Guatemala's president denies new asylum deal with US
GUATEMALA CITY (AP) — Guatemala President Bernardo Arévalo said Friday he has not signed an agreement with the United States to take asylum seekers from other countries, pushing back against comments from U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.
Noem and Arévalo met Thursday in Guatemala and the two governments publicly signed a joint security agreement that would allow U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers to work in the capital's airport, training local agents how to screen for terrorism suspects.
But Noem said she had also been given a signed document she called a safe third country agreement. She said she reached a similar deal in Honduras and said they were important outcomes of her trip.
Asked about Noem's comments Friday during a news conference, Arévalo said that nothing new was signed related to immigration and that Guatemala was still operating under an agreement reached with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio in February. That agreement stipulated that Guatemala would continue accepting the deportation of its own citizens, but also citizens of other Central American nations as a transit point on their way home.
Arévalo said that when Rubio visited, safe third country was discussed because Guatemala had signed such an agreement during U.S. President Donald Trump's first term in office. But 'we made it clear that our path was different,' Arévalo said.
He did add that Guatemala was willing to provide asylum to Nicaraguans who have been unable to return to their country because of the political situation there out of 'solidarity.'
The president's communications office said Noem had been given the ratification of the agreement reached through diplomatic notes weeks earlier.
During Trump's first term, the U.S. signed such safe third-country agreements with Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala. They effectively allowed the U.S. to declare some asylum seekers ineligible to apply for U.S. protection and permitted the U.S. government to send them to those countries deemed 'safe.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
32 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
U.S., China announce a trade agreement - again. Here's what it means
WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. and China have reached an agreement — again — to deescalate trade tensions. But details are scarce, and the latest pact leaves major issues between the world's two biggest economies unresolved. President Donald Trump said late Thursday that a deal with China had been signed "the other day.'' China's Commerce Ministry confirmed Friday that some type of arrangement had been reached but offered few details about it. Sudden shifts and a lack of clarity have been hallmarks of Trump's trade policy since he returned to the White House determined to overturn a global trading system that he says is unfair to the United States and its workers. He's been engaged for months in a battle with China that has mostly revealed how much pain the two countries can inflict on each other. And he's racing against a July 8 deadline to reach deals with other major U.S. trading partners. The uncertainty over his dealmaking and the cost of the tariffs, which are paid by U.S. importers and usually passed on to consumers, have raised worries about the outlook for the U.S. economy. And although analysts welcomed the apparent easing of tensions with China, they also warned that the issues dividing Washington and Beijing are unlikely to be resolved anytime soon. What did the two sides agree to? U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Friday that the Chinese had agreed to make it easier for American firms to acquire Chinese magnets and rare earth minerals critical for manufacturing and microchip production. Beijing had slowed exports of the materials amid a bitter trade dispute with the Trump administration. Without explicitly mentioning U.S. access to rare earths, the Chinese Commerce Ministry said that 'China will, in accordance with the law, review and approve eligible export applications for controlled items. In turn, the United States will lift a series of restrictive measures it had imposed on China.'' The Chinese have complained about U.S. controls on exports of advanced U.S. technology to China. But the ministry statement did not specifically say whether the United States planned to ease or lift those controls. In his interview on Fox Business Network's 'Mornings with Maria,' Bessent mentioned that the United States had earlier imposed 'countermeasures'' against China and 'had held back some vital supplies for them.'' "What we're seeing here is a de-escalation under President Trump's leadership,'' Bessent said, without spelling out what concessions the United States had made or whether they involved America's export controls. Jeff Moon, a trade official in the Obama administration who now runs the China Moon Strategies consultancy, wondered why Trump hadn't disclosed details of the agreement two days after it had been reached. 'Silence regarding the terms suggests that there is less substance to the deal than the Trump Administration implies,″ said Moon, who also served as a diplomat in China. Wait. This sounds familiar. How did we get here? The agreement that emerged Thursday and Friday builds on a "framework'' that Trump announced June 11 after two days of high-level U.S.-China talks in London. Then, he announced, China had agreed to ease restrictions on rare earths. In return, the United States said it would stop seeking to revoke the visas of Chinese students on U.S. college campuses. And last month, after another meeting in Geneva, the two countries had agreed to dramatically reduce massive taxes they'd slapped on each other's products, which had reached as high as 145% against China and 125% against the U.S. Those triple-digit tariffs threatened to effectively end trade between the United States and China and caused a frightening sell-off in financial markets. In Geneva, the two countries agreed to back off and keep talking: America's tariffs went back down to a still-high 30% and China's to 10%. That led to the talks in London earlier this month and to this week's announcement. Where does all this leave U.S.-China economic relations? If nothing else, the two countries are trying to ratchet down tensions after demonstrating how much they can hurt each other. 'The U.S. and China appear to be easing the chokeholds they had on each other's economies through export controls on computer chips and rare earth minerals, respectively,' said Eswar Prasad, professor of trade policy at Cornell University. "This is a positive step but a far cry from signaling prospects of a substantial de-escalation of tariffs and other trade hostilities.'' Trump launched a trade war with China in his first term, imposing tariffs on most Chinese goods in a dispute over China's attempts to supplant U.S. technological supremacy. Trump's trade team charged that China was unfairly subsidizing its own tech companies, forcing U.S. and other foreign companies to hand over sensitive technology in exchange for access to the Chinese market and even engaging outright theft of trade secrets. The squabbling and negotiating of the past few months appear to have done little to resolve Washington's complaints about unfair Chinese trade practices and America's massive trade deficit with China, which came to $262 billion last year. This week's agreement 'includes absolutely nothing related to the U.S.'s concerns regarding China's trade surplus or non-market behavior,'' said Scott Kennedy of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. 'If the two sides can implement these elements of the ceasefire, then they could begin negotiations on issues which generated the initial escalation in tensions in the first place.'' What is happening with Trump's other tariffs? Since returning to the White House in January, Trump has made aggressive use of tariffs. In addition to his levies on China, he has imposed "baseline'' 10% taxes on imports from every country in the world . And he's announced even higher taxes — so-called reciprocal tariffs ranging from 11% to 50% — on countries with which the United States runs a trade deficit. But after financial markets sank on fears of massive disruption to world trade, Trump suspended the reciprocal levies for 90 days to give countries a chance to negotiate reductions in their barriers to U.S. exports. That pause lasts until July 8. On Friday, Bessent told Fox Business Network that the talks could extend beyond the deadline and be 'wrapped up by Labor Day'' Sept. 1 with 10 to 12 of America's most important trading partners. Trump further played down the July 8 deadline at a White House press conference Friday by noting that negotiations are ongoing but that 'we have 200 countries, you could say 200 countries-plus. You can't do that.' Instead of new trade deals, Trump said his administration would in coming days or weeks send out a letter where 'we're just gonna tell them what they have to pay to do business in the United States.'' Separately, Trump took sudden aim at Canada Friday, saying on social media that he's immediately suspending trade talks with that country over its plan to impose a tax on technology firms next Monday. Trump called Canada's digital services tax 'a direct and blatant attack on our country.' The digital services tax will hit companies like Amazon, Google, Meta, Uber and Airbnb with a 3% levy on revenue from Canadian users. It will apply retroactively, leaving U.S. companies with a $2 billion bill due at the end of the month.
Hamilton Spectator
36 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
High court ruling on injunctions could imperil many court orders blocking the Trump administration
WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court's decision Friday limiting federal judges from issuing nationwide injunctions threatens to upend numerous lawsuits that have led to orders blocking Trump administration policies. Between the start of the new administration and mid-May, judges issued roughly 40 nationwide injunctions against the White House on topics including federal funding, elections rules and diversity and equity considerations. Attorneys involved in some of those cases are vowing to keep fighting, noting the high court left open other legal paths that could have broad nationwide effect. Here's a look at some of the decisions that could be impacted: Birthright citizenship Multiple federal judges have issued nationwide injunctions blocking President Donald Trump's order denying citizenship to U.S.-born children of people who are in the country illegally or temporarily. The high court's decision Friday came in a lawsuit over that order, but the justices left unclear whether the restrictions on birthright citizenship could soon take effect in parts of the country. Opponents went back to court within hours of the opinion, using a legal path the court left open to file class-action lawsuits that could have nationwide effect. Election rules On June 13, U.S. District Judge Denise J. Casper in Massachusetts blocked Trump's attempt to overhaul elections in the U.S. An executive order the Republican president issued in March sought to compel officials to require documentary proof of citizenship for everyone registering to vote for federal elections, accept only mailed ballots received by Election Day and condition federal election grant funding on states adhering to the new ballot deadline. California was one of the plaintiffs in that suit. The office of the state's attorney general, Rob Bonta, said in an email it was assessing the effect of Friday's Supreme Court decision on all of the state's litigation. Legal aid for migrants A federal judge in California in April blocked the administration from cutting off funding for legal representation for unaccompanied migrant children. The administration has appealed. U.S. District Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin in San Francisco said there was 'no practical way' to limit the scope of the injunction by party or by geography. 'Indeed, as discussed with the Government's declarants at the preliminary injunction hearing, there exists only one contract for the provision of the subject funding, and it applies to direct legal services nationwide,' Martinez-Olguin wrote. Plaintiffs' attorney Adina Appelbaum, program director for the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, said she didn't think the Supreme Court's decision would significantly affect her case. But she blasted it, saying the high court had 'turned its back on its role to protect the people,' including immigrants. Diversity, equity and inclusion A federal judge in February largely blocked sweeping executive orders that sought to end government support for programs promoting diversity, equity and inclusion. U.S. District Judge Adam Abelson in Baltimore granted a preliminary injunction preventing the administration from terminating or changing federal contracts it considers equity-related. An appeals court later put the decision on hold. Attorneys for the group Democracy Forward represented plaintiffs in the case. The group's president and CEO, Skye Perryman, said she was disappointed by the Supreme Court's ruling, calling it another barrier to seeking relief in court. But she also said it was limited and could keep at least some decisions blocking the Trump administration in place. Transgender care A federal judge in February stopped the administration from withholding federal funds from health care facilities that provide gender-affirming care to patients under the age of 19. Explaining his reasoning for a nationwide injunction, U.S. District Judge Brendan Abell Hurson in Maryland said a 'piecemeal approach is not appropriate in this case.' 'Significant confusion would result from preventing agencies from conditioning funding on certain medical institutions, while allowing conditional funding to persist as to other medical institutions,' he wrote. An appeal in the case was on hold as the Supreme Court considered similar issues about minors and transgender health care. The high court last week upheld a Tennessee law banning key health care treatments for transgender youth. Omar Gonzalez-Pagan, senior counsel for the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund Inc., was one of the attorneys who secured Hurson's ruling. He said the plaintiffs' lawyers were still evaluating the possible impact of the Supreme Court's decision, but he believed the high court recognized that 'systematic, universal relief is sometimes appropriate.' Federal cuts In May, a judge in Rhode Island blocked an executive order that sought to dismantle federal agencies supporting libraries, museums, minority businesses and parties in labor disputes. The administration has appealed. Rhode Island was a plaintiff in the lawsuit. The state's attorney general, Peter F. Neronha, said in a statement Friday he would 'continue to pull every available legal lever to ensure that Americans, all Americans, are protected from the progressively dangerous whims of this President.' ___ Thanawala reported from Atlanta. Associated Press writers Alanna Durkin Richer, Lindsay Whitehurst, Christina Cassidy in Atlanta and Rebecca Boone in Boise, Idaho contributed to this report. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Hamilton Spectator
36 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Togo rocked by protests over reforms that could extend President Gnassingbé's rule
LOME, Togo (AP) — Protesters and security forces clashed for a second straight day on Friday in Togo's capital Lomé over recent constitutional reforms that could cement President Faure Gnassingbé's long hold on power. Videos emerged showing apparent abuses by security forces. Police fired tear gas in several neighborhoods of Lomé and reportedly used batons to beat protesters, severely injuring some, according to footage that appears to be from the scene. Some videos showed what seem to be security units entering homes and assaulting residents with whips and clubs, while groups of men in plain clothes, believed to be auxiliary forces or self-defense units, patrolled parts of the capital with weapons in hand. 'We strongly condemn the violence with which unarmed protesters have been met,' Professor David Dosseh, spokesman for a coalition of a dozen civil society groups, told The Associated Press. Internet access across the West African nation has been restricted, with social media platforms functioning intermittently. Civil society groups and social media influencers had called for protests on June 26, 27 and 28, after the government's clampdown on protests early this month. Faure Gnassingbé, who has ruled since 2005 after the death of his father, was sworn in in May as President of the Council of Ministers . The powerful role has no official term limits and he is eligible to be re-elected by Parliament indefinitely. Gnassingbe's former job as national president, a position that is now mostly ceremonial, was given to politician Jean-Lucien Kwassi Savi de Tove after the announcement. Opposition politicians have denounced the move as a 'constitutional coup.' Demonstrations are rare in Togo because they have been banned in the country since 2022 following a deadly attack at Lome's main market. But the latest change in government structure has been widely criticized in a region threatened by rampant coups and other threats to democracy. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
