clapper, then Putin would have released the most damaging information and emails to help President Trump,' she said. 'It was intentionally withheld and not released because they assumed that Hillary Clinton would win that election, and their plan,' Gabbard added, citing the 2020 House Intelligence Committee report, '[was to] wait until maybe days or weeks before her inauguration to release these documents.' The Russians were widely alleged by US officials to have hacked Democratic National Committee emails during he 2016 campaign. 4 Narratives about Russian interferences in the 2016 election haunted President Trump during his first term. AFP via Getty Images Advertisement The 2020 House Intelligence Committee report had concluded that Russian strongman Vladimir Putin's 'principal motivations in these operations were to undermine faith in the US democratic process' and that he didn't necessarily prioritize propping up one candidate over the other. 'The American people, I think, have been, and our republic, has been most harmed by this,' Gabbard said of the Russia collusion narrative. 'Of course, President Trump went through hell and his family because of this Russia hoax that was manufactured by President Obama and his administration.' Critics such as former CIA Director John Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper accused Gabbard of peddling 'patently false' accusations about their Russiagate activities. Much of what Gabbard has released centered around rebuffing a 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), which concluded among other things that 'the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.' Brennan, Clapper and others have pointed to a 2020 bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report, which noted the panel 'heard consistently that analysts were under no politically motivated pressure to reach specific conclusions.' Clapper and Brennan recenty penned an op-ed insisting that the intelligence community report never referenced 'collusion' between Trump and the Russian government, and stood by their claims that the Kremlin prefered him in the 2016 election. Tulsi Gabbard's Russiagate claims Tulsi Gabbard's claims of election interference focus on the controversial 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment, which President Barack Obama ordered his intel chiefs to compile. The report fueled the Russiagate investigations against President Trump. Gabbard alleges it amounted to a political hit job, claiming Obama officials knowingly used shaky intel and then lied about it. Gabbard's new claims are based on a 2020 House Intelligence Committee report, which she has publicly released. Its findings differ in some key ways from both the Obama report and a previously released Senate Intelligence Committee report. Democrats, however, point to the Senate report, which was backed by then-Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) — now Trump's secretary of state. That supports some of the findings of the Obama report. Here are the biggest points — and what the dueling intel reports say: The Steele dossier The House report contradicts the claims of Obama officials that they never relied on the discredited Steele dossier — which was compiled by Hillary Clinton's campaign — as part of the Russiagate investigation. In a 2017 House hearing, Obama CIA Director John Brennan denied that his agency used the Steele dossier for intelligence assessments. However, the full Steele dossier was still included as an attachment to the Obama intel report, the newly public House report found. Additionally, according to the House report, Brennan, FBI Director James Comey and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe pushed to use the Steele dossier for the Obama intel report. Senior intel officials also confronted Brennan about the legitimacy of the Steele dossier, the House report said, but he shrugged it off. Brennan's response was reportedly, 'Yes, but doesn't it ring true?' The Senate investigation found that the Steele dossier was not used as part of the Obama intel report. Obama's involvement Gabbard claimed Wednesday that Obama ordered the creation of the 2017 intel report and suggested it 'was subject to unusual directives directly from the president and senior political appointees.' She added: 'Obama directed an intelligence community assessment to be created, to further this contrived false narrative that ultimately led to a year-long coup to try to undermine President Trump's presidency.' The 2020 Senate intel report confirmed that Obama ordered the report to be drafted, but did not comment on the political motivations. Obama said that 'the bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction.' Did Putin want Trump to win? The Obama report said that 'Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability' and that Putin had a 'clear preference for President-elect Trump.' But the House report contradicted this, saying that Putin's 'principal motivations in these operations were to undermine faith in the US democratic process.' The Russian strongman also seemed to expect Clinton to win, and held back on 'some compromising material for post-election use against the expected Clinton administration.' The Senate report said lawmakers were given 'specific intelligence reporting to support the assessment that Putin and the Russian Government demonstrated a preference for candidate Trump.' Did Russia alter the 2016 election? To buttress her claims that the Obama intel report was political interference, she highlighted the findings of multiple intelligence agencies that Russia 'had neither the intent nor capability to impact the outcome of the US election.' On this, all three reports are in agreement. Gabbard pointed to how Obama ordered the 2017 ICA of Russian interference in the 2016 election and his administration's machinations detailed in the document dump to accuse the 44th president of subversion. Advertisement 'What we now know came from President Obama was a covert mission, essentially, to subvert the will of the American people, create this lie that would challenge the legitimacy of President Trump's election and the four years of his administration, resulting and affecting in what was truly a years' long coup,' Gabbard said. Reps from Obama have refuted those characterizations, saying that the 'bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction.' 'Nothing in the document issued last week undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes,' Obama spokesperson Patrick Rodenbush said in a statement last month. 4 Tulsi Gabbard has drawn President Trump's attention with the document dump on Russiagate. REUTERS Advertisement Gabbard made referrals to the Justice Department based on her findings, and the DOJ has since formed a 'strike force' to comb through the claims.
Boston Globe
31 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
How Trump's EPA is giving up the role of US protector
Lee Zeldin, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, last week proposed to repeal the landmark scientific finding that enables the federal government to regulate the greenhouse gases that are warming the planet. In effect, the EPA will eliminate its authority to combat climate change. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Speaking at a truck dealership in Indianapolis, Zeldin said the EPA would reverse a 2009 scientific conclusion, known as the endangerment finding, that greenhouse gas emissions pose a threat to public health. He said the agency would also rescind Biden-era regulations designed to reduce planet-warming emissions from automobile tailpipes. Advertisement While few people have heard of the endangerment finding, it has had a profound effect on society. Its establishment cleared the way for the Obama administration to set the country's first limits on greenhouse gases from cars and power plants, with the goal of putting more electric vehicles on the roads and adding more renewable energy to the electric grid. Advertisement But Zeldin's announcement was only the latest in a rapid-fire series of actions to weaken or eliminate protections against climate change. In April, the Trump administration dismissed hundreds of scientists and experts who had been compiling the federal government's flagship analysis of how climate change is affecting the country. In May, President Trump proposed to stop collecting key measurements of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere as part of his 2026 budget plan. And since January, he has called for eliminating or overhauling the Federal Emergency Management Agency to shift disaster response to the states. Joe Aldy, a professor of environmental policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, said that by repealing the endangerment finding, the Trump administration was relinquishing the country's historical role as a protector of public health. 'The concern here isn't just the attack on regulation,' he said. 'There is this much bigger question of what does it mean to promote the general welfare?' In response to questions, an EPA spokesperson, Brigit Hirsch, said in an email, referring to the 2009 endangerment finding: 'How does a partisan policy from the mid-2000s qualify as a 'time-honored American tradition'? EPA is bound by the laws established by Congress and Congress never explicitly gave EPA authority to impose greenhouse gas regulations for cars and trucks.' Taylor Rogers, a White House spokesperson, said that the endangerment finding had been misused to justify excessive regulation and that the administration was 'putting everyday Americans First by restoring consumer choice and sidestepping the left's out-of-touch climate policies.' Governments have taken steps to protect citizens from environmental hazards for centuries. After cholera outbreaks in the mid-1800s, England worked to improve sanitation and water quality. In the United States, research into contaminated drinking water in the early 20th century led to investments in sanitation. And the Clean Air Act, enacted in 1963 and amended in 1990, helped solve issues including smog in Los Angeles, acid rain in New England, and the depletion of the ozone layer high in the atmosphere. Advertisement 'This is a real retreat from the social compact that I think has been dominant in the US for some time,' said Margaret Levi, a professor of political science at Stanford University. 'Part of government's responsibility is to protect the health and well-being of its citizens to the extent that it can, and that does require some regulation.' The Trump administration's approach has supporters. Several conservative scholars and politicians applauded the imminent end of the endangerment finding, saying it had empowered the EPA to restrict Americans' choices of how to heat their homes and what kinds of cars to drive. 'The endangerment finding became a pretext for the agency, without congressional authorization, to impose centralized economic planning on the US transportation and electric power sectors,' said Marlo Lewis Jr., a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a right-wing research organization. After the proposal to repeal the endangerment finding is published in the Federal Register, the EPA will solicit public comments for 45 days. The agency will then finalize the rule, most likely within the next year. The debate over the proper use of the government's regulatory hand has been going on for centuries. Adam Smith, an 18th-century philosopher and economist, argued that governments should play a limited role, emphasizing the importance of free markets and individual rights. A century later, philosopher John Stuart Mill contended that governments should promote the common good. Advertisement 'What this government is doing is going outside the frame of that debate,' Levi said. 'It's not talking about what are the cost to citizens. It's only really focusing on what are the costs to business, and denying the science that demonstrates there is a cost to the public.' This article originally appeared in
