Migrants told of Libya deportation waited hours on tarmac, attorney says
By Ted Hesson, Phil Stewart and Humeyra Pamuk
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Migrants in Texas who were told they would be deported to Libya sat on a military airfield tarmac for hours on Wednesday, unsure of what would happen next, an attorney for one of the men told Reuters.
The attorney, Tin Thanh Nguyen, said his client, a Vietnamese construction worker from Los Angeles, was among the migrants woken in the early morning hours and bused from an immigration detention center in Pearsall, Texas, to an airfield where a military aircraft awaited them.
After several hours, they were bused back to the detention center around noon, the attorney said on Thursday.
The Department of Homeland Security, the Pentagon and the State Department did not respond to requests for comment.
Reuters was first to report that U.S. President Donald Trump's administration was poised to deport migrants to Libya, a move that would escalate his immigration crackdown which has already drawn legal backlash.
Officials earlier this week told Reuters the U.S. military could fly the migrants to the North African country as soon as Wednesday, but stressed that plans could change.
A U.S. official told Reuters the flight never departed. As of Friday, it was unclear if the administration was still planning to proceed with the deportations.
A federal judge in Boston ruled on Wednesday that any effort by the Trump administration to deport non-Libyan migrants to Libya without adequate screenings for possible persecution or torture would clearly violate a prior court order.
Lawyers for a group of migrants pursuing a class action lawsuit had made an emergency request to the court hours after the news broke of the potential flight to Libya.
SOLITARY CONFINEMENT
Nguyen, who declined to name his client, said the man was told on Monday to sign a document agreeing to be deported to Libya. The man, who does not read English well, declined to sign it and was placed in solitary confinement and shackled along with four or five other men, the attorney said.
The man was never provided an opportunity to express a fear of being deported to Libya as required under federal immigration law and the recent judicial order, Nguyen said.
"They said, 'We're deporting you to Libya,' even though he hadn't signed the form, he didn't know what the form was," Nguyen said.
Nguyen said his client, originally from Vietnam, has lived in the U.S. since the 1990s but was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement earlier this year during a regular check-in.
Vietnam declines to accept some deportees and processes deportation paperwork slowly, Nguyen said, making it harder for the U.S. to send deportees there.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
20 minutes ago
Noem says Guard wouldn't be needed in LA if Newsom had done his job
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem blamed California Gov. Gavin Newsom for the need to deploy the National Guard to assist in putting down violent clashes between police and immigration protesters in Los Angeles. Newsom has said local authorities don't need the help and accused President Donald Trump of inflaming the situation," calling the move "purposefully inflammatory" and saying it will "only escalate tensions." Noem disagreed with Newsom. "Margaret, if he was doing his, job people wouldn't have gotten hurt the last couple of days," she told CBS' Margaret Brennan on "Face the Nation." "We wouldn't have officers with a shattered wrist from bricks thrown through their vehicles, vehicles being burned, flags burned in the street and Molotov cocktails being thrown." "Governor Newsom has proven that he makes bad decisions, the president knows that he makes bad decisions and that's why the president chose the safety of this community over waiting for Governor Newsom to get some sanity," she said. Ahead of his departure for Camp David from New Jersey on Sunday, President Donald Trump was asked by ABC News' Rachel Scott if he is prepared to invoke the Insurrection Act. "Depends on whether or not there is an insurrection," Trump replied. Pressed on whether he believes there is an insurrection in California, Trump said, "No, no. But you have violent people, and we are not going to let them get away with it." White House border czar Tom Homan said Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass could face charges if their response to Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations exceeds the legal boundaries. "I'll say about anybody: You cross that line, it's a felony to knowingly harbor and conceal an illegal alien. It's a felony to impede law enforcement from doing their job," Homan told NBC News. Noem said Trump was making the move to protect the impacted communities and law enforcement. "So these 2,000 National Guard soldiers that are being engaged today are ones that are specifically trained for this type of crowd situation where they will be with the public and be able to provide safety around buildings and to those that are engaged in peaceful protests and also to our law enforcement officers so they can continue their daily work," she said. Reaction from lawmakers broke along party lines. House Speaker Mike Johnson told ABC News' "This Week" that Trump "did exactly what he needed to do." "These are federal laws and we have to maintain the rule of law. And that is not what is happening. [California Gov.] Gavin Newsom has shown an inability or unwillingness to do what is necessary there." "That is real leadership, and he has the authority and the responsibility to do it," the speaker said, defending Trump's decision. Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., dismissed Newsom's assertion the deploying the Guard would escalate tensions. "Well, words are cheap, especially when you got video. And so you asked me did it look like it was under control, I'll ask you: Did it look like it was under control? It doesn't. It is absolutely not in control. You saw rioters throwing rocks, throwing fireworks. And being extremely aggressive towards not just federal agents, but even the county and the local PD that was there. So does it look like it's under control? Absolutely not," he told CNN's "State of the Union." Democratic Rep. Nanette Barragán, who represents part of the area, said Trump's action will make things worse. "I've spoken to the sheriffs on the ground who have said they have things under control. There is no need for the National Guard. They have the manpower that they need," she said. "So this is really just an escalation of the president coming into California. We haven't asked for the help. "This is him escalating it, causing tensions to rise. It's only going to make things worse." Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar said Trump was "hellbent on inflaming" the situation. "Individual governors look at their states and make decisions, but in this case the president time and time again has shown this willingness to, one, violate the laws, as we've seen across the country in many different situations outside of the immigration context, and, two, inflame situations," Klobuchar told "Face the Nation."
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Ukraine war latest: US expects Russia's retaliation for Operation Spiderweb to continue soon; Ukraine denies Russian troop presence in Dnipropetrovsk Oblast, describes situation as 'tense'
Key developments on June 7-8: US expects Russia's retaliation for Operation Spiderweb to continue soon Ukraine denies Russian troop presence in Dnipropetrovsk Oblast amid offensive, describes situation as 'tense' Trump administration redirects 20,000 anti-drone missiles meant for Ukraine, Zelensky confirms Ukraine downs fighter jet in Russia's Kursk Oblast, Air Force says 'I am against Ukraine's entry into the European Union,' Polish president-elect Nawrocki says The U.S. believes Russia has not yet fully responded to Ukraine's Operation Spiderweb and may soon launch another large-scale, multi-pronged strike following the massive June 6 attack, Reuters reported on June 8, citing unnamed U.S. officials. One official told Reuters that, while the timing remains unclear, a retaliatory strike could be expected in the coming days and is likely to be "asymmetrical." Another U.S. source said Russia would likely employ missiles and drones to hit a combination of targets. The U.S. assessment follows the June 1 attack by Ukraine's Security Service (SBU) on four Russian air bases using drones launched from trucks concealed within Russian territory. Kyiv's operation reportedly damaged 41 aircraft, including Tu-95 and Tu-22M3 bombers — two of Russia's primary platforms for missile attacks against Ukraine. The Kyiv Independent could not independently verify the number of aircraft hit. At least 21 planes were damaged or destroyed, according to open-source intelligence analysts. Join our community Support independent journalism in Ukraine. Join us in this fight. Support Us A Western diplomatic source told the outlet that the Kremlin's response could focus on high-value government sites, such as administrative buildings or intelligence facilities. Michael Kofman, a military analyst with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, suggested Moscow may aim medium-range ballistic missiles at headquarters belonging to the SBU, which organized the operation. On June 6, Russia launched one of its most intense aerial barrages of the full-scale war, firing 452 drones and 45 missiles at Ukrainian cities and infrastructure, according to the Air Force. The attack was likely part of Russia's response to Operation Spiderweb. At least four civilians were killed, including emergency service workers, and 80 others were injured in the overnight assault, President Volodymyr Zelensky reported. The June 6 strikes followed a phone call between Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Donald Trump on June 4, during which Putin reportedly vowed to retaliate against the Ukrainian drone operation. U.S. officials say Moscow's June 6 barrage may not be the full extent of its response. Russia has carried out near-nightly air assaults in recent weeks, several of which predated Spiderweb, making it difficult to separate a targeted reprisal from Russia's ongoing campaign of attrition. Shortly after the June 6 Russian attack, Trump seemed to justify the aggression against Ukrainian cities that was launched in response to Ukraine's Operation Spiderweb. "They gave Putin a reason to go in and bomb the hell out of them last night," Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One on June 6. Read also: Ukrainian drone strikes Russian Tu-22 bomber: SBU releases new footage of Operation Spiderweb Russian forces continue their efforts to break into Dnipropetrovsk Oblast, Ukraine's Southern Defense Forces reported on June 8, saying that the situation around the 31st Separate Brigade's positions remains "tense." "The enemy has not abandoned its plans to enter Dnipropetrovsk Oblast," the Southern Defense Forces wrote on Telegram. "Our soldiers are bravely and professionally holding their section of the front, thwarting the occupier's plans." The comment follows the Russian Defense Ministry's June 8 claim that its forces had entered Dnipropetrovsk Oblast. Despite the claims, Major Andrii Kovalev, a spokesperson for Ukraine's General Staff denied Russian troop presence in the region. "The information is not true. Fighting is ongoing in Donetsk Oblast. The enemy did not enter Dnipropetrovsk Oblast," Kovalev told Ukrainska Pravda. In a separate statement to CNN, Viktor Trehubov, a spokesperson for for Ukraine's Khortytsia group of forces said that "the Russians are constantly spreading false information that they have entered the Dnipropetrovsk region from the Pokrovsk and Novopavlivka directions, but (in neither place) is this information true.' The 31st Brigade is deployed in the Novopavlivka direction, where Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, and Dnipropetrovsk oblasts converge. Since 2014, Russian aggression has heavily impacted Donetsk Oblast, while Dnipropetrovsk Oblast has remained free from direct incursions. The denials from Ukraine's militaary come amid continuing Russian offensives in eastern and northern Ukraine, along with escalating diplomatic efforts that have yet to yield a ceasefire. President Volodymyr Zelensky's Deputy Chief of Staff Pavlo Palisa said on June 6 that Russia aims to occupy all Ukrainian territory east of the Dnipro River and advance toward Odesa and Mykolaiv in a broader plan to sever Ukraine's access to the Black Sea, amid a renewed summer offensive. On May 21, Ukrainian officials rejected similar claims that Russian troops had reached Dnipropetrovsk Oblast's administrative boundary. Serhii Lysak, head of the regional military administration, called the reports "fake," citing doctored photos allegedly showing Russian soldiers in the area. The Ukrainian monitoring project DeepState analyzed one such image and determined it had been taken in Troitske, a village in Donetsk Oblast. As a precaution, Dnipropetrovsk Oblast began mandatory evacuations of children and families from four front-line villages in late April — Kolona Mezhova, Novopidhorodne, Raipole, and Sukhareva Balka — located just 5 to 15 kilometers from Russian positions. Despite the lack of verified ground incursions, Dnipropetrovsk has endured frequent Russian missile, drone, and aerial attacks since the full-scale invasion began. The ongoing Russian advance occurs as peace efforts remain stalled, and U.S.-brokered negotiations have failed to achieve a ceasefire. Read also: Exchange of fallen soldiers' bodies expected next week, official says Zelensky confirmed that Trump's administration diverted 20,000 anti-drone missiles originally intended for Ukraine to American forces in the Middle East, in an interview with ABC News published on June 8. Zelensky said Ukraine had counted on the missiles to help counter relentless Russian drone attacks, which include swarms of Iranian-designed Shahed-type drones. On June 1, Russia launched a record 472 drones in a single night. "We have big problems with Shaheds… we will find all the tools to destroy them," Zelensky said. "We counted on this project — 20,000 missiles. Anti-Shahed missiles. It was not expensive, but it's a special technology." Zelensky said the plan had been agreed upon with then-U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and was launched under President Joe Biden's administration. The Wall Street Journal reported on June 4 that the Trump administration had redirected the munitions, which include special fuzes used in advanced rocket systems to intercept drones, toward U.S. forces stationed in the Middle East. The Pentagon reportedly informed Congress in a classified message that the reallocation of the fuzes for the Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System was deemed an "urgent issue" by current Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. A Ukrainian military intelligence (HUR) source told the Kyiv Independent on June 4 that Russia is preparing to launch more than 500 long-range drones per night in future attacks, as Moscow rapidly scales up drone production and constructs new launch sites. The Trump administration has halted the approval of new military aid packages to Ukraine since the start of his second term in January. Read also: Elon Musk's father to attend pro-Kremlin event in Russia hosted by far-right ideologue Ukraine shot down a Russian Su-35 fighter jet in Russia's Kursk Oblast on the morning of June 7, the Air Force reported. Although no details of the operation were disclosed, the downing brings the total number of Russian aircraft destroyed since the start of the full-scale invasion to 414, according to Ukraine's General Staff. Ukraine launched a cross-border incursion into Kursk Oblast in August 2024, marking the first large-scale invasion of Russian territory by foreign forces since World War II. Reinforced by North Korean troops, Russia launched a push to recapture the region in early March, with Ukraine being forced to pull back from much of the initially taken territory, including the town of Sudzha. The downing of the Su-35 fighter jet also adds to the losses Ukraine has inflicted on the Russian Air Force over the past week during Operation Spiderweb. Read also: Ukrainian drone attacks force airport shutdowns near Moscow, mayor says "At the moment, I am against Ukraine's entry into the European Union," Polish President-elect Karol Nawrocki told Hungarian outlet Mandiner in an interview released on June 7. "On the one hand, we must support Ukraine in its conflict with the Russian Federation, but Ukraine must understand that other countries, including Poland, Hungary, and other European countries, also have their own interests," he said. Nawrocki won the second round of the Polish presidential election on June 1 with 50.89% of the vote. He has previously voiced opposition to Ukraine's membership in the EU and NATO, despite supporting Ukraine's sovereignty. "Poland has such an interest, for example, in the exhumation of the Volyn (massacre) victims," Nawrocki said. Polish and Ukrainian researchers began exhuming victims of the World War II era massacres on April 24 in Western Ukraine. It was the first such exhumation since 2017, when Ukraine imposed a moratorium in response to the destruction of Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) memorials in Poland. "During the campaign, I did not agree, and as president, I will not agree, to unfair competition with Ukraine for Polish agriculture or the logistics sector," Nawrocki said. EU tariffs on Ukrainian agricultural exports resumed on June 6, amid opposition to Ukrainian exports and its EU accession from eastern European members, including Hungary and Poland. "I see Ukraine as a country that, although it is very bravely defending itself against the Russian Federation, must also respect the interests of other countries that otherwise support Ukraine," he said. In contrast to other Eurosceptic leaders in Europe, including Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, Nawrocki does not express pro-Russian views, but has repeatedly accused President Volodymyr Zelensky of taking advantage of allies. Read also: Wondering where to start with Dostoevsky? Try his Ukrainian contemporaries instead We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Can we still be Britain without the British? We'd rather you didn't ask
I couldn't care less about the burka debate. Not a tinker's. Why? Because it's a concession of defeat, a belated response by panicked politicians to a change that's already happened and that they largely encouraged. Last week, a meteor hit Britain with the publication of a demographic study by the queerly named Centre of Heterodox Social Science. By 2063, say the sociable hets, white Britons will be a minority; come the new century, almost one in five citizens will be Muslim. This forces us to consider a very politically incorrect question: will Britain still be Britain if it's no longer majority white British? The official answer is 'absolutely, yes'. Elite liberals believe nations are defined by values, and thus anyone, from anywhere in the world, can become British if they conform to them. It helps that these values are universal. Fairness, tolerance, kindness... this is a portable identity that is uncontroversial, because it demands nothing except to pay one's taxes and avoid murder. Keir Starmer warns that we are becoming an 'island of strangers', while promoting a vision of citizenship that is entirely passive. It's also based on a misreading of human nature. Liberals assume that values shape culture, such that we could pass a law – ban the burka, ban Islamophobia – and we'd become good neighbours overnight. But it's the other way around. Culture shapes values, and culture is the product of non-abstract, substantial qualities, such as climate, geography, religion, language and ethnicity. We can shorthand it as 'history'. Thus: we are democratic in Britain not because a committee decided it over one wild weekend, but following nearly a thousand years of revolution and reaction, baked into memory and expressed as temperament. Such a society is light-touch and self-governing, at least in theory, because we've been marinating in its ethics and customs since birth. The English, Welsh, Scots etc do exist as cultures – not superior to others, nor unaffected by migration, but really real – and if they undergo a profound change in composition, this is bound to change the nature of Britishness, too. Isn't that obvious? It's regarded as axiomatic elsewhere. We rush to recognise and cultivate the historical identity of First Nations people, just as we step back nervously from a Holy Land conflict shaped by competing ethnic claims over biblical territory. And even if you regard ethnic conflict as sinful, as I do, or based upon a category error, as academics insist, we have to accept that identity matters to a lot of people. In which case, I struggle to think of a society in history that has faced the scale of change happening to us without descending into violence or authoritarianism. Today, the liberal understanding of nationhood is already in retreat. Remigration is being trialled in the United States. Donald Trump is reducing inflows by banning travel from named countries, cutting asylum and militarising his border. He's also increasing outflows by expelling as many people as he can on any pretext he can find. For instance, when an Egyptian asylum-seeker assaulted protesters in Colorado, the administration not only arrested the attacker but detained and is seeking to deport his entire family – a 'sins of the father' policy that judges are resisting. Elsewhere, the BBC's Simon Reeve has caused a stir by highlighting the integrationist policies of Denmark, a country that offers people cash to go home and dismantles ghettos. That this is done by social democrats comes as no surprise. Scandinavia is historically conformist; a welfare state requires high levels of solidarity to function. Evidence of my 'history-shapes-identity' theory is offered by how countries respond to the immigration challenge in light of their own traditions. Here, when a Reform UK MP asked the PM for his views on the burka, the PM had no answer and his MPs sounded as shocked as a maiden aunt offered cocaine. Why doesn't Labour want to have this debate? A cynic will say: it offends their core constituency. A Tory will claim: they don't really care about immigration. And yet Labour's immigration White Paper looks tough, and it has already increased deportations compared with the last government. Historically, it was Labour that restricted Commonwealth immigration in the 1960s, and Boris Johnson, of Brexit fame, who threw the borders open. Boris, who liked to play both sides of the immigration game, infamously compared the burka to a letter box – yet did not wish to ban it. Do we not say 'an Englishman's home is his castle'? By extension, they are free to wear whatever they want in the street. The problem, reply nationalists, is that by clinging to a liberal vision, we open the door to illiberal attitudes that might, by strength of conviction, overwhelm us. If the culture goes, our old values will follow. We are not, however, as tolerant as many assume. It has been reported that Prevent now regards 'cultural nationalism' – the fear that society 'is under threat from mass migration and a lack of integration' – as a 'sub-category of extreme Right-wing terrorist ideologies', and thus worthy of referral to the authorities. GB News is up in arms – admittedly a permanent condition – but I've yet to hear a guest point out that white Christians are merely experiencing what the security services have done to Muslim Britons since 9/11: slander and harassment. Between 2016 and 2019, over 2,000 children under the age of nine were referred to Prevent, including a four-year-old Muslim boy who talked about a violent computer game at an after-school club. Right and Left are chasing a mirage of British liberalism that, in an age when you can get 31 months for a social-media post, no longer reflects reality. Immigration is ultimately a numbers game. A democratic society can get along fine with any minority, so long as it remains small in number. But when a government fails to police its borders, and thus loses control over numbers, it will feel obliged to police society to maintain harmony: monitoring, deporting, rewriting history, and indoctrinating us in a strange new variant on national character, a parody of kindness best described as 'sinister twee'. If you want a vision of the future, it is a Dawn French-shaped woman, with a midlife-crisis fringe, talking to you about diversity and inclusion as if you were a baby. Then, when you raise an objection, ending the discussion with a disturbingly final 'NO'. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
