&w=3840&q=100)
US imposes visa curbs on Indian travel agencies for 'knowingly facilitating illegal immigration'
The US on Monday said that it would impose visa restrictions on owners, executives, and senior officials of travel agencies in India for knowingly facilitating 'illegal immigration' to the United States.
'Mission India's Consular Affairs and Diplomatic Security Service work every day across our Embassy and Consulates to actively identify and target those engaged in facilitating illegal immigration and human smuggling and trafficking operations,' the State Department said in a statement.
The Department of State is 'taking steps today to impose visa restrictions on owners, executives, and senior officials of travel agencies based and operating in India for knowingly facilitating illegal immigration to the United States', it said.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
The statement added that the US will 'continue to take steps to impose visa restrictions against owners, executives, and senior officials of travel agencies to cut off alien smuggling networks'.
'Our immigration policy aims not only to inform foreign nationals about the dangers of illegal immigration to the United States but also to hold accountable individuals who violate our laws, including facilitators of illegal immigration,' the State Department said.
The State Department emphasised that enforcing US immigration laws and policies is essential to upholding the rule of law and ensuring the safety of American citizens.
It added that the visa restriction policy is global in scope and applies even to individuals who would otherwise be eligible for the Visa Waiver Programme.
When asked about the travel agencies and people against whom visa restrictions have been effected, a US embassy official in New Delhi said the details cannot be provided.
'We cannot provide a list of individuals or travel agencies the United States is taking steps to impose visa restrictions on due to visa record confidentiality,' PTI quoted the official as saying.
With inputs from agencies
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
25 minutes ago
- NDTV
Who Is Shailesh Jejurikar, Next CEO Of Procter & Gamble
Indian-born executive Shailesh Jejurikar will take over as the Chief Executive Officer of American Fast-Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) giant, Procter & Gamble, effective January 1, 2026. The 58-year-old, currently serving as Chief Operating Officer, will succeed Jon Moeller as President and CEO, the company announced. An alumnus of IIM Lucknow, Mr Jejurikar joins the elite league of Indian-origin leaders at the helm of global corporations. "Shailesh Jejurikar, currently Chief Operating Officer, will succeed Jon Moeller as Procter & Gamble's President and Chief Executive Officer, effective January 1, 2026. The Board has also nominated Jejurikar to stand for election as a Director at the annual shareholder meeting in October 2025," Procter & Gamble (P&G) said in a statement. Who Is Shailesh Jejurikar? Shailesh Jejurikar was born and raised in India, spending his early years in a rural area outside Mumbai. He completed his undergraduate studies in Bombay and went on to earn an MBA from the Indian Institute of Management (IIM) Lucknow, as per his Linkedin account. Mr Jejurikar joined Procter & Gamble in 1989 as an Assistant Brand Manager in India and steadily rose through the ranks with global stints across Africa, Asia, and North America. After roles in marketing and leadership across India, Kenya, and the US, he was promoted to General Manager in 2005 and became Vice President in 2008. By 2010, he was leading Home Care in North America. In 2014, he became President of Fabric Care, North America, and later took on global responsibilities. In 2019, he was named CEO of P&G's Global Fabric & Home Care - the company's largest business unit. Since 2021, he has served as Chief Operating Officer. Mr Jejurikar will become only the second non-US-born CEO of P&G since its founding in 1837, and among the few Indian-origin leaders heading a Fortune 500 company. The first was Netherlands-origin Durk Jager, who was appointed CEO in 1998. Shailesh Jejurikar serves as Chairman of the Cincinnati Center City Development Corp and is a Board Member at Otis Elevator Co, where he also chairs the Compensation Committee. He is also on the Board of The Christ Hospital. Previously, he was Vice Chairman of the American Cleaning Institute from 2014 to 2017 and served as a Trustee at Cincinnati Country Day School between 2012 and 2017.
Indian Express
25 minutes ago
- Indian Express
‘If they are truly the same terrorists, then this is good': Farooq Abdullah after Amit Shah's declaration
Hours after Union Home Minister Amit Shah said that the three terrorists killed on the outskirts of Srinagar on Monday were the same ones who carried out the April 22 Pahalgam terrorist attack, former J&K chief minister and National Conference president Farooq Abdullah said that 'if they were truly the same terrorists, then this is good, they have been given a lesson that terror can never succeed'. Speaking on the sidelines of an event in Srinagar, Abdullah said, 'I have not seen them, I do not know who they are. Only those who have seen them (the terrorists), can identify them.' Speaking in the Lok Sabha on Tuesday, Shah identified the three terrorists, who were killed in the Dachigam forest area, as Suleiman alias Faisal, Afghan and Jibran, and said they had come from Pakistan. 'Suleiman was a LeT (Lashkar-e-Taiba) commander and was involved in the Gagangeer attack. Our forces have evidence on it. These three were involved, and all three have been killed. Through this House, I thank the security personnel involved,' said Shah. 'Yesterday's operation saw the death of three who killed our citizens… NIA had kept those who helped these terrorists in custody, and they confirmed that these three were the ones who conducted the terror attack in Pahalgam. We didn't believe this either. Cartridges recovered at the site of attack were analysed, and a ballistic report was prepared. Three rifles were recovered yesterday – one M9 American rifle and two AK-47s. These rifles were sent to Chandigarh, and the cartridges were matched. Then, it was fixed that these three rifles were used to kill our people,' said Shah. He said six experts had verified the ballistic report on the cartridges. 'And they have said that they match 100 per cent'.
Mint
25 minutes ago
- Mint
Trump's new trade order is fragile
President Donald Trump has achieved the remarkable: raising tariffs by more than the notorious Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, while—it appears—avoiding the destructive trade war that followed. Including the deal struck over the weekend with the European Union, the U.S. will impose an effective tariff rate of about 15% on its trading partners, by far the highest since the 1930s, according to JPMorgan Chase. Japan and the EU have together committed to investing $1.15 trillion in the U.S. Europe also agreed to energy and military purchases. And what did the U.S. give up in return? Nothing. So Trump has hit his goals, for now. But these deals don't yet represent a new trade order. They are sort of a way station, more fragile and with less legitimacy than the system they have supplanted. The formula for this achievement was distinctively Trumpian. The president calculated that others had more to lose from a trade war than the U.S. He picked off each trading partner in turn with the prospect that failure to strike a deal on his terms would result in worse treatment later. Among American allies, only the EU has the heft to inflict enough pain on American companies to change Trump's calculus. But despite drawing up plans for retaliation, it never pulled the trigger. Along with the economic pain of a trade war, Europe feared Trump would abandon Ukraine and perhaps NATO altogether. A one-sided deal was the price of keeping, for now, Trump committed to the trans-Atlantic security alliance. Of the major trading partners yet to strike deals, South Korea, Mexico and Canada can likely expect, like the U.K., Japan and the EU, to give up plenty and get nothing in return. China, the only country to have broadly retaliated, might fare differently. Trump has avoided a trade war, but it remains to be seen if the trade peace will last. Since the 1980s, Trump has believed that other countries have ripped off the U.S., producing deep trade deficits. His solution: charge for access to the U.S. market and the protection of its military. Others have now accepted his terms for access to the market, while NATO partners have agreed to boost defense spending to 5% of GDP. This seems to have softened Trump's prior antipathy toward the alliance and Ukraine. On Monday, he shortened the deadline for Russia to agree to a cease-fire with Ukraine or face sanctions. It might be too soon to announce 'mission accomplished," but it certainly looks like Trump has begun rebalancing the relationship between the U.S. and its allies. 'The two concerns Trump had about Europe is that they were free riding on the U.S. security umbrella and their trade was unbalanced, with their market a fortress," said Mujtaba Rahman, managing director for Europe at Eurasia Group, a consultancy. 'On both, Trump has implemented a shakedown." The 15% baseline tariff and 5% military commitment represent Trump wins that put the trans-Atlantic alliance on a 'slightly more solid" basis than in February, he said. Whether tariffs achieve Trump's economic goals remains to be seen. In a recent speech, Trump's trade ambassador, Jamieson Greer, set three benchmarks: first, reduce the goods trade deficit; second, raise after-inflation incomes; and third, boost manufacturing's share of gross domestic product. The incentives in these deals to reshore production and purchase American goods should help meet these relatively low bars. As for how much of the tariffs consumers will ultimately bear, the jury is still out. From 1947 through 2012, the U.S. presided over a steady fall in trade barriers and growing economic integration. It came through painstakingly negotiated pacts. Everyone gained something and gave something up and were thus invested in the pacts' success. Such pacts 'require Congress to approve them, are deep and substantive, take a long time to negotiate, and last a long time," said Doug Irwin, a trade historian at Dartmouth College. 'They are a binding commitment on the U.S." By contrast, Irwin said, these latest agreements are 'handshake deals" with a president who isn't legally bound to adhere to the terms. Trump is at liberty to threaten higher tariffs again for any reason, from wresting Greenland from Denmark to protecting U.S. tech companies from European taxes or censorship. Europe, having foresworn retaliation, has few chips with which to bargain tariffs down, under this or a future president. Trump acted entirely without Congress. Indeed, one court has already ruled his use of a sanctions law to impose across-the-board tariffs was illegal. Should an appeals court uphold that finding, the legality of those deals would come into doubt. (Trump could turn to a different law that limits tariffs to 15%, for 150 days.) The one-sided nature of these deals also makes them more fragile. Other countries will be less willing to comply with something they don't think is in their economic interest, especially with so many details unsettled. Already, Japan has cast doubt on Trump's interpretation of its $550 billion investment commitment, and the Europeans' $600 billion pledge seems similarly vague. Deals made under duress are politically unpopular and thus less durable. Especially noteworthy was the negative reaction of far-right populist leaders who are already hostile to the EU and trade deals. Marine Le Pen, a leader of France's populist right-wing National Rally, which is slightly favored to win the presidential election in 2027, called the EU deal a 'political, economic and moral fiasco." Alice Weidel, leader of Germany's far-right Alternative for Germany, wrote on X, 'The EU has let itself be brutally ripped off." Trump got his deals because of the leverage other countries' deep economic and security ties gave to the U.S. In coming years, that leverage will wane as those countries cultivate markets elsewhere and build up their own militaries. The resulting international system will be less dependent on the U.S.—and less stable. Write to Greg Ip at
