Latest news with #ImmigrationandNationalityAct
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
7 hours ago
- Politics
- Business Standard
UNSC report names TRF in Pahalgam attack, links group to Lashkar-e-Taiba
A recent United Nations Security Council (UNSC) report has named The Resistance Front, a proxy for Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), in connection with the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir. The findings are expected to strengthen India's claims of Pakistan-backed cross-border terrorism, news agency PTI reported. The report, compiled by the UNSC's Monitoring Team, cited an unnamed member state that said the Pahalgam attack 'could not have happened without Lashkar-e-Taiba's (LeT) support' and emphasised a link between LeT and The Resistance Front (TRF). Pakistan's denial vs UN findings Pakistan's foreign minister had mentioned in the National Assembly about managing to remove references to TRF from a UNSC press statement condemning the Pahalgam incident. The report of UNSC's Monitoring Team mention of TRF reflects how the global community sees Pakistan's 'lies and deceptive narrative', PTI cited sources as saying. According to the Monitoring Team report, five terrorists carried out the Pahalgam attack, which killed 26 civilians. 'The attack was claimed that same day by The Resistance Front (TRF), which in parallel published a photograph of the attack site. The claim of responsibility was repeated the following day,' the report noted. However, TRF retracted the claim on April 26 and made no further statements. No other group claimed responsibility for the attack. The report also documented differing opinions from UNSC member states on the TRF-LeT connection. 'One member state said the attack could not have happened without LeT's support, and that there was a relationship between LeT and TRF,' it said. 'Another member state said the attack was carried out by TRF, which was synonymous with LeT. One member state rejected these views and said that LeT was defunct.' US declares TRF a terrorist organisation The United States officially designated TRF as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation (FTO) and a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) earlier this month. The announcement was made by the US Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said, 'This action underscores our commitment to counter terrorism and hold accountable those who target civilians.' He added that TRF's role in the Pahalgam attack reflects Washington's determination to enforce President Donald Trump's call for justice. According to the State Department, TRF has carried out several attacks on Indian security forces in recent years. With the FTO and SDGT designations — under Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and Executive Order 13224 — legal action can now be more strongly enforced against TRF and its affiliates. The department also reaffirmed that Lashkar-e-Taiba remains listed as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation. [With agency inputs]
Time of India
5 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
'No objection': Pakistan FM Ishaq Dar plays down question on US move to list TRF as terror group; had earlier said 'TRF not illegal, show proof'
ಇಶಾಕ್ ದಾರ್ (ಸಂಗ್ರಹ ಚಿತ್ರ) Pakistan's deputy prime minister Ishaq Dar has expressed support for the United States' decision to designate The Resistance Front (TRF) as a terrorist organisation, marking a significant shift from his previous position. Speaking at an event in Washington DC, Dar stated that Pakistan has "no objection" to the US designation, however, said that linking TRF with Lashkar-e-Taiba is "wrong." 'It is obviously a sovereign decision of the United States to designate the TRF. We have no issue. And we welcome, if they have any evidence, that they are involved,' Dar said. 'Linking the TRF to the Lashkar-e-Taiba is wrong. That outfit was dismantled years ago by Pakistan. The actors were prosecuted, arrested and jailed, and the entire outfit was destroyed,' he added. However, this statement stands in stark contrast to his earlier position in Pakistan's Parliament. Earlier, As a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council, Dar had declared that Pakistan blocked the mention of TRF in the UNSC's condemnation of the Pahalgam terror attack that claimed 26 civilian lives. "We opposed the mention of TRF in the UNSC statement. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like The boy meets a dog on the street - no one expected what happened next. Women's Method Learn More Undo I got calls from global capitals, but Pakistan will not accept," Dar said. "TRF was deleted, and Pakistan prevailed." He further added, "We don't consider TRF illegal. Show us proof they carried out the Pahalgam attack. Show ownership by TRF. We won't accept the allegation, and TRF had to be deleted from the UN press release." Earlier in July, US designated TRF a Foreign Terrorist Organisation (FTO) and a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT). Highlighting the TRF's involvement in multiple attacks against India, including the deadly Pahalgam attack, the state department said the decision reflected the Trump administration's "commitment to protecting US national security, countering terrorism, and enforcing President Trump's call for justice following the Pahalgam attack". "TRF and other associated aliases have been added to LeT's designation as a FTO and SDGT pursuant to section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and Executive Order 13224, respectively. The Department of State has also reviewed and maintained the FTO designation of LeT. Amendments to FTO designations go into effect upon publication in the Federal Register," the statement read. The Resistance Front was formed in 2019 as a proxy of Lashkar-e-Tayyiba and was banned by the central government in 2023. It has been actively involved in recruiting youth online, facilitating the infiltration of terrorists, and smuggling weapons and narcotics from Pakistan into Jammu and Kashmir. TRF had also claimed responsibility for several attacks targeting civilians, political leaders, and security forces in Jammu and Kashmir. Its founder and commander, Sheikh Sajjad Gul, has been designated a terrorist under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
Epoch Times
5 days ago
- Politics
- Epoch Times
Judge Dismisses Trump Admin's Lawsuit Against Illinois Sanctuary Policies
A federal judge dismissed on July 25 the Trump administration's lawsuit over Illinois's sanctuary policies, holding that the policies either didn't violate federal law or were protected by state sovereignty. Filed in February, the administration's lawsuit alleged that the state of Illinois, the city of Chicago, and Cook County had each implemented policies that illegally interfered with federal immigration enforcement. By restricting the flow of information to federal authorities, these policies conflicted with the Immigration and Nationality Act and unconstitutionally stepped on federal power, the administration argued.
The Herald Scotland
5 days ago
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
'Carry your papers' law: What immigrants need to know
Here's what immigrants - and American citizens - need to know. 'Carry your papers' law isn't new The law requiring lawful immigrants and foreign visitors to carry their immigration documents has been on the books for decades, dating to the 1950s. The Immigration and Nationality Act states: "Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him." But the law had rarely been imposed before the Trump administration announced earlier this year that it would strictly enforce it. The "carry your papers" portion fell out of use for cultural and historical reasons, said Michelle Lapointe, legal director of the nonprofit American Immigration Council. In contrast to the Soviet bloc at the time the requirement was written, "We have never been a country where you have to produce evidence of citizenship on demand from law enforcement." In a "Know Your Rights" presentation, the ACLU cautions immigrants over age 18 to follow the law and "carry your papers with you at all times." "If you don't have them," the ACLU says, "tell the officer that you want to remain silent, or that you want to consult a lawyer before answering any questions." A 'precious' document at risk Many immigrants preferred to hold their green card or visa in safe-keeping, because, like a passport, they are expensive and difficult to obtain. Historically, it was "a little risky for people to carry these precious documents such as green card, because there is a hefty fee to replace it and they are at risk of not having proof of status - a precarious position to be in," Lapointe said. But as immigration enforcement has ramped up, the risks of not carrying legal documents have grown. Failure to comply with the law can result in a $100 fine, or imprisonment of up to 30 days. ???? Attention ???? Always carry your alien registration documentation. Not having these when stopped by federal law enforcement can lead to a misdemeanor and fines. — CBP (@CBP) July 23, 2025 Immigration enforcement and 'racial profiling' U.S. citizens aren't required to carry documents that prove their citizenship. But in an environment of increasing immigration enforcement, Fernando Garcia, executive director of the nonprofit Border Network for Human Rights in El Paso, Texas, said he worries about U.S. citizens being targeted. "With massive raids and mass deportation, this takes a new dimension," he said. "How rapidly are we transitioning into a 'show me your papers' state?" "The problem is there are a lot of people - Mexicans, or Central Americans - who are U.S. citizens who don't have to carry anything, but they have the burden of proof based on racial profiling," he said. "There are examples of U.S. citizens being arrested already, based on their appearance and their race." Not just immigrants: Why some Native American citizens worry about getting caught in ICE's net American citizens targeted by ICE The Trump administration's widening immigration crackdown has already netted American citizens. In July, 18-year-old Kenny Laynez, an American citizen, was detained for six hours by Florida Highway Patrol and Border Patrol agents. He was later released. Federal agents also detained a California man, Angel Pina, despite his U.S. citizenship in July. He was later released. Elzon Limus, a 23-year-old U.S. citizen from Long Island, New York, decried his arrest by ICE agents in June, after he was released. In a video of the arrest, immigration agents demand Limus show ID, with one explaining he "looks like somebody we are looking for." In updated guidance, attorneys at the firm of Masuda, Funai, Eifert & Mitchell, which has offices in Chicago, Detroit and Los Angeles, advise U.S. who are concerned about being stopped and questioned "to carry a U.S. passport card or a copy of their U.S. passport as evidence of U.S. citizenship." Lauren Villagran can be reached at lvillagran@
NBC News
5 days ago
- Politics
- NBC News
Federal judge dismisses Trump administration's lawsuit against Chicago over its sanctuary city policies
A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit by the Trump administration that sought to block the enforcement of several "sanctuary policies" in Illinois that restricted the ability of local officials to aid federal immigration authorities in detainment operations. In a 64-page decision, District Court Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins, a Biden appointee, granted a motion by the state of Illinois to dismiss the case after determining the United States lacks standing to sue over the sanctuary policies. The judge noted in the ruling that Illinois' decision to enact the sanctuary laws are protected by the 10th amendment, which declares that any powers not specifically given to the federal government, or denied to the states, by the Constitution, are retained by the states. 'The Sanctuary Policies reflect Defendants' decision to not participate in enforcing civil immigration law—a decision protected by the Tenth Amendment and not preempted by the [Immigration and Nationality Act],' the judge wrote. 'Because the Tenth Amendment protects Defendants' Sanctuary Policies, those Policies cannot be found to discriminate against or regulate the federal government.' The federal judge wrote that granting the administration's request would create an "end-run around the Tenth Amendment." 'It would allow the federal government to commandeer States under the guise of intergovernmental immunity—the exact type of direct regulation of states barred by the Tenth Amendment.' Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker praised the dismissal, which he said will ensure state law enforcement is "not carrying out the Trump administration's unlawful policies or troubling tactics." "As state law allows, Illinois will assist the federal government when they follow the law and present warrants to hold violent criminals accountable. But what Illinois will not do is participate in the Trump administration's violations of the law and abuses of power," Pritzker said in a statement. The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Trump Justice Department sued the state of Illinois and Cook County, the home of Chicago, in February for policies it argued infringed on the ability of federal authorities to enforce immigration laws, the first lawsuit by the administration aimed specifically at targeting "sanctuary jurisdictions," a label applied to states, cities, counties or municipalities that establish laws to prevent or limit local officials from cooperating with federal immigration authorities. In the 22-page lawsuit, filed days after Attorney General Pam Bondi was confirmed by the Senate, the Justice Department sought to block state, city and county ordinances that prohibit local law enforcement from assisting the federal government with civil immigration enforcement absent a criminal warrant. Bondi said the policies "obstruct" the federal government. 'The challenged provisions of Illinois, Chicago, and Cook County law reflect their intentional effort to obstruct the Federal Government's enforcement of federal immigration law and to impede consultation and communication between federal, state, and local law enforcement officials that is necessary for federal officials to carry out federal immigration law and keep Americans safe,' the lawsuit indicates. The administration has taken similar action to target sanctuary jurisdictions across the country, including a lawsuit this week against New York City, which was described by the Justice Department as 'the vanguard of interfering with enforcing this country's immigration laws' in a complaint filed on Thursday. The administration filed a separate lawsuit targeting New York state in February over it's 'Green Light Law,' which enables undocumented immigrants to apply for noncommercial driver's licenses and bars state officials from turning over that data to federal immigration authorities. The Justice Department in June filed a complaint against Los Angeles for immigration policies it argued interfere and discriminate against federal immigration agents by treating them differently from other law enforcement agents in the state. The suit came as Trump administration officials increasingly sparred with California Democratic leaders after immigration detainment efforts in the state led to clashes between protesters and federal authorities, and resulted in the deployment of thousands of National Guard troops. In January, Trump signed an executive order directing Bondi and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to ensure sanctuary jurisdictions 'do not receive access to federal funds' and to consider pursuing criminal or civil penalties if localities 'interfere with the enforcement of Federal law.' A federal judge in April blocked the effort to withhold federal funds from sanctuary jurisdictions, finding that Trump's order violated the Constitution's separation of powers principles. That judge blocked an earlier effort by Trump in 2017.
