Latest news with #USCode
News18
4 days ago
- Politics
- News18
2 Indian Nationals Arrested For Illegal Border Crossing Near Maine, US
Last Updated: Two Indian nationals were arrested near Bridgewater, Maine, on August 1 for illegally crossing the US border. The identity of the individuals was not disclosed. Two Indian nationals were arrested near Bridgewater, Maine, in the United States, while attempting to cross the international border illegally, multiple reports stated. The two were taken into custody on August 1 and were placed into removal proceedings. Local media quoted officials as saying that the apprehensions were 'unique" as the Border Patrol agents in Maine have only encountered 15 Indian nationals in the previous three fiscal years. 'The illegal aliens face prosecution under 8 US Code § 1325 and will also be placed into removal proceedings," officials said. 'These apprehensions are unique in that Border Patrol agents in Maine have only encountered 15 Indian nationals in the previous three fiscal years," they added. 'While the US Border Patrol is experiencing record-breaking low numbers of illegal crossings, some individuals still attempt to violate our laws," the report quoted Houlton Sector acting chief patrol agent Craig Shepley as saying. 'If you cross our borders illegally, you will be apprehended, prosecuted and deported back to your country of origin," he added. The report also claimed that the US Customs and Border Protection is now offering a voluntary, incentivised process for individuals illegally present in the United States to return to their home country or another country that will accept them. On August 2, a federal judge ruled against Donald Trump's administration's plans to end protections from deportation for citizens of Nepal, Nicaragua and Honduras, barring their removal while the case continues. San Francisco-based US District Judge Trina Thompson agreed the plaintiffs had shown there was sufficient racial animus behind the decision and that the Trump administration had failed to undertake an 'objective review of the country conditions" before ending protections. Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from geopolitics to diplomacy and global trends. Stay informed with the latest world news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
India Today
24-07-2025
- India Today
US cautions Green Card, visa holders, carry papers always or face fine
US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has issued a stern warning to green card holders and other non-citizens to carry their registration documentation at all times. A failure to do so could result in a misdemeanour charge and fines if stopped by federal law enforcement, according to CBP."Always carry your alien registration documentation. Not having these when stopped by federal law enforcement can lead to a misdemeanour and fines," CBP said in a post on X on Wednesday (US time).advertisementThe advisory, rooted in Section 1304(e) of Title 8 of the US Code, mandates that every non-citizen aged 18 and older must carry their certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card at all times. "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. Failing to do so can lead to a misdemeanour and fines if you are stopped by federal law enforcement. If you are a non-citizen, please follow the laws of the United States of America," the advisory CBP's reminder serves as an important notice to millions of immigrants living legally in the US, especially amid evolving immigration policies and increased enforcement measures.A Green Card, officially known as a Permanent Resident Card (Form I-551), is proof that a person has been granted lawful permanent residency (LPR) in the United could also impact account for the second-largest immigrant community in the US, with several thousand holding green from the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in 2024 revealed that 49,700 Indians were naturalised, making up 6.1% of all new US citizens. This places them right behind Mexico, which accounted for 13.1% of naturalisations, making it the highest."Among the top five countries of birth for people naturalising in FY 2024, Mexico was the lead country with 13.1% of all naturalisations, followed by India (6.1%), the Philippines (5.0%), the Dominican Republic (4.9%), and Vietnam (4.1%)," stated the USCIS NOEM ASKED ALL NON-CITIZENS TO CARRY DOCUMENTSEarlier in April, Department of Homeland Security Director Kristi Noem asked all non-citizens 18 and older to carry permits at all times."All non-citizens 18 and older must carry this documentation (registration proof) at all times. The administration has directed the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to prioritise enforcement. There will be no sanctuary for non-compliance," Kristi Noem, DHS secretary, said in a March, US Vice President JD Vance said that green card holders in the US do not have an indefinite right to stay in the country and can be deported at the administration's discretion.- EndsTrending Reel
NDTV
17-07-2025
- NDTV
US Embassy's Visa Warning After Indian Caught Stealing From Target Store
The US Embassy in India has issued a visa warning stating that committing assault, theft, or burglary in the United States could lead to a visa being revoked. The advisory comes after an Indian woman was caught stealing items worth Rs 1.1 lakh at a Target store in Illinois. As a word of caution, the advisory further stated that such an act - robbery - could make one ineligible for future US visas, preventing re-entry into the US. Therefore, the embassy urged foreign visitors to adhere to law and order. In a post on X (formerly Twitter), the US Embassy in India wrote, "Committing assault, theft, or burglary in the United States won't just cause you legal issues - it could lead to your visa being revoked and make you ineligible for future US visas. The United States values law and order and expects foreign visitors to follow all US laws." Committing assault, theft, or burglary in the United States won't just cause you legal issues – it could lead to your visa being revoked and make you ineligible for future U.S. visas. The United States values law and order and expects foreign visitors to follow all U.S. laws. — U.S. Embassy India (@USAndIndia) July 16, 2025 According to the information available on the official website for US federal legislative information, stealing property likely violates numerous state laws that criminalise theft in various forms, and, depending on the circumstances, it may also run afoul of federal criminal law. The US Code uses terms like larceny, embezzlement, robbery, and burglary in the titles of code chapters or statutory sections. Background: The Why Of US Embassy's Warning For Foreign Visitors An Indian woman allegedly spent over seven hours in a Target store, picking up items worth $1,300 (Rs 1.1 lakh) and then tried to leave the store without paying. The incident, which took place on May 1, came to light after a Target employee's confrontation with the woman went viral. "On May 1, 2025, police were called to Target after a woman spent hours inside the store stealing items, ultimately attempting to walk out with thousands of dollars in unpaid merchandise. This is footage of the events that followed," the caption of the video shared on YouTube read. In a video, which is the police bodycam footage, a Target employee can be seen accusing the Indian woman of spending hours in the store and attempting to leave with a cart full of items. "We saw this woman roaming around the store for the last 7 hours. She was picking up items, checking her phone, moving between aisles, and eventually tried to walk out the west gate without paying," the staffer says in the clip. The woman offered to pay for the products in her shopping cart and resolve the matter with the cops, but she was handcuffed and taken to the police station. "Are you allowed to steal things in India? I did not think so," the woman police officer, interrogating the woman, is heard saying. According to the video, she's facing felony charges, and although she hasn't been arrested yet, charges are anticipated.
The Wire
01-07-2025
- Business
- The Wire
Trump's Extortionary Demands Recall the East India Company's Modus Operandi
US President Donald Trump is aiming for a trade agreement which can safely be called extortionary. It resembles the East India Company's success in turning India into a permanent colony for more than 200 years. Whether India will acquiesce – like Canada, which removed its 3% digital services tax on major tech firms on June 30 to restart trade talks with Washington – remains to be seen. Though the US Code refers to 'trade agreement ' 341 times, trade executive agreements or mini trade rent-seeking deals under American trade law jurisprudence require a prior authorisation or approval from Congress through the trade promotion authority (TPA). Regardless of the form of agreement, Congress must authorise the conclusion of a binding agreement so to enable requisite changes requisite legal changes. Of course, the Indian Vishwaguru went ahead into talks with the Trump administration after prime minister Narendra Modi held discussions with Trump on February 13. The Indian government even boasted of signing a $ 500-billion agreement with little or no preparation. Later, India's much-hyped 'big, good, beautiful ' trade agreement with the United States seemingly made halting progress when it now appears to be teetering following a sudden realisation in New Delhi about the potentially damaging implications of Washington's regulatory and market access demands. Chief among them – allowing unfettered entry of American genetically modified (GM) agricultural products into the Indian market and removal all regulatory barriers, India, with a population of 1.4 billion and over 700 million smallholding farmers (with farms less than three hectares), is understandably sensitive to these pressures. Yet, this "wake-up call" comes despite longstanding knowledge that the US would push aggressively to pry open India's markets – especially for its heavily subsidised, GM-laden agricultural exports, which have already been rebuffed by nations like Australia, the European Union, and China. Worryingly, institutions like NITI Aayog and some of its key agricultural advisors appear to be endorsing the American GMO agenda. This, despite clear evidence that such products, through cross-pollination and cultivation, could irreversibly damage India's diverse agricultural sector. Mexico, one of America's largest trading partners, has persistently cautioned against the use and import of GMO crops, emphasising the long-term risks. The current finance minister, Nirmala Sitharaman, who as commerce minister in 2015 did not defend India's demand for a permanent solution to public stockholding at the WTO's 10th Ministerial Conference in Nairobi now seems to recognise that trade negotiations cannot be initiated on the back of non-tariff issues. Yet, the damage may already be underway. Successive commerce ministers in the BJP-led government have struggled to secure substantial gains in trade negotiations and have often appeared to concede ground under pressure. India is already facing a slew of US tariffs: a universal 10% basic tariff, 25% tariffs on steel, aluminium, automobiles, and auto-components, and an upcoming tariff on pharmaceutical exports which is particularly damaging, given India's strength as a global supplier of generics. If India fails to comply with US demands by the July 9 deadline, it may face an additional 26% reciprocal tariff. Trump has stated that countries failing to finalise trade deals will receive formal letters outlining tariff penalties. Some of the tariffs already put in place by the Trump administration could rob off export revenue worth tens of billions of dollars, even though India's overall trade surplus is just about $ 44 billion. The only figment of hope is that the US will turn India into a major supplier of several items while breaking the Chinese domination of supply chains. NTBs a monster American commerce secretary Howard Lutnick has repeatedly labeled India's non-tariff barriers a ' monster,' insisting that high tariffs are just one part of India's complex regulatory web. As the pressure mounts, India is realising that contemporary trade negotiations are being broadened to include sustainability clauses, carbon taxes, government procurement rules, gender and labour standards – areas traditionally excluded from trade pacts. 'We just can't walk into it,' a senior Indian official commented. 'India is an emerging economy with specific domestic needs.' We had repeatedly raised these alarm bells. Today, it seems the chickens are indeed coming home to roost. A group of former senior commerce ministry officials recently issued a memorandum cautioning that if the US demands excessive concessions on India's core interests, 'India should take equally hard positions and resist – even at the cost of not securing a deal.' The memorandum, signed by former cabinet secretary K.M. Chandrasekhar, ex-commerce secretary Gopal Pillai and Ujal Singh Bhatia, who is the former WTO appellate body chair, among others, argued that the short-term costs of navigating a high-tariff US market may be less damaging than the long-term fallout of an unequal agreement. The statement emphasised that these negotiations are occurring in the shadow of an aggressive and unpredictable US trade policy. Trump's second term has been marked by indiscriminate use of tariffs and a deliberate redrawing of the global trade architecture. In recent bilateral discussions held in New Delhi, negotiators claimed progress on market access for industrial goods and some agricultural products, according to a June 10 Reuters report. But reports soon emerged suggesting talks were faltering, owing to several red lines from both sides. Complicating matters are Trump's seemingly dubious geopolitical claims – such as linking an India-Pakistan ceasefire to trade negotiations – statements that were denied by Indian officials but never directly countered by Modi or his cabinet. India has yet to publicly disclose the full extent of US demands, raising fears of quiet concessions under diplomatic or corporate pressure, including rumoured influence from large business conglomerates. Learning from China India could have taken a cue from China's tough approach. When Trump announced reciprocal tariffs in April 2018, Beijing responded measure-for-measure, refusing to be bullied. This strategy eventually led the US to seek a tariff truce. Admittedly, China has economic leverage – particularly in critical raw materials – that India currently lacks. However, India still had the option to adopt a firm, no-nonsense posture instead of rushing to accommodate US demands. Even a beleaguered nation like Iran has demonstrated its ability to stand its ground against dominant nuclear powers, maintaining control over more than 400kg of enriched uranium at 60% despite intense pressure. Today, India finds itself cornered. If it exits talks, it risks punitive tariffs like those faced by Canada and the EU. But capitulating could mean signing away sovereign policy space and inviting irreversible damage to its economy and agriculture – echoing the colonial entrapment of the East India Company era.
Boston Globe
14-06-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Trump's military deployment in California is a radical departure from history
For now, the Trump administration's military deployment is authorized under a section within Title 10 of the US Code that allows the president to federalize the National Guard to help execute federal law in specified instances — namely, to repel invasion or suppress rebellion. However the text of the statute states that any orders for such federalized troops are to be issued through a state's governor. Newsom's objection to Trump's move, then, is grounded in principle — rebuffing Trump's challenge to his authority by reasserting state sovereignty and the division of power between state and federal government. Advertisement Going forward, however, the Trump administration is Advertisement Bush invoked the Insurrection Act in 1992, but again, he did so upon the request of the California governor. While the Insurrection Act has been sparingly invoked, Bush's move was consistent with prior applications in similar contexts. When state governors have requested federal military intervention under the act, they have consistently done so amid inflamed racial tensions that erupted into violent civil unrest. Such instances include the clash in the 1850s between pro- and anti-slavery forces known as Bleeding Kansas, Chinese expulsion campaigns by white mobs in Washington in the 1880s, the Detroit riots of 1943 and 1967, and the riots in Baltimore, Chicago, and Washington, D.C., following Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination. If Trump invokes the act now, he would probably do so unilaterally — in a move that, at least since the turn of the 20th century, would depart from unilateral invocations by past US presidents. In the limited instances when past presidents have invoked the act unilaterally and deployed federal troops over the objection of the state governor, they have done so to enforce the constitutional rights of citizens that were being violated by the state governors themselves — all of whom weaponized states' rights to preserve the Southern 'way of life,' a euphemism for resisting federally mandated desegregation. Advertisement Not incidentally, examples of the use of the Insurrection Act involve federal military enforcement of the civil rights of Black Americans, such as the First Amendment right of civil rights protesters to march from Selma to Montgomery following the brutal assault by Alabama state troopers on marchers known as Bloody Sunday. The Insurrection Act was also applied to enforce the desegregation of public schools in Arkansas, Mississippi, and Alabama — highlighted, respectively, by the military escort of the Little Rock Nine into Central High School, the showdown between federal troops and white segregationists at the University of Mississippi, and the National Guard's deployment in response to Governor George Wallace's stand in the University of Alabama's schoolhouse door, where he was physically blocking two Black students from enrolling. When past presidents took such unilateral action, they did so hesitantly, as they were sensitive to the public perception of overstepping federal power and encroaching upon state authority. Before eventually deploying Advertisement In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson had communicated his strong preference for Wallace to assume his own authority over the Alabama state National Guard to protect protesters marching from Selma to Montgomery, but Wallace refused. When Johnson ultimately invoked the Insurrection Act, By contrast, the Trump administration is displaying a propensity to flout state authority and boost federal military power — a situation that is especially remarkable given that belief in minimal federal interference in state affairs is supposed to be one of the hallmarks of conservative politics. In January 2017, during his first administration, Trump threatened to Although Trump eventually stood down from his threatened invocation of the act in 2020, the administration's recent threats, together with ICE raids, are ushering in a new era of conflict with states' rights. Democratic state governors now seek to protect the civil rights of citizens and noncitizens alike from Trump's exercise of federal power to 'Make America Great Again.' Advertisement Newsom, in his attempts to shield the
